Windows Update just BROKE MY UNITY LICENSE!

Is there any Admin or Mod who can get this taken care of?
Windows 10 just had like some hour long update, and no matter what I do, my subscription license will not work.

Either says I have reached maximum seats (so I revoke seats and assign), then it says license has expired. (no I'm not behind on payments).

I sent an email to support, but figured I'd post here just encase I can reach someone quicker.

 

And yes, I've tried this page already.
https://forum.unity.com/threads/uni...problem-on-licence-step-after-sign-in.529008/

Still don't work. Not having the same issue as they are.
There's appears to be a bug with the launcher its self.

Mine is just errors about max activation, etc.
No idea why I'm getting this error when I just revoked the seat and re-assigned it.

 

Cant help you with the license, but I have the windows update service disabled while im in the middle of doing anything.

 

You need to return your license via your account, then put in the license details again. This is because the license manager probably thinks enough changed that you are running Unity on a new machine.

 

How do I do that?
All I can find is an option to revoke the seat and just re-assign it. Which doesn't work.

 

https://support.unity3d.com/hc/en-u...eturn-the-activations-on-my-Pro-Plus-license-

Basically try to return all the licenses via the web, then load unity and enter your serial as usual. Sorry I don't really know more than this but I'm due to update windows now so I'll give it a go.

 

Thank you so much man! Wow you are a total life-savor. I will alert the support team just encase.
Thanks mate!

 

I gave it a go and the same happened to me so I'll go right ahead and like my own post (cept I can't)

 

Figured it would have happened to ya as well lol.
Wonder what the new update offered that changed so much stuff for that to happen.

Haven't even looked up the release notes for it. But just glad my Unity works now haha.

 

The win10 update this time is a bit shocking, I almost can't recognise my pc because they changed my welcome login screen too.

 

I just rentered my key, no need to reasign it

 

The license allow maximum two installations, perhaps the update just ate you one, and you still have one left.

 

Didn't even see mine honestly. Just let it auto login me in lol.
Despite using like a 10 year old HD, my Windows 10 literally boots up in like 10-20 seconds. No idea how. Might be the new DDR4 memory and 6 core Ryzen.

 

Nice hardware, mine is still an old Lenovo. My default win10 welcome screen was changed to a jungle like screen immediately after finished window update, and reboot now give me a iceberg this time, maybe it activated some online resources in behind.

 

Nah I only have one seat, it have happened alot of times before.

 

1 seat lets you do 2 installs, i often have my unity pro sub running on 2 machines at a time, and regularly have to release the licenses so other machines can use it since there are 5 machines that i use.

 

Had some of my own troubles with Unity's licensing this month... like who the needs all that hassle.

Wish I had taken another animated gif when I had the launcher give me the option to save a license .ulf/alf (one of them) key to file, and then goto the Unity help website to upload the license file... only for Unity's website to accept the upload but then return back with some error (probably still happens but I couldn't replicate the useless license/launcher providing a key file as I got proper internet working the following day).. unbelieve though.. all because it couldn't detect my internet connection at the time with tethered usb internet (when every other app could)

The same things every Win10 update offers its users.. generally useless crap for its existing crap features for its poor OS design that never improves I couldn't stand it and everything it stood for so I stick with Win7. And MS is hardly a trustworthy company either, I'm just surprised so many people haven't bailed out on it. A desktop OS that seems under MS and co's control more than your own with its auto updating S*** pile features. The OS is still like complete garbage 3years on from when it was released totally useless CEO MS have.

 

I don't disable the service but rather disable it through the group policy editor which allows me to selectively disable the parts of the update process I don't want to deal with which is pretty much feature updates after the fall release was a broken mess.

When Windows 10 came out I liked the idea of forcing updates to keep systems secure but all it's done is break stuff and if the choice is between having to fix broken systems and simply keeping virus scanners up to date then I'll choose the latter every time.

 

Good to see even people who were in favor of forced updates are coming around to it being a bad idea. I'm hoping I can hold out long enough on 7 for an entirely new windows to arrive without that forced update stuff... hopes and dreams...

 

Microsoft had a great opportunity to prove that they would be able to handle a proper rolling release and in the past their updates have generally been successful with the only major hiccups being mostly tied to hardware that was way beyond the point of being usable.

Currently there are two upgrade paths available to most people. Home editions are on an upgrade path where updates are downloaded and installed as soon as they are available but it's very clear that they are coming out in a beta state.

