By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,203 Members | 1,383 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,203 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Access 2003: "Activation"???

P: n/a
Just fired it up to see what it looked like.

They wanted me to "Activate" the product before the 50th use.
Geeze, I paid my money....now they want me to jump through their hoops?

Brings back unpleasant memories of Intuit's QuickBooks...

When did MS start this? It's not in 2000.
2002?

Did the activation thing just to see what would happen.
Not much, it turns out. "Registration" is a separate
issue and optional.

What did I do? Limit this copy/product code to working on a given PC?
Give away the farm?
--
PeteCresswell
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
30 Replies


P: n/a
Office activation began with Office XP. Windows XP also requires activation.
It is only required for individuals and small businesses -- the corporate
volume license, where installation is assumed to be done by some
adminstrator via the network, doesn't require it.

The activation does identify the hardware -- by some combination and
manipulation of various hardware serial numbers. Thus if you replace your
computer and reinstall on a new one, you will likely have to explain the
situation to a 'Softie on the other end of a phone line to get a new
activation code. You are allowed, as I recall, to install an individual copy
of Office on your fixed machine and on a portable one, but aren't supposed
to use both at the same time. The people who really complained were those
who never had more than one person using office, but used to install on
their office, home, and notebook computers.

Some other vendors have been force by public resentment to eliminate this,
but not Microsoft (and, in fact, not all others who have implemented it).

There are some who contend that it is just a step along the way to a
pay-per-use model for charging for software. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to
Microsoft's _intent_, other than what they have stated "to control the
number of installations of a given copy".

It is interesting that all the examples of blatant extra installs that
'Softies quoted to me in support of it were with corporate licensees, to
whom it does not apply anyway.

Larry Linson

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:u5********************************@4ax.com...
Just fired it up to see what it looked like.

They wanted me to "Activate" the product before the 50th use.
Geeze, I paid my money....now they want me to jump through their hoops?

Brings back unpleasant memories of Intuit's QuickBooks...

When did MS start this? It's not in 2000.
2002?

Did the activation thing just to see what would happen.
Not much, it turns out. "Registration" is a separate
issue and optional.

What did I do? Limit this copy/product code to working on a given PC?
Give away the farm?
--
PeteCresswell

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:SS****************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
There are some who contend that it is just a step along the way to a
pay-per-use model for charging for software.


I wonder whether rented software wouldn't be a good thing (dons asbestos
suit), in some ways No, seriously gals and guys.

Not just many, but actually most things we use are actually, to some extent,
'rented'. Bought as a service. Water, gas, electric, telecomms, are the
obvious ones.

But cars too. We think we 'buy' the thing but unless we pay the various
'rentals', petrol (gasoline to you people over there -->), insurance,
servicing (especially servicing as I'm now learning, that's the last Ford I
buy, back to VW for me next time) we all know it's not got any actual
utility.

Buildings have to be maintained, machines oiled etc.

In fact I think it tends to be more in consumer's minds that the 'I bought
this box of Office 2000 and now it's all mine for ever' prevails. I expect
that corps who shell out £xx,xxx on Oracle expect to pay support costs (is
that how it works?)

Look at Microsoft. Many people, and I think I'm one of them, think that
Office 97 was the best version they released. Or rather, for the vast
majority of users I see there is no real need to 'upgrade' to anything later
than Office 97. I see plenty of people using Word, Excel, Access apps I've
written for them and to be honest I can hardly think of any new features in
Office 2000 or later that they desperately need. But Microsoft somehow has
to make money, and the only way they can do that is buy persuading them to
get the newer versions.

If it was rented there might not be 'versions'. 'Oh, we rent MS Office' or
'we rent Star Office' or whatever. The software company would have an income
stream and would gradually develop, debug, improve the product. Rather than
trying to think of '50 reasons to upgrade to Office 2009' or whatever.

Of course, it may not work like that at all. We'll see!

My 2 pence worth.

Mike
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
The pirate copies of Office I see are the corporate version
That is an inherent weakness in the system. Companies that
don't have the same mix of corporate/personal clients would
be looking at different equation. As a developer, I would
be fascinated to see true estimates of the amount of business
MS has gained (or lost even) because of Office Activation.

