var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

July 5, 2009 10:29 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Yep.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 5, 2009 10:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

A textbook example of why DRM and server activation schemes are so hated. Adobe's still in business but they can't even activate a 5-year old product. Imagine all the money lost by people that have had similar problems but no phone number to call.

Kudos to Adobe for doing the right thing, plus. But the problem was relying on servers as ultimate gatekeepers of whether you can use something you've already purchased... I mean \"licensed.\"

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

psm321

July 5, 2009 11:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@From the cubicle of PGibbons: Exactly. This is presented as an \"Above and Beyond\", and it probably is on the part of the rep herself, but I know I would be pissed if I couldn't use a product I had purchased and would have to use a newer one which may have different features, etc. Imagine for example being unable to activate an old game (say SimCity 2000) and being offered to get a copy of The Sims 2 instead :). Of course this is why I avoid DRMed software for the most part. I really wanted to check out Spore, and I've played a bit at a friend's and it seems fun, but I am not about to spend $50 on it only to be unable to play it when I get the nostalgia 10 years from now.

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

July 5, 2009 11:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@From the cubicle of PGibbons: Like Donathius, I'm betting the Macromedia merger had something to do with this particular snafu. The MX 2004 products were all natively Macromedia-produced, and the activation scheme was theirs. In 2009, five years and one corporate merger later, perhaps Abobe doesn't have sufficient record of Macromedia's activation scheme to be able to generate a valid, new number.

I for one am impressed. Just giving away a license for a brand-new product isn't what I expected Adobe to do, especially since they've all but gutted the erstwhile Macromedia product line.

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 5:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: But Adobe does have liability for the obligations of Macromedia.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

July 5, 2009 10:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@From the cubicle of PGibbons: If nothing else, this a situation where it's defensible to use a crack.

I can't wait for about another 5-10 years to pass, when some large company actually turns off activation servers for a \"legacy\" product and gets hit with a class action lawsuit. I hope that would have happened to Microsoft had they actually turned off the servers for MSN Music in 2008.

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

July 6, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: \"If nothing else, this a situation where it's defensible to use a crack.\"

That is my main beef with all of these \"pirate protection\" sorts of deals. I understand that Adobe is pirated like CRAZY and they're trying hard to keep that from happening, but these sorts of policies (like DRM'd music and others) only hurt honest people who want to do things nice and legally. People who don't care about the legality will just torrent and crack it to get around the inability to reactivate their old programs. But this person is trying to keep it legit and is getting a big fat \"Sorry you're SOL\". I understand if it's something to do with Adobe buying out Macromedia, but there's gotta be something they can do that makes it possible to still use the older programs (that aren't actually all that old and are still completely usable).

$\"user-pic\"$

Unsolicited Advice

July 6, 2009 7:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Do you understand? Do you understand completely? Because, quite frankly, either Adobe cracks down on pirates or they go out of business.

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

July 6, 2009 9:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Unsolicited Advice: Or they can find a way to either price their products in a way the people who want them can afford them (payment installments? Subscription? I don't know, I can't believe there's not some solution out there) or figure out how to keep piracy down without inadvertently hurting their paying customers (while only mildly inconveniencing the pirates).

It just seems like the whole process is flawed and could be fixed somehow.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gnort

July 6, 2009 10:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@korybing: I'm with korybing. You know what I think is happening? I think software companies (in most cases) are being sold a product and are buying into the idea that they have to use this product to protect their software. The sad thing is; the industry is paying millions to develop or include already developed DRM and it -isn't- working...software is still being used for free. All this DRM is to the extreme frustration of people who are the -customers-. How has the customer become this devalued?

If Adobe has a \"huge\" problem with pirated software; I agree that they need to look at themselves. It happens with computer games too, the problem there is they expect you to pay $59 for a game that is total garbage. Adobe doesn't have the crap software problem (that I know of), they just have a great imaging product that tons of people want. Their problem takes me 30 seconds to find, I was on their site the other day because I wanted to touch up some old photos I just scanned. They were wanting $699-$1,000+. I understand the work that goes into software as a developer...but $1,000?! Maybe your software is good, maybe it's the best, but you start selling your good software for $1,000 when everyone wants it in their home and you are going to end up on the freaking torrent sites and become very popular there. I believe in buying software I use, but I know tens of people who have pirated copies of Photoshop. I imagine they aren't willing to pay $1,000 for something that is marginally better than other software at around the $59.99 price point. Anyway, I still don't own or use Photoshop because of their stupid pricing.