Business editions are on the same upgrade path by default but they can be set to defer the upgrade through the settings interface which places them on the business upgrade path which allows upgrades more time to mature before release.

There are ways to completely stop the upgrade process but it requires a business edition. You basically have to go into the group policy settings (gpedit.msc) and configure the update process to only notify when they're available and when they're ready for installation.

After you've gone through the group policy settings you have to run a small script (I've pasted it below) that will disable the notification as otherwise it will "remind" you that there are updates available (it shows a dialog box every few hours and when you close it always opens the Windows Update settings window).

Code (csharp):

1. cd /d "%Windir%\System32"
2. takeown /F MusNotification.exe
3. icacls MusNotification.exe /deny Everyone:(X)
4. takeown /F MusNotificationUx.exe
5. icacls MusNotificationUx.exe /deny Everyone:(X)

 

Thanks for sharing! I've added it to my archive of obscure windows hacks. If the dark day where I need to switch to win 10 ever should come, I now feel prepared a little better.

 

Never happened to me Must be a bug with my account

 

Windows is not going to get less intrusive. And honestly they'll probably be on 10 for a long time. There's little wrong with staying on 7 as long as you can, but don't expect things to get better. The fact that one has to have Pro to even prevent updates is insane to me.

As was mentioned before you can disable updates. I have myself. Almost every time I've had one of these big updates, like the Creator's Update and the one we just had, things have been hopelessly broken. Most recently I prevented updates for a week or so after the April update, only turning them back on because I wanted to play Forza Horizon 3. Well, it failed to install the updates, and when I tried to restart, I had a infinite boot loop problem. After a significant amount of trouble I was able to get it undone, and now I'm leaving updates disabled probably until right before the next big one comes up, so I can get up to date there hopefully without breaking anything, and then disable it again for when things break again.

 

I'm still in favor of forced updates in principle. It's some of the stuff being shoehorned in with them that I'm not entirely thrilled about.

For example, this brand new PIN thing for logging into my PC. I was forced to set a pin when doing a Windows install the other day (despite it being a question, there was only one available button), and when I removed the PIN afterward it prompted me to re-create it on next boot.

Or the built-in game recording thing with one of the updates last year which cut my gaming performance to ribbons.

But the OS-level security updates are pretty important. I'd have thought that of all people developers would understand that, with things like Heartbleed, Rowhammer, Meltdown and Spectre in the wild.

 

I definitely agree that security updates are important, but forcing them through before they're ready isn't good. Below are some quick examples of this and it's not just the operating system vendor.

Microsoft's patch for Windows 7 exposed a far worse vulnerability:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/windo...orse-vulnerability-install-march-updates-now/

Microsoft's patch for older AMD systems resulted in computers that wouldn't boot:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/1...tdown-spectre-security-updates-amd-pcs-issues

Intel's patch has resulted in randomly resetting hardware:
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-security-issue-update-addressing-reboot-issues/

Intel issues a patch to fix the previous patch, but it's only available for some of the hardware:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/spect...intel-replaces-its-buggy-fix-for-skylake-pcs/

It's not all doom and gloom though.

AMD is way better at patching than Intel:
https://www.pcworld.com/article/326...-cpu-firmware-windows-10-patches-spectre.html

Linux is getting patched up with the usual quality you can expect from the community:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-4-15-good-news-and-bad-news-about-meltdown-and-spectre/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-4-16-arrives-bringing-more-spectre-and-meltdown-fixes/

 

Disregarding the point listed above (that these updates can cause huge issues)...Being a developer doesn't make me think updates should be forced any more than being a biologist makes me think people should be forced to vaccine. I suppose I'm a little libertarian in that regard, but I support the freedom despite the potential risk. There's a logical leap between "not updating machines increases risk for viruses/bugs/technical issues" and "machines should be forced to update," and the bridge between the two is "it's okay to take control from the user." I don't really agree with that.

Now I don't have a problem with, and think it would be quite simple, to make updates automatic by default, but still give users the choice to disable them. But that's how it was before (and still is for Professional), and you have to ask...in such a case, why are the users going out of their way to disable updates? Would they be doing this if updates worked like they "should?" Forcing them does not solve the fundamental problem here: that the updates are having a deleterious effect on a user's experience, sometimes horribly so (in that we get infinite boot loops--seriously, how is something like this even happening?)

 

This pretty much nails it, from my perspective. It's the "before they're ready" part that's bad.

Sure, but if you choose not to vaccinate your kid then my country chooses not to allow them in the same school as mine. (And, uh, either way the kid isn't the one making the choice.)