(david)
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:SS****************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Office activation began with Office XP. Windows XP also requires activation. It is only required for individuals and small businesses -- the corporate
volume license, where installation is assumed to be done by some
adminstrator via the network, doesn't require it.

The activation does identify the hardware -- by some combination and
manipulation of various hardware serial numbers. Thus if you replace your
computer and reinstall on a new one, you will likely have to explain the
situation to a 'Softie on the other end of a phone line to get a new
activation code. You are allowed, as I recall, to install an individual copy of Office on your fixed machine and on a portable one, but aren't supposed
to use both at the same time. The people who really complained were those
who never had more than one person using office, but used to install on
their office, home, and notebook computers.

Some other vendors have been force by public resentment to eliminate this,
but not Microsoft (and, in fact, not all others who have implemented it).

There are some who contend that it is just a step along the way to a
pay-per-use model for charging for software. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to Microsoft's _intent_, other than what they have stated "to control the
number of installations of a given copy".

It is interesting that all the examples of blatant extra installs that
'Softies quoted to me in support of it were with corporate licensees, to
whom it does not apply anyway.

Larry Linson

Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
RE/
But cars too. We think we 'buy' the thing but unless we pay the various
'rentals', petrol (gasoline to you people over there -->), insurance,
servicing (especially servicing as I'm now learning, that's the last Ford I
buy, back to VW for me next time) we all know it's not got any actual
utility.

Buildings have to be maintained, machines oiled etc.


Yes, I wouldn't want Ford to have the option of disabling my car's engine when
their marketing department decided they needed to sell more cars.
--
PeteCresswell
Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
RE/
Office activation began with Office XP.


XP=2002?
--
PeteCresswell
Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:lr********************************@4ax.com...
RE/
But cars too. We think we 'buy' the thing but unless we pay the various
'rentals', petrol (gasoline to you people over there -->), insurance,
servicing (especially servicing as I'm now learning, that's the last Ford Ibuy, back to VW for me next time) we all know it's not got any actual
utility.

Buildings have to be maintained, machines oiled etc.
Yes, I wouldn't want Ford to have the option of disabling my car's engine

when their marketing department decided they needed to sell more cars.


Ha! It was the gearbox that got disabled. Sure, I take your point. I guess
it doesn't necessarily illuminate the issues by using analogies. After all,
software isn't really like any other product that we've had before.

Still, if you don't pay your ISP's bill you don't get to use their software
anymore. The wires will still be there (if you're on ADSL, dialup or
whatever) and you can probably still make telephone calls, but you can't use
their web server software, mail server software etc. It's only the fact that
that software is at some distance on their machines, rather than your own
that makes it seem different.

It sounds like I'm advocating software rental. Which I'm not really. I'm
actually fairly agnostic about it. It that's the way some companies go, like
MS, then for the reasons I stated originally I think it might be a good
thing. And I'm not being atall trivial or flippant or provocative, because I
think it makes a lot of sense for the reasons I've stated. Here's another.
When my mother has to pay £400 or whatever for a full version of Office, to
write the odd letter and so on, whereas a large corporate gets theirs for
perhaps £80 per copy (I was quoted at a large college I work at) where there
might be 100s of clerical workers bashing away all day, that doesn't seem
equitable either.

I'm not going to get upset about it, cause there's nothing I can do about
it, apart from going Linux and so on. Which as we all know is the future,
man <g>

Cheers, Mike
Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in
news:u5********************************@4ax.com:
Just fired it up to see what it looked like.

They wanted me to "Activate" the product before the 50th use.
Geeze, I paid my money....now they want me to jump through their
hoops?

Brings back unpleasant memories of Intuit's QuickBooks...

When did MS start this? It's not in 2000.
Not true. It was not present in the original release of Office 2K,
but it was there in later releases.
2002?

Did the activation thing just to see what would happen.
Not much, it turns out. "Registration" is a separate
issue and optional.

What did I do? Limit this copy/product code to working on a
given PC? Give away the farm?


Well, legally speaking, you've always been limited by MS's licensing
terms to installing their products on only one PC at a time.

