Why are people upset about activation?

The problem is that activation restricts and prevents some legitimate use, such as being able to reinstall a registered program on a new computer when you upgrade hardware. These companies are paranoid about where the program goes on the old computer. Was it traded in, sold to another person with the program still installed, etc.?

I just bought a new computer out of necessity (old one very slow and beginning to cause problems) and I have several registered programs that will NOT install and activate on my new computer. So I’m sitting here at my overloaded computer desk, with some applications running on the old one, and some on the new one, two computers, two monitors, two keyboards, etc. I can’t afford to re-purchase over a thousand dollars worth of registed software just because I’m not "authorized" to have it installed on more than one, even when I still own both and I’m the only user.

"Robert A" wrote in news:xQPvb.674$zu1.686695 @news2.news.adelphia.net:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is

that

activation prevents unauthorized use.

No, it doesn’t do that. Not since roughly 24 hours after it’s release.

Does it go beyond that?

Yes. it:

1) wastes Adobe’s time and possibly money, since they likely licened the useless "technology."

2) is intrusive to the people who they are making money from (i.e., users).

3) Limits the amount of time you can use CS. Eventually, you are not going to be able to reactivate it. Many people have been burned by this scheme when used by other companies.

4) is insulting to paying users.

5) Is much more inconvenient to paying users than just registering. Registering need only happen once.

6) Establishes an extremely bad precedent, especially since Adobe is one small step away from being a monopoly in the publishing market.

Microsoft is the largest software company in the world. Adobe is the second. Do you really want a second Microsoft?

There are IMHO three basic issues (and many other minor ones)

The first is that if you’ve ever owned a product that requires activation and you have hardware problems, you can’t just fix the hardware problem or beg, borrow or buy a different machine, install, and get back to work because you need to re-activate…Doesn’t sound like a big deal, but, trust me, in a production environment it can be. BTDT– I’ve told the story here before, but I went through this with Microsoft when my workstation needed a repair that was going to take
three weeks (because of parts and timing) and getting the OK to install a product I had legitimately paid for on my laptop while the desktop was "in the shop" was Kafkaesque. Now imagine that every app on your system from every vendor decides that
activation and codes specific to a particular piece of hardware are a good idea. Do you want to spend hours on the phone to M$, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, yada yada before you can be productive again? What if you’re the LAN administrator for a small design firm—not big enough for a corporate account, but with billings and deadlines to consider??? See the
headache potential?

The second is that because activation is service of the software vendor, if the vendor stops supporting the version you are screwed if you want to upgrade hardware but keep the old software. Or (though not likely with Adobe, but who knows?) if the vendor is sold, acquired or goes out of business. No guarantee that the product for which you paid not an insignificant amount of money will work on a new system. Tying software to
access to your support system is a bad thing. It will force people who wouldn’t consider piracy under other circumstances to
buy or locate cracks, illegal copies and keygens. Right now I am in week three of trying to get support from a plug-in vendor for a product for which I have paid. Despite several long distance calls and e-mails, no response. I mentioned it to a friend, and an hour later a disk appeared on my desk. A cracked copy, upgraded and patched, with the issue I’ve been having fixed. Am I a thief if I use it? I’ve tried to go the right way– would probably even pay for an upgrade if that is what is required– but do I want to give MORE money to a vendor who
offers such crappy support? The thing is sitting like a viper on my desk. I have found workarounds and have not yet installed it but…..

The third is a distaste for any software that tries to"phone home" every time you open it up. You can currently turn it off in other Adobe apps (like Acrobat) but I’ve heard conflicting things about PSCS. That could be just me, but it feels like an invasion of privacy, and potentially dangerous.
The folks at Adobe probably aren’t doing anything slimy, but if they can get in, how long before someone who is slimy finds a way to exploit that hole in my firewall? I don’t want to have to disconnect from my broadband connection every time I fire up PSCS.

"Robert A" wrote in message

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

Robert A wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

It’s a power thing. Adobe’s a big company now, like Microsoft. People instinctively react anytime a company asserts is position in a way that has even a chance of compromising the little guy.

Sometimes this is justified, sometimes not.

Adobe, to its credit, already addressed many of the complaints still being put forth here by those who have not read the fine print. For example Adobe will "deactivate" activation if support of the product is discontinued in the future. It is relatively easy to activate on a third system provided you contact Adobe, and in any case there is a substantial grace period where the program runs without activation.

There are other similar safeguards for the customer built-in to the activation scheme, and it will discourage the "hey, I’ll take a copy" software piracy, even if it does not eliminate hard core cracking.

I’ll even go so far as to say that I’m confident in Adobe as a compnay, and don’t believe they will do anything to impact their flagship product’s revenue stream.

But in the end activation is not "value added" for the customer. It could have easily been otherwise. All Adobe would needed to do is cur the upgrade price in half as part of the activation rollout. Then we might see the spectable of Macintosh folks complaining about the lack of activation on their platform. Now that would be something. 🙂
—

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:07:29 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

"Robert A" wrote in news:xQPvb.674$zu1.686695 @news2.news.adelphia.net:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is

that

activation prevents unauthorized use.

No, it doesn’t do that. Not since roughly 24 hours after it’s release.

Does it go beyond that?

Yes. it:

1) wastes Adobe’s time and possibly money, since they likely licened the useless "technology."

2) is intrusive to the people who they are making money from (i.e., users).

3) Limits the amount of time you can use CS. Eventually, you are not going to be able to reactivate it. Many people have been burned by this scheme when used by other companies.

4) is insulting to paying users.

5) Is much more inconvenient to paying users than just registering. Registering need only happen once.

6) Establishes an extremely bad precedent, especially since Adobe is one small step away from being a monopoly in the publishing market.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world. Adobe is the second. Do you really want a second Microsoft?

Everything that Eric say, and that JP says as well.

If you trust a virtual monopoly when given the choice, to either screw you and make more money, or don’t screw you and not make more money, then you’re not living in the real world.

The awful thing about it from my POV is that I’ve just found out what the killer feature is in CS. InDesign.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Okay, so I get that part. I upgrade my computers every two or three years so I understand. So how much hassle is really involved in transfering your license to a new machine?

Robert A

"mdavis" wrote in message

The problem is that activation restricts and prevents some legitimate use, such as being able to reinstall a registered program on a new computer

when

you upgrade hardware. These companies are paranoid about where the

program

goes on the old computer. Was it traded in, sold to another person with

the

program still installed, etc.?

I just bought a new computer out of necessity (old one very slow and beginning to cause problems) and I have several registered programs that will NOT install and activate on my new computer. So I’m sitting here at

my

overloaded computer desk, with some applications running on the old one,

and

some on the new one, two computers, two monitors, two keyboards, etc. I can’t afford to re-purchase over a thousand dollars worth of registed software just because I’m not "authorized" to have it installed on more

than

one, even when I still own both and I’m the only user.

I read all this, but what does it really mean? You install the software, you go online to get "activated" and you’re done, until at some point you want to transfer the license to a different machine (i.e., upgrade). So I see there’s a hassle at that point, but where’s the real problem beforehand.

I don’t side with Adobe or Microsoft here — I recall the 80s when you had to insert a floppy to make a program run. Now that’s a real hassle.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:07:29 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

"Robert A" wrote in news:xQPvb.674$zu1.686695 @news2.news.adelphia.net:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is

that

activation prevents unauthorized use.

No, it doesn’t do that. Not since roughly 24 hours after it’s release.

Does it go beyond that?

Yes. it:

1) wastes Adobe’s time and possibly money, since they likely licened the useless "technology."

2) is intrusive to the people who they are making money from (i.e., users).

3) Limits the amount of time you can use CS. Eventually, you are not going to be able to reactivate it. Many people have been burned by this scheme when used by other companies.

4) is insulting to paying users.

5) Is much more inconvenient to paying users than just registering. Registering need only happen once.

6) Establishes an extremely bad precedent, especially since Adobe is one small step away from being a monopoly in the publishing market.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world. Adobe is the second. Do you really want a second Microsoft?

Everything that Eric say, and that JP says as well.

If you trust a virtual monopoly when given the choice, to either screw you and make more money, or don’t screw you and not make more money, then you’re not living in the real world.

The awful thing about it from my POV is that I’ve just found out what the killer feature is in CS. InDesign.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Robert A wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

If you change computers or make major changes in the hardware of the computer you are using, you may have to call Adobe and convince a human that you are not installing it on an additional machine[*].

This can be a real bother. And puts the onus on honest folks not on those who use cracked software.

—- Paul J. Gans

[*} Yes, I know that PS CS can be installed on two machines. That doesn’t change the point.

Robert A wrote:

I read all this, but what does it really mean? You install the software, you go online to get "activated" and you’re done, until at some point you want to transfer the license to a different machine (i.e., upgrade). So I see there’s a hassle at that point, but where’s the real problem beforehand.

I don’t side with Adobe or Microsoft here — I recall the 80s when you had to insert a floppy to make a program run. Now that’s a real hassle.

Here’s the real point. For various reasons I run a number of machines in different locations (home and office). In the past I could and did buy PS and install it both at home and in the office as well. Frequently I upgrade one of the machines (or maybe my portable). Each time this happens I’m going to have to be on the phone with Adobe. How many times do you think they are going to let me do this? How many times will they believe me that it is the same machine but I just changed the hard drive to 200 Gbytes. Or it is the same machine but I just changed the mother board.

