http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis

\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
up."

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been
locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are
not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca
Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division.
"Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the
problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a
time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
//

In article <d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com>, 
toby@telegraphics.com.au says...
>
>http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
>
>\\
>Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
>Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
>their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>
>"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
>user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
>a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
>
>"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
>up."
>
>Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been
>locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are
>not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca
>Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division.
>"Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the
>problem and will not at this point."
>
>Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a
>time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.
>
>The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
>//

I'm sorry, but I don't catch the connection between Adobe's "activation" and a 
server, storing personal data, locking up. They seem to be two different 
things. While the server's problem (and obviously the problem that that causes 
for users) is not minor, how does this apply to Adobe?

Just curious as to what I am missing here,
Hunt

In article <d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com>, Toby
Thain <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:

> Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

  We're waiting for you to talk about activation ....

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:16:24 -0400, Steve Moody
<whywasteyourtime@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com>, Toby
>Thain <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
>> Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
>> their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>
>  We're waiting for you to talk about activation ....

I think what he's trying to suggest is this:

You need to activate your software. You have a job for a client due.
You can't, because the server won't let you. Of course, you then go to
your older version of Illy/PS, whatever and use that...

 --

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com 
veni, vidi, reliqui

Apologists for whining:   Get a life


"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
>
> \\
> Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>
> "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
> user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
> a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
>
> "Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
> up."
>
> Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been
> locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are
> not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca
> Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division.
> "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the
> problem and will not at this point."
>
> Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a
> time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.
>
> The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> //

"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> >
> > \\
> > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> > their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
> >
> > "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
> > user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
> > a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

Natural selection, hard at work.  Morons who patronize these
copy protection schemes deserve exactly what they get.  Or
don't get as the case may be.

Just remember, TUESDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY.

Rick

noone@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote in message news:<cedogv52nji@news3.newsguy.com>...
> In article <d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com>, 
> toby@telegraphics.com.au says...
> >
> >http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> >
> >\\
> >Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> >Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> >their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
> ...
> >
> >The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> >//
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't catch the connection between Adobe's "activation" and a 
> server, storing personal data, locking up. They seem to be two different 
> things. While the server's problem (and obviously the problem that that causes 
> for users) is not minor, how does this apply to Adobe?

In both cases you are putting your productivity (ability to use the
software) in the hands of a second party. Not only are you subject to
their hardware and software failures, you are also subject to their
licensing caprices and solvency. These are the new licensing caveat
that "Activation" brings. I would suggest "DeActivation" is more
accurate & recommend a healthy scepticism concerning claims that "it
is better for the customer"!

Some thoughts raised:
* Adobe customers should pray their "activation" servers run Linux,
and not whatever M$ runs;
* In this situation, a pirate user (with a cracked copy) would be far
more productive;
* A competing product without "Activation" might honestly use the
slogan, "our software isn't crippled".

> 
> Just curious as to what I am missing here,

I believe the parallels are obvious.

--Toby

FREE Photoshop and Illustrator plugins:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

> Hunt

"Larry" <me@myhome.xyz> wrote in message news:<WkCOc.3128$FW1.703@lakeread06>...
> Apologists for whining:   Get a life

So you won't whine when you're bitten by "De"Activation?

T

> 
> 
> "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> >
> > \\
> > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> > their online personal finance files for nearly four days. ...
> >
> > The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> > //

ahh I think I am beginning to grasp this thread.  Please forgive me for
being a little bit slow on the uptake.

I think I may have a solution of sorts and it runs like this (assuming
Activation has been completed is good and thorough and valid)

a sudden DE-activation is encountered = loss of operational software

If the de-activation is improper then IMHO there is a case to be made for
compensation along the lines of who authorised the de-activation, what
notice was given or did it just happen without prior notice, what losses
were sustained or generated by sudden de-activation  ...  I could go on and
I am sure you get the picture

This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of others
using alternative supply sources

It is also IMHO another case of hitting those one knows rather than those
one does not know

But there again I may be missing the point totally and completely therefore
reserve the right to be wrong on this one

Arts

"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0407310056.595cfa2d@posting.google.com...
> "Larry" <me@myhome.xyz> wrote in message
news:<WkCOc.3128$FW1.703@lakeread06>...
> > Apologists for whining:   Get a life
>
> So you won't whine when you're bitten by "De"Activation?
>
> T
>
> >
> >
> > "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> > > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> > >
> > > \\
> > > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> > > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> > > their online personal finance files for nearly four days. ...
> > >
> > > The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> > > //

"Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message news:<7iLOc.267$vN4.209@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>...
> ahh I think I am beginning to grasp this thread.  Please forgive me for
> being a little bit slow on the uptake.
> 
> I think I may have a solution of sorts and it runs like this (assuming
> Activation has been completed is good and thorough and valid)
> 
> a sudden DE-activation is encountered = loss of operational software
> 
> If the de-activation is improper then IMHO there is a case to be made for
> compensation along the lines of who authorised the de-activation, what
> notice was given or did it just happen without prior notice, what losses
> were sustained or generated by sudden de-activation  ...  I could go on and
> I am sure you get the picture

Yes. It opens new opportunities for accidental or intentional
revocation, enforced by technological measures, that do not exist with
the traditional license. Hecate has a nice angle on it: how do you
explain to YOUR creditors - the utility company, the finance company -
that you can't pay your bills because your software was somehow
DeActivated? Who ya gonna call? Compensation seems unlikely and the
fine print in your new-look Adobe license probably disclaims it.

It is true that one's livelihood is already somewhat dependent on
e.g., the ISP, the electricity company, but do we really need to add
capricious and self-interested software companies to that list? What's
in it for us?

> 
> This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of others
> using alternative supply sources

Anti-piracy is only the rationalisation, and a demonstrably worthless
one. The real reasons have more to do with forcibly converting
"purchasers" into "subscribers", to better control the bottom line.

> 
> It is also IMHO another case of hitting those one knows rather than those
> one does not know
> 
> But there again I may be missing the point totally and completely therefore
> reserve the right to be wrong on this one

Best to expect flames either way...

T

> 
> Arts
> 
> "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:d6ce4a6c.0407310056.595cfa2d@posting.google.com...
> > "Larry" <me@myhome.xyz> wrote in message
>  news:<WkCOc.3128$FW1.703@lakeread06>...
> > > Apologists for whining:   Get a life
> >
> > So you won't whine when you're bitten by "De"Activation?
> >
> > T
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> > > > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> > > >
> > > > \\
> > > > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> > > > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> > > > their online personal finance files for nearly four days. ...
> > > >
> > > > The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> > > > //

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2n0al4Fqt22vU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> > > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> > >
> > > \\
> > > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> > > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> > > their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
> > >
> > > "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
> > > user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
> > > a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
> 
> Natural selection, hard at work.  Morons who patronize these
> copy protection schemes deserve exactly what they get.  Or
> don't get as the case may be.

The M$ Money situation may not involve copy protection per se, but it
is an example of total reliance on systems you don't control and can't
fix or influence. You're at their mercy. It's no coincidence that
Money is basically a subscription product. That's the way they are
herding us, folks - yet another stark parallel to Adobe's
"activation".

But why, of all things, would you trust your confidential financial
data to a faceless outside service* - M$ no less?? I feel
uncomfortable enough putting such important data on a computer at all
- let alone a computer in another state or country accessible only
through an evidently fragile conduit. Seems a very imprudent idea, as
these people are finding out the hard way...

We can chuckle at the plight of M$ Money subscribers today. But
companies like Adobe could put us in the same position tomorrow. What
happens when you can't run the software that is your livelihood?

--Toby

*Yes, I use PayPal, but my business certainly doesn't depend on it.

> 
> Just remember, TUESDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY.
> 
> Rick

In message <d6ce4a6c.0407310745.171f4b41@posting.google.com>,
toby@telegraphics.com.au (Toby Thain) wrote:

>We can chuckle at the plight of M$ Money subscribers today. But
>companies like Adobe could put us in the same position tomorrow. What
>happens when you can't run the software that is your livelihood?

Photoshop is not my livelyhood, just part of a hobby, but I am on the
verge of not being able to use it.  It has reported twice already that
the hardware has changed, and needs to be reactivated.  There was no
change of hardware, whatsoever.  I believe that a conflict with the
disk-scan portion of AVG antivirus (which crashed the system a couple of
times) led to the apparent change of hardware.  I have disable the disk
scan for about three months, and the false hardware change has not
happened again.  None of the other programs that have activation
detected a change of hardware.

The next time, I'm going to have to make a phone call, and it's probably
going to be when no one is answering the phone.

I'm not against companies preventing unlicensed usage, but they really
need to find a better way.  Some of the schemes used in the past have
been deadly to system performance and stability.  Software vendors seem
to believe that you buy a computer to run their software, and the rest
of the system does not matter.
-- 

 <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
   John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>
 ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I think this has less to do with activation and more to do with people being
so stupid that they store the financial information online and with
Microsoft no less. They can't even secure IE what in the hell makes anyone
think they could keep your financial information secure, safe and available
at all times.

Geeze, where the hell has common sense went?

John


"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
>
> \\
> Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>
> "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
> user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
> a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
>
> "Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
> up."
>
> Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been
> locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are
> not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca
> Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division.
> "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the
> problem and will not at this point."
>
> Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a
> time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.
>
> The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> //

In article <d6ce4a6c.0407310731.22b46f79@posting.google.com>,
 toby@telegraphics.com.au (Toby Thain) wrote:

> Yes. It opens new opportunities for accidental or intentional
> revocation, enforced by technological measures, that do not exist with
> the traditional license. Hecate has a nice angle on it: how do you
> explain to YOUR creditors - the utility company, the finance company -
> that you can't pay your bills because your software was somehow
> DeActivated? Who ya gonna call? Compensation seems unlikely and the
> fine print in your new-look Adobe license probably disclaims it.
> 
> It is true that one's livelihood is already somewhat dependent on
> e.g., the ISP, the electricity company, but do we really need to add
> capricious and self-interested software companies to that list? What's
> in it for us?

    These are IMHO _very_ wise words -- and are certainly going to form
    the core of my future response to any activation/deactivation 
    schemes.


> > This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of others
> > using alternative supply sources
> 
> Anti-piracy is only the rationalisation, and a demonstrably worthless
> one. The real reasons have more to do with forcibly converting
> "purchasers" into "subscribers", to better control the bottom line.

    Equally well put.

In article <d6ce4a6c.0407302029.5b4f4e67@posting.google.com>, 
toby@telegraphics.com.au says...
>
>noone@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote in message news:<cedogv52nji@news3.newsguy.com>
....
>> In article <d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com>, 
>> toby@telegraphics.com.au says...
>> >
>> >http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
>> >
>> >\\
>> >Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
>> >Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
>> >their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>> ...
>> >
>> >The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
>> >//
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but I don't catch the connection between Adobe's "activation" 
and a
> 
>> server, storing personal data, locking up. They seem to be two different 
>> things. While the server's problem (and obviously the problem that that 
causes
> 
>> for users) is not minor, how does this apply to Adobe?
>
>In both cases you are putting your productivity (ability to use the
>software) in the hands of a second party. Not only are you subject to
>their hardware and software failures, you are also subject to their
>licensing caprices and solvency. These are the new licensing caveat
>that "Activation" brings. I would suggest "DeActivation" is more
>accurate & recommend a healthy scepticism concerning claims that "it
>is better for the customer"!
>
>Some thoughts raised:
>* Adobe customers should pray their "activation" servers run Linux,
>and not whatever M$ runs;
>* In this situation, a pirate user (with a cracked copy) would be far
>more productive;
>* A competing product without "Activation" might honestly use the
>slogan, "our software isn't crippled".
>
>> 
>> Just curious as to what I am missing here,
>
>I believe the parallels are obvious.
>
>--Toby
>
>FREE Photoshop and Illustrator plugins:
>http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/
>
>> Hunt

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" 
process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run PS on 
my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some third-
party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI and the 
rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my case, 
at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?

Hunt

In article <d6ce4a6c.0407310745.171f4b41@posting.google.com>, 
toby@telegraphics.com.au says...
>
>"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2n0al4Fqt22vU1@uni-berlin.de>
....
>> "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
>> > > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
>> > >
>> > > \\
>> > > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
>> > > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
>> > > their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>> > >
>> > > "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
>> > > user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
>> > > a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
>> 
>> Natural selection, hard at work.  Morons who patronize these
>> copy protection schemes deserve exactly what they get.  Or
>> don't get as the case may be.
>
>The M$ Money situation may not involve copy protection per se, but it
>is an example of total reliance on systems you don't control and can't
>fix or influence. You're at their mercy. It's no coincidence that
>Money is basically a subscription product. That's the way they are
>herding us, folks - yet another stark parallel to Adobe's
>"activation".
>
>But why, of all things, would you trust your confidential financial
>data to a faceless outside service* - M$ no less?? I feel
>uncomfortable enough putting such important data on a computer at all
>- let alone a computer in another state or country accessible only
>through an evidently fragile conduit. Seems a very imprudent idea, as
>these people are finding out the hard way...
>
>We can chuckle at the plight of M$ Money subscribers today. But
>companies like Adobe could put us in the same position tomorrow. What
>happens when you can't run the software that is your livelihood?
>
>--Toby
>
>*Yes, I use PayPal, but my business certainly doesn't depend on it.
>
>> 
>> Just remember, TUESDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY.
>> 
>> Rick

In the case of M$, the stated goal for XP was to have the OS, all 
applications, and all data stored on servers in Redmond, WA (or where ever the 
decided location was to have been), and then each day, every user WOULD phone 
home to upload all OS, apps, and data onto smart terminals. THEN one would 
truly be at the mercy of M$ and the various weak links in the connection. That 
idea was replaced with a more traditional OS, but I doubt that it is dead.

