Reactivation Necessary

[Matt Beckwith]

I'd like to open a discussion of the whole problem of an application
recognizing when reactivation is necessary.

Recently, I've been asked to "reactivate" two applications, Windows XP
and Norton Systemworks.

The fact that the applications thought that they needed to be
activated even though no such reactivation should be necessary is one
problem. But the bigger issue is, can an application figure out that
it's already been activated on a particular computer?

I would think that each computer would carry some sort of unique
identifier which any application could read, analogous to a vehicle
identification number, which an application could use to tell whether
that particular application on that particular computer has already
been activated (or registered).

This would solve the problem of needing to re-activate an application
when it's re-installed on a computer whose hard disk had to be
reformatted.

Re-activation wouldn't be a problem if there were no maximum number of
activations for an application, but of course there are for most--as
there should be, since otherwise you could install the application on
all your friends' computers.

 

[JAX]

There is a "vehicle" that will remember activations and allow you to
re-install as many times as you wish. It is called an image of the drive.
DriveImage is one such application. Set up your system drive and install
whatever software you want and create an image of it, after everything is
registered/activated and your preferences are set, and use it to re-install.
Not only will everything be activated, it will take far less time to
install. All of your e-addresses, favorites, etc, will be there waiting for
you.

I did a clean install of XP, activated, installed some of my basic software,
Office, AV, firewall, AutoCAD, etc., and did a test to see how efficient the
"backup" was. I trashed my system and used the image to restore the system
to the way it was. It took 13 minutes to have the system back to where it
was. I am very pleased with DriveImage

FWIW, JAX

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I do not know about Norton, but for Windows there is no limit for the
number of activations on the original computer.

If Activation is tripped when it shouldn't, something went wrong.
It is doubtful something could be created that is 100% reliable.

See this link for more on WPA:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm

I am curious,
"sort of unique identifier which any application could read"
"which an application could use to tell whether that particular
application on that particular computer has already been activated (or
registered)"
Since the hardware has not changed, or even if it has, how is software
on the CD supposed to know it is being installed on the correct
computer?
The software won't have anything to identify the computer and the
computer has nothing to identify if the software is legitimate.
Somewhere along the way you will need activation or a substitute for
activate as long as something is desired to limit installations.

 

[JAX]

Hi Jupiter,

My post was based on the "assumption" that the OP was referring to a
re-install of the OS and applications that require activation. As you said,
"It is doubtful something could be created that is 100% reliable.".

JAX

 

[kurttrail]

I do not know about Norton, but for Windows there is no limit for the
number of activations on the original computer.

If Activation is tripped when it shouldn't, something went wrong.
It is doubtful something could be created that is 100% reliable.

See this link for more on WPA:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm

I am curious,
"sort of unique identifier which any application could read"
"which an application could use to tell whether that particular
application on that particular computer has already been activated (or
registered)"
Since the hardware has not changed, or even if it has, how is software
on the CD supposed to know it is being installed on the correct
computer?
The software won't have anything to identify the computer and the
computer has nothing to identify if the software is legitimate.
Somewhere along the way you will need activation or a substitute for
activate as long as something is desired to limit installations.

"It is doubtful something could be created that is 100% reliable."

And since PA is of absolutely no use to the End User, then why in the hell
should people continue to buy software with crap in it?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Ask the people that buy it since it is everyone's individual choice.
You already know my answer.

 

[Alex Nichol]

The fact that the applications thought that they needed to be
activated even though no such reactivation should be necessary is one
problem. But the bigger issue is, can an application figure out that
it's already been activated on a particular computer?

I would think that each computer would carry some sort of unique
identifier which any application could read, analogous to a vehicle
identification number, which an application could use to tell whether
that particular application on that particular computer has already
been activated (or registered).

This would solve the problem of needing to re-activate an application
when it's re-installed on a computer whose hard disk had to be
reformatted.

For the way Windows activation does it see my page
www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm and the Microsoft Technical documents
linked from it if you want to go further.

