Do I need to download/install Windows update KB971033?

[bd74]

It's called "Update for Windows 7 for x64-based systems (KB971033)".
The description says: "This update to Windows Activation Technologies detects activation exploits and tampering to key Windows system files. These exploits try to bypass regular Windows activation and are sometimes included within counterfeit copies of Windows."

However, my computer did not automatically select that update as an important update to download. So, is it necessary to download it???

 

[Phone Man]

No it is not necessary to install that update. If you are unsure about the source of Win 7 you have it is a good check that it is a legit copy.

Jim

 

[Mark Phelps]

TODAY, you have the option of NOT installing the update ... but I've read rumours to the effect that with SP1, that update will be automatically included.

Just letting you know what I've read ...

 

[madtownidiot]

I'm thinking the reason that update hasn't already been forced down our throats is because it isn't very accurate.
activation error
activation error
Getting Windows 7 Not Genuine Error Suddenly
Had laptop 9 months, now it is saying Windows 7 not genuine

I think there would be thousands, if not millions of similar stories if and when microsoft made this update mandatory

 

[Mark Phelps]

I'm thinking the reason that update hasn't already been forced down our throats is because it isn't very accurate.
activation error
activation error
Getting Windows 7 Not Genuine Error Suddenly
Had laptop 9 months, now it is saying Windows 7 not genuine

I think there would be thousands, if not millions of similar stories if and when microsoft made this update mandatory

By MS's own admission, there were millions of false positives with Vista -- and that didn't stop them from continuing the practice with Win7.

If you go to the MS Win7 forums, you will easily find lots of posts about this very problem.

In fact, I had this problem happen to one of my Win7 machines -- and they are all running legit retail licenses.

 

[rfe777]

As one who is about to upgrade to Windows 7, I'm reading too many stories about Windows users who claim that their OS has been identified by Microsoft as non-genuine/pirated, and therefore they cannot receive any updates, although they bought it and successfully activated it. I wonder if maybe I shouldn't have all this headache and just stay with Windows XP...

And who gave Microsoft the permission to make Windows 7 "phone home" every 90 days?

 

[whs]

And who gave Microsoft the permission to make Windows 7 "phone home" every 90 days?

You have to realize that it is their product and you only purchased the right to use it. As with many big companies, the Microsoft business practices are not always with the user in mind but rather with the protection of the business assets. We may not like that, but then we have the choice not to use their products.

 

[madtownidiot]

And who gave Microsoft the permission to make Windows 7 "phone home" every 90 days?

You have to realize that it is their product and you only purchased the right to use it. As with many big companies, the Microsoft business practices are not always with the user in mind but rather with the protection of the business assets. We may not like that, but then we have the choice not to use their products.

On the other hand, if you pay for something, you have the right to get what you paid for. It's only going to be a matter of time before someone sues MS and wins if they don't find a way to make WAT more accurate. I just had a customer drop off a non functional Lenovo that came with windows 7 preinstalled. Apparently he ran the factory OS recovery only to have windows come back as "non-genuine" and stop working completely when the activation deadline expired after 3 days. It doesn't matter that it could have been re-activated over the phone. MS is or should be liable for every lost minute caused by situations like this. It's going to take me half the day to get it working again and in the meantime, my customer is without his laptop, which his job depends on. My advice to him will be to have a lawyer send the bill to Microsoft.

 

[pparks1]

I'm reading too many stories about Windows users who claim that their OS has been identified by Microsoft as non-genuine/pirated, and therefore they cannot receive any updates,

Couple of points. Many people, myself included, have never experienced a problem with this issue on legitimate copies of Windows. Some people, myself not included, will lie, exaggerate or skew the facts to try to make others look bad. Others, have acquired Windows through non-legit sources...and even though they may have paid....they don't have the real thing and thus experience problems later on. Finally, others will take hacked copies and still post that they are legit and bought it outright in the hopes that somebody in the discussion will be able to other some advice, a hack or some type of workaround to allow them to continue using their non-legit copy. Some people, have been misclassified and experienced a problem and that is truly unfortunate.

And who gave Microsoft the permission to make Windows 7 "phone home" every 90 days?

Windows isn't yours. Consumers "should" read the EULA that they agree to when they install and use the product.

MS is or should be liable for every lost minute caused by situations like this. It's going to take me half the day to get it working again and in the meantime, my customer is without his laptop, which his job depends on. My advice to him will be to have a lawyer send the bill to Microsoft.

Playing Devil's Advocate....how do you draw the line with regards to what the consumer did with said product to encounter a problem so severe that the reload or restore was necessary? I agree that the factory restore should in fact work and you should be able to count on that. However, suing Microsoft for each and every minute of your downtime....I just cannot agree with. And if the consumer did something silly or has an infection on their laptop in the MBR...it's quite possible that the Microsoft detection tool is accurately questioning the authenticity of the system.

 

[madtownidiot]

it's quite possible that the Microsoft detection tool is accurately questioning the authenticity of the system.

Tell me this: How is there any accuracy in a tool that can't tell the difference between an authentic OEM copy of windows on its original hardware and the 60000 (or 6 million?) copies of it that were leaked to a torrent and installed on 60000 different hardware configurations? Yeah.. I think Microsoft should pay for any time wasted trying to reactivate windows over the phone in situations like this.

 

[pparks1]

So let's see.....because hackers stole the OEM keys and deployed a hacked copy of the tool....Microsoft now has to deal with the fallout.

From what I have read, calling MS to reactivate only takes a few minutes. And since the system is fully functional for the 3 days between reload and activation, seems that it's a fair amount of time in which to get this done. I just don't see the average joe building enough of a case to hold Microsoft financially liable for the lost time.

 

[madtownidiot]

It's not the fault of the average consumer that hackers stole the keycodes, and it could have been avoided entirely by providing a unique key for each computer, linked with the system's uuid. Currently I have been on the phone for 35 minutes trying to get windows reactivated. When I got a laptop with a defective CPU, it took almost an hour to activate windows after I reinstalled and reimaged the SSDs after getting it back from HP. Sometimes they're somewhat less than professional, especially when trying to activate windows on a system that's had major upgrades, but that's only part of the problem. In this case the customer had less than an hour's notice to start the activation process because he wasn't even aware that windows wasn't activated until he downloaded KB971033.

 

[pparks1]

Yeah, I can understand frustrations with Microsoft. To me, they need to re-evaluate the cost they charge anyway for their products in retail chains. To me, considering how much they "give away" with Technet subscriptions, it seems absurd that copies in stores cost as much as what they do.

 

[madtownidiot]

Ain't that the truth.. best $350 I've spent so far this year