Imagine what would happen to the world, if the plan had been implemented, most 
systems had gone to it, and Bill Gates were to wake up in a foul mood, 
deciding that unless GB were to bomb Paris, no one in the world could start 
their computers, or gain access to any of their data.

Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still eludes me. 
Are you saying that it is step one, or many?

Hunt

"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message news:ceh2s412l3b@news1.newsguy.com...
> Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still eludes me.
> Are you saying that it is step one, or many?

If you research Macrovision's SafeCast copy protection
(which is what PS CS uses), you'll discover the software has
four licensing options, one of which is FORCED
SUBSCRIPTION.  In other words, at any point Adobe
could decide to move from activation to subscription, and the
software necessary to enforce this licensing has already been
installed on their customers' systems.

As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step
on a much longer ladder.  Steve Ballmer and execs of other
major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
subscription fees.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Rick

"Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message news:DNVOc.652$Mg1.448@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2n2jl2FrqvaoU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
> news:ceh2s412l3b@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still
> eludes me.
> > > Are you saying that it is step one, or many?
> >
> > If you research Macrovision's SafeCast copy protection
> > (which is what PS CS uses), you'll discover the software has
> > four licensing options, one of which is FORCED
> > SUBSCRIPTION.  In other words, at any point Adobe
> > could decide to move from activation to subscription, and the
> > software necessary to enforce this licensing has already been
> > installed on their customers' systems.
> >
> > As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step
> > on a much longer ladder.  Steve Ballmer and execs of other
> > major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
> > envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
> > Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
> > subscription fees.
> >
> > THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> Hi Rick
>
> I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but consumers
> tend to vote with their spondoolies
>
> Megabucks for web actvated software that can trip out on a whim or a moments
> notice OR cracked software that bypasses all of that at 10% of retail price?
>
> Which will win in the "real world"?

Open source software is the future of computing.  Adobe,
Microsoft et al are busy greeding themselves out of existence.
Their business model belongs to the last century.

Rick

Adobe could have instantly created a large number of "apologists for
activation" had they shared some of the supposed financial benefits of
activation by dropping the price.

They did not.
-- 

Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net

Hmmm - have the software houses got it all wrong?  Maybe all right?

Where I live it seems cracked & copied software is easier (I'll write that
again: easier) to obtain than the legit stuff (and at 10% of the price?).
Conclusion: software houses are loosing out on the high street or e-high
street

If software user numbers are increasing but registered users not increasing
at the same rate - well there is an obvious widening gap in how software
houses generate income

I am beginning to wonder if the practices used are actually translating as
encouragement?

For example
<comments@perfect-shareware.com> wrote in message
news:ztSOc.4152$Jp6.1512@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

A perplexed Arty



"AES/newspost" <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:siegman-0B0209.10154831072004@news.stanford.edu...
> In article <d6ce4a6c.0407310731.22b46f79@posting.google.com>,
>  toby@telegraphics.com.au (Toby Thain) wrote:
>
> > Yes. It opens new opportunities for accidental or intentional
> > revocation, enforced by technological measures, that do not exist with
> > the traditional license. Hecate has a nice angle on it: how do you
> > explain to YOUR creditors - the utility company, the finance company -
> > that you can't pay your bills because your software was somehow
> > DeActivated? Who ya gonna call? Compensation seems unlikely and the
> > fine print in your new-look Adobe license probably disclaims it.
> >
> > It is true that one's livelihood is already somewhat dependent on
> > e.g., the ISP, the electricity company, but do we really need to add
> > capricious and self-interested software companies to that list? What's
> > in it for us?
>
>     These are IMHO _very_ wise words -- and are certainly going to form
>     the core of my future response to any activation/deactivation
>     schemes.
>
>
> > > This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of
others
> > > using alternative supply sources
> >
> > Anti-piracy is only the rationalisation, and a demonstrably worthless
> > one. The real reasons have more to do with forcibly converting
> > "purchasers" into "subscribers", to better control the bottom line.
>
>     Equally well put.

Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard
crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
hassle-free. Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a
user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just to
avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas. Now Quark's cockamamie
authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to Indy
CS rather than QXP 6. It's just too obtrusive for me, given that I don't
want nor need most of the new features. We bought our copies of QXP 4 when
it came out, and soon after lost several of the install floppies and CDs due
to sloppy IT management from young punks who never bothered to register or
keep track of the disks (we do have 8 nice boxes with various info and
manuals left intact). But that's not a hassle, 'cuz when I build a new
machine to replace an old one, I can just copy the QXP folder from anyone
else's machine and run it. We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to
worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it. I
know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't
worth the trouble...



>
> Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation"
> process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run
PS on
> my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some
third-
> party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI and
the
> rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my
case,
> at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
>
> Hunt
>

I'm not so sure of that. We upgraded several copies of ID to CS for $169, as
well as PS and Illustrator for that price. I also bought the freakin'
Creative Suite for $569. These are not outrageous prices IMO for software
that could be considered essential to modern graphic design work. Far less
than the cost of certain other programs and their extensions. With Photoshop
and Acrobat alone, Adobe has 2 of the applications that make using a
computer worthwhile and actually productive....


"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:E8VOc.2928$lr2.1659@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Adobe could have instantly created a large number of "apologists for
> activation" had they shared some of the supposed financial benefits of
> activation by dropping the price.
>
> They did not.
> -- 
>
> Mike Russell
> www.geigy.2y.net
>
>

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2n2jl2FrqvaoU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
news:ceh2s412l3b@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still
eludes me.
> > Are you saying that it is step one, or many?
>
> If you research Macrovision's SafeCast copy protection
> (which is what PS CS uses), you'll discover the software has
> four licensing options, one of which is FORCED
> SUBSCRIPTION.  In other words, at any point Adobe
> could decide to move from activation to subscription, and the
> software necessary to enforce this licensing has already been
> installed on their customers' systems.
>
> As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step
> on a much longer ladder.  Steve Ballmer and execs of other
> major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
> envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
> Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
> subscription fees.
>
> THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
>
> Rick
>
Hi Rick

I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but consumers
tend to vote with their spondoolies

Megabucks for web actvated software that can trip out on a whim or a moments
notice OR cracked software that bypasses all of that at 10% of retail price?

Which will win in the "real world"?

Arts

>

Yeh - those are the lines I am thinking along.  A realistic pragmatic
approach designed to swoon consumers (please excuse the poetry) rather than
alienate consumers (is this making any sense?)

There is a theory (psychology) based on the observation that some important
decision makers become surrounded with "like-minded" thinkers end up going
down a cul-de-sac - a road that leads to nowhere.

Basically in as polite generalities as possible: the event space of decision
taking is strongly dissassociated with the event space those policies have
to work in.

Are you with me or am I being far too vague?

Arts

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:E8VOc.2928$lr2.1659@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Adobe could have instantly created a large number of "apologists for
> activation" had they shared some of the supposed financial benefits of
> activation by dropping the price.
>
> They did not.
> -- 
>
> Mike Russell
> www.geigy.2y.net
>
>

"Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message news:<DNVOc.652$Mg1.448@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...
> "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2n2jl2FrqvaoU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > ...
> > As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step
> > on a much longer ladder.  Steve Ballmer and execs of other
> > major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
> > envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
> > Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
> > subscription fees.
> >
> > THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> Hi Rick
> 
> I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but consumers
> tend to vote with their spondoolies

That is the power that we have, and we *must* exercise it if we don't
like what's planned for us.

The monopolies can still be toppled by a cheaper and better
competitor; Linux proves it. Adobe's "Linux" may not yet have
appeared, but their anti-customer practices are making conditions ripe
for it.

--Toby

> 
> Megabucks for web actvated software that can trip out on a whim or a moments
> notice OR cracked software that bypasses all of that at 10% of retail price?
> 
> Which will win in the "real world"?
> 
> Arts
> 
> >

"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<bmVOc.2658$uC7.2092@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
> Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty
> benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard
> crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
> hassle-free. 

OK, now imagine that it fails, and you cannot get it to activate. Does
that prospect make you sweat? (Seem unlikely? Ask a M$ Money user.)

Sure, you'd go back to Photoshop 7 -- in which case, why did you blow
the money on the "Activated" product in the first place?

> Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a
> user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just to
> avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas. 

It also increases the motivation for cracking and distributing cracks,
which means there are more of them, and they are more easily
available. Many people have remarked upon this side-effect of Adobe's
supposedly-unpiratable Activated products. (Similar effects are
observed with supposedly-unpiratable Windoze XP.)

> Now Quark's cockamamie
> authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to Indy
> CS rather than QXP 6. ... We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to
> worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it. I
> know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't
> worth the trouble...

The same kind of arrogance at Quark that sank XPress (former market
leader) is evidently rife at Adobe. Our money built those corporations
and when our patronage is withdrawn, they will starve.

--Toby

> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation"
> > process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run
>  PS on
> > my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some
>  third-
> > party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI and
>  the
> > rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my
>  case,
> > at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
> >
> > Hunt
> >

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:08:23 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:16:24 -0400, Steve Moody
><whywasteyourtime@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com>, Toby
>>Thain <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
>>> Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
>>> their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>>
>>  We're waiting for you to talk about activation ....
>
eh, I'm waiting for someone to explain what kind of moron puts their
"personal finance files" on any server they dont own or control,
especially servers owned by microsoft.... 

Dennis Gordon wrote:

> I'm not so sure of that. We upgraded several copies of ID to CS for
> $169, as well as PS and Illustrator for that price. I also bought the
> freakin' Creative Suite for $569. These are not outrageous prices IMO
> for software that could be considered essential to modern graphic
> design work. Far less than the cost of certain other programs and
> their extensions. With Photoshop and Acrobat alone, Adobe has 2 of
> the applications that make using a computer worthwhile and actually
> productive....

That is fine for you. Adobe upgrade offers here are in the 350-400 EURO
range and the Creative Suite is offerred for something beyond the 2000
Euro limit. And that with 1 US$ = 0.86 Euro.

If the activation process is restarted when one connects an external
harddisk to a notebook (or several different ones) or if you use
different types of docking station with the same notebook, this would
be a risk too high for me to upgrade - and as I can not try, I won't.

Michael

Toby Thain wrote:

> "Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
> news:<DNVOc.652$Mg1.448@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...
> > "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:2n2jl2FrqvaoU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > ...
> > > As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step
> > > on a much longer ladder.  Steve Ballmer and execs of other
> > > major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
> > > envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
> > > Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
> > > subscription fees.
> > > 
> > > THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
> > > 
> > > Rick
> > > 
> > Hi Rick
> > 
> > I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but
> > consumers tend to vote with their spondoolies
> 
> That is the power that we have, and we must exercise it if we don't
> like what's planned for us.
> 
> The monopolies can still be toppled by a cheaper and better
> competitor; Linux proves it. Adobe's "Linux" may not yet have
> appeared, but their anti-customer practices are making conditions ripe
> for it.

For the typical consumer who doesn't need the few "killer" functions
(spot colors, CMYK editing, extra large files beyond Windows memory
limits) there are enough alternatives.

But people still prefer Mercedes Benz over Lexus or the latest Kia
models....

Michael

noone@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote in message news:<ceh2s412l3b@news1.newsguy.com>...
> ...
> In the case of M$, the stated goal for XP was to have the OS, all 
> applications, and all data stored on servers ... That 
> idea was replaced with a more traditional OS, but I doubt that it is dead.
> 
> Imagine what would happen to the world, if the plan had been implemented, most 
> systems had gone to it, and Bill Gates were to wake up in a foul mood, 
> deciding that unless GB were to bomb Paris, no one in the world could start 
> their computers, or gain access to any of their data.

That's right: it's not so much about controlling access to the
applications; it's about controlling access to your data. This is one
of the most important reasons why Activation/Subscription models are
not acceptable. You *own* your data. I for one don't want Adobe or M$
or anyone between me and my data.

So not only might you one day be prevented from running, e.g. InDesign
CS, but because the data format is proprietary *and deliberately not
backward compatible*, you cannot even roll back to an earlier version
of InDesign (or Photoshop, or whatever), just to access your own
files.

Prospective Adobe (and M$) purchasers might contemplate that, before
they write the cheque: what if one morning DeActivation turns your new
G5 into a very expensive paperweight? (And to business users: what if
your entire production dept is DeActivated one morning?)

M$ eventually posted a workaround for the recent Money problem (
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1324234 ), but I
don't see any mention of compensation.

--Toby

> 
> Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still eludes me. 
> Are you saying that it is step one, or many?
> 
> Hunt

In message <bmVOc.2658$uC7.2092@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Adobe's activation system is pretty
>benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard
>crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
>hassle-free.

How many times have you done that?  Does it use up your chances to
activate without a phone call?  I have had it happen exactly twice,
after AVG antivirus disk scan crashed the system.  I am thinking that
the next time will require a phone call.
-- 

 <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
   John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>
 ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well,
but I'm not sure). Each time it's been reactivated without pain or
questions. I think it takes aspects of your hardware configuration into
account. If the machine hasn't been modified, I don't think there's a limit
to how many times you can activate... but I could be wrong...


