Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photoshop CS2 "reactivation" problem?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:06:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless connected
to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
so this would impact me.

e.g., see:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...

I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
that can put the rumor to rest.

I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.

Roger
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:06:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.

So what's the difference between the older versions of Photoshop and
the newer ones? Don't do they all do pretty much the same stuff, just
like today's Microsoft Word does pretty much the same thing as the
versions from 10 years ago? I can't for the life of me see any
advantage to using the latest version of Word, but Photoshop might be
different.

I have an unopened copy of Photoshop LE that came with a scanner that
I bought about 5 years ago. I'm wondering if the current versions do
anything that LE didn't/doesn't. I still edit with a pretty old
version of GIMP and it does what I need, but I'm a long way from being
a power user.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:06:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
> connected
> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> so this would impact me.
>
> e.g., see:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>
> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
> that can put the rumor to rest.
>
> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
> Roger

CS did this as well.
My system trips their "re-activation" triggers all the time.
It's quite annoying.
Most of the time it goes through just fine, but more than once I've had to
call them.
It's annoying as anything, but is NOT new for CS2.

-Mark
Related resources
May 20, 2005 5:23:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 19 May 2005 20:13:30 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
>So what's the difference between the older versions of Photoshop and
>the newer ones? Don't do they all do pretty much the same stuff, just
>like today's Microsoft Word does pretty much the same thing as the
>versions from 10 years ago? I can't for the life of me see any
>advantage to using the latest version of Word, but Photoshop might be
>different.
>
>I have an unopened copy of Photoshop LE that came with a scanner that
>I bought about 5 years ago. I'm wondering if the current versions do
>anything that LE didn't/doesn't. I still edit with a pretty old
>version of GIMP and it does what I need, but I'm a long way from being
>a power user.

As a photographer the 16bit capabilities of CS were what made me
upgrade. Until then I was running PS6 and happy as a clam. In my
opinion most of the functions that might entice me to upgrade again to
CS2 revolve around "photographers functions". However I tend to like
to let a program circulate for a bit before I jump in. As a hobbyist
I don't mind the hassles of being an early adaptor but for actual
paying work I just don't have the time to waste with glitches.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:03:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
> connected
> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> so this would impact me.
>
> e.g., see:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>
> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
> that can put the rumor to rest.
>
> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
> Roger
The only complaint I have heard, so far, is that the activation service
isn't available on weekends, or holidays. Considering the size of
Adobe, this is pretty poor support.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:04:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>
>>I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
>
> So what's the difference between the older versions of Photoshop and
> the newer ones? Don't do they all do pretty much the same stuff, just
> like today's Microsoft Word does pretty much the same thing as the
> versions from 10 years ago? I can't for the life of me see any
> advantage to using the latest version of Word, but Photoshop might be
> different.
>
> I have an unopened copy of Photoshop LE that came with a scanner that
> I bought about 5 years ago. I'm wondering if the current versions do
> anything that LE didn't/doesn't. I still edit with a pretty old
> version of GIMP and it does what I need, but I'm a long way from being
> a power user.

No, they are all the same, and your Model T Ford is just as good as the
Ford 500. sigh.

Does Windows 3.1 still work well for you, or are you a Mac 128 user?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 8:49:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:
>
> Paul> So what's the difference between the older versions of
> Paul> Photoshop and the newer ones?
>
> My understanding is you need to purchase (or illegally copy) the
> newest version if you want it to support RAW files from the latest
> digital cameras (e.g. Canon 350D).

Users of Photoshop CS and ACR (Camera Raw) 2.4 don't need to upgrade to
CS2 to use Raw files from the 350D (or D2X, or a couple of recent
Olympus cameras).

They can download the free DNG Converter and convert those Raw files to
DNG. (Version 3.1 of the DNG Converter supports the same cameras as ACR
3.1). Then ACR 2.4 under CS will read those DNG files just as it would
the Raw files for earlier cameras.

But handling of Raw has changed a lot in CS2, and those who shoot lots
of Raw images at a time may benefit from trying a 30-day version of CS2
to see if the new Bridge & ACR 3.1 suits them. I like it, but I've seen
complaints from others.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:18:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
> connected
> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> so this would impact me.
>
> e.g., see:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>
> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
> that can put the rumor to rest.
>
> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
> Roger

I had to reactivate CS twice for no apparent reason. Absolutely nothing had
changed on my computer either time. And both times I tried to reactivate on
the internet, it kept telling me my serial number was invalid. I had to
call them on the phone and they gave me a new number to plug in without
asking any questions at all. Seems a little suspicious to me.
May 20, 2005 9:20:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
> I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless connected
> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> so this would impact me.
>
> e.g., see:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>
> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
> that can put the rumor to rest.
>
> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.