The result is that I will now feel cramped and willing to upgrade my OWN machines just so that I will not have to have the activation hassle.

I’m about to face this with my home machine and Windows XP. I’m not looking forward to it. So far I’ve not bought PS CS because I want to wait until the new machine gets here and is up and running with XP so that I’ll have one *less* activation problem to worry about.

And oh yes, some of the faster components from the old machine such as the CD burner and hard drives will end up in the office machine. That won’t be an XP problem as the OS is under site license. But it would be a problem if I had PS already installed.

So right off here is one customer who is NOT buying PS CS right now because I can’t install it right now because of the upcoming activation hassle if I did.

Of course, the hassle is coming anyway. All I’ve done is put it off for about 8 months. By that time I’ll be looking at the new Athlon 64’s and you *KNOW* I will have to activate again.

Life and death problem, no. At least not if Adobe keeps allowing me to upgrade and authenticate.

The moment they don’t… Everyone will hear about it.

—- Paul J. Gans

"Mike Russell" …

Robert A wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

…

I’ll even go so far as to say that I’m confident in Adobe as a compnay, and don’t believe they will do anything to impact their flagship product’s revenue stream.

They just did. The other posters did a good job of explaining why.

Like the proverbial monopoly, M$, Adobe will continue to make bad decisions like this until their cash runs out, since a monopoly has little natural incentive to be competitive or to give more than handwaving consideration to the interests of their customers.

Toby
(Who won’t be upgrading volume licenses to CS because of activation)

Hecate wrote in
news::

The awful thing about it from my POV is that I’ve just found out what the killer feature is in CS. InDesign.

Fortunately, the activation madness does not extend past Photoshop. Indy CS is uncontaminated, and aside from the one (major) broken feature, it’s a damned wonderful upgrade. As revolutionary as 2.0 was, though you have to use it a bit before you realize it (or read that excellent comparison with Quark that was posted here a while back).

Exactly which hardware components must be changed to require reactivation? I somehow thought that only the motherboard or CPU would trigger this. Would changing out the hard drive do it as well?

Robert A

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message

Robert A wrote:

I read all this, but what does it really mean? You install the software, you go online to get "activated" and you’re done, until at some point you want to transfer the license to a different machine (i.e., upgrade). So

I

see there’s a hassle at that point, but where’s the real problem

beforehand.

I don’t side with Adobe or Microsoft here — I recall the 80s when you

had

to insert a floppy to make a program run. Now that’s a real hassle.

Here’s the real point. For various reasons I run a number of machines in different locations (home and office). In the past I could and did buy PS and install it both at home and in the office as well. Frequently I upgrade one of the machines (or maybe my portable). Each time this happens I’m going to have to be on the phone with Adobe. How many times do you think they are going to let me do this? How many times will they believe me that it is the same machine but I just changed the hard drive to 200 Gbytes. Or it is the same machine but I just changed the mother board.
The result is that I will now feel cramped and willing to upgrade my OWN machines just so that I will not have to have the activation hassle.

I’m about to face this with my home machine and Windows XP. I’m not looking forward to it. So far I’ve not bought PS CS because I want to wait until the new machine gets here and is up and running with XP so that I’ll have one *less* activation problem to worry about.

And oh yes, some of the faster components from the old machine such as the CD burner and hard drives will end up in the office machine. That won’t be an XP problem as the OS is under site license. But it would be a problem if I had PS already installed.

So right off here is one customer who is NOT buying PS CS right now because I can’t install it right now because of the upcoming activation hassle if I did.

Of course, the hassle is coming anyway. All I’ve done is put it off for about 8 months. By that time I’ll be looking at the new Athlon 64’s and you *KNOW* I will have to activate again.
Life and death problem, no. At least not if Adobe keeps allowing me to upgrade and authenticate.

The moment they don’t… Everyone will hear about it.

—- Paul J. Gans

| I read all this, but what does it really mean? You install the software, | you go online to get "activated" and you’re done, until at some point you | want to transfer the license to a different machine (i.e., upgrade). So I | see there’s a hassle at that point, but where’s the real problem beforehand.

Use Micro$oft as an example.
If you are a dabbler, that is you like to mess around with new hardware (while only keeping one computer) it is not long at all before Micro$oft will refuse to reactivate XP products: or at the very least put you through to the "Spanish Inquisition". You are all but powerless. If they say you are over quota: you are.

Has product activation reduced the cost of Micro$oft products? – Not a jot. If anything it may well increase the cost / frequency of upgrades.
– Once activation is in place you are stuffed: free will has gone.

The interesting thing looking back is that without "piracy" neither Adobe nor Microsoft would have the Monopoly positions they are now able to support. ;o)

Okay, so I get that part. I upgrade my computers every two or three years so I understand. So how much hassle is really involved in transfering

your

license to a new machine?

Virtually non-existant. The activation allows you to install it on two different computers every 6 months (I believe I read somewhere that is the time duration). If you need more than that, you must call Adobe and I can’t image that they’d give you a hard time about it.

"Robert A" wrote:

I upgrade my computers every two or three years so I understand. So how much hassle is really involved in transfering your license to a new machine?

After two or three years your license will most likely be obsolete so the Activation service will be denied for you. Your only option will be to upgrade to CS version n.nn.

Timo Autiokari

In article ,
says…

"Robert A" wrote:

I upgrade my computers every two or three years so I understand. So how much hassle is really involved in transfering your license to a new machine?

After two or three years your license will most likely be obsolete so the Activation service will be denied for you. Your only option will be to upgrade to CS version n.nn.

Timo Autiokari

Not true. If Photoshop, Adobe or the Activation no longer exist, they must supply a patch to remove that portion of the code. Read the FAQ.

In article <Zn_vb.860$>,
says…

Exactly which hardware components must be changed to require reactivation? I somehow thought that only the motherboard or CPU would trigger this. Would changing out the hard drive do it as well?

I can’t answer that question… but I buy used equipment and have been known to upgrade a system 3 and 4 times a month. Which would make activation a serious pain.

OTOH, because I know where to look I get whole systems for 5 and 10 bucks… and monitors etc. the same.

—
phorbin

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:39:57 GMT, "Robert A"
wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

The problem I’ve had in the past with activation is when I start to do some work, Photoshop won’t start because my key has expired and I have to contact adobe for a new one.

As far as preventing unauthorized use..keygens can be found if you’re willing to wade through the warez sites.

************************************************************ *** ************************************************************ *** Colyn Goodson
Fort Worth, Texas

http://home.swbell.net/colyng

http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/sale.html
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

Robert A wrote:

Exactly which hardware components must be changed to require reactivation? I somehow thought that only the motherboard or CPU would trigger this. Would changing out the hard drive do it as well?

Robert A

You’ll have to go check at the Adobe website. But I believe that activation involves taking the "signature" of major components in your system. They get that because cards and drives now identify themselves when properly probed — which is how these things are autodetected.

Exactly what needs to be changed to cause reactivation was, I think, explained on the web site. But IIRC it was motherboard, CPU, hard drive, and possibly some other things. It is similar to the system used by Microsoft and is identical (I believe) to the system used by Macromedia for Dreamweaver (about which folks are also screaming.)

To be fair, it is not a bad system as these things go. On the other hand, it makes life difficult for non-volume non- pirates. Which includes most of us.

—- Paul J. Gans

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message

Robert A wrote:

I read all this, but what does it really mean? You install the software, you go online to get "activated" and you’re done, until at some point you want to transfer the license to a different machine (i.e., upgrade). So

I

see there’s a hassle at that point, but where’s the real problem

beforehand.

I don’t side with Adobe or Microsoft here — I recall the 80s when you

had

to insert a floppy to make a program run. Now that’s a real hassle.

Here’s the real point. For various reasons I run a number of machines in different locations (home and office). In the past I could and did buy PS and install it both at home and in the office as well. Frequently I upgrade one of the machines (or maybe my portable). Each time this happens I’m going to have to be on the phone with Adobe. How many times do you think they are going to let me do this? How many times will they believe me that it is the same machine but I just changed the hard drive to 200 Gbytes. Or it is the same machine but I just changed the mother board.
The result is that I will now feel cramped and willing to upgrade my OWN machines just so that I will not have to have the activation hassle.

I’m about to face this with my home machine and Windows XP. I’m not looking forward to it. So far I’ve not bought PS CS because I want to wait until the new machine gets here and is up and running with XP so that I’ll have one *less* activation problem to worry about.

And oh yes, some of the faster components from the old machine such as the CD burner and hard drives will end up in the office machine. That won’t be an XP problem as the OS is under site license. But it would be a problem if I had PS already installed.

So right off here is one customer who is NOT buying PS CS right now because I can’t install it right now because of the upcoming activation hassle if I did.

Of course, the hassle is coming anyway. All I’ve done is put it off for about 8 months. By that time I’ll be looking at the new Athlon 64’s and you *KNOW* I will have to activate again.
Life and death problem, no. At least not if Adobe keeps allowing me to upgrade and authenticate.

The moment they don’t… Everyone will hear about it.

—- Paul J. Gans

Rich Powell wrote:

Okay, so I get that part. I upgrade my computers every two or three years so I understand. So how much hassle is really involved in transfering

your

license to a new machine?

Virtually non-existant. The activation allows you to install it on two different computers every 6 months (I believe I read somewhere that is the time duration). If you need more than that, you must call Adobe and I can’t image that they’d give you a hard time about it.