For fun, I also looked up Acrobat 9 Pro: $449.00. Yeah, nevermind I can get an OEM copy of MS Office Pro (with a piece of hardware I need anyway) for $389.00...can Acrobat really equal the functionality of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Publisher and Access?!

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 5:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Ironically, Microsoft named it \"Plays For Sure.\" Delightful.

$\"user-pic\"$

Brazell

July 6, 2009 5:53 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Or, the flip side..

Last year I bought Microsoft Office 2007 when Microsoft did that \"Ultimate Steal\" package, which was MS Office for $59, or whatever, which I think is really reasonable and I wanted to support MS for offering competitive pricing, so I bought the suite. Fast forward about 4 month and my computer dies. Fast forward about 6 months and I finally buy a new computer and I put Windows 7 on it. Of course, because I bought the Ultimate Steal, there was no disc, it was download only (another thing I was happy that Microsoft offered), but of course, knowing me, I had forgotten/lost the disc that had Office2007 on it. At first I went to MS' website and downloaded the Office demo, which I knew you could upgrade, but what'dya'know, you can't use an Ultimate product key on a non-ultimate package (kind of stupid if you ask me, but whatever).

I tried everything that I could, but MS had a limit of a 1-month window after purchase of downloading, and I couldn't find any way to get the program again. The thing is, I was legally licensed to have the software and, fortunately or unfortunately, decided that I Was justified in downloading the software from newsgroups instead of from Microsoft's website. I'm not sure of the legality of it, but I got a copy of Office, sure, it came with it's own crack and all sorts of illegality, but I used my legally purchased key, and -tada- it worked perfectly.

$\"user-pic\"$

shepd

July 6, 2009 12:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle:

Wait until MS turns off Windows XP activation. Unless they offer a patch to turn off the activation, all the (idiots) who decided to use it in various embedded systems will have fun. And, for \"corporate\" editions, wait until vista/windows 7 activation gets turned off.

Then we will finally get anti-DRM legislation.

$\"user-pic\"$

yasth

July 6, 2009 2:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: XP embedded needs no auth. Auth (and updates) is contractually required for xp/vista/windows 7 for 5 years after EOL.

MS is one of the few companies to do auth mostly right (phone call in center, ability to self host license servers)

$\"user-pic\"$

July 5, 2009 10:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@From the cubicle of PGibbons: I'm sure part of the problem stems from Adobe's purchase of Macromedia. I'm not defending them or anything (they should have kept the Macromedia's activation servers running in some fashion), but that's most likely the root cause of the problem. Awesome on them taking care of things though.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

winshape

July 5, 2009 10:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Criminy. I was just about to do my 2 year Windows format and reinstall, and I have the same version of Dreamweaver. That would really have stunk to try to reinstall and the activation code not work. Thanks for the heads up!

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 1:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@winshape: Her problem seemed to be at least in part due to her old computer crashing and her being unable to \"de-activate\" it there.

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 5:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: Before I head out on my commute, I'm sure to wear an ANSI crash helmet and preemptively dial 911 on days that another car will randomly hit mine.

The geniuses behind this activation/deactivation scheme just applied that same thinking to this situation. It's probably impossible to them that a hard drive could ever corrupt or otherwise get fubar'd.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

July 5, 2009 10:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@winshape: Her problem was with activating Macromedia StudioMX, not with Dreamweaver. So if you have Dreamweaver CS4, you're fine with reinstalling.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 5, 2009 11:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Dreamweaver is part of StudioMX...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 5, 2009 10:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If you can't activate your purchased software, there are dozens of websites out there that will be happy to provide you with a virus-free activation crack.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 6:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

As long as you use a \"test\" machine to test your cracks/warez first you are good. Even if it does get infected I have it on it's own switch and even on it's own workgroup. All the rest of the machines are off when it happens.