Adobe isn't releasing many details of their new activation
scheme. CS2 users will notice, among other strange
things, a stealth executable in their temp folder while PS
is running which, supposedly, is there only to clean up
temporary files (even though the copyright for this
executable is from Macrovision, not Adobe).

A wait and see attitude might be best for CS2, until it's
known exactly what it does or doesn't do. Another option
is to buy CS2 and use a cracked version.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:20:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Bseje.3727$Lc1.1261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>> I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
>> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
>> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
>> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
>> connected
>> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
>> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
>> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
>> so this would impact me.
>>
>> e.g., see:
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>>
>> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
>> that can put the rumor to rest.
>>
>> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
> Adobe isn't releasing many details of their new activation
> scheme. CS2 users will notice, among other strange
> things, a stealth executable in their temp folder while PS
> is running which, supposedly, is there only to clean up
> temporary files (even though the copyright for this
> executable is from Macrovision, not Adobe).
>
> A wait and see attitude might be best for CS2, until it's
> known exactly what it does or doesn't do. Another option
> is to buy CS2 and use a cracked version.

Didn't Adobe just buy Macrovision?
I think they did...
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:02:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi.
While I had CS I had to reactivate it a couple of times for no apparent
reason but since I upgraded to CS2 there has been no need for extra
reactivations. Go figure...
It would be nice to use CS2 on a laptop without internet connection and I
sent Adobe an e-mail two or three weeks ago asking if it would somehow be
possible, so far no answer.



Väinö Louekari

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
> connected
> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> so this would impact me.
>
> e.g., see:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>
> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
> that can put the rumor to rest.
>
> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
> Roger
May 20, 2005 10:02:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Väinö Louekari wrote:

> Hi.
> While I had CS I had to reactivate it a couple of times for no apparent
> reason but since I upgraded to CS2 there has been no need for extra
> reactivations. Go figure...
> It would be nice to use CS2 on a laptop without internet connection and I
> sent Adobe an e-mail two or three weeks ago asking if it would somehow be
> possible, so far no answer.
>


This blows, I NEVER connect my windows machine to the internet and this BS
is enough to make me look elsewhere for my next software upgrade..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:02:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f5fa9F60pqeU5@individual.net...
> Väinö Louekari wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>> While I had CS I had to reactivate it a couple of times for no apparent
>> reason but since I upgraded to CS2 there has been no need for extra
>> reactivations. Go figure...
>> It would be nice to use CS2 on a laptop without internet connection and I
>> sent Adobe an e-mail two or three weeks ago asking if it would somehow be
>> possible, so far no answer.
>>
>
>
> This blows, I NEVER connect my windows machine to the internet and this BS
> is enough to make me look elsewhere for my next software upgrade..
>
> --
>
> Stacey

I'm with you, we never connect our laptop to the 'net, and it this prevents
us from using CS2 in the field, what's the reason to get it?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
May 20, 2005 11:17:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3f5fa9F60pqeU5@individual.net...
> Väinö Louekari wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> > While I had CS I had to reactivate it a couple of times for no apparent
> > reason but since I upgraded to CS2 there has been no need for extra
> > reactivations. Go figure...
> > It would be nice to use CS2 on a laptop without internet connection and I
> > sent Adobe an e-mail two or three weeks ago asking if it would somehow be
> > possible, so far no answer.
>
> This blows, I NEVER connect my windows machine to the internet and this BS
> is enough to make me look elsewhere for my next software upgrade..

Just buy a copy and then use a cracked version. Adobe still
gets their money and the silly activation scheme is avoided.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:28:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Bseje.3727$Lc1.1261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Rick <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Adobe isn't releasing many details of their new activation
>scheme. CS2 users will notice, among other strange
>things, a stealth executable in their temp folder while PS
>is running which, supposedly, is there only to clean up
>temporary files (even though the copyright for this
>executable is from Macrovision, not Adobe).

Is this a Windows-only thing? I know that the stupid DRM irritations in CS
don't apply to the Mac version. If they crippled the Mac version of CS2, it
would be something of a disincentive to me to upgrade.

The silly thing is - this discourages people like me, who actually *buy* the
damned thing, wheras pirates will just get a cracked version, and so don't
care. An own goal, methinks.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:37:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Väinö Louekari wrote:
> It would be nice to use CS2 on a laptop without internet connection and I
> sent Adobe an e-mail two or three weeks ago asking if it would somehow be
> possible, so far no answer.

CS2 works fine on a laptop with no internet access.

You don't need an internet connection if you activate by
phone. This is also the approach used by at least one of the
keygen cracks; clearly it's intended to be used by software
pirates but it's also a very useful tool for legitimate
users of CS2 who may need to activate/re-activate at weekends.