The web page to start with is

http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html

The key information there includes the statement that
a product activation ends up with a special code being
installed both on in the Registry and on the hard drive
being used. The hard drive information is written to
sector(s) not normally accessible to the user. If you
do a "low-level" format (not the sort that one does with a new operating system which is a "high-level" format) this information will be destroyed and Photoshop will have to be reactivated.

It then also states:

"Most users will see no change in their ability to use the software the way they always have. Adobe recognizes that software license activation systems can create a few more steps for the user and has worked hard to minimize customer inconvenience. The Adobe activation process supports installation on a primary and secondary computer as well as most system upgrades (for example, operating system, motherboard, memory, or processor). In most cases, customers can change computing environments without needing to contact Adobe Customer Care or needing to reactivate any installed Adobe software."

I read this as meaning that as long as the original hard drive is present, we are OK.

In other words the installation seems to be for a given hard drive and not for a given computer. I’m not sure I believe this given the existance of external firewire drives and the like, since they can easily be moved from machine to machine. But it is what Adobe seems to be saying.

However, I’ll admit to being a bit peeved by this (from the FAQ):

Q: What is Adobe doing to stop the real piracy problem? Professional piracy? Shouldn’t efforts be expended there instead of on burdening loyal customers?

A: Adobe does not believe a customer-focused activation process represents a burden to the user. Adobe is working to stop professional piracy, both on its own and through industry coalitions such as the Business Software Alliance. Professional piracy is a serious problem for the software industry and costs Adobe an estimated US$700 million per year. Learn more about Adobe’s anti-piracy initiatives.

Speaking for myself, I do NOT believe that single-user piracy costs Adobe more than a million or two. Thus it is really annoying to find that the BIG money loss area is not affected by activation.

By the way, I could not find anything about six-month periods between activations. It might be there in the license, but it is a very difficult document to read.

—- Paul J. Gans

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:25:52 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

The awful thing about it from my POV is that I’ve just found out what the killer feature is in CS. InDesign.

Fortunately, the activation madness does not extend past Photoshop. Indy CS is uncontaminated, and aside from the one (major) broken feature, it’s a damned wonderful upgrade. As revolutionary as 2.0 was, though you have to use it a bit before you realize it (or read that excellent comparison with Quark that was posted here a while back).

You’ll like this – it’s the last paragraph of a review of the new ID:

"So how does InDesign CS compare to Quark Express 6? It’s not a foregone conclusion, as institutional publishers will be reluctant to give up their existing investment in Quark, and InDesign’s design-intensive approach won’t suit everyone. However, for the majority of users, there’s no question: InDesign CS is in a different league when it comes to end quality, design power and production efficiency. And when you consider that you can buy the standard edition of CS including both Photoshop and Illustrator for less than the price of Quark Express on it’s own, the comparison is embarrassing. If this were a fight, the referee would have to step in…"

Tom Arah in"PC Pro" in the UK – he has a good review and info site at:

www.designer-info.com/

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:37:51 GMT, Colyn wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:39:57 GMT, "Robert A"
wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

The problem I’ve had in the past with activation is when I start to do some work, Photoshop won’t start because my key has expired and I have to contact adobe for a new one.

As far as preventing unauthorized use..keygens can be found if you’re willing to wade through the warez sites.

You don’t need to wade, and don’t even need the warez sites. I’ve seen them on several newsgroups and signposts to where to get them on others. In fact, the only way I will upgrade to CS is if I become a criminal and crack it after I’ve bought it. I just don’t trust Adobe, especially after this. It only hits the honest, not the crooks.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 03:21:59 +0000, Hecate wrote:

You don’t need to wade, and don’t even need the warez sites. I’ve seen them on several newsgroups and signposts to where to get them on others. In fact, the only way I will upgrade to CS is if I become a criminal and crack it after I’ve bought it. I just don’t trust Adobe, especially after this. It only hits the honest, not the crooks.

I agree..

I may be tempted to find a keygen if my key expires..

************************************************************ *** ************************************************************ *** Colyn Goodson
Fort Worth, Texas

http://home.swbell.net/colyng

http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/sale.html
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

It means that as far as Adobe is concerned, EVERYONE is a thief.

It means that an activation system costs money to implement and run. They get that money from the honest customers, which in turn means the honest customer is paying for the privilege of being thought of as a thief.

It means that whether or not you want to give them any personal info from your computer they in a position to take it anyway. It is forced registration.

It means that they, not you, decide when you are going to upgrade, by removing the ability to use the current software.

It means that people who depend on Photoshop for their livelihood now have their ability to work controlled by Adobe.

It means that if you want to use their product you have to let them dip into your wallet whenever they feel like it.

It means there is a strong possibility that I for one have bought my last Adobe product.
—

Ron.

Robert A wrote in message

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

Because the activation is usually cracked soon after the issue of the product and the person who want to use an illegal copy will know how to do it unless he is quite stupid. The only thing activation does is incontinences the legal buyers. Hackers will hack and there are some hackers working for the companies who produce the activated software. The present activation scheme is harder on people who pay for the product than the ones who will use illegal copies.

"Robert A" wrote in message

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

Donald Link wrote:

Because the activation is usually cracked soon after the issue of the product and the person who want to use an illegal copy will know how to do it unless he is quite stupid. The only thing activation does is incontinences the legal buyers. Hackers will hack and there are some hackers working for the companies who produce the activated software. The present activation scheme is harder on people who pay for the product than the ones who will use illegal copies.

Well said.

I have to say as I read these threads I’m beginning to understand what all the fuss is ablut. I think Adobe would be well advised to either remove activation – for all the good reasons listed here, or share some of the benefits of activation, perhaps by reducing the price paid by honest customers, or some other future benefit.
—

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:39:57 GMT, "Robert A"
wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

Forced activation/registration is one large step towards the eventual rental of software. Virus apps are already doing this. Soon, if we all agree to these steps, software companies will ask us to pay quaterly/yearly rental fees to use the software. If we don’t pay, the software that we purchased last year won’t work.

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

We have to fight it every step of the way. Because it’s a taking away of our consumer rights little by little until we end up renting everything and owning nothing. We will be paying fees upon fees and end up owning nothing.

This is what companies always try to do–take away consumer rights and get consumers constantly paying for updates. Even movie studios want to prevent consumer dvd movie purchases … they want people to rent but can’t own dvds; Disney is the main company that wants to take away consumer movie ownership rights.

Just remember. They are a corporation and corporation is always trying to make money; that is their purpose. Activation provides a consumer zero benefits. Activation is a hassle, security risk, and is another step towards software rental system. So, fight them every step of the way. Never give in to a corporate scheme.

mdavis wrote:

The problem is that activation restricts and prevents some legitimate use, such as being able to reinstall a registered program on a new computer when you upgrade hardware. These companies are paranoid about where the program goes on the old computer. Was it traded in, sold to another person with the program still installed, etc.?
I just bought a new computer out of necessity (old one very slow and beginning to cause problems) and I have several registered programs that will NOT install and activate on my new computer. So I’m sitting here at my overloaded computer desk, with some applications running on the old one, and some on the new one, two computers, two monitors, two keyboards, etc. I can’t afford to re-purchase over a thousand dollars worth of registed software just because I’m not "authorized" to have it installed on more than one, even when I still own both and I’m the only user.

I have had NO problem reactivating Office XP on new computer. One merely calls Microsoft and gets a new activation code. No hassle at all from Microsoft. I’m willing to bet Adobe will be every bit as cooperative.

"coradra" wrote in message

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:39:57 GMT, "Robert A"
wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

There is no requirement to keep a live internet connection to either activate or use Photoshop CS (I’m assuming that is the version you are talking about). You can call an 800 number to activate or do it online. And the program runs just fine disconnected from the internet. james

coradra wrote:

If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

If you want to argue your case, use valid arguments. You do NOT always have an internet connection. Activation takes place only ONCE. It does NOT take place every time you start Photoshop.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

Whilst I am quite happy to argue against activation, if you do you must get facts correct. You do *not* buy the software. You buy a license.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:27:30 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

coradra wrote:

If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

If you want to argue your case, use valid arguments. You do NOT always have an internet connection. Activation takes place only ONCE. It does NOT take place every time you start Photoshop.

I don’t think that’s a totally accurate statement. I have had to "re-activate" mine 3 times now after I have done a system restore or otherwise changed the my system configuration. I believe I used msconfig to change my start-up options recently and I had to reactivate.

Another interesting thing was that the program made me activate after about 5 days f use even though I was supposed to have 30 days

By the way, I could not find anything about six-month periods between activations. It might be there in the license, but it is a very difficult document to read.

I didn’t read it in the license, I read it on the forums at dpreview.com, so take it with a grain of salt.

Hecate …

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

Whilst I am quite happy to argue against activation, if you do you must get facts correct. You do *not* buy the software. You buy a license.

While you are technically correct, the typical shrinkwrap license does not contain time limits, or depend on a Rube Goldberg network activation system working in order for the vendor to be able to keep their end of the bargain. What about the investment of money/time/data you will lose if Adobe goes out of business? Or if M$ buys them and decides not to honour licenses on some technicality? And what about the never-ending inconveniences that people have already described in this thread?

If I pay money for software then I want to be sure that I will be able to use it for as long as I care to. Activation doesn’t give me that confidence, even if time limits, version obsolescence, etc, aren’t explicit in the license.