If I get a baddie I just simply turn off the machine, next time it boots it will be with a boot cdrom. I wipe the drive with the last good image, and it's back to normal and no baddies exist. I even use DBAN just to make sure it don't survive.

I call the machine \"R2-D2\"

Sometimes I even rename it to say \"R4\" or whatever a droid machine I can give it for a name.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 1:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac: And hundreds of sites with a virus-laden crack. It's Russian Roulette with the download.

$\"user-pic\"$

HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.

July 6, 2009 6:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: That's why you don't do warez sites, instead you grab the torrent with the highest number of seeders. People will stop seeding a torrent that has malware attached.

Err... or so I heard.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 7, 2009 3:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.: Word, and comments are good to read on each.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What yasth said. The larger sites, which it would probably be bad to mention here, are very big on 'clean' downloads. They likely do a far better job than any end-user would at scanning their files.

The bigger issue is with the ad banners on the sites, but a decent antivirus app (NOD32, KAV, AntiVir), antispyware app (SUPERAntiSpyware, MWBAM), and you're good to go.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnfrombrooklyn

July 6, 2009 4:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I used to work for a software company that released an \"important update\" that seriously screwed up computers that were running cracked versions of our software. If you had a registered version it did nothing. If it was a cracked copy it would screw up your registry. Hee Hee. I loved to listen to the phone that day when angry people called to blame us. But of course it wasn't our fault since our software wasn't even on their computer. @RvLeshrac:

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

July 7, 2009 2:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: It's not safe to assume that a software updated intended to \"break\" cracked software, will ONLY break \"cracked\" software and not legitimate installations.

A long time ago I worked in the systems department of a company that had a niche software title installed on one machine. This software was hardware-enabled (it used a dongle) ... without it, it didn't work. An update to it was released and we installed it. Whereupon the software refused to work, saying the dongle wasn't present.

After a couple of calls to the developer, it turned out that the update somehow interfered with some of the dongles they'd issued over the years and prevented the software from recognizing them. It took awhile to back off the update and get the program working. Eventually the tech I talked to admitted that the update had included logic intended to circumvent cracks, and he further admitted that some other legitimate customers had been caught, too. Maybe a month later, they released another \"update\" which worked correctly ... apparently they found what went wrong with the first, and fixed it.

So it may be great for them that they targeted software pirates ... but their salvo inadvertently \"broke\" some legitimate customers' installations. It's one thing to make trouble for folks with pirated software; it's quite another to create problems for legitimate customers who paid a couple thousand dollars for their software.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 7, 2009 10:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Then, aside from accidentally screwing over people who aren't using a pirate copy, you're also sure to screw over people who don't know they're using a pirate copy. Many computer illiterate folks have their kids/neighbors/etc set up their computer, and would have no idea if that person installed pirate software. Is it right to punish them?

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 10:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn:

You *ASSUME* it did nothing to registered owners.

Even well-coded software has bugs. Are you confident enough in your code to *know* that there were *absolutely no possible issues that would EVER* cause your software to do damage to legitimate users?

Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that none of the legitimate users were using cracks for whatever reason?

More importantly, your actions are just as, if not more, illegal as those of the pirates. You could be violating any number of national or international laws by writing intentionally malicious code.

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

July 6, 2009 7:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: And that, ladies and gents, is why you should never update your pirated software.

$\"user-pic\"$

DaBull

July 6, 2009 2:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: It's true that you have to be weary when downloading cracks. It's a shame that legit software owners have to resort to downloading cracks just to use the software they already own.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

July 6, 2009 2:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DaBull: Spending hundreds of dollars on legit software only to have to go download a crack to make it work right due to some stupid DRM issue does not do much to motivate people to again spend hundreds of dollars to put themselves in the same position yet again.

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 6:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: ..and if you download the \"fix\" from a newsgroup Adobe goes on to claim more \"damages\" in the hundreds or thousands of dollars for each patch. There's gotta be a better way.