--
Regards

John Bean
May 20, 2005 2:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:Ixeje.55$Qp.51@fed1read04...
>
>
> Didn't Adobe just buy Macrovision?
> I think they did...
>

That was Macromedia...

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:39:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:28:58 GMT, "SamMan" <sam@psfdevrip-it.com>
wrote:

>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>news:Ixeje.55$Qp.51@fed1read04...
>>
>>
>> Didn't Adobe just buy Macrovision?
>> I think they did...
>>
>
>That was Macromedia...

Indeed, macrovision were the people responsible for reducing the
quality of the VHS video watching experience in some vain attempt to
prevent piracy. They also are responsible in part for forcing every
DVD player to waste circuitry that artificially buggers with the
outgoing video signal.

The sad fact is that these measures all cost the customers lots of
money and often causes them suffering when using the product -
Photoshop CS2 constantly refusing to run is a good example. Result:
people will now be taught how easy it is to pirate software because
their workflow forces them to use a cracked copy. Do it once, why go
back? It's a case of cracked software working better than the paid
for version - similar to a copied DVD that has no annoying FBI warning
and is missing the 3 stupid trailers before you can actually start
watching the film (Disney are a big culprit here).

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:05:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants to
>verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> it shuts down after a while.

In my limited period of working with CS2, it has yet to "call home".
Since the initial activation after installation, according to my
firewall log, there has not been a single attempt to connect to the
outside world (photoshop.exe or any other CS2 directory based
program).

> I've heard rumors the time is as short as zero: no grace period,
> effectively preventing work unless connected to the internet (so no
> work in remote field locations, or on airplanes). Is there any
> truth to these rumors?

Can't tell, but I'll try and remember to block the attempt if it
occurs, and see what happens regarding the "grace period". I've not
had to reactivate CS (except for a harddisk replacement which required
reinstallation/activation), so I don't expect it to happen with CS2
either.

> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> so this would impact me.

Yes, that could cause serious implications. I understand your
concerns, but "activation" can also be done by phone
(http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html). Wouldn't that help in
your case?

Bart
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:22:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 5/20/05 2:04 AM, in article o_fje.5820$eR.4790@fe05.lga, "Ron Hunter"
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Paul Rubin wrote:
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>>
>>> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>>
>>
>> So what's the difference between the older versions of Photoshop and
>> the newer ones? Don't do they all do pretty much the same stuff, just
>> like today's Microsoft Word does pretty much the same thing as the
>> versions from 10 years ago? I can't for the life of me see any
>> advantage to using the latest version of Word, but Photoshop might be
>> different.
>>
>> I have an unopened copy of Photoshop LE that came with a scanner that
>> I bought about 5 years ago. I'm wondering if the current versions do
>> anything that LE didn't/doesn't. I still edit with a pretty old
>> version of GIMP and it does what I need, but I'm a long way from being
>> a power user.
>
> No, they are all the same, and your Model T Ford is just as good as the
> Ford 500. sigh.
>
> Does Windows 3.1 still work well for you, or are you a Mac 128 user?
>
Seriously, the CS2 activation/reactivation never happened on my Macs.

The CS2 activation is BULLSHIT and I know of no way to activate more than
two computers with a single license.

Adobe is becoming the next MicroShit.


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
May 20, 2005 6:39:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <Bseje.3727$Lc1.1261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Rick <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Adobe isn't releasing many details of their new activation
>>scheme. CS2 users will notice, among other strange
>>things, a stealth executable in their temp folder while PS
>>is running which, supposedly, is there only to clean up
>>temporary files (even though the copyright for this
>>executable is from Macrovision, not Adobe).
>
>
> Is this a Windows-only thing? I know that the stupid DRM irritations in CS
> don't apply to the Mac version. If they crippled the Mac version of CS2, it
> would be something of a disincentive to me to upgrade.
>
> The silly thing is - this discourages people like me, who actually *buy* the
> damned thing, wheras pirates will just get a cracked version, and so don't
> care. An own goal, methinks.


http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps9_activation/activat...
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:38:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 5/20/05 9:39 AM, in article
dEmje.4895$uR4.4878@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "leo"
<someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

> Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article <Bseje.3727$Lc1.1261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Rick <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Adobe isn't releasing many details of their new activation
>>> scheme. CS2 users will notice, among other strange
>>> things, a stealth executable in their temp folder while PS
>>> is running which, supposedly, is there only to clean up
>>> temporary files (even though the copyright for this
>>> executable is from Macrovision, not Adobe).
>>
>>
>> Is this a Windows-only thing? I know that the stupid DRM irritations in CS
>> don't apply to the Mac version. If they crippled the Mac version of CS2, it
>> would be something of a disincentive to me to upgrade.
>>
>> The silly thing is - this discourages people like me, who actually *buy* the
>> damned thing, wheras pirates will just get a cracked version, and so don't
>> care. An own goal, methinks.
>
>
> http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps9_activation/activat...