Don’t forget, that if you can’t run Photoshop X (perhaps unexpectedly), you can’t access any data you may have created with it. Would you take that risk?

Toby

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:27:30 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

….

If you want to argue your case, use valid arguments. You do NOT always have an internet connection. Activation takes place only ONCE. It does
NOT take place every time you start Photoshop.

But the original point has a sliver of validity. Photoshop does validate activation each time it starts.

In any case, this demonstrates yet another disadvantage of activation – the risk that, in your discontent, you will make a logical mistake about it, post it to the internet, and have someone try to make you look foolish.

This reminds me of a now famous "speed bump" in the middle of one of the major bridges near where I live. It’s a two inch (5.12 cm) plate of steel that causes a bone-jarring impact if you hit it at normal speed.

Before people learned to avoid that lane, it caused crowding on the bridge when people slowed down to avoid the impact. Our local transit authority announced that the solution to the problem was to educate people that it’s OK to go over the plate at full speed – I remember that recommendation every time I forget and ram into the darn thing at 55 mph. Ouch.

If it’s any comfort to those suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous activation, I live within commute distance of Adobe, so I’m sure a number of Adobe employees run over that bump on a regular basis 🙂 —

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

If it’s any comfort to those suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous activation, I live within commute distance of Adobe, so I’m sure a number

of

Adobe employees run over that bump on a regular basis 🙂 —

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

It has obviously caused brain damage.

Tom

On 25 Nov 2003 01:18:42 -0800, (Toby Thain)
wrote:

Hecate …

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

Whilst I am quite happy to argue against activation, if you do you must get facts correct. You do *not* buy the software. You buy a license.

While you are technically correct, the typical shrinkwrap license does not contain time limits, or depend on a Rube Goldberg network activation system working in order for the vendor to be able to keep their end of the bargain. What about the investment of money/time/data you will lose if Adobe goes out of business? Or if M$ buys them and decides not to honour licenses on some technicality? And what about the never-ending inconveniences that people have already described in this thread?

If I pay money for software then I want to be sure that I will be able to use it for as long as I care to. Activation doesn’t give me that confidence, even if time limits, version obsolescence, etc, aren’t explicit in the license.

Don’t forget, that if you can’t run Photoshop X (perhaps unexpectedly), you can’t access any data you may have created with it. Would you take that risk?

Unfortunately you obviously haven’t read the rest of my posts where I agree that activation is something not to be universally admired 😉

But, you can’t make a logical case against it unless you stick to the facts.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Mike Russell wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:27:30 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

…

If you want to argue your case, use valid arguments. You do NOT always have an internet connection. Activation takes place only ONCE. It does
NOT take place every time you start Photoshop.

But the original point has a sliver of validity. Photoshop does validate activation each time it starts.

Well, that is true insofar as it does not "call home" each time it starts. But it clearly checks activation by comparing data in the registry and in the program to data stored in what are areas of the hard drive not normally available to the user. Thus, if I read the Adobe site correctly, Photoshop CS is "locked" to a particular hard drive.

In any case, this demonstrates yet another disadvantage of activation – the risk that, in your discontent, you will make a logical mistake about it, post it to the internet, and have someone try to make you look foolish.

This reminds me of a now famous "speed bump" in the middle of one of the major bridges near where I live. It’s a two inch (5.12 cm) plate of steel that causes a bone-jarring impact if you hit it at normal speed.

Before people learned to avoid that lane, it caused crowding on the bridge when people slowed down to avoid the impact. Our local transit authority announced that the solution to the problem was to educate people that it’s OK to go over the plate at full speed – I remember that recommendation every time I forget and ram into the darn thing at 55 mph. Ouch.

If it’s any comfort to those suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous activation, I live within commute distance of Adobe, so I’m sure a number of Adobe employees run over that bump on a regular basis 🙂

You’ve probably discovered that, depending on the size of the bump and the springing of your car, there is a speed, faster than a crawl, at which you can hit the bump with
hardly a jar to the car.

—- Paul J. Gans

Hecate …

On 25 Nov 2003 01:18:42 -0800, (Toby Thain)
wrote:

Hecate …

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

Whilst I am quite happy to argue against activation, if you do you must get facts correct. You do *not* buy the software. You buy a license.

While you are technically correct, the typical shrinkwrap license does not contain time limits, or depend on a Rube Goldberg network activation system working in order for the vendor to be able to keep their end of the bargain. What about the investment of money/time/data you will lose if Adobe goes out of business? Or if M$ buys them and decides not to honour licenses on some technicality? And what about the never-ending inconveniences that people have already described in this thread?

If I pay money for software then I want to be sure that I will be able to use it for as long as I care to. Activation doesn’t give me that confidence, even if time limits, version obsolescence, etc, aren’t explicit in the license.

Don’t forget, that if you can’t run Photoshop X (perhaps unexpectedly), you can’t access any data you may have created with it. Would you take that risk?

Unfortunately you obviously haven’t read the rest of my posts where I agree that activation is something not to be universally admired 😉

Sorry, I did get a bit carried away. I meant to say, simply, that a "license" is more or less worthless if it depends on activation.

But, you can’t make a logical case against it unless you stick to the facts.

It would be harder to make a case *for* it, but thankfully that’s not my job.

T

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

Whilst I am quite happy to argue against activation, if you do you must get facts correct. You do *not* buy the software. You buy a license.

I sure understand what you mean by "license" but it doesn’t matter what you call it. You don’t buy to own the code, but in your house you own the program or you have all the right to do whatever you want to do to it. You can love it, hate it, destroy it, modify it, crack it .. you name it. And as long as you don’t post your cracked version to public then you are ok. IOW, Adobe doesn’t license you to modify it, or you crack the program not the license.

Well, now with the activation we could say we *RENT* the trouble not buying license or program.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:13 -0600, (Joe) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

Whilst I am quite happy to argue against activation, if you do you must get facts correct. You do *not* buy the software. You buy a license.

I sure understand what you mean by "license" but it doesn’t matter what you call it. You don’t buy to own the code, but in your house you own the program or you have all the right to do whatever you want to do to it. You can love it, hate it, destroy it, modify it, crack it .. you name it. And as long as you don’t post your cracked version to public then you are ok. IOW, Adobe doesn’t license you to modify it, or you crack the program not the license.

Not exactly. You own the right to use within parameters set by the software designer, which can be changed at any time. If you read your license agreement, you will find out that your rights are limited to that use, and that use only. So no, you can’t modify it, crack it etc. You cannot modify the program in any way other than to add to it through approved plug ins. And the sole arbiter of anything you do with the software is the software developer. So it’s not the same at all I’m afraid. If more people read the license agreements for software they would realise that it is extremely restrictive.

Well, now with the activation we could say we *RENT* the trouble not buying license or program.

You still purchase the license. The difference is that now, you are limited to running it when Adobe says you can.

And the funniest thing of all? This is still legal.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:13 -0600, (Joe) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. If I buy a piece of software why should I have to connect to the internet to activate it and always have the internet on? It’s a pain, it’s a security risk (leaving workstation connected to internet everytime I want to use Photoshop).

Whilst I am quite happy to argue against activation, if you do you must get facts correct. You do *not* buy the software. You buy a license.

I sure understand what you mean by "license" but it doesn’t matter what you call it. You don’t buy to own the code, but in your house you own the program or you have all the right to do whatever you want to do to it. You can love it, hate it, destroy it, modify it, crack it .. you name it. And as long as you don’t post your cracked version to public then you are ok. IOW, Adobe doesn’t license you to modify it, or you crack the program not the license.

Not exactly. You own the right to use within parameters set by the software designer, which can be changed at any time. If you read your license agreement, you will find out that your rights are limited to that use, and that use only. So no, you can’t modify it, crack it etc. You cannot modify the program in any way other than to add to it through approved plug ins. And the sole arbiter of anything you do with the software is the software developer. So it’s not the same at all I’m afraid. If more people read the license agreements for software they would realise that it is extremely restrictive.

You are correct that the license agreement doesn’t say you can modify it, but it doesn’t say you can’t make it to run better (for your own need). You can’t modify to sell or to pass the modified version to public *but* you sure can do whatever you want for your own need including modifying any part of the program (EXE, COM, DLL, INI you name it) for your own use.

Many companies have their programmers or hire some outside programmer/coder (one of my friends used to run this business) to modify or fixing some software for their own need, their own hardware etc. without hiring the original seller.

Yes, you can try right now see if Adobe will send FBI to get you or not. Also, not much difference between modifying the EXE/COM/DLL or editting the .INI or registry *except* for many of us don’t know much or any of programming so we can’t touch the EXE/COM/DLL or we are limited to INI or the registry *but* we have changed the way the original (default) setting of what the program may run.

If you pay attention to the header of my message then you may have noticed that I have modified the reader (the program I use to post this message) to send some fake information’s to header (it sends fake information *but* not fake other user’s information, or no harm to anyone).

Well, now with the activation we could say we *RENT* the trouble not buying license or program.

You still purchase the license. The difference is that now, you are limited to running it when Adobe says you can.

And the funniest thing of all? This is still legal.

I find the funniest that some users are happier to give their necks to Adobe, and upset because many others don’t like to buy more problem.