<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:ft1qg0pt869rbt5e4bhjv9b2u0diqe6adq@4ax.com...
> In message <bmVOc.2658$uC7.2092@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Adobe's activation system is pretty
> >benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a
hard
> >crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
> >hassle-free.
>
> How many times have you done that?  Does it use up your chances to
> activate without a phone call?  I have had it happen exactly twice,
> after AVG antivirus disk scan crashed the system.  I am thinking that
> the next time will require a phone call.
> -- 
>
>  <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
>    John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>
>  ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

In article <pvvog0lf3qmaacg2pi5blv4q0vh9605fcu@4ax.com>,
 Straggler <ogre@theblackgate.net> wrote:

> eh, I'm waiting for someone to explain what kind of moron puts their
> "personal finance files" on any server they dont own or control,
> especially servers owned by microsoft.... 

In fact, I had a nasty experience once in which a lot of data I had 
accumulated over several years was on my own computer OK -- but stored 
in an proprietary and undocumented application-specific format, with no 
provision in the application to export all this accumulated data into 
some neutral or generic format which I decided to switch to a different 
application.

Learned about computers and data storage from that . . .

In article <ft1qg0pt869rbt5e4bhjv9b2u0diqe6adq@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm 
wrote:

> >Adobe's activation system is pretty
> >benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard
> >crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
> >hassle-free.


I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer 
foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for 
a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.

In message <vX7Pc.2678$il.730@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

>I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well,

Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless?  I
started using AVG because I heard that it didn't mess the system up like
Symantec or McAffee.  I only use the background scan of AVG now; the
scheduled late-night disk scans were what was crashing the system,
apparently.  I made the connection when I looked through the system
alert logs and found the last entries on the night of the crash were a
few minutes after the disk scan started.
-- 

 <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
   John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>
 ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

In message <siegman-18A0F7.09294001082004@news.stanford.edu>,
AES/newspost <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <ft1qg0pt869rbt5e4bhjv9b2u0diqe6adq@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm 
>wrote:
>
>> >Adobe's activation system is pretty
>> >benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard
>> >crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
>> >hassle-free.


>I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer 
>foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for 
>a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.

JPS didn't write anything you quoted!

That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote
something that I did not.
-- 

 <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
   John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>
 ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

How's about this?

"Dear Adobe

Please continue in your time setting trend to offer customers the best
digital image processing, compilation and creative arts packages available
to both commercial and domestic (home) users.

The upward trend in digital camera ownership (a 40% increase predicted in
the next 12 months) may possibly bring a whole new raft of prospective new
users.

Rather than excel in bulding limitations into your creative software suites
please focus research and development in building, creating and maintaining
demand for a unique range of products.

I appreciate that being a market leader may reduce the competitive frictions
about what to do next.  Please take all those wonderful presentations from
"secure software" companies with a hefty pinch of salt certainly not to
compromise the functionality of the programs you create."

Basically summarises all of this thread but uses a different perspective or
flavour.

<waiting for the flaming to start?>

Arts

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cSPOc.4997$54.78266@typhoon.sonic.net...
> I think this has less to do with activation and more to do with people
being
> so stupid that they store the financial information online and with
> Microsoft no less. They can't even secure IE what in the hell makes anyone
> think they could keep your financial information secure, safe and
available
> at all times.
>
> Geeze, where the hell has common sense went?
>
> John
>
>
> "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> >
> > \\
> > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> > their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
> >
> > "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
> > user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
> > a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
> >
> > "Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
> > up."
> >
> > Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been
> > locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are
> > not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca
> > Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division.
> > "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the
> > problem and will not at this point."
> >
> > Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a
> > time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.
> >
> > The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> > //
>
>

In article <inaqg0dii0pevvdgdeei24cb460dshhpkl@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm 
wrote:

> >> >Adobe's activation system is pretty
> >> >benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a 
> >> >hard
> >> >crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
> >> >hassle-free.
> 
> 
> >I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer 
> >foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for 
> >a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.
> 
> JPS didn't write anything you quoted!
> 
> That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote
> something that I did not.

My apologies.  In replying to posts I try to make my replies as compact 
as possible by trimming the previous postings down to the essential part 
of what I'm replying to, and I obviously messed up in coping with the 
multiple layers of quotation indicators here.  Will attempt to do better 
in the future.

I've had varied results with AVG. While I much prefer it to
Symantec/Nortons, and have installed it on 20 machines at work, I have found
that it often crashes my machine at home when running automatically (XP
Pro). I still use it, but I hear what you're saying....


<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:1faqg0tld9aq48ludjn52qovq941doacov@4ax.com...
> In message <vX7Pc.2678$il.730@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as
well,
>
> Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless?  I
> started using AVG because I heard that it didn't mess the system up like
> Symantec or McAffee.  I only use the background scan of AVG now; the
> scheduled late-night disk scans were what was crashing the system,
> apparently.  I made the connection when I looked through the system
> alert logs and found the last entries on the night of the crash were a
> few minutes after the disk scan started.
> -- 
>
>  <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
>    John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>
>  ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Hey, that makes me the "naive" one. Where exactly has Adobe's activation
system (specifically PShop, since it's the only commonly used Adobe app that
requires it) been cited for "...the unending string of computer foulups..."?
When I said that Adobe's method is "benign", I meant in comparison to
something like QXP or the MS Money server woes that sparked this discussion.
Just because some people screw up their machines doesn't automatically mean
that it's a specific software's fault. Almost daily, I'm asked to look at
someone's machine which has stopped working, and invariably it's a box that
hasn't been maintained, defragged, full of spyware and virus definitions
from 2002. I've had to reactivate my Photoshop 3 times. Usually as a result
of a hard crash or reboot caused by my penchant for keeping too many things
open on my machine until it just runs out of gas. Something gets weird in
some config file, I open PShop and it asks me to activate - I click OK and 3
seconds later I'm back in business. I've never lost productivity due to an
Adobe product. Yes, they're a greedy filthy pack of techno-yuppies, trying
to squeeze the money out of me... and BTW, they make the products that are
absolutely essential for me to do my job. If they made overpriced junk it
would be a different story. I am not "naively trusting"... I simply judge
from my own experience in maintaining 9 workstations in an art dept. I can
sympathize with those who've had nightmarish experiences, but I would bet
that those who do represent a very small percentage of users, and if you
factor out the stupid and ignorant, you're left with even fewer sad souls
whose problems can be directly traced back to Adobe...



"AES/newspost" <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:siegman-0A6ABF.13471101082004@news.stanford.edu...
> In article <inaqg0dii0pevvdgdeei24cb460dshhpkl@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> wrote:
>
> > >> >Adobe's activation system is pretty
> > >> >benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS
after a
> > >> >hard
> > >> >crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and
is
> > >> >hassle-free.
> >
> >
> > >I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer
> > >foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for
> > >a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.
> >
> > JPS didn't write anything you quoted!
> >
> > That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote
> > something that I did not.
>
> My apologies.  In replying to posts I try to make my replies as compact
> as possible by trimming the previous postings down to the essential part
> of what I'm replying to, and I obviously messed up in coping with the
> multiple layers of quotation indicators here.  Will attempt to do better
> in the future.

Hmm - I thought that ... well anyway, here's another tuppen'orth:

I think if I was approached by a "secure software" service provider (LOL =
dream on!) the first things I'd like to see would be:

hire and fire list since the company started
listing of all freelancers that worked there
copy of policy on using freelance services
(get the picture?)

I have an awful feeling that Adobe's inhouse security is probably much
higher than any other organisation or service provider out there

Arts

"Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:E7bPc.474$yt5.29@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> How's about this?
>
> "Dear Adobe
>
> Please continue in your time setting trend to offer customers the best
> digital image processing, compilation and creative arts packages available
> to both commercial and domestic (home) users.
>
> The upward trend in digital camera ownership (a 40% increase predicted in
> the next 12 months) may possibly bring a whole new raft of prospective new
> users.
>
> Rather than excel in bulding limitations into your creative software
suites
> please focus research and development in building, creating and
maintaining
> demand for a unique range of products.
>
> I appreciate that being a market leader may reduce the competitive
frictions
> about what to do next.  Please take all those wonderful presentations from
> "secure software" companies with a hefty pinch of salt certainly not to
> compromise the functionality of the programs you create."
>
> Basically summarises all of this thread but uses a different perspective
or
> flavour.
>
> <waiting for the flaming to start?>
>
> Arts
>
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:cSPOc.4997$54.78266@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > I think this has less to do with activation and more to do with people
> being
> > so stupid that they store the financial information online and with
> > Microsoft no less. They can't even secure IE what in the hell makes
anyone
> > think they could keep your financial information secure, safe and
> available
> > at all times.
> >
> > Geeze, where the hell has common sense went?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> > > http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
> > >
> > > \\
> > > Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> > > Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> > > their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
> > >
> > > "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
> > > user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
> > > a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
> > >
> > > "Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
> > > up."
> > >
> > > Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been
> > > locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are
> > > not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca
> > > Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division.
> > > "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the
> > > problem and will not at this point."
> > >
> > > Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a
> > > time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.
> > >
> > > The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> > > //
> >
> >
>
>

Hi Dennis - I think this thread started from a "what if" scenario and the
mild panic it induced in commercial users

Basically what if the MS Money scenario ever happened to commercial users...

Arts

"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FOdPc.2837$uC7.639@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Hey, that makes me the "naive" one. Where exactly has Adobe's activation
> system (specifically PShop, since it's the only commonly used Adobe app
that
> requires it) been cited for "...the unending string of computer
foulups..."?
> When I said that Adobe's method is "benign", I meant in comparison to
> something like QXP or the MS Money server woes that sparked this
discussion.
> Just because some people screw up their machines doesn't automatically
mean
> that it's a specific software's fault. Almost daily, I'm asked to look at
> someone's machine which has stopped working, and invariably it's a box
that
> hasn't been maintained, defragged, full of spyware and virus definitions
> from 2002. I've had to reactivate my Photoshop 3 times. Usually as a
result
> of a hard crash or reboot caused by my penchant for keeping too many
things
> open on my machine until it just runs out of gas. Something gets weird in
> some config file, I open PShop and it asks me to activate - I click OK and
3
> seconds later I'm back in business. I've never lost productivity due to an
> Adobe product. Yes, they're a greedy filthy pack of techno-yuppies, trying
> to squeeze the money out of me... and BTW, they make the products that are
> absolutely essential for me to do my job. If they made overpriced junk it
> would be a different story. I am not "naively trusting"... I simply judge
> from my own experience in maintaining 9 workstations in an art dept. I can
> sympathize with those who've had nightmarish experiences, but I would bet
> that those who do represent a very small percentage of users, and if you
> factor out the stupid and ignorant, you're left with even fewer sad souls
> whose problems can be directly traced back to Adobe...
>
>
>
> "AES/newspost" <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:siegman-0A6ABF.13471101082004@news.stanford.edu...
> > In article <inaqg0dii0pevvdgdeei24cb460dshhpkl@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> >Adobe's activation system is pretty
> > > >> >benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS
> after a
> > > >> >hard
> > > >> >crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second
and
> is
> > > >> >hassle-free.
> > >
> > >
> > > >I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of
computer
> > > >foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks
for
> > > >a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as
this.
> > >
> > > JPS didn't write anything you quoted!
> > >
> > > That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote
> > > something that I did not.
> >
> > My apologies.  In replying to posts I try to make my replies as compact
> > as possible by trimming the previous postings down to the essential part
> > of what I'm replying to, and I obviously messed up in coping with the
> > multiple layers of quotation indicators here.  Will attempt to do better
> > in the future.
>
>

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:42:20 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <vX7Pc.2678$il.730@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
>"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well,
>
>Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless?  I
>started using AVG because I heard that it didn't mess the system up like
>Symantec or McAffee.  I only use the background scan of AVG now; the
>scheduled late-night disk scans were what was crashing the system,
>apparently.  I made the connection when I looked through the system
>alert logs and found the last entries on the night of the crash were a
>few minutes after the disk scan started.

Free virus checkers are worth every penny you pay for them.  For a
reasonably priced, excellent, small footprint virus checker try NOD32.

 --

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com 
veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ou6rg0tcvod5a4thf3kvabnjj9ounjgjsg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:42:20 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> >In message <vX7Pc.2678$il.730@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> >"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well,
> >
> >Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless?

I've had good luck with F-Prot -- no system problems,
although I don't use its scan-on-access option, just a
periodic system scan.

Rick

"Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message news:<zRePc.975$zx4.452@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>...
> Hi Dennis - I think this thread started from a "what if" scenario and the
> mild panic it induced in commercial users
> 
> Basically what if the MS Money scenario ever happened to commercial users...
> 
> Arts


It's more than a "what if" to a whole bunch of Money users. There's a
better article at Computerworld,
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/story/0,10801,94935,00.html

\\
Problem with servers has frozen users' access to their own financial
data

JULY 30, 2004 (PC WORLD) - It's the end of the month -- bill-paying
time -- and some Money 2004 users are wishing they had kept their cash
in an old mattress instead of relying on Microsoft Corp.'s financial
software. *A snafu with a couple of Microsoft servers has frozen
users' access to their own financial data, even though the encrypted
files are on the hard drives of their own PCs.*
....
//

The more I read about this, the more relevant to DeActivation it
looks: A proprietary file format that can't be read (because you can't
run the application).