Thanks for the link - both that and the link to Adobe's own FAQ help dispel
some of the rumors!
To the poster who says that activation never happened on his Macs: Perhaps
he is mixing up activation and registration which are two separate
processes. CS2 does indeed go through the activation process on a Mac.
Chuck
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 8:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dEmje.4895$uR4.4878@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>> Is this a Windows-only thing? I know that the stupid DRM irritations in CS
>> don't apply to the Mac version. If they crippled the Mac version of CS2, it
>> would be something of a disincentive to me to upgrade.
>>
>> The silly thing is - this discourages people like me, who actually *buy* the
>> damned thing, wheras pirates will just get a cracked version, and so don't
>> care. An own goal, methinks.
>
>
>http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps9_activation/activat...

Bugger. Looks like I'll be sticking with CS then.

Thanks for the info.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:01:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <BEB36E86.27D86%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>,
C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
>On 5/20/05 9:39 AM, in article
>dEmje.4895$uR4.4878@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "leo"
><someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Chris Brown wrote:
>>> Is this a Windows-only thing? I know that the stupid DRM irritations in CS
>>> don't apply to the Mac version. If they crippled the Mac version of CS2, it
>>> would be something of a disincentive to me to upgrade.
>>>
>>> The silly thing is - this discourages people like me, who actually *buy* the
>>> damned thing, wheras pirates will just get a cracked version, and so don't
>>> care. An own goal, methinks.
>>
>>
>> http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps9_activation/activat...
>
>Thanks for the link - both that and the link to Adobe's own FAQ help dispel
>some of the rumors!
>To the poster who says that activation never happened on his Macs: Perhaps
>he is mixing up activation and registration which are two separate
>processes. CS2 does indeed go through the activation process on a Mac.

I said CS, not CS2. I know CS on the Mac doesn't have this misfeature
because I use it daily. Unlikely to buy CS2 though - activation sounds like
a pain in the arse, and I don't like the implicit assumption that I'm some
kind of software pirate.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:49:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:JFcje.33$Qp.9@fed1read04...
>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>>I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
>> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
>> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
>> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
>> connected
>> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
>> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
>> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
>> so this would impact me.
>>
>> e.g., see:
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>>
>> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
>> that can put the rumor to rest.
>>
>> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>>
>> Roger
>
> CS did this as well.
> My system trips their "re-activation" triggers all the time.
> It's quite annoying.
> Most of the time it goes through just fine, but more than once I've had to
> call them.
> It's annoying as anything, but is NOT new for CS2.
>

Isn't that annoying? Meanwhile the cracked versions seem to never have a
problem.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 11:28:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Roger

My version of CS2 did that very thing to me twice now. I've since
uninstalled it and will be flogging it off to some ebayer in the near
future.


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
> to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
> short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
> connected
> to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
> airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> so this would impact me.
>
> e.g., see:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
>
> I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
> that can put the rumor to rest.
>
> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
> Roger
May 21, 2005 12:03:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rick wrote:

> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> This blows, I NEVER connect my windows machine to the internet and this
>> BS is enough to make me look elsewhere for my next software upgrade..
>
> Just buy a copy and then use a cracked version.

What's stupid is Adobe thinks that this "activation" makes more people buy
their software when the exact opposite is probably the case. If it's so
easy to crack, why bother?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 12:35:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:

Paul> So what's the difference between the older versions of
Paul> Photoshop and the newer ones?

My understanding is you need to purchase (or illegally copy) the
newest version if you want it to support RAW files from the latest
digital cameras (e.g. Canon 350D).
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 12:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:428D5439.6040009@qwest.net...
>
>> I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants to
>> verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
>> it shuts down after a while.
>
>
> In my limited period of working with CS2, it has yet to "call home".
> Since the initial activation after installation, according to my
> firewall log, there has not been a single attempt to connect to the
> outside world (photoshop.exe or any other CS2 directory based program).
>
>> I've heard rumors the time is as short as zero: no grace period,
>> effectively preventing work unless connected to the internet (so no
>> work in remote field locations, or on airplanes). Is there any truth
>> to these rumors?
>
>
> Can't tell, but I'll try and remember to block the attempt if it occurs,
> and see what happens regarding the "grace period". I've not had to
> reactivate CS (except for a harddisk replacement which required
> reinstallation/activation), so I don't expect it to happen with CS2 either.
>
>> I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
>> so this would impact me.
>
>
> Yes, that could cause serious implications. I understand your concerns,
> but "activation" can also be done by phone
> (http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html). Wouldn't that help in your
> case?

