«

Troy writes:

> Intuit's activation was different.

Apparently it used Macrovision technology which has the same problem
with corruption of the disk.

> Activation does not cause disk corruption.

It does in this case. The activation mechanism writes to reserved disk
sectors, corrupting the disk.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Tony Spadaro wrote:
> > The figures you quote:
> > "Two-thirds of Adobe's customers are saying they either
> > > won't upgrade to CS, or are switching to different software
> > > because of activation."
> > Sound like pure [expletive] to me.

Rick wrote:
> Tony "ad hominem" Spadaro speaketh again.
>
> http://forums.about.com/ab-graphicss...gnF=y&tid=4599

Um, Rick, that is a self-selecting survey, so its results are just about
meaningless. The survey does not show that two-thirds of *Adobe's customers*
say they won't upgrade because of activation, it shows that two-thirds of
*the people who voted in the survey* say that. Those people are hardly a
random sampling of Adobe's customers.

Surveys like this are heavily skewed toward people who care enough about the
issue to vote. People who aren't bothered by activation are much less likely
to vote in the survey.

You can bet that if two-thirds of Adobe's customers decided not to upgrade
because of activation, Adobe would drop activation like a hot potato. But if
you want to convince Adobe of that--or anyone who knows anything about
statistics--you'll need a survey with proper methodology, not a goofball
self-selecting survey like this one.

-Mike (not speaking for my employer, Adobe Systems, Inc.)

> >> (no, I do *not* work for Adobe
>
> >You should.
>
> >Unless the market nips this nonsense in the bud, eventually
> >we'll all be renting our software, or paying per use for it.
> >And that's exactly what the market appears to be doing.
> >Two-thirds of Adobe's customers are saying they either
> >won't upgrade to CS, or are switching to different software
> >because of activation.
>
> >Egos run very high at Adobe but the fact is they are not
> >Microsoft. They do not have an essential monopoly in their
> >respective market like MS does, and they won't get away
> >with shoving activation down the market's throat like MS did.
>
> >Rick
>
> I think that's a bit extreme. If Adobe keeps its promises
> the only folks inconvenienced are people like me who tend
> to chew up hard drives. Sure, I'd like it better if there
> was no activation. But I'll upgrade as soon as I get the
> new machine to avoid the "I've got a new hard drive" hassle.

you've payed for it, there's your morals taken care of,
now you can just crack the damn thing and never worry
about it again...

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:16:35 -0800, Troy <> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:25:44 -0800, "Rick" <> wrote:
>
>> Unless the market nips this nonsense in the bud, eventually
>> we'll all be renting our software, or paying per use for it.
>
>Regardless of how you feel, activation is here and is going to stay.

>Was that actually 2/3 of Adobe's customers, or 2/3 of Adobe's users?
>There's a big difference since Photoshop is one of the most
>widely-pirated pieces of software out there. Of course, most pirates
>won't upgrade or will switch to different software because they *can't*
>activate.

>I don't have much of a problem with activation. As long as no personally
>identifiable information is sent, I don't see why it's considered
>intrusive. Software piracy is a major problem and activation is one of
>the few forms of copy protection that actually works (mostly).
>
>As for renting software, activation does not necessarily mean software
>rental. They are two completely independent concepts. Activation does
>make annual licenses easier to enforce, but it isn't required. There
>already is software that expires after x number of days or x number of
>uses.
>
>The only difference is that, without activation, the user just has to
>roll their clock back. However, for most businesses, that's an
>inconvenience that just isn't worth the money saved by not renewing.
>Limited use licenses will exist even without activation.

My problem with activation is that my concept of purchasing something is that
_I_ purchased it, not 1 or 2 of my computers purchased.

OK, I can install it on my home computer and my laptop, but I have to buy it
all over again if I want it on the computer at work or the computer out in my
hamshack.

I maintain that I own it, and should be able to use it on any machine I choose
to use, whether its my machine or not. You could do this with a dongle.

The fact that a very large percentage of users will not become customers once
activation is predominate just shows that activation proponents are _not_
losing all the money they claim they are losing. Whether going through the
activation gyration will increase their bottom line or not will be
problematical.

For my part, between the $600 plus pricetag and the fact that I'm an amateur
photographer who simply owns a really nice digital camera (D1x), I'll go with
gimp, and suffer whatever shortcomings it may have. But if I want to use it on
6 computers, I'll use it on 6 computers.