That produces a 'signature' for things to check that might be seen
rather like a Bank card PIN; it is so unlikely to arise by accident that
it can be used to check 'this is the right machine' without being
possible to 'unwindow' it to find what specific machine it is. Any
attempt to identify specific machines *would generate an uproar over
privacy

The information stored on the machine is checked at boot by the system
to see it still fits. Unfortunately it is rather an open target for
viruses. And I have my suspicion that Symantec's activation is managing
to interfere with Windows one; but that may just my suspicions of
Symantec going too far

 

[kurttrail]

Ask the people that buy it since it is everyone's individual choice.

LOL! Some people are starting to get a choice, but most have none but
accept PA.

You already know my answer.

Yeah, PA is God.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"PA is God"
That is entirely your idea because it certainly is not mine.

 

[David Senior]

Matt,

I understand the activation will be abolished from next year when Office 2005 is released. The reason given by MS insider is that the objective of activation isn't working. The idea was to stop mass duplication of CDs and serial numbers but as you might know that pirates have succeeded. They are copying corporate versions (that requires VLK - Volume License Key but no activation) and selling for $20 at a time. VLKs can be obtained by IT technicians from their clients. Also, people who have access to a machine running coprporate versions (libraries and public places such as colleges, universities, local councils, and schools) can easily obtained the VLK by using a utility such as: http://www.magicaljellybean.com/keyfinder.shtml. Also, there are sites that distribute serial numbers. So it is the innocent, law abiding citizen like my next door neighbour (senior citizen dare I say) who Microsoft is giving incovenience. They don't have the time to think about whether to format their hard disk or not and whether activation will be granted or not etc. So MS loses these customers because of complications.

Also, corporate users are investigating whether to start investing in Linux or open source products. So this too is going to hurt Microsoft. Microsoft's obsession with all things security has made them lose sight of competition out there!! Good for consumers though as prices of M$ products might tumble!!

So continue patching your system and keep yourself busy!!

I'd like to open a discussion of the whole problem of an application
recognizing when reactivation is necessary.

Recently, I've been asked to "reactivate" two applications, Windows XP
and Norton Systemworks.

The fact that the applications thought that they needed to be
activated even though no such reactivation should be necessary is one
problem. But the bigger issue is, can an application figure out that
it's already been activated on a particular computer?

I would think that each computer would carry some sort of unique
identifier which any application could read, analogous to a vehicle
identification number, which an application could use to tell whether
that particular application on that particular computer has already
been activated (or registered).

This would solve the problem of needing to re-activate an application
when it's re-installed on a computer whose hard disk had to be
reformatted.

Re-activation wouldn't be a problem if there were no maximum number of
activations for an application, but of course there are for most--as
there should be, since otherwise you could install the application on
all your friends' computers.

--
--
I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no activation.

I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for my work.

I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching rich jerks!

 

[Alex Nichol]

I understand the activation will be abolished from next year when Office 2005 is released. The reason given by MS insider is that the objective of activation isn't working. The idea was to stop mass duplication of CDs and serial numbers but as you might know that pirates have succeeded.

It wasn't. Such piracy was never the aim, because it was realised the
pirates would find ways around. And they are a big problem, especially
when the stolen goods get sold to innocents who believe they are getting
a good deal from some promise to 'international air mail' from Eastern
Europe.

The aim was to deter the very many ordinary people who were under the
impression they could buy one CD and install it on every machine in the
house, for their neighbors and for grandmother's cat. With the
expansion of PCs into family networks, one per person, this was becoming
a serious problem. I think they should provide a discount licensing
scheme for such family nets; taking account of the saving on
distribution costs and on commitment to support, but this was the target

 

[kurttrail]

"PA is God"
That is entirely your idea because it certainly is not mine.

You did leave it to me to give your answer for you. ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

What is your definition of "ordinary innocent people"?
Do you mean those who steal without knowing?
Are you suggesting stealing should be acceptable just because the
person does not know they are stealing?
Does a business not have a right to take measures to protect its
property and also the investment of its stockholders?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/

So you agree with me then that when Microsoft's sales are not good
then hit the ordinary innocent people.so that they fork out upto $350
to bolser M$ vaults!!

I am glad an MVP agrees with me.

Best regards,


Alex Nichol wrote:

David Senior wrote:


I understand the activation will be abolished from next year when
Office 2005 is released. The reason given by MS insider is that the
objective of activation isn't working. The idea was to stop mass
duplication of CDs and serial numbers but as you might know that
pirates have succeeded.