I've always preferred the Borland licensing agreement, which says
that you treat the software like a book, which can be read only in
one place at one time, and that if you install their software in
more than one place, it's for your own personal use so that two
people are not using it at one time.

This is not going to get easier.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made all this possible and it's
only going to get more and more restrictive.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
If it was rented there might not be 'versions'. 'Oh, we rent MS
Office' or 'we rent Star Office' or whatever. The software company
would have an income stream and would gradually develop, debug,
improve the product. Rather than trying to think of '50 reasons to
upgrade to Office 2009' or whatever.


Don't you see that as an absolute disaster for Access applications?

I have clients who would, except for me having repeatedly cautioned
them about the fact that their Access app is wholly specific to a
particular Access version, think of their existing purchases of
Office in exactly the fashion you've described. I have to manage
their purchases of new equipment and make sure they don't attempt to
use their existing app with the new version of Access.

The usual procedure is that they buy the full Office Pro
pre-installed and when I set up the new PC, I remove Access from the
new PC and install the older version of Access for which their app
is designed. Occasionally extra work has to be done to get things
working properly (e.g., the licensing error, or DAO reference
problem), but it's a lot simpler than converting everyone to the
newer version (which wouldn't be legal, anyway, unless the client
spent tons of money on upgrades).

I have gotten a number of programming projects that came to me
specifically because the commercially available software to do the
same things had a large annual fee associated with it. The clients
involved preferred to shoulder the entire development expense
themselves rather than be tied to a particular vendor.

Keep in mind, also, that when you combine limited licenses with
activiation codes, if the software vendor goes out of business, you
could conceivably end up in a situation where you could not install
the software on a new PC at all, and lose access to all your data.
Because of this, I won't buy any more software that requires
activation unless the vendor has a key escrow plan (where they
deposit a universal key for unlocking the software for release by
the escrow holder only in the event that the original vendor goes
out of business and their assets are not purchased by another
company).

I won't upgrade my Finale music notation software unless the vendor
establishes a key escrow program, and I've told the vendor that.

I suppose it's unlikely Microsoft will ever go under, and, of
course, we have older versions of MS software that we could convert
back to for most things. But I'm very wary of activation in general
because you give up control of the data that you own to the vagaries
of the marketplace.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
if you don't pay your ISP's bill you don't get to use their
software anymore. The wires will still be there (if you're on
ADSL, dialup or whatever) and you can probably still make
telephone calls, but you can't use their web server software, mail
server software etc. It's only the fact that that software is at
some distance on their machines, rather than your own that makes
it seem different.


The ISP is providing a service that is measure in bandwidth, which
is time-based. It's rather different from software.

My cable company is finally forcing me to switch to a digital cable
box. They allow me to stay with the analog box, but they'd take away
all channels above 80 (and two of the channels I watch the most are
81 and 82). I hate the digital cable that Time Warner provides. I
have two friends with it, and it's really substandard, with lots of
audio dropouts and terrible picture decay. My analog signal on most
stations is much sharper than the picture my friends get with their
digital boxes.

But now I have to change, because they are no longer supporting the
product I want to use.

(and I don't know if my TiVo will work with the new box -- I'm
assuming there will be at least one IR definition will be able to
drive the digital cable box, but there's no guarantee with these
things)

Software subscriptions have the same disadvantages, because even
when they don't automatically keep you upgraded to the latest
version (which would be a disaster), they eventually drop support
for older versions, and since they hold all the cards under these
kind of activation routines, they could make it stop working after
they drop support (rather than just not providing support as MS does
with older software).

You won't see me recommending software subscriptions to any of my
clients.

Indeed, I hate the problems that come with anti-virus subscriptions,
which can force all sorts of problems onto client machines (it
happened to a client of mine in December, and they were forced to
upgrade from Norton 2002 to Norton 2004 to fix the problem!).

I don't like giving up control of the software environment on a PC
to an outside source, and subscription-based software gives me the
willies.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in
news:ou********************************@4ax.com:
RE/
Office activation began with Office XP.


XP=2002?


Larry is actually wrong. Activation began with the non-OEM CD
version of Office 2K that was released about a year after the
original. I have a client who bought it in, hmm, late 2000 or so,
and we had to register it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
RE/
This is not going to get easier.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made all this possible and it's
only going to get more and more restrictive.