Yeah! just read the subject <g>. People are not upset, but can’t find any good reason to be happy <bg>

Hecate …

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:13 -0600, (Joe) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:52:23 -0800, coradra
wrote:

Many consumers hate this idea of taking away ownership/user rights on our purchased software. …

And the funniest thing of all? This is still legal.

So what. Lots of stupid things are legal. Abuse of monopoly is supposed to be illegal but what difference does it make?

T

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Robert A wrote:

I have no opinion, I just want to understand why do people care so much about this? I have PS7 and I’m thinking about upgrading to CS when the price comes down a bit. All I’ve gathered from the various posts is that activation prevents unauthorized use. Does it go beyond that?

http://www.efn.no/free-desktop.html

Per Inge Oestmoen

Robert A wrote:

Okay, so I get that part. I upgrade my computers every two or three years so I understand. So how much hassle is really involved in transfering your license to a new machine?

Why should we accept built-in control schemes that prevent us from installing the tools we need on our personal computers?

It is not a mere "hassle." It is about who are controlling our computers – software companies or ourselves.

If we are forever dependent on the availability of a software company’s activation/registration service in order to install or use the software we need to access and work with our own data on our own PC’s, an intolerable situation has arisen.

The software companies that use Product Activation are wholly responsible for their choice, and if they need to "protect" their products against their own customers they have basically demonstrated for us that they do not deserve to exist, at least not with their present business model with proprietary software with ever-increasing user restrictions.

Per Inge Oestmoen

Hecate wrote:

You don’t need to wade, and don’t even need the warez sites. I’ve seen them on several newsgroups and signposts to where to get them on others. In fact, the only way I will upgrade to CS is if I become a criminal and crack it after I’ve bought it. I just don’t trust Adobe, especially after this. It only hits the honest, not the crooks.

As a matter of fact, the activation scheme undermines our respect for law in general (for good reason), and this might be the most sinister effect.

Per Inge Oestmoen

Hecate wrote:

But, you can’t make a logical case against it unless you stick to the facts.

Hello Hecate,

You are of course right. But then it also has to be mentioned that the software companies use the "you buy a license, it is not a purchase" argument to defend themselves and their actions against their customers.

The logical question which then comes is how it is that we are expected to pay and pay and pay, and find ourselves with ever reduced rights over what we pay for.

Per Inge Oestmoen

pioe[rmv] <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Hecate wrote:

But, you can’t make a logical case against it unless you stick to the facts.

Hello Hecate,

You are of course right. But then it also has to be mentioned that the software companies use the "you buy a license, it is not a purchase" argument to defend themselves and their actions against their customers.

The logical question which then comes is how it is that we are expected to pay and pay and pay, and find ourselves with ever reduced rights over what we pay for.

Per Inge Oestmoen

<start of rant>

Hmmm. We feel that we have bought a license to use the software. But have we? It would be more fair for companies to state that they are selling a license to use their software on one machine only (two in the case of Adobe).

They *may* allow you to relicense the software for a new machine or they may not.

What recourse do we have if we are refused reactivation on a new machine?

I know that this is currently hypothetical, but it isn’t really. In fact if we are refused reactivation we have no recourse at all. We are bound by the license agreement and nowhere does it say that reactivation is guaranteed.

So the camel, as Per Inge implies, already has his nose in the tent. The tool is there to refuse if and when it becomes profitable for the company to do that.

The internet was built on cheap software that came with few restrictions — other than the usual disclaimer of competence (you know, not guaranteed to actually do anything). We ran CP/M (and had to usually write the drivers ourselves), used BASIC from some piddling company called Microsoft, and compiled real programs using BDS C. None of these companies used activation and none of them had licenses longer than their source code listing.

Together we built the internet. And now that it is a large thriving business we are no longer partners. Today when you buy software you are still given the usual disclaimer of competence and in addition you have less control over the software than you did back in the early days of computing.

I’m afraid that this is going to grow.

To be particular, what is Adobe fighting? Corporate accounts with multiple licenses do not need activation. OEM copies evidently don’t need activation. The code has been cracked and is readily available so that crooks and thieves don’t need activation.

Who needs activation? Us? Why? Did someone here write Adobe a bad check and got them peeved at all of us?

<end of rant>

By the way, Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US and a Good Day to the rest of you. I expect I’ll be in a better humor *after* I’ve overeaten. 😉

—- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans wrote:

Well, that is true insofar as it does not "call home" each time it starts. But it clearly checks activation by comparing data in the registry and in the program to data stored in what are areas of the hard drive not normally available to the user.

Which means they are /violating/ our personal property, in addition to imposing much inconvenience and permanent insecurity on us.

Let us ask without prejudices: Who are the pirates in this picture?

On top of everything, they add insult to injury: Who will have to pay for the costs of these control schemes, for the activation services with the necessary servers, databases and paid phone operators?

It is interesting, to say the least, to learn how the software industry devote more and more of their resources to other things than the actual production of software.

Per Inge Oestmoen

james wrote:

There is no requirement to keep a live internet connection to either activate or use Photoshop CS (I’m assuming that is the version you are talking about). You can call an 800 number to activate or do it online. And the program runs just fine disconnected from the internet. james

This reminds me of the very first time I came up against product activation. MS piloted the ‘scheme’ with some of the Excel 2000 standalone retail products (and others I’m sure). I installed Excel 2000 on a computer on the shop floor at work. No internet connection, telephone restricted to no outside calls 800 or otherwise (except 911), cell phone dead zone due metal building. It was a nightmare activating that product, I had to go to an office off the shop floor with the ability to dial out and walk back and forth to the PC while talking to the lady from MS. She had a hard time understanding why A. The PC didn’t have an internet connection and B. Why the phone I called on wasn’t closer to the PC. Software vendors see the inconvenience as almost non existent, and do not understand real world computer implementations and restrictions and what a waste of time it is to administrators of small/medium companies who are the most strapped for computer staff. Doing this installation today now that MS have gone over to a touch-tone automated service would make this even more difficult, hard to ask a automated service to ‘hold the line’.

Big corporations are generally OK since they get ‘non activated’ versions of the software products. Small/Medium companies can’t afford those licenses.

Activation really sucks and does nothing to protect the SW vendor from pirating, but may enable them to convert SW to a rental scheme over time (if we let them). Intuit are the only example I know of where SW activation backfired on them.

Add to all this that ownership rights are diluted and I can’t see anything POSITIVE to speak of for activation. The best most of the posters here can come up with is ‘It’s no big deal, it’s easy’, that’s a neutral comment at best, where is the *advantage* of activation to ME (or my employer) the paying CUSTOMER? I see NONE.

JP

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:31:19 +0100, "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Hecate wrote:

But, you can’t make a logical case against it unless you stick to the facts.

Hello Hecate,

You are of course right. But then it also has to be mentioned that the software companies use the "you buy a license, it is not a purchase" argument to defend themselves and their actions against their customers.
The logical question which then comes is how it is that we are expected to pay and pay and pay, and find ourselves with ever reduced rights over what we pay for.

Oh, I agree and there will come a time when it has to stop. The problem from a business point of view is that, despite supposedly being an industry full of "creative " people, the graphics and imaging industry is very conservative. If you can’t supply "Photoshopped" images, using InDesign or PDF, then you have a great many problems selling work.

I hope, more in despair than anticipation that Open Software will eventually get somewhere. In truth though, I think that today’s business model will never allow it – not through any kind of negative reaction but simply through inertia.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Paul J Gans wrote:

They *may* allow you to relicense the software for a new machine or they may not.
What recourse do we have if we are refused reactivation on a new machine?
I know that this is currently hypothetical, but it isn’t really. In fact if we are refused reactivation we have no recourse at all. We are bound by the license agreement and nowhere does it say that reactivation is guaranteed.

All this is very true, but as long as we are deprived of the right to control our own working tools (and thereby indirectly also the files we create with the software) it is a moot point whether or not we are allowed to re-activate or how many times we are granted that "favor." Either they pressurize us to buy programs (licenses) for software which they permanently control, or we pay for (copyable, one must have backup) software which we can install when we want, how many times we want, now and in the future. It is only the latter alternative that is acceptable. Here, no compromise is possible.

Today, I re-installed WordPerfect 7 for Windows, which I bought back in october 1996. Why would I accept having to /activate/ in order to install a tool which I need for opening old documents and making new ones? That is madness, we cannot accept it.

So the camel, as Per Inge implies, already has his nose in the tent. The tool is there to refuse if and when it becomes Again, profitable for the company to do that.

We simply need to state it openly: These people and companies have forfeited their right to be respected. A major part of the problem is those of us who "understand" "the need for the software industry to protect themselves from piracy." I used to be one of them until I fully understood the ramifications of "protection" against the very people who pay for the products. There simply can be no excuse for selling us products with this kind of attached strings. On top of everything, they even place code strings on our hard drives which are inaccessible to the user.

To be particular, what is Adobe fighting? Corporate accounts with multiple licenses do not need activation. OEM copies evidently don’t need activation. The code has been cracked and is readily available so that crooks and thieves don’t need activation.

To a large extent, it is a psychological thing. But, there is also much money involved. During the last few years, a whole new industry has emerged, a new industry whose only purpose is to develop "copy-control" and "Digital Rights Management" technology. This industry now has interests in its own, although it does of course not produce anything worthwhile or usable. Its only purpose is to make tools that enable other companies to control access to informational material, to music, to computer software and so on.

