Photoshop versions XP -vs- Win9x

Ted Kerin wrote:

Now, I’m considering trashing my current computer and getting a new box, which presumably will have Windows XP, and I would like to keep using PS4. My question is, does anyone know whether Photoshop programs designed for Win95/98, are liklely to install and run OK under Win XP? Or, are there major differences that prevent Adobe "95/98" programs from running under XP?

Are there any particular difficulties with Photoshop in this respect? Back in 1996 when I bought my first computer I bought a bunch of programs that all run well and fine in Windows NT and 2000, but I only bought Photoshop (7) two days ago and cannot say anything about version 4. You might just try and see.

By the way, personally I will never, ever, have Win XP or any other program that requires Product Activation, so I am not certain about whether XP behaves like 2000. In your case I would have tried to install PS 4, and if unsuccessful I would have contacted Adobe to hear if there is a workaround.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:11:25 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen
wrote:

By the way, personally I will never, ever, have Win XP or any other program that requires Product Activation, so I am not certain about whether XP behaves like 2000.

XP doesn’t behave like 2k. It’s actually more stable, quicker and nicer to use.

Okay, but my question pertained to whether one could install old versions of most programs on Win XP. One can do so in Win 2000. To name but an example, Word Perfect Suite 7 from 1995-1996 runs flawlessly, and that is what I use.

And, guess what, mine doesn’t have product activation
(and yes, it’s legal – came with the new computer.).

But what happens if you change your hard drive and re-install? If you can do that without activation you either have a corporate version or the program may be locked to the machine configuration with which it was delivered.

Also, it is my understanding that even if one legitimately buys a new non-OEM Windows XP CD now it will forever be dependent on the software company’s registration services in order to be installed and used.

When I bought my Windows 2000 copy I bought a standalone version precisely because I wanted to legally transfer it to newer computers when I acquired them, something the MS liense prevents you from doing with OEM versions. That could be done with XP too. However, if a dependency restriction like Product Activation is built in, there are sound reasons why we should just say no.

—
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:38:58 +0200, "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

By the way, personally I will never, ever, have Win XP or any other program that requires Product Activation, so I am not certain about whether XP behaves like 2000.

[…]what happens if you change your hard drive and re-install? If you can do that without activation you either have a corporate version or the program may be locked to the machine configuration with which it was delivered.

Corporate – I get it through my business and always only buy through the business section of my computer supplier. (Two reasons: You get *very* stable machines and you get much better support).

If that is possible it definitely is a smart way to do it. Thanks for the suggestion; I will investigate it and make use of this information should it ever become relevant for myself or some others I know.

Also, it is my understanding that even if one legitimately buys a new non-OEM Windows XP CD now it will forever be dependent on the software company’s registration services in order to be installed and used.

AFAIK, that’s true. My suggestion to people has been that two or more people get together and buy through licensing (it only takes two people from some of the companies over here) Then you get one set of disks and x number of licences to share between you. Et voila, no activation. And the licensing is improving, with new licensing rules starting in September, making it even easier.

I do not know what the situation is in Europe, but if corporate versions can be legally acquired this way it certainly is a favorable solution. But I prefer to wait to see it before I believe that Microsoft, after their introduction of Product Activation, will actually make it easier to legally get copies that are not dependent on activation/registration procedures in order to be installed or to work. If they do, it is good but surprising.

I am one of these who believe that the majority of people have nothing against paying for what they use. The idea of paying for a storage medium, then acquiring the unrestricted right to use install and use a software program on one computer at a time, to make a backup copy and to transfer the program to a potential new machine in some years is something that most people find sensible. But then we should in return have programs free from technical limitations like forced registration/activation procedures (or copy control). Paying involves obligations on both sides; I for one do not want to pay for nothing or for something that is crippled.

When I bought my Windows 2000 copy I bought a standalone version precisely because I wanted to legally transfer it to newer computers when I acquired them, something the MS liense prevents you from doing with OEM versions. That could be done with XP too. However, if a dependency restriction like Product Activation is built in, there are sound reasons why we should just say no.

Yes, I understand. And to some extent I agree with you, but there are ways around everything. Like Stephan says if you can’t do what I suggest, buy it and then download a product activation key and tell MS to stuff their project activation. It’ll still be a legal copy because you bought it.

I am of the opinion that it is morally fully defensible to first legally acquire it, then ensure that one can install, re-install and use the program(s) independent from the software company now and in the future.

However, I suspect that the DMCA and also the upcoming European Union Copyright Directive expressly prohibits such action, because it is covered by the concept of "techical measures" that are protected by the very costomer-unfriendly law which is the result of intense lobbying from the content providers and software companies. If so, any modifying, cracking or use of "inauthentic" serial numbers for personal use is illegal no matter how much you have legally bought a copy. (I sincerely hope I am wrong on this matter.)

—
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:09:01 +0200, "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

If that is possible it definitely is a smart way to do it. Thanks for the suggestion; I will investigate it and make use of this information should it ever become relevant for myself or some others I know.

Hope it helps 🙂

AFAIK, that’s true. My suggestion to people has been that two or more people get together and buy through licensing (it only takes two people from some of the companies over here) Then you get one set of disks and x number of licences to share between you. Et voila, no activation. And the licensing is improving, with new licensing rules starting in September, making it even easier.

I do not know what the situation is in Europe, but if corporate versions can be legally acquired this way it certainly is a favorable solution. But I prefer to wait to see it before I believe that Microsoft, after their introduction of Product Activation, will actually make it easier to legally get copies that are not dependent on activation/registration procedures in order to be installed or to work. If they do, it is good but surprising.

Well, over here one copy plus licenses means buying through the MS licensing program (though you do that through a reseller normally – most people aren’t big enough to deal directly with MS <G>). It’s only the stand alone, one-off copies that have activation. And that should be true worldwide as MS licensing is worldwide. MS know better than to annoy their business customers with activation.

Yes, I understand. And to some extent I agree with you, but there are ways around everything. Like Stephan says if you can’t do what I suggest, buy it and then download a product activation key and tell MS to stuff their project activation. It’ll still be a legal copy because you bought it.

I am of the opinion that it is morally fully defensible to first legally acquire it, then ensure that one can install, re-install and use the program(s) independent from the software company now and in the future.

However, I suspect that the DMCA and also the upcoming European Union Copyright Directive expressly prohibits such action, because it is covered by the concept of "techical measures" that are protected by the very costomer-unfriendly law which is the result of intense lobbying from the content providers and software companies. If so, any modifying, cracking or use of "inauthentic" serial numbers for personal use is illegal no matter how much you have legally bought a copy. (I sincerely hope I am wrong on this matter.)

Yes, it probably is illegal, just as it is now. However, as you point out there’s a difference between illegal and morally correct 😉

—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)