Sounds like one more reason for Yours Truly to develop a quick-but-not-too-dirty
(i.e. "tactical") .Net template..... or totally regress to Access 2.0....
--
PeteCresswell
Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
> Because of this, I won't buy any more software that requires
activation unless the vendor has a key escrow plan (where they


Coincidently "convert to previous version" arrived at the
same time as Office Activation. (At least it did in Aus. I'm
not sure if USA got Office Activation when it was first released)

(david)

Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
I too would be interested in code for computer based solutions.
Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
The ISP is providing a service that is measure in bandwidth, which
is time-based. It's rather different from software.
Like I said, I'm agnostic on the thing. I'll go with whatever the people who
make the software decide is best for their business. BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE
ANY CHOICE AND I'M NOT GOING TO WHINGE.

You ARE renting software from your ISP. Bandwidth on it's own doesn't go
anything.

The basic problem is lack of imagination. We're all still so used to the
idea of software-in-a-box-that-we-own that we can't see all the software we
actually rent already, like telecoms software and ATM software and web
server software and.... Imaginarily word processing software and spreadsheet
be the same.
But now I have to change, because they are no longer supporting the
product I want to use.
That's life in a capitalist economy. You can only buy what somebody wants to
sell.
I don't like giving up control of the software environment on a PC
to an outside source


But you've already done that David. You target Windows based machines,
Office applications, SQL Server etc. etc. The 'outside control' is the
control of the companies (well, company it looks like) who wrote that
software. Seems to me that all that's happening is that MS are actually
enforcing the EULA (that nobody's bothered to read these past 2 decades).
The one that says, basically, 'you don't actually own this software by the
way, we're just letting you use it for a bit'.

Of course you haven't really lost control atall. Get a machine, install
Window 2000, Office 97 etc. and then NEVER EVER CHANGE ANYTHING. It'll still
work won't it? The only variable is the mains voltage and I daresay if the
lecky company ever changes that you could knock up a transformer at Radio
Shack (hey, I've played at Mr Radio Shack's house a couple of times!). So
what's the problem?

Ah, I see, you want to change the machines to the newer version of Windows
2010 and the old version of Office won't run on it. C'est la vie. Que sera.

Luckily there is an alternative I suppose and that looks like the open
source movement. Seems like a good idea, but right now I can't be arsed.

Toodle pip, Mike
Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a
"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote...
The basic problem is lack of imagination. We're all still so used to the
idea of software-in-a-box-that-we-own that we can't see all the software we actually rent already, like telecoms software and ATM software and web
server software and.... Imaginarily word processing software and spreadsheet be the same.
It is ironic that you complain that people cannot "think outside of the box"
yet try to put every piece of software we use in a "box" of its own....

:-)
Luckily there is an alternative I suppose and that looks like the open
source movement. Seems like a good idea, but right now I can't be arsed.


If you look closely there, people are not supporting the "put the latest
program on the 10 year old Office either, because it is fundamentally
unsupportable, a fact that has nothing to do with whether the source is
opened.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.

Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote...
The basic problem is lack of imagination. We're all still so used to the
idea of software-in-a-box-that-we-own that we can't see all the software we
actually rent already, like telecoms software and ATM software and web
server software and.... Imaginarily word processing software and

spreadsheet
be the same.


It is ironic that you complain that people cannot "think outside of the

box" yet try to put every piece of software we use in a "box" of its own....

:-)
Who's complaining?

You mean like a category of WP, SS etc.? Yes, I suppose I did. Still, until
somebody writes onebigprogramthatdoeseverything.exe. then I guess I'll just
have to continue thinking that this program is good for writing letters,
that one is good for doing calculations, the other one is good for writing
newsgroup replies.
Luckily there is an alternative I suppose and that looks like the open
source movement. Seems like a good idea, but right now I can't be arsed.


If you look closely there, people are not supporting the "put the latest
program on the 10 year old Office either, because it is fundamentally
unsupportable, a fact that has nothing to do with whether the source is
opened.


Whatever dude. I don't really have time to investigate that stuff now, but
I'm sure you're right.