And it's not just about system failure, either; it's about policy and
licensing. These guys were going to lose access to their data when
their subscriptions ran out, too. That's how is already with Windoze
O/S and M$' office suite, and the writing is on the wall for graphics
applications, unless we refuse this nonsense.

--Toby

FREE Photoshop and Illustrator plugins:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

The point is that so far after installing Photoshop CS (the only product
with activation at this time) I have had to reactive 5 times and this is
without making any changes to my hardware or OS. I am not the only one with
this problem. So if their sever goes down and this happens I am out of luck
or I have to phone in and talk to some drone. Not a good option at least in
this day and age of overseas technical support people that can breath and
ride a bike at the same time.

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation is
only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the
activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would not be
hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play.
They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can count
on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't have
a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When people
stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and
subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their
pockets.

Microsoft will be the first one to do this. They have the deep money pockets
and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the
anti-trust case will be nullified. Once the road is cleared by them, the
door is open and we will have every Tom, Dick and Harry from every company
slapping the shaft in to us over this.

For an interesting take on the subject take a look at the article here.
http://www.pcreviewonline.com. While there is some angles missing from the
article I think the author has most of it right on the nose. It is only a
matter of time and people that think it won't happen is blind, deaf and
dumb. Greed rules all.

John


"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bmVOc.2658$uC7.2092@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty
> benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a
hard
> crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
> hassle-free. Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a
> user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just
to
> avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas. Now Quark's cockamamie
> authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to
Indy
> CS rather than QXP 6. It's just too obtrusive for me, given that I don't
> want nor need most of the new features. We bought our copies of QXP 4 when
> it came out, and soon after lost several of the install floppies and CDs
due
> to sloppy IT management from young punks who never bothered to register or
> keep track of the disks (we do have 8 nice boxes with various info and
> manuals left intact). But that's not a hassle, 'cuz when I build a new
> machine to replace an old one, I can just copy the QXP folder from anyone
> else's machine and run it. We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to
> worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it. I
> know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't
> worth the trouble...
>
>
>
> >
> > Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation"
> > process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run
> PS on
> > my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some
> third-
> > party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI
and
> the
> > rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my
> case,
> > at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
> >
> > Hunt
> >
>
>

Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license agreement
in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades. Besides that
the license agreement can be changed at any time and without warning.

John


"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0407312023.28a1e39c@posting.google.com...
> "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<bmVOc.2658$uC7.2092@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty
> > benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a
hard
> > crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is
> > hassle-free.
>
> OK, now imagine that it fails, and you cannot get it to activate. Does
> that prospect make you sweat? (Seem unlikely? Ask a M$ Money user.)
>
> Sure, you'd go back to Photoshop 7 -- in which case, why did you blow
> the money on the "Activated" product in the first place?
>
> > Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a
> > user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just
to
> > avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas.
>
> It also increases the motivation for cracking and distributing cracks,
> which means there are more of them, and they are more easily
> available. Many people have remarked upon this side-effect of Adobe's
> supposedly-unpiratable Activated products. (Similar effects are
> observed with supposedly-unpiratable Windoze XP.)
>
> > Now Quark's cockamamie
> > authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to
Indy
> > CS rather than QXP 6. ... We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to
> > worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it.
I
> > know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't
> > worth the trouble...
>
> The same kind of arrogance at Quark that sank XPress (former market
> leader) is evidently rife at Adobe. Our money built those corporations
> and when our patronage is withdrawn, they will starve.
>
> --Toby
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation"
> > > process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can
run
> >  PS on
> > > my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some
> >  third-
> > > party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI
and
> >  the
> > > rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In
my
> >  case,
> > > at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
> > >
> > > Hunt
> > >

In article <ugAPc.5267$54.85720@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:

> Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license agreement
> in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades. 

What does the license agreement say?  That you can't uninstall CS and 
reinstall 7 and use it?

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:39:06 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license agreement
>in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades. Besides that
>the license agreement can be changed at any time and without warning.
>
Of course you can go back to 7. You just uninstall CS and reinstall 7.

 --

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com 
veni, vidi, reliqui

I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop
with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or
get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. Adobe products are
currently more feature rich than most people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++
comes down the pike in a year or two with an insidious subscription dongle
it will most likely be met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license server
technology. I believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday
scenarios. The looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o'
wax. If I wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and
download their software and activation crack in a few minutes... and if
they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?

What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop
owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is more threatening to
Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately doomed to fail) activation
scheme the suits might try to foist on the poor, honest design community...

I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...


"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4fAPc.5266$54.86051@typhoon.sonic.net...
> The point is that so far after installing Photoshop CS (the only product
> with activation at this time) I have had to reactive 5 times and this is
> without making any changes to my hardware or OS. I am not the only one
with
> this problem. So if their sever goes down and this happens I am out of
luck
> or I have to phone in and talk to some drone. Not a good option at least
in
> this day and age of overseas technical support people that can breath and
> ride a bike at the same time.
>
> Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation is
> only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the
> activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would not
be
> hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play.
> They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can
count
> on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't
have
> a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When
people
> stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and
> subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their
> pockets.
>
> Microsoft will be the first one to do this. They have the deep money
pockets
> and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the
> anti-trust case will be nullified. Once the road is cleared by them, the
> door is open and we will have every Tom, Dick and Harry from every company
> slapping the shaft in to us over this.
>
> For an interesting take on the subject take a look at the article here.
> http://www.pcreviewonline.com. While there is some angles missing from the
> article I think the author has most of it right on the nose. It is only a
> matter of time and people that think it won't happen is blind, deaf and
> dumb. Greed rules all.
>
> John
>
>
> "

"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:2oCPc.49$Ha1.1@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop
> with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or
> get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. Adobe products are
> currently more feature rich than most people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++
> comes down the pike in a year or two with an insidious subscription dongle
> it will most likely be met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license server
> technology. I believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday
> scenarios. The looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o'
> wax. If I wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and
> download their software and activation crack in a few minutes... and if
> they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?
>
> What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop
> owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is more threatening to
> Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately doomed to fail) activation
> scheme the suits might try to foist on the poor, honest design community...
>
> I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...

So far, not a single major software developer has shown an
increase in revenues for a given product after implementing a
copy protection scheme for it.  So, as far as anyone knows
the "problem" of casual piracy isn't a problem in the first place.

This makes sense in my view, because the simple fact is pirates
don't buy software, regardless of whether it's copy protected
and regardless of whether they're able to crack or break the
protection.  The net loss to developers from the vast majority
of piracy is therefore ZERO.

Rick

John Doe writes:

> Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation is
> only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the
> activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would not be
> hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play.
> They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can count
> on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't have
> a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When people
> stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and
> subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their
> pockets.

This is exactly the intention of all the major vendors.  Current
business models depend on one-time license purchases to bring in
revenue.  Unfortunately, that doesn't provide a continuing stream of
cash.  Forcing subscriptions will change this, and eventually everyone
will have to pay on a yearly or even monthly basis for every major
computer software product he uses.  Upgrades will be automatic and
compulsory.

> Microsoft will be the first one to do this.

I'm not so sure.  The first one will meet a lot of market resistance and
animosity.  I think Adobe is just as likely to try it as Microsoft.
Both want the cash, but Adobe needs it more than Microsoft.

> They have the deep money pockets and market share to fend of
> the law suites that will follow and like the anti-trust case
> will be nullified.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything illegal about such an arrangement,
however unethical it might be.  Mainframe software has worked this way
since time immemorial.  It has always been logistically difficult for PC
software, but technical advances and the Internet are changing that.  It
is becoming easier and easier to monitor and control all PCs via the Net
today.

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

Dennis Gordon writes:

> I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop
> with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or
> get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find.

Some people would, but they would be a small minority, just as they are
today.  Most people, including virtually all professional users, would
pay.

There is also the possibility that perfectly legitimate users will
nevertheless download cracks and use them, simply to avoid the loss of
business revenue that will result each time the activation technology
fails.

> What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop
> owners is? 5:1? 10:1?

It's impossible to say.  Even Adobe doesn't know, although I'm sure it
assumes the most favorable possible ratio (that is, it likes to think
that there are tons of illegal users--potential revenue sources--out
there).

The number of serious but illegal users is far, far smaller, no doubt
about that.

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

Yes, but you have to uninstall it. You can not use both at the same time
unless both are full packages and not upgrades. That would mean you flushed
the CS upgrade money down the toilet. I don't know about anyone else, but
that would piss me off.

And, as I said license agreements can be changed at anytime and they don't
have to notify you of the changes, hell you don't even have to agree to
them. They apply or you stop using the software.

John


"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:14stg05bn11a5p0nvj9ts6pe6pj756q7s2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:39:06 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license
agreement
> >in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades. Besides
that
> >the license agreement can be changed at any time and without warning.
> >
> Of course you can go back to 7. You just uninstall CS and reinstall 7.
>
>  --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui

Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check
activation with every command and tool you used. I would have hard it would
be to crack a program that had the protection that invasive in it. And, lets
face it software is getting more and more bloated and slower and slower
compared to the hardware. You go out and by the fastest computer you can
find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The new
software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is
bloated. So, what would be another 3 or 4 MB of program code and a little
slower response just so the activation and verification checks took place
with ever command or tool the person used. They could also quite easily fix
it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being connected
to the web. No web and no program access.

Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it comes
to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.

John


"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:2oCPc.49$Ha1.1@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop
> with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or
> get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. Adobe products
are
> currently more feature rich than most people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++
> comes down the pike in a year or two with an insidious subscription dongle
> it will most likely be met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license
server
> technology. I believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday
> scenarios. The looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o'
> wax. If I wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and
> download their software and activation crack in a few minutes... and if
> they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?
>
> What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop
> owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is more threatening
to
> Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately doomed to fail) activation
> scheme the suits might try to foist on the poor, honest design
community...
>
> I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...
>
>
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4fAPc.5266$54.86051@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > The point is that so far after installing Photoshop CS (the only product
> > with activation at this time) I have had to reactive 5 times and this is
> > without making any changes to my hardware or OS. I am not the only one
> with
> > this problem. So if their sever goes down and this happens I am out of
> luck
> > or I have to phone in and talk to some drone. Not a good option at least
> in
> > this day and age of overseas technical support people that can breath
and
> > ride a bike at the same time.
> >
> > Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation
is
> > only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the
> > activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would
not
> be
> > hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play.
> > They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can
> count
> > on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't
> have
> > a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When
> people
> > stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and
> > subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their
> > pockets.
> >
> > Microsoft will be the first one to do this. They have the deep money
> pockets
> > and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the
> > anti-trust case will be nullified. Once the road is cleared by them, the
> > door is open and we will have every Tom, Dick and Harry from every
company
> > slapping the shaft in to us over this.
> >
> > For an interesting take on the subject take a look at the article here.
> > http://www.pcreviewonline.com. While there is some angles missing from
the
> > article I think the author has most of it right on the nose. It is only
a
> > matter of time and people that think it won't happen is blind, deaf and
> > dumb. Greed rules all.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > "
>
>

What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But,
companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have the
massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to less
10 or 20 percent of their clients, not that that would happen with
Microsoft. Sure there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is
not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like Photoshop,
InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc. Microsoft is the one that is in the perfect
position to run this through the courts and come out on the other end still
well flushed with money and customers. No one else could do it and survive.

Legalities aren't the programs software companies have done a great job
getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not
having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package, allowing
it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the
changes. Things like that.

With the software companies it is very much becoming an ethical program.
Most have no ethics beyond what they need to make the money they think they
need to make. All else is secondary and only happens when it benefits them
and the bottom line.

I blame a lot of the unethical programs that corporate America has on the
stock market. People that buy stocks expect their investment to keep going
up and up and up. And, that is not sustainable with out screwing over a
great number of people. In my opinion things would be much better if all
companies were kept private so that they could concentrate more on balancing
making a profit, putting out a good product and treating their customers
well. Instead of making a profit, screw the rest of it.

