Slashdot Mirror
Trouble With MS Genuine Office Validation
Julie188 writes "Here's another little gotcha with Microsoft license validation, discovered by security and PowerShell expert Tyson Kopczynski. The Microsoft Office 2007 add-on site refuses to download legitimate add-ons for Office 2007 when a legitimate — but not yet activated — additional Microsoft product is installed on the computer. In Kopczynski's case, the product was Visio. He writes: 'Let's back this license train up and look at why this picture is wrong: 1. I have a valid copy of Office 2007. 2. The Visio installation only failed the validation because I haven't activated it. 3. Microsoft has presented me with a page to buy Office, which I have a valid copy of... Dear Microsoft, When used incorrectly and in direct conflict of something that you are promoting, DRM sucks! By making the usage of your software a hassle, you risk further pushing more users of your applications to other solutions."
Forgive my ignorance but I don't really understand the problem here. Why not just activate Office? You can do it over the internet or by a toll free phone call. You can only open Office apps so many times before you must activate it, so why delay?
"When used incorrectly and in direct conflict of something that you are promoting, DRM sucks!"
That's too long. DRM sucks period.
I would say that DRM sucks always. But this is beyond DRM, this is the blue monster taking over your computer. I am always amazed at how MS knows what's best for you.
So updates to Office fail because a newly added product (Visio) isn't yet activated... seems to me that in this case the only update failure that would be understandable is one related to the added product (Visio). Other activated pieces of software should be able to receive updates without problems. Furthermore, if Visio fails validation and the response from Microsoft is to send the user to a page that suggest he purchase Office then that is just plain incorrect. It should send him to a page that says "activate Visio, dude!"
So, yeah, this isn't really Microsoft bashing. Though it maybe should be worded a bit more clearly so the problem is made apparent.
I like basketball!!1!
Read the article again.
He has an activated copy of Office 2007.
He has an unactivated copy of Visio. He doesn't say why, maybe he is evaluating it.
Because he has an unactivated copy of Visio, he is unable to upgrade his activated copy of Office 2007.
I would say he has a problem. His unactivated copy of Visio shouldn't screw up the functionality of his activated software, but it is.
...one of the main reasons I still use use Windows 2000! No DRM, no activation headaches, no secret file updates, no useless eye-candy, most stable MS OS ever... oh, the list just goes on....
Presuming you HAVE RTFA (it's obvious you haven't)
What about temporary installations? MSDN users are advised NOT to activate if they plan to reinstall the system within a couple of months. How does one download the latest updates to set up a proper test environment on a non-activated system?
Microsoft is abusing their monopoly position and actually INCREASING value of "pirated" copies of their software.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
1. Ask for you money back for Office and Viso.
2. Stop using software that pulls this crap.
Yes office compatibility is extremely useful but that usefulness is what gives Microsoft the power to pull crap like this.
Just doing number one will probably solve the problem. Chew up the support lines and they will eventually fix the problem for you.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Call them when you've bought a few hundred copies, you'll be more important then.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
This is getting out of hand. Microsoft's licensing and copy protection issues are not "DRM" issues. It's licensing issues. Licensing issues are an entirely different class of problems which have been around for decades. Don't start throwing anything you don't like with computers into your definition of "DRM". It's true that, once again, pirating software (on the high seas) eliminates both DRM and licensing issues, but it also eliminates problems like excessive cost. You wouldn't throw excessive cost into the definition of DRM, even though you know that the software went up in price merely because they had to pay to sub-license the copy protection software.
We'll ignore the argument that piracy makes the software cost more. Buying someone else's copy protection software is what brings the real cost of the software up. The companies will sell it for what they can sell it for. That's price, and with a complete lack of supply and demand balances, is always grossly overpriced.
But back to the DRM term misuse. This is similar to a story I heard the other day. A co-worker was telling me that her "identity was stolen" because she called a loan company and they couldn't find any record of having a loan with them. A computer glitch at a random company is not "identity theft" and confusing the two makes it seem like a non-issue. She called back a few days later and they found her record. I guess that means her identity was "recovered" and returned to her as property should be.
"My email was hacked!!!"
"Wow, what happened?"
"I sent a private email to a friend and he forwarded it to everyone he know."
Dekker Dreyer
You really can't see the BFD? He has Product A installed on his machine. He installs Product B but hasn't run it yet. He tries to update Product A. The update system says, "You need to buy a legitimate copy of Product A."
You really don't see what's wrong with that? Seriously?
1) Product A is Product A. If it's legit and has passed all validation and activation checks, it should work. It should be updated. End of story.
2) If Product B's lack of activation is an issue, any related message should state that Product B's activation is the issue. Telling him to purchase Product A (which is in no way failing validation or activation checks) is just stupid.
3) Microsoft has a history of problems with their activation and validation procedures. This is a given. If you have 5 different legitimate Microsoft products installed, activated, and validated on your system and the process breaks for one, does it make sense to bring down the whole system? Say I've got Flight Simulator installed and my system crashes while I'm playing. It gets corrupted. It no longer passes validation checks. Should I be locked out of Vista, Office, Visio, and Money updates? Should I have to worry about Vista going into "reduced functionality" mode?
That's the BFD.
I like pc games. I like to play them; it's one of my best sources of stress relief. I've got way too much experience with WINE and I can make most games run in WINE...Eventually. But screw that! I don't want to buy a game then spend hours tweaking things to get it to run; I do enough of that crap at work. I want to just play it.
.Net site, and they want to pay me to fix it, I'm not above taking their money just because I don't like using those products, and I'm not going to limit myself by telling people, "Oh, I'm sorry. While I'm capable of doing this work, I refuse to do so because I'd prefer you were using OSS."
I occasionally have to use Access and MSSQL Server. I occasionally have to use Visual Studio. It's not even always about corporate; if someone has a screwed up database, or a
I ended up out of work for a good while during the Dot Bomb, and OSS made it possible for me to make a nice living, but I sure as hell didn't turn down Microsoft work when my customers asked me for it. Why send them to someone else when I can do the work? And you can make some good converts that way; I hooked a lot of people on Samba.
It's not about right and wrong, or good and evil. It's about tools, and giving people what they need to do their jobs. Don't cripple yourself by deciding that you're only going to deal with the tools you like.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
And OO.o doesn't really have an equivalent to Visio, either. OO.o Draw is a nice app, but it doesn't do the same job as Visio. The original article's "useopenoffice" tag isn't really a solution.
Come to that, even with compatible functionality, rivals are still up against MS Office's installed user base. As long as my customers require me to use MS Office templates that don't work in OO.o (not least because they use macros), MS Office is staying on my computer. I've yet to have a customer ask me to work to an OO.o template (although I'm ready if they do).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
If you look at MS's site, you'll find that Visio is considered an Office product. So, to clarify, he activated Office, installed (but did not activate) a new part of Office, and now it won't let him install Office add-ons. This is entirely an Office issue. You may not like what they're doing, but this has no bearing on whether it will have problems with an unactivated non-Office product. If it did, I would be mightily pissed.
I wouldn't give a shit what they call it, the end result is that they've locked him out of support for a product he purchased because he has something else on his machine. That's BS. Whether they consider Visio part of office is immaterial - clearly they can be purchased separately, so they can be supported separately.
"... why doesn't he activate Visio, already?"
If a doctor find blood in your stool, you shouldn't say "what's the problem? It's a trivial amount of blood."
The loss of blood is not serious. What is serious is what the loss of blood shows: that something is wrong inside you.
Kopczynski found a bug in the activation system. This particular bug didn't affect him in a serious way this particular time. That doesn't mean it isn't a serious bug.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!