$\"user-pic\"$

yasth

July 6, 2009 2:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: Actually warez sites are pretty good about avoiding that, they have reputations to protect. You are much more likely to run into problems with grey market stuff than straight black. No saying it can't happen, but if you keep your wits about you you'll be fine.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

your new nemesis

July 5, 2009 11:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I had a similar problem with windows xp. I learned that they have a product activation limit, and had to call them to get a new key so that I could reactivate my OS. At least they took care of it, but a numbered limit on how many times i can activate? (I one time did a hard drive upgrade, then my system crashed. So I built a new computer, and the software crashed trying to install service pack 1, was a fun week.)

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The activation limit for XP is somewhat roundabout. For the same hardware signature (the same hardware), you can activate an unlimited number of times within a certain period of time (a week, two, something like that). After that, you have to wait ~6 months between activations or go through the phone activation process.

If your hardware signature changes, you will nearly always have to call to activate.

In the case of OEM software, it clearly states in the OEM license that an OEM install is ONLY good for the ORIGINAL system on which it was installed.

That, of course, is complete BS, and typically can be taken care of with activation-by-phone.

Post-XP, MS has become substantially better about the licenses (no more non-transferrable OEM licenses), but reactivation still follows the same general rules.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kogenta

July 6, 2009 5:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac: Actually I believe that for XP, how it works is when you activate it the first time, it makes a hardware profile. You can then change any 6 pieces of hardware before you have to re-authenticate. This limit is reset every 6 months when XP makes a \"new\" profile of your system.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

There are lots of hidden activation triggers and \"bypass\" (for lack of a better word) systems.

It makes explaining why you have to reactivate... tricky.

Suffice to say, if you activate today, and then change most of your hardware tomorrow, it will still activate. Next week? Not so much.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Chris Knight

July 5, 2009 11:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, that is sweet. I have a copy of DW2004 that I haven't been able to use for a while and now that I know they will do this I may be able to make use of it again.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

MikeF74

July 5, 2009 11:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I had to go a few rounds with Macrovision once because I ran out of activations on a version of Installshield. Fought with them for three via outsourced email support arguing that activation does not require a support contract. I finally called and spoke to someone who fixed it in 5 minutes.

I may as well have been speaking Greek to the email support guy when I said I needed my activation count reset on their activation server. I hate it when tech support has no clue how things work (which is 90% of the time with big companies).

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 5, 2009 11:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, this is bullshit! If she had pirated the software and used a \"krack\" to bypass the activation, then she wouldn't be having this problem. But of course, you get punished for paying for your software whenever it's something that uses activation.

This just goes to show that DRM schemes are nothing but bad news. Obviously, not every company will go \"above and beyond\" like Adobe did. Hell, the company that publishes your software/music/movie might just end up going out of business, then you'll be screwed.

An even bigger problem is with laws such as the DMCA, which gives penalties for trying to bypass copy protection. Aside from preventing fair-use uses of media (i.e. copying copy-protected DVDs), it could ultimately prevent you from using the software (license) that you paid for but cannot use. I find it to be a bigger crime that a company can screw its customers like this.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

P_Smith

July 6, 2009 3:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@scootinger: It wasn't adobe that went above and beyond, it was an individual employee who wasn't lazy, unthinking or uncaring. That the customer had to wade through several adobe employees first proves the point.

I've had a similar experience, forced to talk to several before finding someone who knows what he/she is doing. Whenever I encounter a competent person in an incompetent company, I always ask, \"You haven't worked their for more than a year, have you?\" Almost always, they say they haven't.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

July 6, 2009 2:52 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@scootinger: Right now a copy of CS4 Suite is going for $500-$750. This is not chump change. To spend that kind of money on a product that could potentially cease working due to DRM at some point is not good.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Goatweed

July 5, 2009 11:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

in the end, I like how Adobe resolved the issue but what I don;t understand is how the Crack and Warez community can pretty much activate any of their software - regardless of age - but they themselves can't activate it? Seems odd to me.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Herbz

July 6, 2009 12:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Goatweed:
Obviously it means that the \"Crack and Warez\" community actually made the software themselves and Adobe is just licensing it from them. This means that you are actually just getting a license of part of a license when you actually buy the product..... maybe.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 5, 2009 11:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Goatweed: Indeed! I've heard of companies that have released patches to remove activation or other copy-protection once the software is no longer commercially viable or for other reasons (i.e. the company going under.) You certainly can't count on a company doing that, though. But I wonder why Adobe doesn't do that with Studio MX, considering that they *probably* won't be selling it again?