John


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:772ug050uhg6pi6mm7biln6fd7f96mfrko@4ax.com...
> John Doe writes:
>
> > Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation
is
> > only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the
> > activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would
not be
> > hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play.
> > They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can
count
> > on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't
have
> > a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When
people
> > stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and
> > subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their
> > pockets.
>
> This is exactly the intention of all the major vendors.  Current
> business models depend on one-time license purchases to bring in
> revenue.  Unfortunately, that doesn't provide a continuing stream of
> cash.  Forcing subscriptions will change this, and eventually everyone
> will have to pay on a yearly or even monthly basis for every major
> computer software product he uses.  Upgrades will be automatic and
> compulsory.
>
> > Microsoft will be the first one to do this.
>
> I'm not so sure.  The first one will meet a lot of market resistance and
> animosity.  I think Adobe is just as likely to try it as Microsoft.
> Both want the cash, but Adobe needs it more than Microsoft.
>
> > They have the deep money pockets and market share to fend of
> > the law suites that will follow and like the anti-trust case
> > will be nullified.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see anything illegal about such an arrangement,
> however unethical it might be.  Mainframe software has worked this way
> since time immemorial.  It has always been logistically difficult for PC
> software, but technical advances and the Internet are changing that.  It
> is becoming easier and easier to monitor and control all PCs via the Net
> today.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Rick wrote:

> "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:2oCPc.49$Ha1.1@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to
> > develop with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for
> > it, pirate it, or get by with the latest hassle-free version they
> > can find. Adobe products are currently more feature rich than most
> > people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++ comes down the pike in a year or
> > two with an insidious subscription dongle it will most likely be
> > met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license server technology. I
> > believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday scenarios. The
> > looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. If I
> > wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and
> > download their software and activation crack in a few minutes...
> > and if they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?
> > 
> > What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed
> > Photoshop owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is
> > more threatening to Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately
> > doomed to fail) activation scheme the suits might try to foist on
> > the poor, honest design community...
> > 
> > I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...
> 
> So far, not a single major software developer has shown an
> increase in revenues for a given product after implementing a
> copy protection scheme for it.  So, as far as anyone knows
> the "problem" of casual piracy isn't a problem in the first place.
> 
> This makes sense in my view, because the simple fact is pirates
> don't buy software, regardless of whether it's copy protected
> and regardless of whether they're able to crack or break the
> protection.  The net loss to developers from the vast majority
> of piracy is therefore ZERO.

Usually companies putting copy limitations in their products give up a
wide base of people able to handle their product, recommending it for
company use, etc.

For Years, market leaders in the software industry relied upon their
product being spread amongst home users to keep down competitor's
products that were cheaper, limited in function but still good enough
for what people needed. But copying for free - even illegally - closed
the market niches.

Now some companies have acquired almost a monopoly in some markets (or
at least they dominate strongly) and feel they can press competitors
with patents on trivial software components, they think their customers
can no longer change. They believe they can squeeze another percent of
tunover from a market that actually doesn't exist: The people who use
illegal copies because they can not afford expensive programs.

The result will be visible after two or three software generations:
There will be a lot of people recommending cheaper (copyable) software
for everydays tasks and the expensive programs will find themselves in
a market niche - ten creative people working with cheap software for
design and web and one prepress workstation using the expensive
programs.

Michael




> 
> Rick

In article <0AFPc.5313$54.87399@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:

> Yes, but you have to uninstall it. You can not use both at the same time
> unless both are full packages and not upgrades.

And who's gonna know?

Get real.

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2n8b96FtnqjuU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:2oCPc.49$Ha1.1@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop
> > with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or
> > get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. ...
> 
> So far, not a single major software developer has shown an
> increase in revenues for a given product after implementing a
> copy protection scheme for it.  

I wonder how much the *extreme* honest-user aggravation is costing
them?

The Adobe Forums are littered with upset sufferers from DeActivation.
From just one recent thread:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@251.xCRPczc5U1q.15@.3bb4bf23/5

  "...poor system make users angry and will not make any more sales.
.... Why Adobe deaf for their customers"
  "...all this seems to indicate that this activation feature has been
very poorly designed or little thought has gone into its design.
Apparently even Microsoft can do better. In German we say "Schuster
bleib bei deinen Leisten" which means you should stick to what you can
do best."
  "I'm astonished that Adobe hasn't posted a fix, or even responded to
all these postings complaining about this particular problem. Where
can I go for a remedy?"
  "Usually it's not a problem, but it could be a huge problem for
those with no immediate access to the internet or a telephone, or who
are denied reactivation even when they do have net/phone access. I
suspect the Adobe folk here are ... either ignoring us or somehow have
their hands tied about saying anything more on the topic. If the
latter, its too bad noone is willing to press their upper management
into acknowledging this reactivation problem to the user community..."

Much room for optimism here.

--Toby

> So, as far as anyone knows
> the "problem" of casual piracy isn't a problem in the first place.
> 
> This makes sense in my view, because the simple fact is pirates
> don't buy software, regardless of whether it's copy protected
> and regardless of whether they're able to crack or break the
> protection.  The net loss to developers from the vast majority
> of piracy is therefore ZERO.
> 
> Rick

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<WMFPc.5319$54.87625@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> ...
> companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have the
> massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to less
> 10 or 20 percent of their clients, 

I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the
graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing &
layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade.
We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
* anti-customer practices; 
* predatory pricing;
* arrogance;
* declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are
disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of
software for 15+ years).

> ...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is
> not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like Photoshop,
> InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc. 

Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is
becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has
defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded,
sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a
better, less expensive product.)

> ... software companies have done a great job
> getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not
> having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package, allowing
> it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the
> changes. Things like that.

This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use
alternatives.

> 
> ...

--Toby

> 
> John
> 
> 
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:772ug050uhg6pi6mm7biln6fd7f96mfrko@4ax.com...
> > John Doe writes:
> >
> > > Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation
>  is
> > > only the start. ...

"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0407300517.33947dc0@posting.google.com...
> http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
>
> \\
> Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations
> Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing
> their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
>
> "I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money
> user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been
> a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."
>

Money is aimed at home users, not businesses.

> "Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
> up."
>
So quit compalining and write a check. I know it's quaint to do things by
hand, but it works!

> Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been
> locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are
> not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca
> Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division.
> "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the
> problem and will not at this point."
>
> Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a
> time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.
>
> The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ...
> //

So what's the connection to activation?

Whoah Whoah Whoah - slow down - it hasn't happened yet has it?

I mean to Adobe?  Reactivation may be flawed or have hiccups but even the
brightest of organisations get things wrong from time-to-time.

Sure we can speculate but sometimes speculation turns into 90% irrationality
and 10% fact.

Let's turn it back to 100% fact.

All I can say as a modest humble Arty Phacting dabbler in PSCS is that it
blew my socks off (not much software has that effect on me now - although
The Gimp sorta created a mild rippling effect :-)

I am sure that the MS Money scenario has opened a lot of eyes (will the
share price in "software secure" companies go thru the roof, meander a
little or slump?)

Methinks: give the team at Adobe time to peruse the details (personally I
think they are going a bit like all organisations go when hitting
mega-success they lose their way a little bit n'est pas?)  (I mean it even
happened to the Beatles dinnit innit?   And also to that computer group
named after a piece of fruit)

Arts

"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0408030244.58a1d5d9@posting.google.com...
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<WMFPc.5319$54.87625@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> > ...
> > companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have
the
> > massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to
less
> > 10 or 20 percent of their clients,
>
> I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the
> graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing &
> layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade.
> We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
> * anti-customer practices;
> * predatory pricing;
> * arrogance;
> * declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are
> disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of
> software for 15+ years).
>
> > ...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is
> > not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like
Photoshop,
> > InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc.
>
> Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is
> becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has
> defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded,
> sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a
> better, less expensive product.)
>
> > ... software companies have done a great job
> > getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not
> > having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package,
allowing
> > it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the
> > changes. Things like that.
>
> This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use
> alternatives.
>
> >
> > ...
>
> --Toby
>
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:772ug050uhg6pi6mm7biln6fd7f96mfrko@4ax.com...
> > > John Doe writes:
> > >
> > > > Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this
activation
> >  is
> > > > only the start. ...

John Doe writes:

> And, as I said license agreements can be changed at anytime and they don't
> have to notify you of the changes, hell you don't even have to agree to
> them. They apply or you stop using the software.

Only if the original license says this and you originally agree to it.
Even then, it's questionable.

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

John Doe writes:

> Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check
> activation with every command and tool you used.

That wouldn't help.  As long as you have physical control over a
machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that
machine.

> You go out and by the fastest computer you can
> find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The new
> software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is
> bloated.

That has been true for as long as PCs have existed (and it is also true
for many other types of computers).

> They could also quite easily fix
> it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being connected
> to the web. No web and no program access.

You can simulate a Web that provides whatever the program expects.

> Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it comes
> to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.

That's when new corporations step in and put the old ones out of
business.

Apple thought it could charge caviar prices for its Mac and never worry
about cheaper PCs and Windows systems taking over.  Apple was wrong.

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

John Doe writes:

> What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But,
> companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of
electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.

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

Toby Thain writes:

> For example, Linux has
> defeated Windoze in the server market ...

Windows is doing quite well in the server market, although not as well
as it does on the desktop (it is never likely to do as well for servers
as it does on the desktop, since it's fundamentally a desktop OS).

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

Not the point. This is step one and it is only going to get worse.

John


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-7DB8E5.03183903082004@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <0AFPc.5313$54.87399@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>  "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but you have to uninstall it. You can not use both at the same time
> > unless both are full packages and not upgrades.
>
> And who's gonna know?
>
> Get real.
>

Unfortunately, Photoshop is slipping, Illustrator probably never will be,
GoLive doesn't stand a chance, InDesign maybe but that is a ways off. I
don't see a monopoly. There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

John


"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0408030244.58a1d5d9@posting.google.com...
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<WMFPc.5319$54.87625@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> > ...
> > companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have
the
> > massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to
less
> > 10 or 20 percent of their clients,
>
> I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the
> graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing &
> layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade.
> We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
> * anti-customer practices;
> * predatory pricing;
> * arrogance;
> * declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are
> disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of
> software for 15+ years).
>
> > ...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is
> > not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like
Photoshop,
> > InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc.
>
> Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is
> becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has
> defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded,
> sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a
> better, less expensive product.)
>
> > ... software companies have done a great job
> > getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not
> > having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package,
allowing
> > it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the
> > changes. Things like that.
>
> This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use
> alternatives.
>
> >
> > ...
>
> --Toby
>
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:772ug050uhg6pi6mm7biln6fd7f96mfrko@4ax.com...
> > > John Doe writes:
> > >
> > > > Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this
activation
> >  is
> > > > only the start. ...

Not true. The license agreements give the companies the right to change the
agreement at any time whether you agree or not. Just like PayPal constant
changes their policies and you are stuck with them like it or not. Your only
option is to stop using the software, continue to use it and you agree to
the changes.

John


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krhvg0dgi68gmcbt8hcoi7qun1i7f7nmn7@4ax.com...
> John Doe writes:
>
> > And, as I said license agreements can be changed at anytime and they
don't
> > have to notify you of the changes, hell you don't even have to agree to
> > them. They apply or you stop using the software.
>
> Only if the original license says this and you originally agree to it.
> Even then, it's questionable.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:47:39 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
scribbled:

>There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
>and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

Name a few.... try for, say, four.

I doubt it. Copy protection and activation that is this pervasive would be
very hard to crack without making a very unstable mess of the program or
makes the program stop working altogether. I can think of several ways to
stop piracy that would prevent it from being broken. All of these however,
would add a great deal of burden and headache to the users, but if the goal
is to make money and stop piracy then that wouldn't be much of a deterrent
for the companies.

John


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ithvg0h186ejia2586rlrqjr0hooi0tlq9@4ax.com...
> John Doe writes:
>
> > Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check
> > activation with every command and tool you used.
>
> That wouldn't help.  As long as you have physical control over a
> machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that
> machine.
>
> > You go out and by the fastest computer you can
> > find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The
new
> > software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is
> > bloated.
>
> That has been true for as long as PCs have existed (and it is also true
> for many other types of computers).
>
> > They could also quite easily fix
> > it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being
connected
> > to the web. No web and no program access.
>
> You can simulate a Web that provides whatever the program expects.
>
> > Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it
comes
> > to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.
>
> That's when new corporations step in and put the old ones out of
> business.
>
> Apple thought it could charge caviar prices for its Mac and never worry
> about cheaper PCs and Windows systems taking over.  Apple was wrong.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.
PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety, Type 1 Fonts are not needed
thanks to TrueType and OpenType and PDF well while more of a problem the
world could live without it. What the problem is is most people like what
they like so they don't look for alternatives. Unlike Windows there are
viable alternatives to all of these in some form or another.

John


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:02ivg01ffsa24scqed6b99o6bt3o0osi04@4ax.com...
> John Doe writes:
>
> > What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But,
> > companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...
>
> Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of
> electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

> The license agreements give the companies the right to change the
> agreement at any time whether you agree or not.

Only if you accept such agreements.

Additionally, as I've said, such provisions are of questionable
validity.

> Your only option is to stop using the software, continue
> to use it and you agree to the changes.

Another option is to take them to court.

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

John Doe writes:

> I doubt it. Copy protection and activation that is this pervasive would be
> very hard to crack without making a very unstable mess of the program or
> makes the program stop working altogether.

You don't crack the program, you crack the environment.  You can make
the program think anything by controlling it's environment.

> I can think of several ways to stop piracy that would prevent
> it from being broken. 

There isn't any way to prevent piracy if end users have full physical
access to their machines.

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

John Doe writes:

> There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
> and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

There are zero viable alternatives for professional use.  In other
areas, there are alternatives (Freehand, XPress, etc.).

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

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>John Doe writes:
 --snip--
>> Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but 
>> then when it comes to greed corporate American can
>> justify almost anything.
>
>That's when new corporations step in and put the old 
>ones out of business.

If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies,
you'd be right. New OS's or new office suites don't have 
a prayer against a product that comes preinstalled on 
99.9% of PCs sold. Can new companies get deals with
OEMs like that? <snort>

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:

>I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives
>to Photoshop.

It doesn't matter. There are better alternatives to
Windows and IE, too, but they're what everybody
uses. Think "network effect".