We don't have quite the same level of regulation available to computer usage, but I think it would be equally fair enough to restrict Internet access for those who refuse to keep their devices up to date, and for exactly the same reason - herd immunity is a thing.

The user (or parent, in the case of vaccines) gets full control, but those choices come with consequences. If you actively choose to disregard the safety of those around you then I see no reason that those around you should feel obliged to include you in things. (And in the case of vaccinations I think that's parents putting their kids at two disadvantages.)

 

This is my main complaint with this whole anti-vaccination nonsense. Choices are often easier to make when you don't have to live with the consequences and in the case of most vaccinations the consequences are very severe and it's not always obvious when they will be severe.

We had a very nasty strain of the flu sweep through my area. It's reasonably common to hear about the elderly and the young getting bad cases of it but you almost never hear worse than that and this may lead you to ignore the vaccine, but this year we had a number of teenagers contracting and dying from it in my area. I'm glad I got it now.

 

Indeed! It might not be a big deal to me if my gaming PC catches a virus, I'll just format it, no big deal. But what about the other machines it passes the infection to before I do that?

 

Windows Update has a terrible reputation which, as far as I can tell, was well earned. Certainly in its early days you were much better off waiting for a Service Pack. Even these days they occasionally mess stuff up - see my own two examples just before.

Despite that, broadly speaking I still want everyone to be up to date. Plus, I have no way to know what damage may have been caused to me if my machine was exploited. What if someone gets a keylogger on my machine? That would suck far more than the inconvenience of rolling back a patch until a bug was fixed.

As an example of why making it hard to disable in the first place is good... Take this with a grain of sale. A friend who works at a large company recently told me that at some point their marketing department got called by Microsoft. The IT department had stopped taking their calls after ignoring an important security patch for their operating system for months. So they called someone else to get the message to management that yeah, when they're ringing individual businesses about a security patch it's actually a big deal and should probably get some attention.

 

Just a real quick heads-up that I neglected to mention earlier. Out of the two current major problems Meltdown is capable of being fixed completely through software, but Spectre requires a firmware update because the CPU microcode has to be updated (and this is handled by the firmware every time your computer boots).

If you're on older hardware (especially older OEM) it's very likely you may never see the necessary fixes for Spectre.

 

I know antivirus software can't protect me from everything in the world, but on the bottom line my money is still on my antivirus software & firewall in keeping my pc clean and working. That one gets autoupdated way more frequently and reliably than os-level stuff could imho, especially with it being common that people defer the updates anyway. It's not like I'm taking no steps at all to keep it secure, but I can't afford to risk messing my production system up with rushed out security patches, like it has happend often enough for people who do install bleeding edge updates out of fear. But I don't really want to get into a discussion about this.

 

I disable windows updates / firewalls just as a matter of course, and yet periodically it finds a way to turn itself back on which is really annoying. I don't want my computer doing anything I don't tell it to do. I've had too many experiences with updates breaking something else or forcing me to update/pay for additional software than I like to think about. I turn it all off. I also am ANTI anti-virus software... biggest bloat ever and only serves to slowdown my computer. Maybe I just like living on the edge? I can't be the only one.... ?

 

Certainly not, I know of one other guy that once said anti virus software slows his computer down too much. Then he got a virus and had to reinstall Windows... I think he changed his opinion after that ^^.

 

That was his first mistake.

 

You are not the only one.. if you are using mac, linux etc. However, you should use firewall and do security updates even on mac, linux, unix.

 

AV I used to never use back in the early 2000's and beyond. Simply because back then it really would put a strain on that 64 megs of ram and pentium 2 at like 400MHz lol. Would ruin a gaming experience quickly.However, today, computers are way to powerful not to use them.

 

Stay away from certain websites, don't install random software, and don't open random email attachments, and 3rd party anti-virus software is pretty unnecessary. If you have a 9 year old kid using your computer you pretty much have to install it though.

 

@Joe-Censored 100% agree. A little responsible computing goes a long way. As long as you what you are clicking on the chances of getting a virus are pretty slim.

 

I can accept the idea of sanctions, but "no internet" sounds more like not letting unvaccinated people even leave their house, rather than not go to school. Too restrictive.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of a person's computer (indeed internet) usage is stuff that puts THEM at risk, not something that puts others at risk. If you can find a restriction that keeps them from putting others at risk, I could understand that.