$\"user-pic\"$

Brazell

July 6, 2009 5:57 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@scootinger: It would kill the sales ability of the new Creative Suite if, say, CS1 was a free download. Nobody would buy CS4 when it comes out, if they could get either a very similar product, or wait a few years before the 'commercial viability' isn't there.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 9:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MichaelBrazell: I'm not saying that Adobe should release CS1 for free...that would be a pretty bad decision. Rather, they should consider simply writing a patch that will remove the activation from CS1 so legitimate owners can use it...which will probably do little to increase the piracy.

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 7:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MichaelBrazell: If CS4 isn't a huge improvement over CS1, perhaps there's a lesson there.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nicole

July 6, 2009 12:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"But I wonder why Adobe doesn't do that with Studio MX, considering that they *probably* won't be selling it again? \"

Because while they aren't selling Studio MX they are selling shiny new versions of Flash and Dreamweaver, and are probably hoping everyone will just upgrade.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

DH405

July 6, 2009 12:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Way better than Intuit. I had a client with an old copy of Quickbooks that was running just fine on his Windows 98 machine. When it died, I recovered the data on it and built him a new computer with XP. When I went to install his ancient Quickbooks on the new machine, it installed just fine, took his serial number just fine, and then when I started it up for the first time, it asked for an activation key.

I called the number, thinking it'd be as simple as I give a code and they use it to generate a new activation key. No. Instead, I was placed on hold for about 30 minutes while my \"support agent\" or whatever was trying to figure out what was going on.

The final word from Intuit : No, you can't activate your legally-purchased and legitimate software. We refuse to. If you want to continue using Quickbooks or to have access to the years of company data you have archived in our proprietary format, you'll need to buy our latest version. At full price.

I told them that this was horrible policy and most likely not legal. They said \"Sorry, that's policy. Would you like to go ahead and buy the new software?\" I was in shock over the greed/ineptitude. I gave them a few choice parting words, and then set to work. I found the activation key thing on the dead hard drive and had my client back up and going.

My client didn't want the new version. Their ancient software worked just fine for what they wanted to do. Intuit's behavior was just unexplainably horrible.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 7:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SMSDHubbard: No. Intuit's behavior was just unexplainably typical. Of Intuit.

$\"user-pic\"$

quail

July 6, 2009 3:48 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SMSDHubbard: I second the hate towards Intuit. I pray that gnucash becomes an easy to use alternative soon.

$\"user-pic\"$

shepd

July 6, 2009 12:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Intuit's old software rewrote the boot sector on activation, causing damage to non-windows operating systems. I expect you could include \"Windows XP\" in your non-windows operating systems list if you are running a version that expected windows 98.

If it didn't manage to break your PC, it probably refused to activate (and overwrite your bootsector) to protect it...

$\"user-pic\"$

DH405

July 6, 2009 1:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Actually it installed just fine, I just needed that code. Once I got it, there were no problems.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mykie

July 6, 2009 1:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Dov? Bing?

Are these real names?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

kostia

July 6, 2009 5:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mykie: Dov is undoubtedly Dov Isaacs, kind of a celebrity in certain circles. He's always been a very helpful troubleshooter on the Adobe forums and (back in the day) industry mailing lists.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 1:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The funny thing is, I feel like I'm the only person who actually BUYS this software. Other graphic/web designers and friends I know all get theirs from torrents or news servers.

$400 is a bit pricey for a piece of software, I will admit.

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 4:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@.Xenn.: If you think $400 is expensive, you have never looked at the cost of retail copies of Microsoft software.

$\"user-pic\"$

Grive

July 8, 2009 6:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: If you think THAT is expensive, then go into FEM software and other branches of engineering software.

When the barebones, cheap and restricted license of a program is $10k, and each module (and you usually need a few of 'em) is $3k and upwards... and that's the inexpensive option, then we'll talk.

:p

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: ...or of design work.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:40 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Or *real* Adobe software, AutoCAD, MAS, Peachtree Accounting, Intuit business packages, Oracle, HP/UX, AIX, or Solaris.......