Sometimes, but other times not. I'm often in the backcountry where there
is no phone service. But I do have a global phone that works a
lot of places (but not at Milford Sound, New Zealand a month and a half ago).
And not in a lot of places in the Colorado Rockies, or the Wyoming Rockies,
deep in Canyonlands, or .....

Roger
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 3:41:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:5Zfje.5819$eR.2295@fe05.lga...
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> > I have heard a rumor about photoshop CS2 that says that CS2 wants
> > to verify activation periodically with adobe, and if it can't,
> > it shuts down after a while. I've heard rumors the time is as
> > short as zero: no grace period, effectively preventing work unless
> > connected
> > to the internet (so no work in remote field locations, or on
> > airplanes). Is there any truth to these rumors?
> > I work away from internet connections for weeks at a time,
> > so this would impact me.
> >
> > e.g., see:
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00081I76A/103-6...
> >
> > I'm not trying to troll. I'm looking for honest experience
> > that can put the rumor to rest.
> >
> > I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
> >
> > Roger
> The only complaint I have heard, so far, is that the activation service
> isn't available on weekends, or holidays. Considering the size of
> Adobe, this is pretty poor support.

is that US holidays? or holidays in India? ;-)
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 4:01:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>
> So what's the difference between the older versions of Photoshop and
> the newer ones? Don't do they all do pretty much the same stuff, just
> like today's Microsoft Word does pretty much the same thing as the
> versions from 10 years ago? I can't for the life of me see any
> advantage to using the latest version of Word, but Photoshop might be
> different.

Being able to read files sent you by other people?

Photoshop CS added 16-bit adjustment layers, layer groups, and the
camera raw plugin relative to photoshop 5.5; *huge* improvements for
me. I never used any of the intermediate versions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
May 21, 2005 4:04:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > The only complaint I have heard, so far, is that the activation service
> > isn't available on weekends, or holidays. Considering the size of
> > Adobe, this is pretty poor support.
>
> is that US holidays? or holidays in India? ;-)

US holidays are honored in some India businesses. ;^)
May 21, 2005 4:27:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3f7c6oF6dag8U2@individual.net...
> Rick wrote:
>
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> This blows, I NEVER connect my windows machine to the internet and this
> >> BS is enough to make me look elsewhere for my next software upgrade..
> >
> > Just buy a copy and then use a cracked version.
>
> What's stupid is Adobe thinks that this "activation" makes more people buy
> their software when the exact opposite is probably the case. If it's so
> easy to crack, why bother?

That's what happens when bean counters get the best of a
company, and historically it's also been one of the first signs
of trouble for a software developer. The same thing has
happened hundreds if not thousands of times over the past
20+ years, from Novell (anyone remember them linking
Netware installs to specific disk controllers?), to Lotus
(remember 1-2-3, "don't copy that floppy"?) and on and on.

Everyone knows casual software piracy exists. What has
never been proven, and in fact has been disproven over and
over is the claim that it represents any kind of financial loss
for software developers. If what was claimed by the BSA
and other organizations who make a living off of stirring up
nonsense about casual software piracy were true, revenues
for a given product should skyrocket once copy protection
is implemented. But they never have. Not once. Ever.

Why? Because virtually no one can be forced into buying
something they otherwise wouldn't. It's simple human nature,
and will remain so no matter how hard the industry and our
government try to change it. But unfortunately people like
Orrin Hatch and Howard Berman refuse to accept this, and
continue to lobby to serve up America's First Amendment,
Fair Use and First Use rights on a silver platter to protect a
tiny group of multinational megacorporations.
May 21, 2005 4:27:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rick wrote:

> If what was claimed by the BSA
> and other organizations who make a living off of stirring up
> nonsense about casual software piracy were true, revenues
> for a given product should skyrocket once copy protection
> is implemented. But they never have. Not once. Ever.
>

Exactly... The people who want to crack/copy this stuff are going to do it
anyway and in fact copy protection makes them want to do it even more! I
know several people with cracked copies of PS and I bet they have never
spent more that 5 minutes using it, they just wanted to crack it to brag
they have it on their machine. You think these people are going to EVER buy
software like this?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 5:33:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>
>
>> If what was claimed by the BSA
>>and other organizations who make a living off of stirring up
>>nonsense about casual software piracy were true, revenues
>>for a given product should skyrocket once copy protection
>>is implemented. But they never have. Not once. Ever.
>>
>
>
> Exactly... The people who want to crack/copy this stuff are going to do it
> anyway and in fact copy protection makes them want to do it even more! I
> know several people with cracked copies of PS and I bet they have never
> spent more that 5 minutes using it, they just wanted to crack it to brag
> they have it on their machine. You think these people are going to EVER buy
> software like this?

