From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L5M0D-0001Ju-Um for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:08:30 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L5M0C-0001J4-EU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:08:29 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53769 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L5M0C-0001J0-Bw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:08:28 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:49348) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L5M0C-0006fK-32 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:08:28 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L5M0A-0005Gf-Sj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:08:27 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu version updates break Windows activation Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:08:18 +0000 References: <20081126145929.GA1221@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20081126145929.GA1221@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811261508.19766.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wednesday 26 November 2008, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Frederik Himpe wrote: > > Every time qemu/kvm is updated, the version strings in the virtual > > hardware change, which breaks an activated windows installation in qemu. > > Windows thinks it's running on other hardware, and requires manual re- > > activation by phone. > > > > Could the version strings please be made optional in the hardware? > > > > See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=467043 > > Does Windows also break whenever you do a firmware update on a real > machine? Yes, if the new firmware causes the device to report itself slightly differently. I've seen this happen when upgrading real drive firmwares. Paul