--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


Oh man, no warranty?! No rights?! What sort of post is that?!

Mike MacSween

This post carries a complete lifetime no-quibble warranty. If you find that
it fails to function exactly as advertised we will re-imburse you in full.
Not only that, we will give you a whole years free!, yes a whole years
free!, of rights to all future posts.
Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote...
Oh man, no warranty?! No rights?! What sort of post is that?!


Well, pretty much the sort of post that everyone else does. I guess someone
just thought they could sue based on answer once? I'd blame that person,
personally. :-)

--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
The ISP is providing a service that is measure in bandwidth,
which is time-based. It's rather different from software.
Like I said, I'm agnostic on the thing. I'll go with whatever the
people who make the software decide is best for their business.
BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE AND I'M NOT GOING TO WHINGE.

You ARE renting software from your ISP. Bandwidth on it's own
doesn't go anything.


No, I'm not renting any software whatsoever from my ISP. I haven't
bought any, either. Indeed, my Internet connection uses absolutely
not one byte of software that came from my ISP -- every piece of
software is either part of my OS or software that I downloaded
elsewhere.
The basic problem is lack of imagination. We're all still so used
to the idea of software-in-a-box-that-we-own that we can't see all
the software we actually rent already, like telecoms software and
ATM software and web server software and.... Imaginarily word
processing software and spreadsheet be the same.
It's not lack of imagination. It's the control that we would give up
by going to a subscription model.

If the software is Internet-provided (either it runs remotely or it
has to have an Internet connection to be updated or run at all),
then the use of your software becomes dependent on the availability
of an Internet connection.

If it's not, then it will expire and you'll need to renew, perhaps
in circumstances where you can't do that easily.

Then there's the issue of upgrades and patches pushed down the wire
to you without your permission.

I have a TiVo, and I'm stuck with the upgrades they give me (I have
no control). Fortunately, they haven't taken away anything I care
about. But they did once alter the database such that the
programming categories that previously existed were altered in a way
that, apparently, couldn't be mapped from the old ones, so all my
category-based data got lost (wish lists based on category,
recommendations based on category). It wasn't a huge deal, but if it
had been something that really mattered, it would have been a major
problem.

And, of course, there's the case of ReplayTV, which took away the
30-second commercial skip in a slipstream upgrade.

I don't trust the software makers to get it right. I *am* a software
developer, and I know how hard it is to get it right, and I wouldn't
trust anyone to always get it right so that I'd trust them to
automatically upgrade my software. I certainly don't trust Windows
Update enough to do it automatically, so I'm not about to do the
same with subscription software.
But now I have to change, because they are no longer supporting
the product I want to use.


That's life in a capitalist economy. You can only buy what
somebody wants to sell.


If enough customers don't like it, the capitalist economy will force
the providers to change their ways.
I don't like giving up control of the software environment on a
PC to an outside source


But you've already done that David. You target Windows based
machines, Office applications, SQL Server etc. etc. The 'outside
control' is the control of the companies (well, company it looks
like) who wrote that software. . . .


Well, I have tested the software in a number of environments and
read about its reliability and features, so I have a choice about
which versions I put on my PC.
. . . Seems to me that all that's
happening is that MS are actually enforcing the EULA (that
nobody's bothered to read these past 2 decades). The one that
says, basically, 'you don't actually own this software by the way,
we're just letting you use it for a bit'.
No, they are going a step further and making it conceivable that
they can revoke your use of the software for arbitrary reasons. Or,
that it could stop working because they are no longer in existence
to pay the subscription to.
Of course you haven't really lost control atall. Get a machine,
install Window 2000, Office 97 etc. and then NEVER EVER CHANGE
ANYTHING. It'll still work won't it? . . .
Office97 is going to work on all versions of Windows for the
foreseeable future (with the appropriate registry tweaks to make it
run right under restricted user logons, but we've had to do that
since the release of Win2K).