FWIW - and IMHO the seepage starts at a human level not at a systematic
level

Arts

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ithvg0h186ejia2586rlrqjr0hooi0tlq9@4ax.com...
> John Doe writes:
>
> > Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check
> > activation with every command and tool you used.
>
> That wouldn't help.  As long as you have physical control over a
> machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that
> machine.
>
> > You go out and by the fastest computer you can
> > find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The
new
> > software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is
> > bloated.
>
> That has been true for as long as PCs have existed (and it is also true
> for many other types of computers).
>
> > They could also quite easily fix
> > it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being
connected
> > to the web. No web and no program access.
>
> You can simulate a Web that provides whatever the program expects.
>
> > Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it
comes
> > to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.
>
> That's when new corporations step in and put the old ones out of
> business.
>
> Apple thought it could charge caviar prices for its Mac and never worry
> about cheaper PCs and Windows systems taking over.  Apple was wrong.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Yup - a local government in th UK went wholly MS and saved dosh in the
process (everybody has had some experience with it either in previous
incarnations or at home)

Reality?

Arts

"phaedrus" <phaedrus@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecCdnVLyqdNkSJLcRVn-pA@centurytel.net...
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives
> >to Photoshop.
>
> It doesn't matter. There are better alternatives to
> Windows and IE, too, but they're what everybody
> uses. Think "network effect".

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Doe writes:
> 
> 
>>What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But,
>>companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...
> 
> 
> Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of
> electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
> 
Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop 
anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

In article <ruPPc.2541$R66.1219@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
 "Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote:

> I am sure that the MS Money scenario has opened a lot of eyes (will the
> share price in "software secure" companies go thru the roof, meander a
> little or slump?)

As would reading the superb newsgroup comp.risks over any substantial 
period of time (with respect to how computers, software, automated 
systems, in general technology of any kind, can -- not only "can" but as 
a matter of virtually certainty, _will_ -- go way, way, way wrong, and 
wreak havoc some time, some where, in ways its creators and users never 
thought of).

[Definition of a fail-safe system: "A system that when it fails ("when", 
not "if") fails to fail fail-safe"]

Yep, and probably the most recognized, and used productivity app out there.
People who couldn't defrag their boxes, hook up a scanner or open a
spreadsheet know what "Photoshopping" something means. What other
application is such a part of the vernacular? If Adobe shoots themselves in
the foot with some byzantine protection scheme, there will still be millions
who get along quite nicely with CS, or v7 or even v6...


> >
> Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop
> anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

"Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message news:<ruPPc.2541$R66.1219@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...
> Whoah Whoah Whoah - slow down - it hasn't happened yet has it?

What do you mean? Denying access to data? Yes, it already happens
frequently and inconveniently to Adobe users - read the Adobe Forums:

\\
I work from home, office and clients location all with ONE MACHINE,
yet
everytime I get to the new location Photoshop seems to think I made
some
critical change and requires me to register either online or over
phone.

I do not have Internet at clients so I am force to dial a phone and
wait for someone to help. Unacceptable. :( :( :(

Nothing...I repeat nothing has changed on my system expect for the IP
address of my network ... Why then does Photoshop insist that I
register. This has become an EMBARRASSMENT in front of my clients. It
is one thing when software simply
fails to work. But when it INTENTIONALLY QUITS is a whole different
story. ... if anyone at Adobe cares about not sinking their own ship I
would suggest they reconsider this malfunctioning copy protection
before they make a large portion of the customer base literally hate
them and their police state software.

$700 and it says it refuses to work.. GRRRRR... 
//
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@251.hSN9cNJ7U1o.339769@.3bb511a2

I'm sure Chris Skeeles regards these problems as "100% fact".


> 
> I mean to Adobe?  Reactivation may be flawed or have hiccups but even the
> brightest of organisations get things wrong from time-to-time. ...
> 
> I am sure that the MS Money scenario has opened a lot of eyes (will the
> share price in "software secure" companies go thru the roof, meander a
> little or slump?)

Unfortunately it seems few people are drawing the "rational"
conclusions.

> 
> Methinks: give the team at Adobe time to peruse the details (personally I
> think they are going a bit like all organisations go when hitting
> mega-success they lose their way a little bit n'est pas?)  (I mean it even
> happened to the Beatles dinnit innit?   And also to that computer group
> named after a piece of fruit)

Do you *really* want Adobe to perfect "the details" of these schemes
which are intended to enrich themselves at the same time as putting
your software and data completely at their discretion?

Yes, they've lost their way. But tolerating DeActivation won't help
them find it again.

--Toby

> 
> Arts
> 
> "Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:d6ce4a6c.0408030244.58a1d5d9@posting.google.com...
> > "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
>  news:<WMFPc.5319$54.87625@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> > > ...
> > > companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have
>  the
> > > massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to
>  less
> > > 10 or 20 percent of their clients,
> >
> > I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the
> > graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing &
> > layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade.
> > We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
> > * anti-customer practices;
> > * predatory pricing;
> > * arrogance;
> > * declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are
> > disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of
> > software for 15+ years).
> >
> > > ...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is
> > > not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like
>  Photoshop,
> > > InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc.
> >
> > Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is
> > becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has
> > defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded,
> > sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a
> > better, less expensive product.)
> >
> > > ... software companies have done a great job
> > > getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not
> > > having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package,
>  allowing
> > > it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the
> > > changes. Things like that.
> >
> > This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use
> > alternatives.
> >
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > --Toby
> >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:772ug050uhg6pi6mm7biln6fd7f96mfrko@4ax.com...
> > > > John Doe writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this
>  activation
>  is
> > > > > only the start. ...

MArtin Chiselwitt <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and 
>> many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, 
>> Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
>> 
>Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to 
>Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in
>its class. Bar none.

When it was struggling to gain market share in its niche, 
quality probably mattered. Unquestionably Photoshop is 
a good product, but it's gotten to be the  standard so it 
may as well have a monopoly. Same with Quark. A new
competing product could come out tommorow with more
features, better price, easier to use - it doesn't matter.

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)

Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.

John


"Voivod" <Voi@vod.con> wrote in message
news:67kvg0la4ko4rqgf59i6i8cpf3cv38jkrk@news-server...
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:47:39 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
> >and many of them are better and offer more power and features.
>
> Name a few.... try for, say, four.
>
>

If you don't agree then you loose the right to use the software you just
paid big bucks for and probably wouldn't be able to get a refund for. As for
taking them to court, you would loose.

John


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0tkvg0leauhmd1eu7554imcmc7a7g9hals@4ax.com...
> John Doe writes:
>
> > The license agreements give the companies the right to change the
> > agreement at any time whether you agree or not.
>
> Only if you accept such agreements.
>
> Additionally, as I've said, such provisions are of questionable
> validity.
>
> > Your only option is to stop using the software, continue
> > to use it and you agree to the changes.
>
> Another option is to take them to court.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Sorry if you are talking about Linux it is not a viable alternative. It very
much lacking in commercial software support. It needs one unified graphical
interface and needs to made easier for Joe Blow and his blonde wife Betty to
use, install, update and add hardware too. Until that happens it will remain
a server OS and that is all.

As for IE, who said anything about browsers. You are right there. I use
Firefox and like it a lot. I do however think Thunderbird sucks right now
for e-mail, but things are improving with it. I just wish they would get the
damn stuff out of beta. This is the problem with open source it takes for
ever to get a version 1.0 release and forever and week to get major updates.
Too many little fingers in the programming pie.

John


"phaedrus" <phaedrus@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecCdnVLyqdNkSJLcRVn-pA@centurytel.net...
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives
> >to Photoshop.
>
> It doesn't matter. There are better alternatives to
> Windows and IE, too, but they're what everybody
> uses. Think "network effect".

I disagree with that as well. Photoshop used to be. But the last few
versions of added at most poorly implements, half finished features that in
later updates have been abandoned. Add to that Adobe's and their programmers
attitude as to feature suggestions (basically, most of them for some reason
can't be done even though they have been in competitors products) and you
have a program that growing less and less innovative with each new version.

John


"MArtin Chiselwitt" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:XeSPc.1168$qU2.468@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > John Doe writes:
> >
> >
> >>What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But,
> >>companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...
> >
> >
> > Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of
> > electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
> >
> Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop
> anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

It's not that bright for M$ AFAIK. The entire Japanese government turned to 
TRONE OS and ditched Windows. Many, many ISPs switched to Linux. And it just 
a matter of time before we see GIMP and similar (great and free) substitutes 
win users over.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g5ivg0dv81p9pf4bnicq5un86t6cusc1cf@4ax.com...
> Toby Thain writes:
>
>> For example, Linux has
>> defeated Windoze in the server market ...
>
> Windows is doing quite well in the server market, although not as well
> as it does on the desktop (it is never likely to do as well for servers
> as it does on the desktop, since it's fundamentally a desktop OS).
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. 

Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build their own systems. I
don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase.
What that would mean is that people will eventually start to think more
carefully about various OS's out there and make their choice rather than
have the choice made for them. Linuces are becoming easier to use and more
stable, and they can also drain more power out of hardware. GIMP is looking
nice, too, so in couple of reincarnations, we'll have a choice of working
with Win PC vs. Linux PC and PS vs. the GIMP. I suppose it could take a few
years for this to happen, but it is still better ever than never, right?

"phaedrus" <phaedrus@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecCdnVPyqdMOSJLcRVn-pA@centurytel.net...
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>John Doe writes:
> --snip--
>>> Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but
>>> then when it comes to greed corporate American can
>>> justify almost anything.
>>
>>That's when new corporations step in and put the old
>>ones out of business.
>
> If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies,
> you'd be right. New OS's or new office suites don't have
> a prayer against a product that comes preinstalled on
> 99.9% of PCs sold. Can new companies get deals with
> OEMs like that? <snort>

On 8/3/04 12:56 PM, "John Doe" wrote:

> I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

Photoshop is the only tool I'm aware of that can manipulate images in such a
flexible way, while keeping prepress/printing at its top priority.

> PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety...<snip>

Huh? While I agree that it's nice that my platesetter and PostScript laser
printers rely on PostScript, I couldn't agree that PostScript is not a
necessity. Especially since PostScript IS a necessity, and not really
all-that NICE. :)

If you don't understand that, you should ask here in c.p.p.
(comp.publish.prepress)

> Type 1 Fonts are not needed thanks to TrueType and OpenType...<snip>

Huh? Adobe is one of the main manufacturers of Type 1, TrueType and OpenType
fonts, right? And OpenType is really either Type 1 or TrueType. So what does
this have to do with your argument?

> and PDF well while more of a problem the world could live without it...<snip>

Huh? Life without PDF? Are you absolutely insane? No thank you. PDF saves us
more time/money than you could imagine. Anything prior to PDF is a step
backward in time. Again, no thank you.

> What the problem is is most people like what they like so they don't look
> for alternatives...<snip>

Huh? I don't believe that. Not in the world of prepress (this was originally
posted/cross-posted to c.p.p). Most prepress professionals like what works.

For example:

Broken products are a constant struggle for us, and a big-time profit waste.
Alternatives to knowingly wasting profit are extensively researched on a
fairly regular basis. Alternatives that work seem to always win hands-down.

Use what works. Recommend what works to your coworkers, employees,
customers, vendors.... But you better make sure it works first. :)

> Unlike Windows there are viable alternatives to all of these in some form or
> another.

Huh? There are a few viable alternatives to Windows, but I can't see any
viable alternatives to Photoshop, PostScript or fonts, regardless of their
format (Type 1, TrueType or OpenType). Am I missing something??

Prepress minds want to know............

Tim

On 8/3/04 9:25 PM, in article wOXPc.5549$54.89890@typhoon.sonic.net, "John
Doe" wrote:

> Corel Photo-Paint
> Jasc PaintShop Pro
> Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)
> 
> Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.
> 
> John

Okay. Three.

Now, tell us how these three substandard applications stack up to Photoshop
in the world of prepress. I'm sure there are some very curious folks
following this thread, as am I.

Do you know what prepress means? I seriously doubt it.

Tim

phaedrus writes:

> If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies,
> you'd be right.

None of them has a monopoly, and this happens regularly.  It always
seems like some company is impossible to dislodge from its dominant
position ... until it abruptly happens.  The history of IT is filled
with such occurrences.  Nobody in IT is ever secure.

> New OS's or new office suites don't have 
> a prayer against a product that comes preinstalled on 
> 99.9% of PCs sold.

Sure they do.  It takes only a few minutes to install a new OS.

However, right now there isn't much reason to run anything other than
Windows.

> Can new companies get deals with OEMs like that?

Absolutely.

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

Toby Thain writes:

> Nothing...I repeat nothing has changed on my system expect for the IP
> address of my network ... Why then does Photoshop insist that I
> register. This has become an EMBARRASSMENT in front of my clients. It
> is one thing when software simply
> fails to work. But when it INTENTIONALLY QUITS is a whole different
> story.

Sue them.

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

John Doe writes:

> I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Not for serious professional use, especially in prepress.

> PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety ...

PostScript is a necessity in prepress.

> Type 1 Fonts are not needed thanks to TrueType and OpenType ...

Type 1 fonts are a necessity in prepress.

> ... and PDF well while more of a problem the world could live
> without it.

You'd prefer Word as a document-exchange medium instead.

PDF is the world's most popular and portable format for electronic
distribution of printed documents, and it's also one of the safest and
most reliable.  There is no real competition for PDF.