They repeat their mantra over and over again: "We must protect ourselves against the pirates, who do so much harm to society." "We must have in place strong protection of intellectual property." It is a sort of mass psychosis – an increasing emphasis is laid on mechanisms for access and copy control. Moreover, all this control is rather expensive. Which again means than the actual creation is alotted a lesser part of the total resources. Obviously, customers have to pay through their nose to finance all the non-productive control mechanisms. On top of being forced to use software over which we have no control and which is totally dependent on the availablity of activation/registration services, we are supposed to pay not only for the software itself, but necessarily also to cover all the formidable added costs incurred by the "protection."

But we /can/ stop this madness, if we take a firm stand, inform other people, and in general cease to "understand" and accept what is being done.

What is a "pirate"? In my book a pirate is a criminal who imposes his own will on others, the pirate is robbing his victims, one way or another. In addition, the pirate typically threathens its victims with dire consequences unless the pirate’s will is followed. Perversely, those who now start from the unspoken premise that their customers are at least potential "pirates" have most of the worst characteristics of true pirates.

The internet was built on cheap software that came with few restrictions — other than the usual disclaimer of competence (you know, not guaranteed to actually do anything). We ran CP/M (and had to usually write the drivers ourselves), used BASIC from some piddling company called Microsoft, and compiled real programs using BDS C. None of these companies used activation and none of them had licenses longer than their source code listing.

This is the latest development: "Trusted computing." These documents should be read by all:

http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031001_meditati ons.php http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7055

So, they do not even respect our rights to control our hardware.

– We have to ask openly and answer without fear to the question: Who are the true pirates?

Per Inge Oestmoen

Hecate wrote:

I hope, more in despair than anticipation that Open Software will eventually get somewhere. In truth though, I think that today’s business model will never allow it – not through any kind of negative reaction but simply through inertia.

Do not lose that hope, Hecate.

Here in Norway, I am heavily involved in political work for the advancement of Open Source software, and we have come so far as to have effected a nationwide adoption of Linux and Free Software programs in schools.

The Government is noticing, and now the debate rages whether state and municipal agencies should adopt the same policy. That will likely not happen this year, because the people from Microsoft and Business Software Alliance are lobbying intensely through "independent" consultants, but things are on their way and more and more are reacting against increasing license restrictions and higher prices. Characteristically, the more control, activation and limitation, the higher the prices the customers have to pay for (the use of) the software.

People see these things more and more, and I believe it is our duty to talk to others about it and help others to understand. That is the way awareness is created, and I have faith that we can do it. It will take some time, but we are on the side of genuine justice and truth.

Per Inge Oestmoen

JP White wrote:

Activation really sucks and does nothing to protect the SW vendor from pirating, but may enable them to convert SW to a rental scheme over time (if we let them). Intuit are the only example I know of where SW activation backfired on them.
Add to all this that ownership rights are diluted and I can’t see anything POSITIVE to speak of for activation. The best most of the posters here can come up with is ‘It’s no big deal, it’s easy’, that’s a neutral comment at best, where is the *advantage* of activation to ME (or my employer) the paying CUSTOMER? I see NONE.

Advantage to the customer? Of course there is none. Product Acivation is about POWER and CONTROL. Microsoft and Adobe are so big that they control large parts of the market, thus they feel they can get away with it.

No one in his or her right mind fails to see that if one purchases (licenses) a software program, one has to be able to install it now, tomorrow and in the future without restrictions and without the need of activation. I will never, ever, entrust my personal data to activation crippled software or software which cannot be installed on my own machine when and as many times I want.

Software rental and software-as-a-service would also mean that you are dependent on the availability of specific services to access your own material. That cannot possibly be accepted, since it jeopardizes the safety of our data.

I have paid for all the software I use, and I consider Product Activation as a heinous attack on consumers’ rights. I do not listen to all the talk about "software piracy," because the pirates have never prevented the software companies from getting big, because a wrong has never justified another, and most importantly because there simply is no justification for forcing people into dependence on the software businesses’ activation services in order to work with our own data.

Per Inge Oestmoen

For the small-scale professional, this is absolutely a precedent we do not want to support. My position is I will totally not support it, by boycott. I will stick with previous version technology until someone makes a reasonable re-thinking of this rediculous approach. Can you imagine having a dozen different programs that require activation and a hard drive crash in the middle of a deadlined project.

But, apart from delay and inconvenience, there is the issue, which has been well-addressed here, of just exactly who controls access to information which is owned and copyrighted by the creator of the works, regardless of the tools legitimately used to create said works. If I use proprietary formats to produce original works, created within the terms of the software user license, why should I not have the right to install that program *temporarily* to present them on any machine at my disposal, as long as it is removed when I finish my presentations??? My works may require proprietary features to demonstrate their sophistication… i.e layers, actions, etc. Why should one be required to transport even a laptop, when they could rather transport the installation disk and eliminate the risk of transporting computer equipment, as long as the program is promptly removed?

If piracy prevention is the sole motive to this rediculous scheme, they had better rethink their strategy

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:31:19 +0100, "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Hecate wrote:

But, you can’t make a logical case against it unless you stick to the facts.

Hello Hecate,

You are of course right. But then it also has to be mentioned that the software companies use the "you buy a license, it is not a purchase" argument to defend themselves and their actions against their customers.
The logical question which then comes is how it is that we are expected to pay and pay and pay, and find ourselves with ever reduced rights over what we pay for.

Oh, I agree and there will come a time when it has to stop. The problem from a business point of view is that, despite supposedly being an industry full of "creative " people, the graphics and imaging industry is very conservative. If you can’t supply "Photoshopped" images, using InDesign or PDF, then you have a great many problems selling work.

I hope, more in despair than anticipation that Open Software will eventually get somewhere. In truth though, I think that today’s business model will never allow it – not through any kind of negative reaction but simply through inertia.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:19:23 +0100, "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> posted:

Hecate wrote:

I hope, more in despair than anticipation that Open Software will eventually get somewhere. In truth though, I think that today’s business model will never allow it – not through any kind of negative reaction but simply through inertia.

Do not lose that hope, Hecate.

Here in Norway, I am heavily involved in political work for the advancement of Open Source software, and we have come so far as to have effected a nationwide adoption of Linux and Free Software programs in schools.

how are you doing it? can your method be duplicated elsewhere? I too am sick of activation. just bought microsoft onenote two days ago, and even that had activation, which is immensely worrying.

The Government is noticing, and now the debate rages whether state and municipal agencies should adopt the same policy. That will likely not happen this year, because the people from Microsoft and Business Software Alliance are lobbying intensely through "independent" consultants, but things are on their way and more and more are reacting against increasing license restrictions and higher prices. Characteristically, the more control, activation and limitation, the higher the prices the customers have to pay for (the use of) the software.

People see these things more and more, and I believe it is our duty to talk to others about it and help others to understand. That is the way awareness is created, and I have faith that we can do it. It will take some time, but we are on the side of genuine justice and truth.
Per Inge Oestmoen

pioe[rmv] <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

Well, that is true insofar as it does not "call home" each time it starts. But it clearly checks activation by comparing data in the registry and in the program to data stored in what are areas of the hard drive not normally available to the user.

Which means they are /violating/ our personal property, in addition to imposing much inconvenience and permanent insecurity on us.

Let us ask without prejudices: Who are the pirates in this picture?

On top of everything, they add insult to injury: Who will have to pay for the costs of these control schemes, for the activation services with the necessary servers, databases and paid phone operators?

It is interesting, to say the least, to learn how the software industry devote more and more of their resources to other things than the actual production of software.

In the United States pressure is on all companies not only to show a profit, but to show a greater profit each year over the previous year. If they do not do this the price of their stock drops.

Adobe has probably reached its full market penetration. That is, they cannot pick up substantially more users than they already have. Their other products such as GoLive would have difficulty displacing the competitions products such as Dreamweaver.

So top management has to have a *PLAN* for increasing profits. The current plan seems to be to state that they lose significant sales to pirates and so they will combat the pirates.

They cannot afford to antagonize large clients, so they are not fighting there. So it is announced that it is the small folks who buy a single license who are the pirates and it is decided to do something to them.

Hence the present situation.

What else is Adobe to do to raise profits?

—- Paul J. Gans

pioe[rmv] <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

They *may* allow you to relicense the software for a new machine or they may not.
What recourse do we have if we are refused reactivation on a new machine?
I know that this is currently hypothetical, but it isn’t really. In fact if we are refused reactivation we have no recourse at all. We are bound by the license agreement and nowhere does it say that reactivation is guaranteed.

All this is very true, but as long as we are deprived of the right to control our own working tools (and thereby indirectly also the files we create with the software) it is a moot point whether or not we are allowed to re-activate or how many times we are granted that "favor." Either they pressurize us to buy programs (licenses) for software which they permanently control, or we pay for (copyable, one must have backup) software which we can install when we want, how many times we want, now and in the future. It is only the latter alternative that is acceptable. Here, no compromise is possible.

Today, I re-installed WordPerfect 7 for Windows, which I bought back in october 1996. Why would I accept having to /activate/ in order to install a tool which I need for opening old documents and making new ones? That is madness, we cannot accept it.

So the camel, as Per Inge implies, already has his nose in the tent. The tool is there to refuse if and when it becomes Again, profitable for the company to do that.