Nope, yet software companies tell legislators that each one of those
copies represents a 'lost sale'. The truth is that 99% of those people
wouldn't have bought the software if it cost $20, and wouldn't have used
it either.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:03:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> writes:

> On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:01:15 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:
>>
>>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>>>> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>>>
>>> So what's the difference between the older versions of Photoshop and
>>> the newer ones? Don't do they all do pretty much the same stuff, just
>>> like today's Microsoft Word does pretty much the same thing as the
>>> versions from 10 years ago? I can't for the life of me see any
>>> advantage to using the latest version of Word, but Photoshop might be
>>> different.
>>
>>Being able to read files sent you by other people?
>
>
> I don't see your point. On two counts.
>
> First, Adobe has rigorously maintained
> both forward and backward compatibility
> in its PSD file format over the years.

He was asking about WORD files. Photoshop came up only in the context
of "it might be different".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:06:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> writes:

> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:JFcje.33$Qp.9@fed1read04...

>> CS did this as well.
>> My system trips their "re-activation" triggers all the time.
>> It's quite annoying.
>> Most of the time it goes through just fine, but more than once I've had to
>> call them.
>> It's annoying as anything, but is NOT new for CS2.

> Isn't that annoying? Meanwhile the cracked versions seem to never have a
> problem.

The cracked versions I've found so far all seem to be virus-infested
-- enough that I haven't been willing to unpack and run them. I want
one for my archive, since I don't trust Adobe to be there when I need
to activate Photoshop CS running in my emulated windows system on
whatever computer I'll be using in 20 years.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:17:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3f5fa9F60pqeU5@individual.net...
>
>>Väinö Louekari wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi.
>>>While I had CS I had to reactivate it a couple of times for no apparent
>>>reason but since I upgraded to CS2 there has been no need for extra
>>>reactivations. Go figure...
>>>It would be nice to use CS2 on a laptop without internet connection and I
>>>sent Adobe an e-mail two or three weeks ago asking if it would somehow be
>>>possible, so far no answer.
>>>
>>
>>
>>This blows, I NEVER connect my windows machine to the internet and this BS
>>is enough to make me look elsewhere for my next software upgrade..
>>
>>--
>>
>> Stacey
>
>
> I'm with you, we never connect our laptop to the 'net, and it this prevents
> us from using CS2 in the field, what's the reason to get it?
>

I have two desktop computers.
One for use on the internet and the other for Photo Editing.
The Photo Editing machine NEVER sees the internet.
There are just too many folks trying to screw up my machine with
Viruses, Adware, Spam, ad nauseam.
I am now using PS 7.0 I did not know about CS2 having to call home to
maintain activation. What a crazy concept!
I was considering an upgrade to CS2. But not anymore!
It seems like that would be illegal. In effect, they would deny me the
use of a product that I purchased from them, even though I would be
using it in a normal fashion.
Are they trying to tell me I must connect my Photo Editor to the
internet? No Way Jose'. Adios Adobe CS2!
Bob Williams
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:48:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:01:15 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:
>
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>>> I have not had any problem with Photoshop CS.
>>
>> So what's the difference between the older versions of Photoshop and
>> the newer ones? Don't do they all do pretty much the same stuff, just
>> like today's Microsoft Word does pretty much the same thing as the
>> versions from 10 years ago? I can't for the life of me see any
>> advantage to using the latest version of Word, but Photoshop might be
>> different.
>
>Being able to read files sent you by other people?


I don't see your point. On two counts.

First, Adobe has rigorously maintained
both forward and backward compatibility
in its PSD file format over the years.

Second, if one were truly concerned
about portability, TIF or JPG might
be a better choice than PSD.

TIF can handle nearly everything that
Photoshop can throw at it -- channels,
layers, 16 bit data, ICC tags, etc.

When I send files off for printing by
labs, I always send TIFs. Even though
the odds are around 100% that they'll
be opened in Photoshop at the other end.

I've encountered very few imaging apps
(aside from MS Paint) that can't handle
either TIF or PSD.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
May 21, 2005 7:02:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:


>
> Nope, yet software companies tell legislators that each one of those
> copies represents a 'lost sale'. The truth is that 99% of those people
> wouldn't have bought the software if it cost $20, and wouldn't have used
> it either.
>
>

Like someone else posted, has microsoft sold any more retail copies of
windows since they started their product activation? I bought win98 and
windows 2000 (I build my own machines) but gave them the finger when they
came out with XP. I bet they cost themselves more sales doing this than
they gain. I had the choice of upgrading my copy of PS7, mainly to gain
access to their new RAW converter or buying olympus studio 1.2 to do it, I
chose the latter. Part of the reason was I liked the way the OM studio
results look but part of it was the BS activation Adobe has gotten into. I
don't like being treated like a thief.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 7:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:27:29 GMT, Rick wrote:

> That's what happens when bean counters get the best of a
> company, and historically it's also been one of the first signs
> of trouble for a software developer. The same thing has
> happened hundreds if not thousands of times over the past
> 20+ years, from Novell (anyone remember them linking
> Netware installs to specific disk controllers?), to Lotus
> (remember 1-2-3, "don't copy that floppy"?) and on and on.