It's the activation versions of software that tie you to a single
PC, and that's *wrong* -- you should be able to install the software
on any single PC you want, and the vendor should allow you to do so.
Otherwise, they are already selling you a "subscription" of sorts
that will eventually expire at some unspecified future date.
. . . The only variable is the
mains voltage and I daresay if the lecky company ever changes that
you could knock up a transformer at Radio Shack (hey, I've played
at Mr Radio Shack's house a couple of times!). So what's the
problem?

Ah, I see, you want to change the machines to the newer version of
Windows 2010 and the old version of Office won't run on it. C'est
la vie. Que sera.
Microsoft is changing the terms of their licensing, and, yes, they
have a right to do that. They have a right to drive their business
into the ground until they simply go out of business.

And, indeed, that seems to have been their strategy for about the
last five years, at least in regards to the attention they pay to
small business customers.

That's why most of my clients are spending a lot less on Microsoft
software than they did 5 years ago.
Luckily there is an alternative I suppose and that looks like the
open source movement. Seems like a good idea, but right now I
can't be arsed.


Not a very good alternative at all -- right now, open source
software is a pile of unusable crap, at just about every level.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #19

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
No, I'm not renting any software whatsoever from my ISP. I haven't
bought any, either. Indeed, my Internet connection uses absolutely
not one byte of software that came from my ISP -- every piece of
software is either part of my OS or software that I downloaded
elsewhere.
How do they send you web pages?
It's not lack of imagination. It's the control that we would give up
by going to a subscription model.
Tough
If the software is Internet-provided (either it runs remotely or it
has to have an Internet connection to be updated or run at all),
then the use of your software becomes dependent on the availability
of an Internet connection.
Yes
If it's not, then it will expire and you'll need to renew, perhaps
in circumstances where you can't do that easily. Then there's the issue of upgrades and patches pushed down the wire
to you without your permission.

I have a TiVo,
We know already.
That's life in a capitalist economy. You can only buy what
somebody wants to sell.


If enough customers don't like it, the capitalist economy will force
the providers to change their ways.


Go on then. Develop your own desktop database software then. Oh wait, I
forgot, y'all tried that already. I've not looked for a while, how's that
project going?
Office97 is going to work on all versions of Windows for the
foreseeable future (with the appropriate registry tweaks to make it
run right under restricted user logons, but we've had to do that
since the release of Win2K).
You really don't get it do you?
It's the activation versions of software that tie you to a single
PC, and that's *wrong* -- you should be able to install the software
on any single PC you want, and the vendor should allow you to do so.
Who says? You've got a contract with Microsoft. It says, 'don't break the
seal if...' We all know about activation now. Don't buy it if you don't like
the deal. Right or wrong doesn't come into this. It's a commercial contract.
Microsoft is changing the terms of their licensing, and, yes, they
have a right to do that. They have a right to drive their business
into the ground until they simply go out of business.


We'll see. As I keep saying, I'm easy either way. No doubt Microsoft will
appreciate the business advice from Fenton Associates. You have told them
you don't like activation, yes?

Mike

Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
No, I'm not renting any software whatsoever from my ISP. I
haven't bought any, either. Indeed, my Internet connection uses
absolutely not one byte of software that came from my ISP --
every piece of software is either part of my OS or software that
I downloaded elsewhere.


How do they send you web pages?


My ISP doesn't "send me web pages."

I communicate directly with the servers that host the web pages.

Granted, there is software running on intermediate hosts that belong
to my ISP between me and the source web page, but I am not "renting"
that software.

I'm buying the connectivity.

The rest of your post is not worth responding to.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #21

P: n/a
rkc

"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. .
Go on then. Develop your own desktop database software then. Oh wait, I
forgot, y'all tried that already. I've not looked for a while, how's that
project going?


Yowza!

When riled, your like the baddest muthafukka in the valley.
Nov 12 '05 #22

P: n/a
rkc

"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. .
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
No, I'm not renting any software whatsoever from my ISP. I haven't
bought any, either. Indeed, my Internet connection uses absolutely
not one byte of software that came from my ISP -- every piece of
software is either part of my OS or software that I downloaded
elsewhere.


How do they send you web pages?


In the early days of Road Runner you did actually have to run their
proprietary software. You had to connect and sign on much the
same as you do with a dial up ISP. Now, your just part of their
network by means of whatever technical magic makes that work.
I suppose you could say that it's software that makes the "cable
router" work and you do more or less rent that.


