Re-installing Microsoft Word-Lost Product Key

[Guest]

I am re-installing Word after re-installing Windows XP, but I can't find the
product key that is required. Is there any way to bypass that step, or to
get the key. It is a Gateway System. Thank you for your help

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I am re-installing Word after re-installing Windows XP, but I can't find the
product key that is required. Is there any way to bypass that step, or to
get the key. It is a Gateway System. Thank you for your help

You can extract the key from your old installation with keyfinder.exe
from http://www.magicaljellybean.com/keyfinder.shtml.

In view of the large amount of money you pay for your software,
it would be a good idea to start a register of all product keys, and
to keep a paper copy in a safe place in case you have to reload
the lot. Relying on installation CDs is not a good idea.

 

[Al Stu]

In view of the large amount of money we pay Microsoft for software,
Microsoft should provide a better solution.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

What did you have in mind?

In view of the large amount of money we pay Microsoft for software,
Microsoft should provide a better solution.

 

[Al Stu]

I expressed in my previous message what I have in mind, a better solution.
If I have to come up with a better solution for Microsoft I'd expect to be
handsomely compensated for my work. That's what Microsoft employee's get
paid to do, so I'm not going to undercut them by provide a solution for
free.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I'm not aware of any previous message on this subject.
Regardless of this, if you believe that your solution beats
Microsoft's current approach, why don't you get in touch
with them? You might very well get your handsome
compensation!

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Al;
Whether Microsoft should or should not can be debated at length.
However Microsoft nor any other company using something similar is
required to furnish a better option.
Thus the owner should take steps to adequately protect his own
property.

Until Microsoft is given a mandate to determine how owners must
protect their own property, owners must take responsibility themselves
for protecting their own property.

In the case of the OP, this is OEM.
Why do you ignore Gateway in this?
Since Gateway is they OEM, the software was acquired at a cheaper
price partially so Microsoft has no support responsibility.
I guess it is easy to ignore one party when you are prejudice against
another.

 

[Geoffw]

I paid a lot for my car, I locked myself out and they made
me pay for the locksmith - why didn't they just accept I
owned the car and open it for me at their expense

 

[Guest]

Occasionally a human makes a mistake: to err is human to forgive is devine.

Now the devine folks at Belarc have made a wonderful product called Belarc
Advisor which will scan all relevant elements of your computer and list ALL
ahrdware and Software and Serial numbers for them.

Get hold of this free download and run it on your PC.

Print off the report and make sure that this time, you keep it in a safe
place.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I am re-installing Word after re-installing Windows XP, but I can't find the
product key that is required. Is there any way to bypass that step, or to
get the key. It is a Gateway System. Thank you for your help

No, you cannot "by-pass" the step that verifies that you own a valid
license to use the software; that's the whole point of the Product Key.
The 25-character Product Key for Microsoft Word (required to perform
the installation) is stored on the CD packaging on a bright orange
sticker that says "Do not lose this number."

If it was a retail license and you have proof of purchase:

How to Replace Lost, Broken, or Missing Microsoft Software or Hardware
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;326246

If it was an OEM license, you should contact the computer's
manufacturer; although very few manufacturers/vendors keep records of
the Product Keys they've sold, it's worth a try before you have to buy
a new license.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Bruce Chambers]

In view of the large amount of money we pay Microsoft for software,
Microsoft should provide a better solution.

And just what would you have Microsoft do? Require that all potenetial
purchasers of Microsoft products take courses in personal responsibility
and organization? It's not Microsoft's fault that some people are
oblivious.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Al Stu]

So you just post replies to messages without reading them? In my message
time stamped 11/27/2004 9:24 PM, I stated, "Microsoft should provide a
better solution."

I did not say I currently have a better solution. But that Microsoft should
provide a better solution and that if I was to devise one I'd expect to be
handsomely compensated for my work. Do you not comprehend the English
language?

I also think Microsoft should raise the MVP qualification standards.

 

[Al Stu]

What? Me prejudice against Microsoft? Not hardly. I cheer them on. And I
have never said nor advocated that people should not take responsibility for
protecting their software licensing investment. But that does not be they
can't and shouldn't do better.

Lets be clear here this is a license purchase not a software purchase. And
it is perfectly appropriate to expect a licensor to maintain records of
licenses it has granted and to whom. Otherwise, from a practicality
standpoint, enforcement is impossible because party A could obtain a
key-code and give it to party B, and so on, and Microsoft would have no
reliable means of proving who is not the legitimate licensee.

I find it funny how industry provides lackluster products, support, etc. and
then when the government decides to make a mandate they all say we can
regulate our selves. The best way for Microsoft and others to avoid
government imposed regulations is to provide better solutions to such issues
in the first place and there by prove they don't need government imposed
regulations.

 

[Al Stu]

What percentage of the new car purchase price was the locksmith fee? Did
you get back access to your car without having to buy a new one, and for
much, much, much, much, much, MUCH less?

Your analogy actually bolsters my position that Microsoft should provide a
better solution.

 

[Al Stu]

As I've mentioned before, what I think Microsoft should do is provide a
better solution. Is that really so hard to understand? And also again, I
have never advocated that people shouldn't take personal responsibility for
protecting their software licensing investments. But that doesn't mean
Microsoft shouldn't provide a better solution.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

It appears that you sometimes jump to conclusions. I did read
your message, of course, but I assumed that you were referring
to some other thread, a message with a little more substance.
Now that you have clarified this point it is obvious that there
is nothing outside this thread, that your two-liner is all there is.

You are also assuming that everyone lives in the same time zone
as you do. The message that is flagged as "9.24 PM" on your
newsreader is flagged with a completely different time stamp
on my newsreader.

Lastly you appear to assume that people who do not immediately
agree with you are incapable of comprehending the English
language. This is not a promising starting point for a productive
discussion.

I was looking forward for a few useful ideas to be tossed around.
On the one hand I don't have much patience for people ignoring
the sticker "Don't lose this number! You must use it every time
when you install this software. So be sure to store this case in a
safe place" that is printed on all Microsoft CD cases. On the other
hand, there is a big difference between a car lock and a software
licence number: The car lock protects the OWNER of the car against
theft. The software licence number protects the AUTHOR of the
software against theft. Based on this fundamental difference
you could build a case that the software supplier has some
responsibility to assist the purchaser in managing his licence
numbers.

 

[Al Stu]

Assumptions are very different than asking questions, such as if you
comprehend the English language. So again I must ask, do you not comprehend
the English language?

It's not about whether or not you agree with me. Really doesn't matter to
me if you do or not. But you are reading much into and twisting what I had
ACTUALLY said. Thus the question about comprehending the English language.

Most of the rest of your last message I've made my position clear on already
as well so I'll not waste time regurgitating it further.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"it is perfectly appropriate to expect a licensor to maintain records
of
licenses it has granted and to whom"
Really?
Says who?
Even if it is a good idea, there is no requirement.
Thus in the meantime people need to take responsibility for their own
property until the law give control of your property to Microsoft.

As for "Microsoft would have no reliable means of proving who is not
the legitimate licensee"
That part of licensing is based largely on trust.
That is why it is easy for a person following the license has no
problem transferring the license.
I do not count the phone calls to Microsoft problems.

Microsoft has an easy way to prove who has the legitimate license.
If necessary, you call during activation and tell them, you are
activated if Microsoft determines you have a valid license.

 

[Geoffw]

You can get your key back from either MS or OEM at less then
new cost

Point is I cannot hold MS responsible if I lose the key -
especially when they advise me very clearly "not to lose
key", there are avenues to remedy this but they cost $$

in regards to the example

the locksmith was worth more than the car