I remember needing to plug a short 8-bit hardware key card into a
Netware server. Probably version 2.0a, about 1989 or so. If a
prior version required specific disk controllers I don't remember
that. I do recall much earlier than that several companies trying
several different hardware and software methods to make uncopyable
CP/M software. One of the oddest required the use of a strange
floppy disk controller made up of two S-100 boards, seemingly
connected to each other with hundreds of wires across the top (maybe
only many dozens, but it was a real rat's nest). It was installed
in either an Imsai or Altair box, and I think it was needed to
produce most of MicroPro's software (WordStar, etc.). That idea was
soon scrapped as the floppies it created were too unreliable. After
that, software was used to customize the software on each floppy
disc with unique embedded serial numbers.
May 21, 2005 10:17:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3f7orqF6dbcaU2@individual.net:

> Rick wrote:
>
>> If what was claimed by the BSA
>> and other organizations who make a living off of stirring up
>> nonsense about casual software piracy were true, revenues
>> for a given product should skyrocket once copy protection
>> is implemented. But they never have. Not once. Ever.
>>
>
> Exactly... The people who want to crack/copy this stuff are going to
> do it anyway and in fact copy protection makes them want to do it even
> more! I know several people with cracked copies of PS and I bet they
> have never spent more that 5 minutes using it, they just wanted to
> crack it to brag they have it on their machine. You think these people
> are going to EVER buy software like this?

This is so true.

To many people illegally using Photoshop, the choice is a cracked copy of
Photoshop or a free copy of the Gimp, so they choose to use a cracked copy
of Photoshop. If the choice was either paying for Photoshop or using the
Gimp, then they would choose the Gimp. And they will probably recommend
whatever they use to other people.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
May 21, 2005 11:26:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:m2psvlukfw.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> writes:
>
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> > news:JFcje.33$Qp.9@fed1read04...
>
> >> CS did this as well.
> >> My system trips their "re-activation" triggers all the time.
> >> It's quite annoying.
> >> Most of the time it goes through just fine, but more than once I've had to
> >> call them.
> >> It's annoying as anything, but is NOT new for CS2.
>
> > Isn't that annoying? Meanwhile the cracked versions seem to never have a
> > problem.
>
> The cracked versions I've found so far all seem to be virus-infested
> -- enough that I haven't been willing to unpack and run them. I want
> one for my archive, since I don't trust Adobe to be there when I need
> to activate Photoshop CS running in my emulated windows system on
> whatever computer I'll be using in 20 years.

David, I'm not sure where you're looking for these versions
(e.g. http and mirc/p2p are not the best choices), but I've
yet to find any virus infection on any cracked version of
CS2 (or CS for that matter).
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 12:57:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:

>I did not know about CS2 having to call home to
>maintain activation. What a crazy concept!
>I was considering an upgrade to CS2. But not anymore!
>It seems like that would be illegal. In effect, they would deny me the
>use of a product that I purchased from them, even though I would be
>using it in a normal fashion.
>Are they trying to tell me I must connect my Photo Editor to the
>internet? No Way Jose'. Adios Adobe CS2!

I'm with you here. I upgrade every other version and since I'm currently
using 7.0 so I was planning on buying CS2 in the near future, but this
is alarming. I'm going to have to see if I can come up with a cracked
copy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to steal this software. If I can
get a cracked version that doesn't require this online activation (and
it works) I'll happily pay Adobe for a new copy just to be legal.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 2:23:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> writes:
>
>
>>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>news:JFcje.33$Qp.9@fed1read04...
>
>
>>>CS did this as well.
>>>My system trips their "re-activation" triggers all the time.
>>>It's quite annoying.
>>>Most of the time it goes through just fine, but more than once I've had to
>>>call them.
>>>It's annoying as anything, but is NOT new for CS2.
>
>
>>Isn't that annoying? Meanwhile the cracked versions seem to never have a
>>problem.
>
>
> The cracked versions I've found so far all seem to be virus-infested
> -- enough that I haven't been willing to unpack and run them. I want
> one for my archive, since I don't trust Adobe to be there when I need
> to activate Photoshop CS running in my emulated windows system on
> whatever computer I'll be using in 20 years.

If that is your purpose then you don't want a cracked
version, simply a keygen for your legit copy to allow you to
do a "by phone" activation without actually phoning anybody.
This has even been discussed on the Adobe forums as a
reasonable way to re-activate when you're unable to contact
Adobe support for whatever reason.