MS server packages run in the thousands of dollars for small to mid-size businesses, several of the above run into the *dozens* of thousands.

For Enterprise systems, you're looking at a $25k per-processor license for MSSQL, and that's the most expensive piece of kit from MS. You're looking at that much simply for a required service agreement from HP, IBM, or Sun, let alone the costs of the hardware and software.

$\"user-pic\"$

Quarkie

July 6, 2009 4:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@.Xenn.:
So rather than make a purchase for their business, write it off as a business expense for tax purposes and have a legitimate copy of a product that is vital for their livelihood, they do not give any money to the company to support development efforts and risk infecting their computer with viruses by downloading a cracked version off of torrent sites (and I know if you're careful the chances of these viruses are slim, but based off the above I'm assuming they may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer).

This also doesn't take into account the legal issues with using pirated software for an activity that you are profiting from.

Xenn, some of your friends are apparently really dumb.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Because paying for it obviously gets you a better experience, when your software suddenly stops working one day.

I'm all for paying for the software, seriously, but companies make it so incredibly difficult to use the software you've paid for - it is frequently easier to buy the software and then grab a cracked version to actually *use*.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 6, 2009 2:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@.Xenn.: $400 isn't very pricey for software if you're using professionally. You build the cost of software into your rate or project fee... just as you would do with any other business. I use the entire adobe suite every day professionally and the thought of $2,000 for the suite isn't bad. In one year, that's five bucks a day to use the sofware... If you're charging $25-50 an hour, 5 bucks a day is hardly noticed.

$\"user-pic\"$

dave_coder

July 6, 2009 2:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@.Xenn.: Not if you're using it to design websites/graphics.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 6, 2009 1:48 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

That was decent of them, but these days I'm impressed by any actual results from Adobe support.

I've been having a problem with Adobe for over 2 months not crediting a $200 overcharge for an online upgrade. It was approved right away back in May, but after many calls, I'm still waiting...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Ronin-Democrat

July 6, 2009 1:53 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

adobe activation is bad. plain and simple.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Ronin-Democrat:

All activation, copy-protection, and other DRM is bad. Plain and simple.

^--- Fixed that for ya'

$\"user-pic\"$

Erich Krueger

July 6, 2009 1:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I work for a software company. We needed to institute draconian activation processes because single copies of our software were making the rounds to hundreds of users at colleges and companies.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 11:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erich Krueger:

Because, of course, copy protection schemes are rarely broken.

Especially disk burn-holes, dead sectors, uncopyable sectors, malformed sectors, Everlok, Neverlok, Superlok, Macrovision, SafeDisc 1,2,3,4, SecuROM 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, StarForce, TAGES, GD-ROM, PSX/PS2 protection and region-locking, Blu-Ray, XBox/360 RSA, XBox Live Firmware detection, ARccOS, ProtectDISC/BURN, RipGuard, Cactus, K2A, MediaGuard, CD-Cops, LaserLok...

I can continue - I've barely broken the surface of the list of cracked protection schemes - but I think that's plenty.

If you put money into a copy protection scheme, you're just flushing it straight down the toilet. Perhaps you'd do better to invest in marketing, or better coding - people will be far more likely to purchase your software if they feel that they're getting value for their money.

$\"user-pic\"$

HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.

July 6, 2009 6:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erich Krueger: How cute, you think your draconian activation processes actually stop that.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 1:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

With prices like those, they better have good customer service. Though, FLEXnet can eat me.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

July 6, 2009 2:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I would have pirated Dreamweaver right after the activation service failed. Forget going through the hassle of dealing with that mess.

Another reason why I dipped my hand into the pirate's treasure chest: unusable legitimately owned software. I bought Bioshock, it wouldn't work for some unknown reason. So I went and procured another version that would work.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

dave_coder

July 6, 2009 3:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil - doggarn bike thieves: As long as you paid for Bioshock, it's cool. :)

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, even though he paid for it, it is still illegal. Under USAPATRIOT, it could be prosecuted as \"terrorism,\" for some new definition of the word.

Simply cracking the software that he purchased could open him up to claims of damages in the tens of thousands of dollars.

$\"user-pic\"$

HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.