We simply need to state it openly: These people and companies have forfeited their right to be respected. A major part of the problem is those of us who "understand" "the need for the software industry to protect themselves from piracy." I used to be one of them until I fully understood the ramifications of "protection" against the very people who pay for the products. There simply can be no excuse for selling us products with this kind of attached strings. On top of everything, they even place code strings on our hard drives which are inaccessible to the user.

To be particular, what is Adobe fighting? Corporate accounts with multiple licenses do not need activation. OEM copies evidently don’t need activation. The code has been cracked and is readily available so that crooks and thieves don’t need activation.

To a large extent, it is a psychological thing. But, there is also much money involved. During the last few years, a whole new industry has emerged, a new industry whose only purpose is to develop "copy-control" and "Digital Rights Management" technology. This industry now has interests in its own, although it does of course not produce anything worthwhile or usable. Its only purpose is to make tools that enable other companies to control access to informational material, to music, to computer software and so on.

They repeat their mantra over and over again: "We must protect ourselves against the pirates, who do so much harm to society." "We must have in place strong protection of intellectual property." It is a sort of mass psychosis – an increasing emphasis is laid on mechanisms for access and copy control. Moreover, all this control is rather expensive. Which again means than the actual creation is alotted a lesser part of the total resources. Obviously, customers have to pay through their nose to finance all the non-productive control mechanisms. On top of being forced to use software over which we have no control and which is totally dependent on the availablity of activation/registration services, we are supposed to pay not only for the software itself, but necessarily also to cover all the formidable added costs incurred by the "protection."

But we /can/ stop this madness, if we take a firm stand, inform other people, and in general cease to "understand" and accept what is being done.

What is a "pirate"? In my book a pirate is a criminal who imposes his own will on others, the pirate is robbing his victims, one way or another. In addition, the pirate typically threathens its victims with dire consequences unless the pirate’s will is followed. Perversely, those who now start from the unspoken premise that their customers are at least potential "pirates" have most of the worst characteristics of true pirates.

The internet was built on cheap software that came with few restrictions — other than the usual disclaimer of competence (you know, not guaranteed to actually do anything). We ran CP/M (and had to usually write the drivers ourselves), used BASIC from some piddling company called Microsoft, and compiled real programs using BDS C. None of these companies used activation and none of them had licenses longer than their source code listing.

This is the latest development: "Trusted computing." These documents should be read by all:

http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031001_meditati ons.php http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7055

So, they do not even respect our rights to control our hardware.

– We have to ask openly and answer without fear to the question: Who are the true pirates?

I generally agree with you. I’ve just posted a long discussion about the need to make more money and thus the need to find places to make more, even if they are not real.

—- Paul J. Gans

pioe[rmv] <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Hecate wrote:

I hope, more in despair than anticipation that Open Software will eventually get somewhere. In truth though, I think that today’s business model will never allow it – not through any kind of negative reaction but simply through inertia.

Do not lose that hope, Hecate.

Here in Norway, I am heavily involved in political work for the advancement of Open Source software, and we have come so far as to have effected a nationwide adoption of Linux and Free Software programs in schools.

The Government is noticing, and now the debate rages whether state and municipal agencies should adopt the same policy. That will likely not happen this year, because the people from Microsoft and Business Software Alliance are lobbying intensely through "independent" consultants, but things are on their way and more and more are reacting against increasing license restrictions and higher prices. Characteristically, the more control, activation and limitation, the higher the prices the customers have to pay for (the use of) the software.

People see these things more and more, and I believe it is our duty to talk to others about it and help others to understand. That is the way awareness is created, and I have faith that we can do it. It will take some time, but we are on the side of genuine justice and truth.

If your government uses Windows operating systems, they have put their nation’s security in the hands of other people. You have no idea what is inside the Windows operating system.

This actually came up in Germany with the result that Microsoft offered to show them the source code if they would promise not to make it public. I assume that they will be allowed to compile that same source code which means that at least they will know what is in it.

But this is well off-topic for this newsgroup so let’s drop it.

—- Paul J. Gans

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message

I generally agree with you. I’ve just posted a long discussion about the need to make more money and thus the need to find places to make more, even if they are not real.

—- Paul J. Gans

So, ultimately, unless this tact causes loss of funds, they will continue on. BOYCOTT! Period! It is the only message (loss of sales) that is going to get any attention.

zuuum wrote:

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message

I generally agree with you. I’ve just posted a long discussion about the need to make more money and thus the need to find places to make more, even if they are not real.

So, ultimately, unless this tact causes loss of funds, they will continue on. BOYCOTT! Period! It is the only message (loss of sales) that is going to get any attention.

You are completely and undeniably right.

Per Inge Oestmoen

Paul J Gans wrote:

This actually came up in Germany with the result that Microsoft offered to show them the source code if they would promise not to make it public. I assume that they will be allowed to compile that same source code which means that at least they will know what is in it.

Even if off-topic:

It must be mentioned that unless the source code is public and accessible for all, the society and the individual still has no real rights to the code. Microsoft’s suggestion is therefore a strategy for meeting a perceived threat from genuinely Open Source software, in the hope that people will confuse the two. (Which are fundamentally different, make no mistake about it!) Code /must/ be public if it is to be open.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

zuuum wrote:

If I use proprietary
formats to produce original works, created within the terms of the software user license, why should I not have the right to install that program *temporarily* to present them on any machine at my disposal, as long as it is removed when I finish my presentations???

The answer is simple:

Because the software is proprietary, and because its owner feels powerful enough to dictate very strict terms for what you are allowed to do.

Per Inge Oestmoen

Paul J Gans wrote:

In the United States pressure is on all companies not only to show a profit, but to show a greater profit each year over the previous year. If they do not do this the price of their stock drops.

Adobe has probably reached its full market penetration. That is, they cannot pick up substantially more users than they already have. Their other products such as GoLive would have difficulty displacing the competitions products such as Dreamweaver. So top management has to have a *PLAN* for increasing profits. The current plan seems to be to state that they lose significant sales to pirates and so they will combat the pirates.
They cannot afford to antagonize large clients, so they are not fighting there. So it is announced that it is the small folks who buy a single license who are the pirates and it is decided to do something to them.
Hence the present situation.
What else is Adobe to do to raise profits?

Hello Paul.

This is a brilliant description of the situation and the mechanisms behind.

The question is how long will it take before a very large majority of the population fully understands what is happening and why, so that we can bring about the necessary change. I think the reactions in this group indicate that things are happening.

In the long run, it cannot be accepted that the working tools we need in order to create various kinds of digital information are controlled by other people than us, the people who use and need these tools. By forcing ever more rigid control over what we are allowed to do, a control which also extends to our own files and even our own personal data systems, software companies and also other content providers claim the right to control the whole chain of creation, access, storage and future work.

A society in which the access to, work with and storage of digital material becomes more and more important for all of us, cannot possibly tolerate such a situation.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

pioe[rmv] <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

Well, that is true insofar as it does not "call home" each time it starts. But it clearly checks activation by comparing data in the registry and in the program to data stored in what are areas of the hard drive not normally available to the user.

Which means they are /violating/ our personal property, in addition to imposing much inconvenience and permanent insecurity on us.

Let us ask without prejudices: Who are the pirates in this picture?

On top of everything, they add insult to injury: Who will have to pay for the costs of these control schemes, for the activation services with the necessary servers, databases and paid phone operators?

It is interesting, to say the least, to learn how the software industry devote more and more of their resources to other things than the actual production of software.

In the United States pressure is on all companies not only to show a profit, but to show a greater profit each year over the previous year. If they do not do this the price of their stock drops.

Adobe has probably reached its full market penetration. That is, they cannot pick up substantially more users than they already have. Their other products such as GoLive would have difficulty displacing the competitions products such as Dreamweaver.
So top management has to have a *PLAN* for increasing profits. The current plan seems to be to state that they lose significant sales to pirates and so they will combat the pirates.

They cannot afford to antagonize large clients, so they are not fighting there. So it is announced that it is the small folks who buy a single license who are the pirates and it is decided to do something to them.

Hence the present situation.

What else is Adobe to do to raise profits?

—- Paul J. Gans

I have kept out of this discussion as I am so old that I do not think I shall need another Photoshop.

However I had a crash about a year ago. I could not get my Firewall to work anymore – it took some time before I realised that I was being had.

I had paid for something like keymoney for a flat that I was to rent from thereon in. Well I do not like that. I buy a house. I expect outgoings like rates and insurance and upkeep. I do not expect a landlord to come around and demand money for something I have bought.

Fortunately I had a friend whose computer needed updating. I admit that the disk I took froom that computer is now in mine and it contained that very firewall. I feel no shame. Nobody told me that there was to be money paid out forever for that program.

It is good if you can get it – like money for old rope, which is exactly what some of the updates are. It is either that or the fact that the manufacturer wants to stay in business and he cannot do that with lousy software therefore the free updates.

I am sure that Adobe and like minded firms will feel the chill of the lack of business – I shall never spend money on something which the manufacturers state that I have not bought but have just paid for the license to use it – I sincerely hope that most other people will feel the same when they realise what is going on.

Borge in Perth, Australia

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:51:38 +0800, egrob nesredep
scribbled:

I shall never spend money on something which the
manufacturers state that I have not bought but have just paid for the license to use it

Well then starting with your OS you might as well start
deleting. You have NEVER ‘bought’ software (unless
you’ve negotiated with the company for the ownership
rights, and that I doubt) you’ve always and ONLY
paid for a license to install and use X (usually one)
number of copies of the program.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:49:23 +0100, "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org>
wrote:

They repeat their mantra over and over again: "We must protect ourselves against the pirates, who do so much harm to society." "We

$700.00 for a computer program. They’re the pirates..