--
Regards

John Bean
May 21, 2005 2:23:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3f8cvoF6h6lqU1@individual.net...
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > "Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> >>news:JFcje.33$Qp.9@fed1read04...
> >
> >
> >>>CS did this as well.
> >>>My system trips their "re-activation" triggers all the time.
> >>>It's quite annoying.
> >>>Most of the time it goes through just fine, but more than once I've had to
> >>>call them.
> >>>It's annoying as anything, but is NOT new for CS2.
> >
> >
> >>Isn't that annoying? Meanwhile the cracked versions seem to never have a
> >>problem.
> >
> >
> > The cracked versions I've found so far all seem to be virus-infested
> > -- enough that I haven't been willing to unpack and run them. I want
> > one for my archive, since I don't trust Adobe to be there when I need
> > to activate Photoshop CS running in my emulated windows system on
> > whatever computer I'll be using in 20 years.
>
> If that is your purpose then you don't want a cracked
> version, simply a keygen for your legit copy to allow you to
> do a "by phone" activation without actually phoning anybody.

That's exactly what a cracked version is: PS CS or CS2
plus a keygen. A few cracks go one step further and
prevent PS from writing/checking for the AdobeLM disk
signature, which is very useful (i.e. doesn't require
reactivation -- even fake reactivation with a keygen) if
one frequently swaps hard drives.
May 21, 2005 2:23:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:SdDje.569$oT1.440@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> "John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f8cvoF6h6lqU1@individual.net...
>
>> If that is your purpose then you don't want a cracked
>> version, simply a keygen for your legit copy to allow you to
>> do a "by phone" activation without actually phoning anybody.
>
> That's exactly what a cracked version is: PS CS or CS2
> plus a keygen.

I'm sorry, but that is just incorrect. What you are describing is not a
cracked version, it is a normal version + a keygen. This is not even close
to being the same thing as a cracked version.

> A few cracks go one step further and
> prevent PS from writing/checking for the AdobeLM disk
> signature, which is very useful (i.e. doesn't require
> reactivation -- even fake reactivation with a keygen) if
> one frequently swaps hard drives.

This sounds more like a description of a cracked version.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
May 21, 2005 2:23:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message news:aJDje.152943$Sq.72181@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> "Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:SdDje.569$oT1.440@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f8cvoF6h6lqU1@individual.net...
> >
> >> If that is your purpose then you don't want a cracked
> >> version, simply a keygen for your legit copy to allow you to
> >> do a "by phone" activation without actually phoning anybody.
> >
> > That's exactly what a cracked version is: PS CS or CS2
> > plus a keygen.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is just incorrect. What you are describing is not a
> cracked version, it is a normal version + a keygen. This is not even close
> to being the same thing as a cracked version.

Er, who do you think writes keygens? Adobe??

A keygen is one of the simplest forms of cracks, but it's
still a crack.

> > A few cracks go one step further and
> > prevent PS from writing/checking for the AdobeLM disk
> > signature, which is very useful (i.e. doesn't require
> > reactivation -- even fake reactivation with a keygen) if
> > one frequently swaps hard drives.
>
> This sounds more like a description of a cracked version.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 2:30:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Rfvje.334$oT1.267@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Rick <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:

>If what was claimed by the BSA
>and other organizations who make a living off of stirring up
>nonsense about casual software piracy were true, revenues
>for a given product should skyrocket once copy protection
>is implemented. But they never have. Not once. Ever.
>
>Why? Because virtually no one can be forced into buying
>something they otherwise wouldn't.

Quite, and resgistation schemes like this are just cutting off their noses
to spite their faces. They're spending R&D effort implementing a feature
which, at best, they hope won't piss their customers off too much. That's
stupid - I don't want to spend my money paying for things that I find
irritating.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 3:28:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rick wrote:
> "MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message news:aJDje.152943$Sq.72181@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>
>>"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>news:SdDje.569$oT1.440@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>
>>>"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3f8cvoF6h6lqU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>If that is your purpose then you don't want a cracked
>>>>version, simply a keygen for your legit copy to allow you to
>>>>do a "by phone" activation without actually phoning anybody.
>>>
>>>That's exactly what a cracked version is: PS CS or CS2
>>>plus a keygen.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but that is just incorrect. What you are describing is not a
>>cracked version, it is a normal version + a keygen. This is not even close
>>to being the same thing as a cracked version.
>
>
> Er, who do you think writes keygens? Adobe??
>
> A keygen is one of the simplest forms of cracks, but it's
> still a crack.

Yes, but the difference is the software you run is exactle
as Adobe released it, not meddled with in some unknown and
possibly malicious way.

--
Regards

John Bean
!