It wasn't. Such piracy was never the aim, because it was realised the
pirates would find ways around. And they are a big problem, especially
when the stolen goods get sold to innocents who believe they are
getting
a good deal from some promise to 'international air mail' from Eastern
Europe.

The aim was to deter the very many ordinary people who were under the
impression they could buy one CD and install it on every machine in
the
house, for their neighbors and for grandmother's cat. With the
expansion of PCs into family networks, one per person, this was
becoming
a serious problem. I think they should provide a discount licensing
scheme for such family nets; taking account of the saving on
distribution costs and on commitment to support, but this was the
target





--
--
I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no
activation.

I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need
for my work.

I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in
enriching rich jerks!

 

[David Senior]

Alex says,

"The aim was to deter the very many ordinary people"

So you agree with me that when Microsoft's sales are not good then hit the ordinary innocent people.so that they fork out upto $350 to bolster M$ vaults!!

I am glad an MVP agrees with me.

Best regards,

David Senior wrote:




It wasn't. Such piracy was never the aim, because it was realised the
pirates would find ways around. And they are a big problem, especially
when the stolen goods get sold to innocents who believe they are getting
a good deal from some promise to 'international air mail' from Eastern
Europe.

The aim was to deter the very many ordinary people who were under the
impression they could buy one CD and install it on every machine in the
house, for their neighbors and for grandmother's cat. With the
expansion of PCs into family networks, one per person, this was becoming
a serious problem. I think they should provide a discount licensing
scheme for such family nets; taking account of the saving on
distribution costs and on commitment to support, but this was the target

--
--
I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no activation.

I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for my work.

I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching rich jerks!

 

[Alias]

What is your definition of "ordinary innocent people"?
Do you mean those who steal without knowing?
Are you suggesting stealing should be acceptable just because the person
does not know they are stealing?
Does a business not have a right to take measures to protect its property
and also the investment of its stockholders?

Face it, Mr Jones, the licence agreement is a scam and redefines possession
of property so who's the thief? I have five tombraider games. I can install
them on as many computers as I feel like it and Eidos/Core is not going out
of business or screaming "thief!". Why? These games don't even have a
"product key". Why? Why does Eidos/Core define buying software differently
than MS? Who gave MS the right to redefine property?

When you said MS, one of the most profitable companies on the planet whose
CEO is the richest man in the world, has a "right to take measures to
protect its property and the investment of its stockholders", you meant that
as a joke, right?

Alias

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Why do you think it is a joke for a company to want to protect its
property?
It is not relevant how much money the companies make although thieves
often use that as an excuse to justify their own illegal behavior.

Instead of asking me, perhaps you should ask Microsoft and Eidos/Core.
If those games allow unlimited installations, that is their business,
if you agree to an EULA and then do otherwise, that makes a liar and
probably a thief as well.
The creators of the product have a right to determine how to sell the
product.

Whether there is a Product Key or not is not relevant.
Why do you bring it up?

 

[Alias]

Face it, Mr Jones, the licence agreement is a scam and redefines

possession of property so who's the thief?

 

[Alex Nichol]

So you agree with me that when Microsoft's sales are not good then hit the ordinary innocent people.so that they fork out upto $350 to bolster M$ vaults!!

I do not agree that someone who has been made aware of license terms and
seeks to evade them is innocent. I do agree that MSoft should have a
well thought out and reasonably priced family license (and have said so
to MSoft at a very high level)

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

The EULA is not a scam, however many thieves seem to think so.
If someone does not like it, they can choose not to agree or better
yet choose to buy a different product.
In any event the person chooses to honor what they agreed or they
choose to lie, their choice.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/

 

[Al Smith]

Alex says,

"The aim was to deter the very many ordinary people"

So you agree with me that when Microsoft's sales are not good then hit the ordinary innocent people.so that they fork out upto $350 to bolster M$ vaults!!

My theory has always been that Product Activation is all about
control. Microsoft is gradually restricting the freedom with which
its customers use its software. Their ultimate goal is total
control over use, so that they can specify ever finer areas in
which the software can and cannot be used, and charge for each area.