$700.00 x however many users actually buy it = $x,xxx,xxx,xxx.00 for one program.

multiply that by the different programs they produce ! If they do go under it’s just them they need to look at. Who’d pirate an affordable program ?

I’ve always felt if a computer program company priced the software for the masses so that they could actually throw it away if it wasn’t right for them they’d make out even better than trying to make back every penny on the sale of one copy. ie: Lemonade $1 million dollars a glass. All I need to do is sell one glass. $0.05 lemonade sells much better than $1,000,000.00 lemonade.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

One of the probs most major software companies face is trying to come up with incredible reasons to upgrade.

Things have leveled off – I don’t think we’ll see exponential "benefits" from version to version like in the past.

Most new programs come with a few new bells & whistles, but fewer and fewer people can rationalize how this might be worth 300.00 more.

There’s no law saying someone MUST upgrade… if PS 4,5,6,7, works for most people now, it should work for us 5 years from now.

Activation included or not in PS 8, there had better be a clear reason – meaning benefits to us – to fork over more $$$.

JD

"Jeff H." …

Activation included or not in PS 8, there had better be a clear reason – meaning benefits to us – to fork over more $$$.

Fah. What’s more – the experienced among us, already know how to get those effects ("highlight/shadow"). For example, the healing brush isn’t really better than the tricks that most of us long-time Photoshoppers did manually.

Andreia Wilson wrote:

"Jeff H." wrote in message news:

Activation included or not in PS 8, there had better be a clear reason – meaning benefits to us – to fork over more $$$.

Fah. What’s more – the experienced among us, already know how to get those effects ("highlight/shadow"). For example, the healing brush isn’t really better than the tricks that most of us long-time Photoshoppers did manually.

If you have plenty of time and nothing else to do, you are right of course. But for most of us, time is money, so new options that make you work faster can certainly be worth the update price. Highlight/Shadow is not just a simple tool that brightens all pixels of a certain darkness. It’s an ‘intelligent’ tool that checks whether or not these dark pixels are part of a larger shadow area (if you use the advanced settings you can play with the radius to change that check). Shadow areas are brightened, other dark pixels are not. Yes, you can still do that manually, but it often means making extensive selections which is time consuming. If it saves me one or two hours a month only, then it pays for the entire the update price each month.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:40:21 +0100, (Johan W. Elzenga)
wrote:

If you have plenty of time and nothing else to do, you are right of course. But for most of us, time is money, so new options that make you work faster can certainly be worth the update price. Highlight/Shadow is

Yeah you’re right 1-2 years learning how to use the NEW functions will make things much faster and smoother.
Only thing that’s benefited from the computer age and even there not always is at the checkout line.
– Took more time to buy a misprinted $7.00 chair than it was worth. + Took more time to bag the groceries than to run them over the reader.

And then things moved so fast that you don’t really know how much you paid or how accurate it was until you take things home and go over each item 1 by 1. So even #2 isn’t ‘Saving time’ just duplicating things.
And then assuming they’ll let you come back and not go thru hours of ‘Straightening things out’ you need to return and rebag the items and with the registry receipt that didn’t get lost between the checkout and home. Yeah saves time.

Took days to get reports by a computer programmer expert, assuming they weren’t out sick. Saves time.. Yeah.. how long does a pencil with an eraser take to work ?

not just a simple tool that brightens all pixels of a certain darkness. It’s an ‘intelligent’ tool that checks whether or not these dark pixels are part of a larger shadow area (if you use the advanced settings you

Use saturation to define the shadow delineation on a separate throwaway layer for outlining purposes only.

then use the select tool and work on lightening or darkening just that area with feather.

can play with the radius to change that check). Shadow areas are brightened, other dark pixels are not. Yes, you can still do that manually, but it often means making extensive selections which is time consuming. If it saves me one or two hours a month only, then it pays

You really haven’t used that saturation tool much if that’s how you separate shadow from pix.

for the entire the update price each month.

I have to agree PS is and has been the only tool worth keeping and using for any graphics work.
I also say that it’s pretty much just bloating things since 5 by fleshing out previous functions, and renaming them.
And still keeping the old functions.

You haven’t spent much time learning the ‘Variations’ option. try turning on the highlighting then use the saturation and lights and darks until you can minutely correct the shadows and light areas. Just use the 1st click for fine, or use the last click for huge modifications. Or any step in between for exact mods.

I think I used and kept 6 on the machine for over a year while figuring out the new stuff in 7.
I haven’t seen any increase in speed or productivity. And it took me over a year to see that the upgrade was just a new package with the same name. 7 is the only version now on the drive, but only because I’m now comfortable with it. Took a year to get comfortable.

And anyone that thinks variations is cheating, hasn’t really used it to convert a B&W to full color. If it’s so washed out it looks B&W is what I mean. If there’s any color in the pix at all variations can work wonders.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Voivod wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:51:38 +0800, egrob nesredep
scribbled:

I shall never spend money on something which the
manufacturers state that I have not bought but have just paid for the license to use it

Well then starting with your OS you might as well start
deleting. You have NEVER ‘bought’ software (unless
you’ve negotiated with the company for the ownership
rights, and that I doubt) you’ve always and ONLY
paid for a license to install and use X (usually one)
number of copies of the program.

The determining factor is the actual /content/ of a license, what it gives you the right to do.

Even Free and Open Source software has a license. The GPL, for example, is a very solid and very strict license based firmly on copyright law.

However, the GPL is designed to /ensure/ the users’ freedom to use the programs as they need, not to take it away from them which is the case with most proprietary licenses.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Husky wrote:

If you have plenty of time and nothing else to do, you are right of course. But for most of us, time is money, so new options that make you work faster can certainly be worth the update price. Highlight/Shadow is

Yeah you’re right 1-2 years learning how to use the NEW functions will make things much faster and smoother.

If it takes you 1-2 years to learn how to use the Highlight/Shadow tool, then I can’t argue with that…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:17:39 +0100, (Johan W. Elzenga)
wrote:

Husky wrote:

If you have plenty of time and nothing else to do, you are right of course. But for most of us, time is money, so new options that make you work faster can certainly be worth the update price. Highlight/Shadow is

Yeah you’re right 1-2 years learning how to use the NEW functions will make things much faster and smoother.

If it takes you 1-2 years to learn how to use the Highlight/Shadow tool, then I can’t argue with that…

You’d pay $100-300 for the same function in levels,contrast,variations just because it’s been renamed and given it’s own icon ?

1-2 years to learn one function ? There was a lot in 7 from 6 that didn’t work the same.
Also had to search for the new utils that weren’t under the new icons.. Takes time to train / unlearn and relearn.

I’d prefer not having to relearn the same thing over and over again with a different name. The healing brush for example.. new name, old function. with a few bells added.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

I agree with you, this is my point. Photoshop is near the end of it’s development cycle.. The next major thing will be for it to be coded to run in 64 bit.

So instead of Adobe spending tons of resources on copy protection for a product that everyone already has legally or illegally – the cat’s out of the bag on that one – why not focus on creating brand new creative tools that are a "must have"?

Adding 4 things to a bloated program, stamping it with a higher version number, and charging 300.00 or more is a stagnant way of doing business. Speaking of which, goodbye Quark. It wasn’t a pleasure.

JD

Fah. What’s more – the experienced among us, already know how to get those effects ("highlight/shadow"). For example, the healing brush isn’t really better than the tricks that most of us long-time Photoshoppers did manually.

"Andreia Wilson" wrote in message

"Jeff H." wrote in message

news:…

Activation included or not in PS 8, there had better be a clear reason – meaning benefits to us – to fork over more $$$.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:28:45 +0100, "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:51:38 +0800, egrob nesredep
scribbled:

I shall never spend money on something which the
manufacturers state that I have not bought but have just paid for the license to use it

Well then starting with your OS you might as well start
deleting. You have NEVER ‘bought’ software (unless
you’ve negotiated with the company for the ownership
rights, and that I doubt) you’ve always and ONLY
paid for a license to install and use X (usually one)
number of copies of the program.

The determining factor is the actual /content/ of a license, what it gives you the right to do.

Even Free and Open Source software has a license. The GPL, for example, is a very solid and very strict license based firmly on copyright law.

However, the GPL is designed to /ensure/ the users’ freedom to use the programs as they need, not to take it away from them which is the case with most proprietary licenses.

Agreed, but for the most part extraneous and ludicrous additions to EULA will never stand up in a courtroom. But I really was addressing the person who said; "I shall never spend money on something which the manufacturers state that I have not bought but have just paid for the license to use it". And unfortunately for him, that covers every single piece of software he’s ever ‘bought’.

"zuuum" wrote:

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message

I generally agree with you. I’ve just posted a long discussion about the need to make more money and thus the need to find places to make more, even if they are not real.

—- Paul J. Gans

So, ultimately, unless this tact causes loss of funds, they will continue on. BOYCOTT! Period! It is the only message (loss of sales) that is going to get any attention.

*If* more people know when to be happy and when not to be happy then Adobe will get the message. Right now, I am guessing that Adobe is showing the loyal customers that using the cracked version is the better way to go.