Nov 12 '05 #23

P: n/a
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.bomb> wrote in message
news:MS*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

"Mike MacSween" <mi***********************@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:40***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. .
Go on then. Develop your own desktop database software then. Oh wait, I
forgot, y'all tried that already. I've not looked for a while, how's that project going?


Yowza!

When riled, your like the baddest muthafukka in the valley.


LOL! Nice one Rick. Except I'm not in the least bit riled. I couldn't give 2
noots (actually I meant hoots, but I prefer noots) about whether people
wanna sit around whining about he latest activation routine blah blah. My
point above was that there seem to be plenty enough people doing that so
they oughta get together and set up an alternative.

I like a lot of Microsoft software. And some of it I don't like. If they
want me to activate it before I use it, that's fine. At least I get 50
chances to try it first. If I don't like it then I have the choice not to
use it.

Toodle pip, Mikey Mo
Nov 12 '05 #24

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
The rest of your post is not worth responding to.
That's true.

But just so I've got an alternative, perhaps you could remind me of the URL
for that Desktop Database Replacement project. Should be finished by now,
huh?

TTFN, Mikey mo
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #25

P: n/a
RE/
At least I get 50
chances to try it first. If I don't like it then I have the choice not to
use it.


What do they do to prevent clearing the counter via
unstallation/re-installation? Hide something in the registry?
--
PeteCresswell
Nov 12 '05 #26

P: n/a
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:48********************************@4ax.com...
RE/
At least I get 50
chances to try it first. If I don't like it then I have the choice not to
use it.
What do they do to prevent clearing the counter via
unstallation/re-installation? Hide something in the registry?


I don't know. Apparently there are 'cracked' copies of pretty much all MS
software so presumably somebody has worked it out. I can't be bothered.

Looked at your original post Pete, are you saying you had to activate it
before you had used it 50 times? I thought you got 50 uses and _then_ you
had to activate in order to be able continue using it.

Mike
--
PeteCresswell

Nov 12 '05 #27

P: n/a
> unstallation/re-installation? Hide something in the registry?

There are protected areas of the registry that are used for
product registration: I don't know to what extent Office uses
them.

(david)

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:48********************************@4ax.com...
RE/
At least I get 50
chances to try it first. If I don't like it then I have the choice not to
use it.


What do they do to prevent clearing the counter via
unstallation/re-installation? Hide something in the registry?
--
PeteCresswell

Nov 12 '05 #28

P: n/a
RE/
Looked at your original post Pete, are you saying you had to activate it
before you had used it 50 times? I thought you got 50 uses and _then_ you
had to activate in order to be able continue using it.


Before 50. I couldn't take the suspense....had to see what it was all
about....

In retrospect, I think I made a mistake by doing it online instead of over the
phone. Online, I'd guess they can associate CPU info with the key.

I don't develop in 2003...just wanted to take a look at it since it was part of
my MSDN subscription - especially the ADP part.
--
PeteCresswell
Nov 12 '05 #29

P: n/a
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote:
In retrospect, I think I made a mistake by doing it online instead of over the
phone. Online, I'd guess they can associate CPU info with the key.


Yes, but folks have analyzed the data sent and have deduced how it works. AFAIK
there is no means of using any kind of CPU serial number. It's more a matter of
combinations of hard drive size, ram size and other factors. If you change too many
of these in under 90 or 120 days it wants to activate again. Or is that Windows XP?
Hmmm, I could be completely wrong.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 12 '05 #30

P: n/a
Hello

Well, that is windows XP
Normally you should not re)active an office product at all
/chris
"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:tq********************************@4ax.com...
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote:
In retrospect, I think I made a mistake by doing it online instead of over thephone. Online, I'd guess they can associate CPU info with the key.
Yes, but folks have analyzed the data sent and have deduced how it works.

AFAIK there is no means of using any kind of CPU serial number. It's more a matter of combinations of hard drive size, ram size and other factors. If you change too many of these in under 90 or 120 days it wants to activate again. Or is that Windows XP? Hmmm, I could be completely wrong.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

Nov 12 '05 #31

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.