> What the problem is is most people like what
> they like so they don't look for alternatives.

The problem is that some people don't realize that there aren't any
alternatives to certain key products.

> Unlike Windows there are viable alternatives to all of
> these in some form or another.

There are just as many alternatives to Windows as there are to
Photoshop, PostScript, and PDF (in other words, there are virtually no
alternatives to any of these).

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

MArtin Chiselwitt writes:

> Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop 
> anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

When you have a product that is sufficiently superior or dominant over
all others, it's effectively a monopoly.

One cannot say that Windows is a monopoly and simultaneously say that
Photoshop is not.  There are actually more alternatives to Windows than
there are to Photoshop.

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

Dennis Gordon writes:

> Yep, and probably the most recognized, and used productivity app out there.
> People who couldn't defrag their boxes, hook up a scanner or open a
> spreadsheet know what "Photoshopping" something means. What other
> application is such a part of the vernacular? If Adobe shoots themselves in
> the foot with some byzantine protection scheme, there will still be millions
> who get along quite nicely with CS, or v7 or even v6...

I already do.  The nice thing about most software is that it runs
forever.  So you can use old versions to do what you want indefinitely.

I haven't upgraded any software in a long time, and things are still
working just fine for me.  The software I have does everything I need.

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

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dlp0h0po5ebnmkn8lpn890sco38n4k4m1l@4ax.com>...
> Dennis Gordon writes:
> 
> > Yep, and probably the most recognized, and used productivity app out there.
> > People who couldn't defrag their boxes, hook up a scanner or open a
> > spreadsheet know what "Photoshopping" something means. What other
> > application is such a part of the vernacular? If Adobe shoots themselves in
> > the foot with some byzantine protection scheme, there will still be millions
> > who get along quite nicely with CS, or v7 or even v6...
> 
> I already do.  The nice thing about most software is that it runs
> forever.  So you can use old versions to do what you want indefinitely.

And you can bet Adobe (and M$, etc) hate that more than anything and
are frantically trying to cut off that possibility.

--Toby

> 
> I haven't upgraded any software in a long time, and things are still
> working just fine for me.  The software I have does everything I need.

"xDsrtRat" <xDsrtRat@sonora.com> wrote in message news:<juCdnVU-6LpxD5LcRVn-qA@adelphia.com>...
> ...
> 
> Money is aimed at home users, not businesses.

So it's ok to screw home users over?

You can bet quite a number of businesses use it. (Ill advised as it
may be. It's also ill advised to run Windoze, but people still do
that, too.)


> 
> > "Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming
> > up."
> >
> So quit compalining and write a check. I know it's quaint to do things by
> hand, but it works!

Yes, it does. And that is, in fact, the lesson of the whole episode.
The old way(s) still work. If M$ Money users hadn't been suckered into
a subscription arrangement, they'd still be running a (computerised)
system that works. Get it?

> 
> ...
> 
> So what's the connection to activation?

If you have read this thread and still don't understand, then you're
beyond help. Enjoy your DeActivated products; "a fool and his Money
are soon parted".

--Toby

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<%cQPc.5394$54.89084@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> Unfortunately, Photoshop is slipping, 

It may be slipping (not unfortunately), but as of today, Adobe has a
monopoly in the CMYK image processing market and has held it for
easily 10 years.

> Illustrator probably never will be,
> GoLive doesn't stand a chance, InDesign maybe but that is a ways off. 

I agree InDesign will likely take over XPress' monopoly position.
After all, it's a better, cheaper product.

--Toby

> don't see a monopoly. There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
> and many of them are better and offer more power and features.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> ... darn top-posting ...

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<wOXPc.5549$54.89890@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> Corel Photo-Paint
> Jasc PaintShop Pro
> Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)

The market share for these programs, particularly in the pre-press and
related areas, is miniscule to non-existent. Photoshop's market share
constitutes a monopoly here.

--Toby

> 
> Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> "Voivod" <Voi@vod.con> wrote in message
> news:67kvg0la4ko4rqgf59i6i8cpf3cv38jkrk@news-server...
> > On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:47:39 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
> > scribbled:
> >
> > >There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
> > >and many of them are better and offer more power and features.
> >
> > Name a few.... try for, say, four.
> >
> >

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<6lQPc.5412$54.89184@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.
> PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety, Type 1 Fonts are not needed
> thanks to TrueType and OpenType and PDF well while more of a problem the
> world could live without it. What the problem is is most people like what
> they like so they don't look for alternatives. Unlike Windows there are
> viable alternatives to all of these in some form or another.

What you don't seem to understand is that "the existence of
alternatives" does not mean there is no monopoly.

--Toby

> 
> John
> 
> 
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:02ivg01ffsa24scqed6b99o6bt3o0osi04@4ax.com...
> > John Doe writes:
> >
> > > What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But,
> > > companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...
> >
> > Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of
> > electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
> >
> > -- 
> > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ithvg0h186ejia2586rlrqjr0hooi0tlq9@4ax.com>...
> John Doe writes:
> 
> > Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check
> > activation with every command and tool you used.
> 
> That wouldn't help.  As long as you have physical control over a
> machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that
> machine.

Can you guess what "the product formerly known as Palladium" is for? 

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
\\
.... the TCG specification will transfer the ultimate control of your
PC from you to whoever wrote the software it happens to be running.
.... TC will also make it much harder for you to run unlicensed
software. ...
If Microsoft believes that your copy of Office is a pirate copy, and
your local government moves to TC, then the documents you file with
them may be unreadable. ... your software suppliers can make it much
harder for you to switch to their competitors' products. At a simple
level, Word could encrypt all your documents using keys that only
Microsoft products have access to; this would mean that you could only
read them using Microsoft products, not with any competing word
processor. [this is already the case, see Money debacle] ... TC will
dramatically increase the costs of switching away from Microsoft
products (such as Office) to rival products (such as OpenOffice). ...

The fundamental issue is that whoever controls the TC infrastructure
will acquire a huge amount of power. ... There are many ways in which
this power could be abused. ... Once the majority of PCs on the market
are TC-enabled, the GPL won't work as intended. The benefit for
Microsoft is not that this will destroy free software directly. ...
//

http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/palladium/palladium.boycott.xhtml
\\
DRM is the political, legal, contractual, economic, hardware, and
software infrastructure designed and intended by a loose alliance of
cartels and monopolies to take away your right to own and privately
use a computer. ...
//

This ain't a conspiracy theory. It's a blueprint and you and I are
supposed to be in it.

--Toby


> 
> ...snip...

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<43p0h05mu4s4evcdqekhl9je7pnpi9ridr@4ax.com>...
> ...It takes only a few minutes to install a new OS.
> 
> However, right now there isn't much reason to run anything other than
> Windows.

That's funny; I seem to have got by fine without it the last 24 years
of using computers. So have all my employers.

--Toby

PS. Except occasionally I have to use it to test Mac plugins ported to
it,
like the free ones here: http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

> 
> > Can new companies get deals with OEMs like that?
> 
> Absolutely.

Toby Thain writes:

> Can you guess what "the product formerly known as Palladium" is for? 

No product can change the principle I've described.  If you have
physical access to a machine, it cannot be fully secured from you.

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

Toby Thain writes:

> I agree InDesign will likely take over XPress' monopoly position.
> After all, it's a better, cheaper product.

That depends on which company behaves more stupidly in the years to
come.  Photoshop CS activation does not bode well for Adobe.  Then
again, dongles for XPress don't, either.

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

Toby Thain writes:

> What you don't seem to understand is that "the existence of
> alternatives" does not mean there is no monopoly.

Actually it does.  A monopoly cannot exist if there are alternatives.

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

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>phaedrus writes:
>
>> If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies,
>> you'd be right.
>
>None of them has a monopoly, 

I think M$ does. So does Judge Jackson:

<quote> 
From http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings-6.html
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for 
Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished 
to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could 
charge a price for Windows substantially above that 
which could be charged in a competitive market. 
Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time 
without losing an unacceptable amount of business to 
competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly 
power in the relevant market.

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that 
Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's 
share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating
systems is extremely large and stable. 
Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected
by a high barrier to entry. 
Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's
customers lack a commercially viable alternative to 
Windows.
</quote>

>and this happens regularly.
>It always seems like some company is impossible to 
>dislodge from its dominant position ... until it abruptly 
>happens.  The history of IT is filled with such occurrences.
>Nobody in IT is ever secure.

You sound like Gates - when he speaks publicly, that is.
Most of the abrupt "dislodgings" have been done by M$,
and are due to 
1.) M$ controls the desktop OS market.
2.) M$ has enough money to engage in "dumping",
    to make substantial threats and/or bribes, or to
    just buy competing companies.

>> New OS's or new office suites don't have a prayer 
>> against a product that comes preinstalled on 99.9%
>> of PCs sold.
>
>Sure they do.  It takes only a few minutes to install a new OS.

And then... ? Will you be able to use, say, Photoshop with 
your new OS? The vast majority of apps are written for 
Windows. How would you overcome this problem if you 
were a startup company with a great new OS? Remember: 
you don't have billions of dollars to throw at the problem.

And how about the office suites? It doesn't take very long 
to install them either, but there seem to be inertia and 
compatibility (with the M$ "standards") problems.

>However, right now there isn't much reason to run 
>anything other than Windows.

There are several reasons to dump Windows. There is 
one huge reason to keep Windows: the network effect.

>> Can new companies get deals with OEMs like that?
>
>Absolutely.

Were you thinking of a specific example?

Hi Toby

I really don't know what to say to this apart from I hope the shift to
false-secure software stops

The bottom line appears to be whatever is done is always undone and
sometimes undone before the commercial product hits the shelves.

It sorta looks like the software houses seek some consolation and end up
hitting customers :-(

A bit sad really

Arts

"Toby Thain" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:d6ce4a6c.0408031610.1de93cca@posting.google.com...
> "Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:<ruPPc.2541$R66.1219@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...
> > Whoah Whoah Whoah - slow down - it hasn't happened yet has it?
>
> What do you mean? Denying access to data? Yes, it already happens
> frequently and inconveniently to Adobe users - read the Adobe Forums:
>
> \\
> I work from home, office and clients location all with ONE MACHINE,
> yet
> everytime I get to the new location Photoshop seems to think I made
> some
> critical change and requires me to register either online or over
> phone.
>
> I do not have Internet at clients so I am force to dial a phone and
> wait for someone to help. Unacceptable. :( :( :(
>
> Nothing...I repeat nothing has changed on my system expect for the IP
> address of my network ... Why then does Photoshop insist that I
> register. This has become an EMBARRASSMENT in front of my clients. It
> is one thing when software simply
> fails to work. But when it INTENTIONALLY QUITS is a whole different
> story. ... if anyone at Adobe cares about not sinking their own ship I
> would suggest they reconsider this malfunctioning copy protection
> before they make a large portion of the customer base literally hate
> them and their police state software.
>
> $700 and it says it refuses to work.. GRRRRR...
> //
>
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@251.hSN9cNJ7U1o.339769@.3bb511a2
>
> I'm sure Chris Skeeles regards these problems as "100% fact".
>

John Doe wrote:
> I disagree with that as well. Photoshop used to be. But the last few
> versions of added at most poorly implements, half finished features that in
> later updates have been abandoned. Add to that Adobe's and their programmers
> attitude as to feature suggestions (basically, most of them for some reason
> can't be done even though they have been in competitors products) and you
> have a program that growing less and less innovative with each new version.
> 
> John
> 
  That is very much a matter of your own personal opinion.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> 
> One cannot say that Windows is a monopoly and simultaneously say that
> Photoshop is not.

I can and I do.

A monopoly is a market in which there are many consumers but no choice. 
Or rather, only one choice. Specifically, that is to say, there is no 
competition in a 'monopoly'.
There have always been alternatives to Photoshop, some of them not 
unreasonable.
It has a large market share, it does NOT monopolise that share. They do 
not use questionable economic tactics to stop you using CorelDraw or 
PaintShop Pro. etc...
People will vote with their cash at the end of the day and that is what 
has elevated Photoshop to it's current status. Conversely, it is also 
what may destroy it, as this thread occasionaly points out.

I find similar sentiments with regard to Flash which I also own. I have 
tried the alternatvies. They are/weren't good enough. Look at the sorry 
tale of Live Motion and you will see that Adobe are far from the 
uber-software house that you paint them out [hehe] to be...

mc




   There are actually more alternatives to Windows than
> there are to Photoshop.
> 

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:31:14 -0500, phaedrus <phaedrus@apexmail.com>
wrote:

>MArtin Chiselwitt <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>> Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and 
>>> many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, 
>>> Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
>>> 
>>Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to 
>>Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in
>>its class. Bar none.
>
>When it was struggling to gain market share in its niche, 
>quality probably mattered. Unquestionably Photoshop is 
>a good product, but it's gotten to be the  standard so it 
>may as well have a monopoly. Same with Quark. A new
>competing product could come out tommorow with more
>features, better price, easier to use - it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't agree about Quark. Anyone with any sense has been looking
for an alternative for years. And now it's available - InDesign CS.

 --

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com 
veni, vidi, reliqui

I'm from prepress and I don't see any problem with Photo-paint. I actually 
like it very much. You should see the color correction options available in 
PP. Now *that's* a time-saver. The only problem is that it is just half a 
step behind PS in some areas (bulky interface, for one). Color management 
has improved impressively and I think it's now quite a serious competitor 
even in the prepress world.