July 6, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac: The sad part is, even though you were being facetious there, it is actually a DMCA violation to crack software that you legitimately own. You won't get arrested, but you very well could get sued.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 10:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.:

I'm only being slightly facetious.

It actually *is* considered an act of terrorism, under PATRIOT, to pirate software... though I believe that the intent was leveled at \"commercial\" software pirates.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 3:11 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have a full cracked copy of CS3 that doesn't need activation.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

July 6, 2009 7:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DjDynasty: Congrats? You and every single graphic design student in the country can say that (the only difference is that all the cool kids are pirating CS4 now).

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 9:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@korybing: I actually know a lot of students that have legitimately bought Adobe CS...and unfortunately they have to put up with this activation BS as a result. It's their reward for buying software legitimately!

$\"user-pic\"$

uptown

July 6, 2009 12:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DjDynasty: Any other crimes you want to confess to?

$\"user-pic\"$

dave_coder

July 6, 2009 3:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DjDynasty: Good for you.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 4:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Years ago I had something similarl happen with Adobe Illustrator. I have found Adobe's customer service stellar.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

July 6, 2009 4:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's quite possible that the reason they were not able to resolve the activation problem was because most of Adobe shut down last week.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 6, 2009 5:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock:

They completely shut down all of their activation servers for the holiday?

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

July 6, 2009 1:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac:
No, they shut down almost all of the company for all of last week, meaning the people who might have normally been able to resolve this activation problem may have been out of the office.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Richard Ferrell

July 6, 2009 6:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I know that if you have older copies of RoboHelp they won't activate as the activcation server died, and no one leared what to do, That old server was a ehelp, then macromedia then adobe... you were just out of luck at that point

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

misslisa

July 6, 2009 7:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Richard Ferrell: thanks for that tidbit - I wondered what the hell happened to my RoboHelp x5.

$\"user-pic\"$

Richard Ferrell

July 7, 2009 5:52 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@misslisa: Yea, I was there when it died the first time and they fixed it, but when the hardware failed, that was it, even the guys in manila couldn't activate the software

","

$\"user-pic\"$

uptown

July 6, 2009 12:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This would have been helpful when I was trying to install Photoshop CS2 onto Vista using an upgrade-installation. (It runs fine, Adobe just won't approve it since they apparently wanted to sell CS3 licenses at the time). The upgrade installation required that I stick my old CD into the drive in order to verify my license was legit. When I did so, it would never work. My calls to adobe informed me they could only help me if I paid them a support fee ... to install something I'd already paid to own. I completely understand the desire for companies to protect their software with security mechanisms ... but it's a complete failure when the mechanisms designed to prevent illegal use of software gets in the way of people trying to use their software legally. Glad things worked out for Lisa.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 6, 2009 7:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't \"Support Fee\" seem dangerously close to being a \"Protection Racket\" ?? [en.wikipedia.org]

\"Now youze woiuldn't wants dem bizness programs you bought to suddenly stops woiking at an inconvenient time, now would youze? We here at Adobe we'ze gots a 'support fee' youze can poichase dat will keep ev'ryting woiking. By da' way - youze need any olive oylz?\"

","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Nicole Jordan

July 7, 2009 4:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Adobe is a good company in terms of customer service. I have had to call them several times and they've always come through.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 8, 2009 3:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Strange. I have a copy of Dreamweaver MX 2004 and it activated just fine. Of course, it's too old to be of any use... but I'd love a newer version. I'll have to give this a shot.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 12, 2010 2:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

That's odd. I just reinstalled StudioMX 2004 on my Windows 7 laptop and activated it with no trouble. Sounds as if CS rep just hosed Adobe for the price of DR. The CSR also hosed Lisa, who had StudioMX, which is a suite including DR, Fireworks, Flash, Freehand, and other tools. That she only received DR means she's out the rest and it also would suggest that Adobe software is actually rental-ware...for which one pays well over a thousand dollars for the pleasure of only being allowed to use for a short period of time. Of course, this is not the case, as I stated with respect to my own experience. Granted, Adobe licensing is arduous at best (and the Adobe employee who recently attacked Apple for being evil was laughable, to put it mildly), but so far my software has continued to activate just fine.

");