That sounds like a serious problem in the IT department. I would expect the IT folks to know how to deal with that--isn't it their job?

I'll reiterate that I don't really have a problem with "hard to disable." You can protect the 75% (more?) who know nothing about using their PC. I have a problem with "impossible to disable," because that impacts the rest of us.

Edit:

This is a very valid point. But how can it pass infections on if the other machines are up to date? Not trying to be snarky or anything, but I don't see how that works.

 

Well technically the OP's probably wasn't really an issue with the Windows Update, but rather whatever license verification used by Unity is too aggressive. I've had it happen with other products in the past as well, so not blaming Unity specifically, but it's definitely something they should look at and if they're checking a piece of data that changes when the OS updates, they should not use that piece of data because it's not a constant.

Technically with Professional and Enterprise you can "defer" updates for a period of time. IT departments would have you on a domain with applicable domain policies and if they want to control update cadence, such as through System Center, they can control that so the forced update issue really isn't an issue for IT organizations.

 

A couple of things. First, once it's got into a host through one vector there's no reason it can't try other vectors to infect other hosts.

Second, the idea with "herd immunity" is that the people who are able to vaccinate (or otherwise become immune) do so not just to protect themselves, but also to minimise exposure to those who can't. So if you can't protect yourself from something for some reason then by being a part of the herd you're somewhat shielded from it, because the high vaccination rate (or whatever) makes it very difficult for infection to spread in the first place.

As @Ryiah pointed out, not all security patches are available to everyone. And for good reason not everyone is going to get them at the same time (ie: we want them when they're ready, not when they're going to cause their own issues).

The thing with the Internet is that basically every machine is in the same mega-herd. There's no distinction between "leaving the house" and "going to school" because both involve direct interaction with that herd. Anything that you do on the Internet requires connecting to other computers, and personally I see no reason I should lower my own security by willingly letting deliberately unprotected people connect to mine. (Note that "deliberately unprotected" is different to "not knowing better" or "couldn't do any better".) If everyone shared my attitude then those people couldn't get online other than to get security updates, and I'd be fine with that.

Nobody likes interacting with people who have bad hygiene, this is pretty much the same.

Note that even if everyone agreed with me we wouldn't get 100% compliance with that. Vendors can make it hard to turn off updates, but they can't make it impossible.

And, I repeat, I'm purely talking about security updates here.

 

Also, do note that there are platforms where you indeed can not access "online features" without updates installed which seem to work rather well.

 

forcing updates on people and hassling them to do it with nagging S*** design software.. great idea not

 

OS vendors serve a critical role in the operation of your machine but it's really not much different from other vendors. Vendors do forced updates all the time. Especially web browsers.

 

I can understand most points in your post, but this seems off to me. You're not personally hosting the "public" internet, are you? I'd understand each individual server having the option to refuse non-updated machines, but that's different from, again, a blanket restriction.

I'll have to look into ways to get security updates without Windows forcing these unrelated content updates on me, because I can indeed see your point.

 

No, but somebody is hosting every one of those servers, and I'm saying I'd be fine with everyone feeling the same way I do and enforcing it. And I'm fine with it when the vendors providing the software (and dealing with much of the flak when a virus goes nuts) to make that a hard-to-change default.

(Edit: See whats happening with browser vendors and SSL warnings as an example of this kind of shift slowly happening elsewhere. Google won't force you to use SSL, but they'll tell your visitors it's unsafe if you're not. Different influencing factors, but similar shift towards being secure-by-default.)

Indeed, they mix the important stuff with the not-so-important, or with stuff that really should be completely optional.

 

Im anti-antivirus, and updates when im not ready, but the firewall could be a lifesaver, even standard windows defender. if I catch something, ill format and reinstall. I have offline backups of everything I generally use. What I wouldn't like, is packets leaving my computer towards some unknown destination without my permission...

and look at us, a bunch of people complaining about windows when our software package of choice wont work on Linux. Yeah, there is apple, but I don't feel like jumping on to that bandwagon. when I stop trying to make games, im going back to linux

 

I would be okay with that as well if it were truly each person or organization making the decision, rather than a mandate from on high. It would be about as likely as a business going out of its way to refuse to serve anti-vaxxers I imagine (I feel I'm doing my own arguments a disservice by using that specific analogy, but oh well).

 

I fully intend to return to linux sometime in the next few years. We're at the point now where we can run Windows in a virtual machine with only a rounding error worth of performance loss including graphics heavy applications. You don't even need workstation parts unless you want to have more than four cores per OS.