And, of course, CorelDRAW (whith which PP integrates literally) has always 
had Illy eat dust. The text handling in both PP and DRAW are superb. I only 
wish Ventura was released in full Unicode version so I could ditch Adobe 
altogether (well, all except for the beautiful OTF fonts).


"Tim Monk" <tmonk@austin.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:BD35C102.134E5%tmonk@austin.rr.com...
> On 8/3/04 9:25 PM, in article wOXPc.5549$54.89890@typhoon.sonic.net, "John
> Doe" wrote:
>
>> Corel Photo-Paint
>> Jasc PaintShop Pro
>> Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)
>>
>> Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.
>>
>> John
>
> Okay. Three.
>
> Now, tell us how these three substandard applications stack up to 
> Photoshop
> in the world of prepress. I'm sure there are some very curious folks
> following this thread, as am I.
>
> Do you know what prepress means? I seriously doubt it.
>
> Tim
>
>
> 

Branko Vukelic writes:

> Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build their own systems. I
> don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase.

It is decreasing.  A computers become more and more of a commodity,
fewer and fewer people build their own.  How many people do you know who
build their own cars, washing machines, or television sets?

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

Branko Vukelic writes:

> It's not that bright for M$ AFAIK. The entire Japanese government turned to 
> TRONE OS and ditched Windows.

They may change their minds.  Most applications available in the world
run on PCs under Windows.

Sometimes organizations believe their IT managers, even when these
managers learn everything they know from a couple of trade rags.  As a
result, they sometimes make bizarre decisions.  But time corrects any
mistakes.

> Many, many ISPs switched to Linux. And it just 
> a matter of time before we see GIMP and similar (great and free) substitutes 
> win users over.

Other versions of UNIX are superior to Linux; the fact that so many ISPs
use the latter is further proof of what I mention above.  It's
surprising how many people in IT these days don't really know much about
what they are doing.

The GIMP isn't going to win anyone over in the professional domains
where Photoshop is currently king.  The GIMP is useless for prepress,
for example.  It does have an appropriate name, though.

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2414h0h9ph0sbb6scdijd8c00dj1v3a695@4ax.com...
> Branko Vukelic writes:
>
> > It's not that bright for M$ AFAIK. The entire Japanese government turned to
> > TRONE OS and ditched Windows.
>
> They may change their minds.  Most applications available in the world
> run on PCs under Windows.
>
> Sometimes organizations believe their IT managers, even when these
> managers learn everything they know from a couple of trade rags.  As a
> result, they sometimes make bizarre decisions.  But time corrects any
> mistakes.
>
> > Many, many ISPs switched to Linux. And it just
> > a matter of time before we see GIMP and similar (great and free) substitutes
> > win users over.
>
> Other versions of UNIX are superior to Linux; the fact that so many ISPs
> use the latter is further proof of what I mention above.  It's
> surprising how many people in IT these days don't really know much about
> what they are doing.

You're vastly underestimating the prowess and foresight of "many"
IT managers.  I've seen it first-hand, all over the Silicon Valley --
the bottom line is, corporations have had it with constant security
breaches, incessant upgrades and retraining, forced audits, and on
and on and on.  Microsoft (or to put it more accurately, Steve
Ballmer) is in the process of greeding themselves out of existence.

It will take years for it to happen, but it IS happening.  Out of the
dozen major projects I've had this year, none -- ZERO -- have
been migrations to Microsoft server products.  Nearly ALL of
them have been migrations FROM Microsoft products to *nix.

Rick

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sjl1h0pqem9q7iu5h6pe2ea8m1v99pp17n@4ax.com>...
> Toby Thain writes:
> 
> > What you don't seem to understand is that "the existence of
> > alternatives" does not mean there is no monopoly.
> 
> Actually it does.  A monopoly cannot exist if there are alternatives.

OK, I concede it's an inadequate word. Let's call it "market
leadership" instead. However, there are not yet credible alternatives
in pre-press & graphic arts. I have seen many promising competitors
(e.g. Linotype-Hell DaVinci) killed off in front of my eyes by
Photoshop on commodity hardware. Likewise, PostScript saw off all
competition in several markets (office printers, imagesetters, etc).

That was in the days when Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript were
lean, elegant and obviously world-beating technology. These products
have all entered a bloated and unhealthy middle age. Shakily
retrofitted PDF and an over-ambitious hybrid imaging model
(raster/vector/transparency/etc) are among the cancers. Users suffer
the effects of these tumours daily. The once-great products will
eventually succumb to their diseases, leaving room for a new crop of
lean, elegant technologies. (That's the optimistic view :)

What I am mainly getting at is that Adobe is showing all the signs of
a company that is too large, run by its accountants, and suicidally
arrogant. The imposition of DeActivation-type mechanisms on deceptive
pretexts (stops piracy! sure) merely proves cynical disinterest in
their customers.

--Toby

"Branko Vukelic" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build 
>their own systems. I don't know the stats, but I sincerely 
>hope the percentage is in increase.
>What that would mean is that people will eventually start 
>to think more carefully about various OS's out there and 
>make their choice rather than have the choice made for 
>them. 

I'd bet you're talking about a miniscule percentage. 
IME, the average user still has a superficial knowledge
of his/her machine. Some use a computer at work and
only learn a couple of work-related programs, some use 
a computer at home for internet, games, DTP, etc. 
I consider myself beginner-to-intermediate level, but I 
get asked to troubleshoot all kinds of basic stuff --
reinstalling the OS, cleaning up after a virus/worm, 
setting up dial-up networking, etc., etc. There people
aren't going to know how to move to another OS, but
that doesn't mean they don't deserve to have a choice 
of OS. 

Recently, Toby Thain <toby@telegraphics.com.au> posted:
>
> That was in the days when Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript were
> lean, elegant and obviously world-beating technology.
>
Hmm. When, exactly, were those mythical days? If anything, Photoshop and
Illustrator were pushed into the "world-beating technology" arena by the
establishment of PostScript (and EPS by extension) as the primary
publishing format. Until that became firmly entrenched, there were several
better image editors and better vector-based drawing applications with
features that didn't get incorporated into Adobe's offerings until quite
recently.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message news:<PksQc.12053$Jp6.600@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> Recently, Toby Thain <toby@telegraphics.com.au> posted:
> >
> > That was in the days when Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript were
> > lean, elegant and obviously world-beating technology.
> >
> Hmm. When, exactly, were those mythical days? If anything, Photoshop and
> Illustrator were pushed into the "world-beating technology" arena by the
> establishment of PostScript (and EPS by extension) as the primary
> publishing format. Until that became firmly entrenched, there were several
> better image editors and better vector-based drawing applications with
> features that didn't get incorporated into Adobe's offerings until quite
> recently.

Illustrator hit the market no more than 2 years after PostScript did,
as a fully functional "EPS creator". It was obvious at its release
that it was a groundbreaking new way of working. Photoshop followed
not long after, with the same impact. The entire revolutionary suite
was available by 1990.

--Toby

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Neil

>
> > I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.
>
> Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best
alternative now is  PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.

Ted

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cbp0h0pbao456ieca0h7nk7v75ohg8u4e9@4ax.com>...
> ...
> There are just as many alternatives to Windows as there are to
> Photoshop, PostScript, and PDF (in other words, there are virtually no
> alternatives to any of these).

I agree with your other points, but you're wrong about Windoze: it is
the one entirely optional component in pre-press. You might recall
that the Macintosh was the first home, and remains the most productive
home, of Illustrator and Photoshop (not to mention Quark XPress, ATM,
Type 1 fonts, PageMaker, etc). PostScript first saw light of day as a
crucial enabling component of the Macintosh office.

--Toby

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:10:50 -0400, Ted in comp.publish.prepress wrote:


>>
>> > I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.
>>
>> Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

>I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best
>alternative now is  PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.

The GIMP version 2, is a good replacement to Photoshop, especially now
that CMYK has been incorporated, and which is being constantly improved
by the developers.

The real advantage to GIMP, is it's perl scriptiable, which makes
Photoshop actions, much much weaker, to that which one can do with GIMP.
AppleScript and VB are considerably weaker in what they can hook into
with Photoshop -- And then there is ScriptFu in the GIMP, probably more
actions available there, than anyone could find in Photoshop. However
the GIMPs interface does take some getting used to. That's often the
biggest hurdle for people used to Photoshop or PShop Pro. But if people
stick long enough with the GIMP, most are impressed with how powerful it
is.

Due to the fact that Photoshop is considerably older, it has a
captive audience with a vested interest in using/promoting Photoshop, so
people don't like changing their minds overnight -- Even if another
product is as competitive or maybe even slightly better. Human nature,
and people being used to what they're comfortable with, and not liking
change.

-- 
                                ATTENTION
     This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
     Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
     allowed for die experts only!  So all the "lefthanders" stay away
     and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
     intelligencies.  Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
     anderswhere!  Also: please keep still and only watchen
     astaunished the blinkenlights.

I appologize for activation.


There, I've said it.

8�

I've never had a strong position for product activation on either side
until today.  My Windows XP was buggy so I rolled it back 1 restore
point.  A short time later I started photoshop only to find out it
requires a "repair" re-activation as it had noticed the system
changed.  No big deal right?..Except when I try via the internet it
fails, and when I use telephone activation it fails, and customer
support is down for both yesterday and today according to the
message!!  So, no photoshop, no support, and I'm just lucky I don't
have any projects due for tomorrow as I'm literally "up the creek".
Why do legitimate users have to go through this crap, while all the
pirated software is activation free anyway?
ok...done venting.
-damian




marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnch9rio.j98.M@barnyard.sweetpig.dyndns.org>...
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:10:50 -0400, Ted in comp.publish.prepress wrote:
> 
> 
> >>
> >> > I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.
> >>
> >> Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?
>  
> >I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best
> >alternative now is  PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.
> 
> The GIMP version 2, is a good replacement to Photoshop, especially now
> that CMYK has been incorporated, and which is being constantly improved
> by the developers.
> 
> The real advantage to GIMP, is it's perl scriptiable, which makes
> Photoshop actions, much much weaker, to that which one can do with GIMP.
> AppleScript and VB are considerably weaker in what they can hook into
> with Photoshop -- And then there is ScriptFu in the GIMP, probably more
> actions available there, than anyone could find in Photoshop. However
> the GIMPs interface does take some getting used to. That's often the
> biggest hurdle for people used to Photoshop or PShop Pro. But if people
> stick long enough with the GIMP, most are impressed with how powerful it
> is.
> 
> Due to the fact that Photoshop is considerably older, it has a
> captive audience with a vested interest in using/promoting Photoshop, so
> people don't like changing their minds overnight -- Even if another
> product is as competitive or maybe even slightly better. Human nature,
> and people being used to what they're comfortable with, and not liking
> change.
> 
> -- 
>                                 ATTENTION
>      This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
>      Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
>      allowed for die experts only!  So all the "lefthanders" stay away
>      and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
>      intelligencies.  Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
>      anderswhere!  Also: please keep still and only watchen
>      astaunished the blinkenlights.

dorkboy@comic-geek.com (damian) wrote in message news:<6e59d5c1.0408081257.26c6578@posting.google.com>...
> I've never had a strong position for product activation on either side
> until today.  My Windows XP was buggy so I rolled it back 1 restore
> point.  A short time later I started photoshop only to find out it
> requires a "repair" re-activation as it had noticed the system
> changed.  No big deal right?..Except when I try via the internet it
> fails, and when I use telephone activation it fails, and customer
> support is down for both yesterday and today according to the
> message!!  So, no photoshop, no support, and I'm just lucky I don't
> have any projects due for tomorrow as I'm literally "up the creek".

Q.E.D.

> Why do legitimate users have to go through this crap, while all the
> pirated software is activation free anyway?
> ok...done venting.

--Toby

> -damian
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnch9rio.j98.M@barnyard.sweetpig.dyndns.org>...
> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:10:50 -0400, Ted in comp.publish.prepress wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >>
> > >> > I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.
> > >>
> > >> Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?
>  
> > >I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best
> > >alternative now is  PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.
> > 
> > The GIMP version 2, is a good replacement to Photoshop, especially now
> > that CMYK has been incorporated, and which is being constantly improved
> > by the developers.
> > 
> > The real advantage to GIMP, is it's perl scriptiable, which makes
> > Photoshop actions, much much weaker, to that which one can do with GIMP.
> > AppleScript and VB are considerably weaker in what they can hook into
> > with Photoshop -- And then there is ScriptFu in the GIMP, probably more
> > actions available there, than anyone could find in Photoshop. However
> > the GIMPs interface does take some getting used to. That's often the
> > biggest hurdle for people used to Photoshop or PShop Pro. But if people
> > stick long enough with the GIMP, most are impressed with how powerful it
> > is.
> > 
> > Due to the fact that Photoshop is considerably older, it has a
> > captive audience with a vested interest in using/promoting Photoshop, so
> > people don't like changing their minds overnight -- Even if another
> > product is as competitive or maybe even slightly better. Human nature,
> > and people being used to what they're comfortable with, and not liking
> > change.
> > 
> > -- 
> >                                 ATTENTION
> >      This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
> >      Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
> >      allowed for die experts only!  So all the "lefthanders" stay away
> >      and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
> >      intelligencies.  Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
> >      anderswhere!  Also: please keep still and only watchen
> >      astaunished the blinkenlights.