Dave Head

"Troy" <> wrote:
>
> I don't have much of a problem with activation. As long as no personally
> identifiable information is sent, I don't see why it's considered
> intrusive. Software piracy is a major problem and activation is one of
> the few forms of copy protection that actually works (mostly).
>
> As for renting software, activation does not necessarily mean software
> rental. They are two completely independent concepts. Activation does
> make annual licenses easier to enforce, but it isn't required. There
> already is software that expires after x number of days or x number of
> uses.


The issue to me isn't intrusion or privacy, but the fact that the software
vendor has their hand around my throat, and can cut off my ability to
install (or even use, if they want) the software I have paid for, anytime
they like. Everyone buys a new computer every few years, and anyone
who thinks this does not amount to 'renting' software is being somewhat
naive, IMO. At what point will Adobe cease registering the current
version, making an upgrade necessary?

There is a legal issue that may not have been tested. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled several years ago that a software purchaser has the RIGHT
(not privilege) to make up to two backup copies of any software they
buy, no matter what the license agreement says. I am no lawyer, but it
might be argued that such a registration process makes it impossible to
effectively implement that right, especially if the software vendor were
to go out of business, making registration impossible. Any legal minds
around?
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

>From: "Tony Spadaro"

> Two questions:
> What did the upgrade cost you

It retails for $169 but my local boys didn't have it in stock so I checked on
the net and Dell had it for 10% off, free shipping, so $152.10 ... so check
around on one of the price shopping bots for the best price.

>Can you activate it for a computer that is not connected to the
>internet at all.

Yes, just phone in ... http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html ... quoting
"Users can choose the activation process they prefer: by Internet or phone,
either with a live Customer Care representative or through the 24-hour
automated Activation Voice Response (AVR) system. "

Bill

>From: Dave Head

>OK, I can install it on my home computer and my laptop, but I have to buy it
>all over again if I want it on the computer at work or the computer out in my
>hamshack.

You can activate it on two desktop computers, I know it says one desktop and a
laptop but fer sure you can activate on two desktops.

>For my part, between the $600 plus pricetag and the fact that I'm an amateur
>photographer who simply owns a really nice digital camera (D1x), I'll go with
>gimp

Photoshop Elements probably has everything you need.

>From: "Scott Fairbairn"

> Is the upgrade that important to someone that doesn't really use
> much in photoshop anyway?

Probably not. Elements is the better program for those guys, I think.

>Beyond the RAW converter, is there any really
>major changes or improvements?

The Shadow/Highlight tool was the best new feature for me. Depends on what
you're using Photoshop for.

>The better 16 bit support sounds great, but
>then it sounds like not everybody thinks it is that necessary anyway?

Most of the better known Photoshop authors say you're better off editing in 16
bit mode, but one guy (Dan Margulis) says it doesn't matter. Here's a link to
a pro-16 bit article ... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html
and here's a link to one of Dan's discussions ...
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_po...bit-16-bit.htm
(Andrew Rodney and Chris Murphy are in this thread and are both well known
experts who are disagreeing with Dan). As someone put it, "For every expert
there's an equal and opposite expert". Though Dan is definitely in the
minority on this issue.

>The raw converter is the only real draw for me as I hate the Canon
>converter, but I am probably going to buy Breezebrowser anyway, as it is
>supposed to be better than the plug-in for photoshop?

I have the Breezebrowser demo and have used it some but didn't like it as well
as the Photoshop converter. You can download it and try it for free ...
anything's better than the Canon converter

Bill

Personally, I despise this kind of petty bullshit. It reminds me of the stupid
old days when companies like Lotus locked their spreadsheet software so you
couldn't copy the floppy... It just led to people cracking the copy protection
and giving it to everybody they knew...

I have machines at home in two locations, and a separate one in the RV when I'm
traveling. I'm sure as hell not going to buy MULTIPLE copies just so ONE PERSON
can be on ONE MACHINE at different times.

I'd have more sympathy for Adobe if they weren't charging an astronomical amount
for their software. 'Course if it was more reasonably priced, I suspect there'd
be a LOT less piracy... Seems like the chicken and egg thing - they charge so
much people pirate the thing, and they say they're charging so much BECAUSE
people pirate it...

I voted "NO" on the upgrade. Time to stay with V7 or find a competitors
product.

dperez@juno_nospam.com writes:

> I voted "NO" on the upgrade. Time to stay with V7 or find a competitors
> product.

I'm still on version 5.x, and it seems to do everything that I require.
The fact is, very few people NEED to upgrade, so if they can get over
that conditioned reflex instilled by vendors that compels them to
upgrade for no good reason, they can save a lot of money.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.