Will Tiger require activation [Archive]

jaw04005

Apr 13, 2005, 04:46 PM

Has anybody heard if Tiger will require activation like many software titles are starting to.

Adam

Don't scare me like that! No, nor will it have a serial number. Apple (so far) has "trusted" its users to not pirate Mac OS X. Will see how long it lasts!

With the cost of $129, maybe Apple accounts for some piracy in their profits with the larger upgrade price. Who knows.

James Philp

Apr 13, 2005, 04:54 PM

Don't scare me like that! No, nor will it have a serial number. Apple (so far) has "trusted" its users to not pirate Mac OS X. Will see how long it lasts!
You will not be buying but pirating the software!?
Naughty! :mad:
That said, I will be installing it on my two Macs - but I do own them both, so why shouldn't I? It's not like I'm a personal family!

munkle

Apr 13, 2005, 04:55 PM

Don't scare me like that! No, nor will it have a serial number.

Why would it scare you?

andrewfee

Apr 13, 2005, 04:58 PM

You will not be buying but pirating the software!?
Naughty! :mad:
That said, I will be installing it on my two Macs - but I do own them both, so why shouldn't I? It's not like I'm a personal family!
The "Family pack" is more of a "Household pack" what you're doing is still illegal if you don't buy two copies. (or the cheaper family pack)

James Philp

Apr 13, 2005, 05:03 PM

The "Family pack" is more of a "Household pack" what you're doing is still illegal if you don't buy two copies. (or the cheaper family pack)

Problem being I have already ordered a standard license. I almost hate owning 2 Macs! I don't need 5 licences, i only need 2! :mad:
Is is so uncommon for people to have a laptop and desktop combo?
Still by buying it i'm still being more legal than i am now! :eek:

Bear

Apr 13, 2005, 05:11 PM

jaw04005

Apr 13, 2005, 05:13 PM

Why would it scare you?

I don't believe anyone *wants* activation in a product. That's just another step consumers have to deal with in order to use something.

I'm not keen on the idea of having to call Apple or re-activate when I change hardware or decide to move my O/S to a different machine.

I've have to deal with activiation issues with Quark and Windows all the time. It's is an unnecessary hassle, that only hurts honest customers.

If your a pirate, your capable of going around the activation scheme. So what's the point?

Timelessblur

Apr 13, 2005, 05:16 PM

I don't believe anyone *wants* activation in a product. That's just another step consumers have to deal with in order to use something.

I'm not keen on the idea of having to call Apple or re-activate when I change hardware or decide to move my O/S to a different machine.

I've have to deal with activiation issues with Quark and Windows all the time. It's is an unnecessary hassle, that only hurts honest customers.

If your a pirate, your capable of going around the activation scheme. So what's the point?

it can be gotten around yes but remeber this it takes a lot of know how to do it and access to places that most people who piirated dont have/ dont know about it. It puts a huge dent in how much is stoolen.

jaw04005

Apr 13, 2005, 05:16 PM

You will not be buying but pirating the software!?
Naughty! :mad:
That said, I will be installing it on my two Macs - but I do own them both, so why shouldn't I? It's not like I'm a personal family!

Why would you assume that? Just because I'm against product activation? I already preordered Tiger from Apple, and I'm eagerly awaiting April 29.

jaw04005

Apr 13, 2005, 05:19 PM

it can be gotten around yes but remeber this it takes a lot of know how to do it and access to places that most people who piirated dont have/ dont know about it. It puts a huge dent in how much is stoolen.

Yeah it's very difficult. Take a look at Limewire, it has every crack/hack/serial generator for any program you can ask for. Just do a search for Adobe and see what you get. The point is, it's a great concept, but it doesn't stop piracy... it just inconveniences legit customers who deal with enough already.

James Philp

Apr 13, 2005, 05:25 PM

Cancel the single order and order a family pack instead. You may not need all 5 licenses, but it still costs less to buy a family pack than it does to buy 2 individual licenses.
I'm also a subscriber to .Mac, have 2 Macs, have 4 iPods (!!! - i know :eek: ) Have had to replace my PB power supply twice (at ~£100 times each), bought iLife '04, had to replace my PB itself 'cos the first one i got was faulty, one of my iPods (the original 5GB one) has a corrupt HD, and the iMac I got 2 years ago CAME with a dead pixel on the 17" display!
I don't think I owe Apple anything by only buying a single license!
I'd hate to add up how much i've given the company, not to mention .Mac, which seems to me jolly expensive for what you get!
I think a +1 license if you buy Tiger for .Mac users would be appropriate.
(I also thought a reduction in iLife '05 would have been in order, as lots of the iLife apps use .Mac in an integral form.)

Why would you assume that? Just because I'm against product activation?
Perhaps it was the was you said "don't scare me". Just the choice of words, no offence, you may be able to detect a hint of sarcasm in my post! ;)

Blue Velvet

Apr 13, 2005, 05:39 PM

Take a look at Limewire, it has every crack/hack/serial generator for any program you can ask for. Just do a search for Adobe and see what you get.

Show us a way to get round activation. Of course you're going to see Adobe's stuff on P2P, they haven't rolled out activation on a grand scale until CS2. Just because you might see an app up there, doesn't mean it's going to work when it's trial period is up.

I think many people misunderstand how activation works, it has little to do with serials.

ChrisBrightwell

Apr 13, 2005, 05:54 PM

Show us a way to get round activation. [...]
Download the corp ISO. ;)

Seriously, though, there are ways to defeat any type of activation out there. There is something, somewhere, that convinces your software that it's legitimate -- be it a file (which can be spoofed) or a registry key (which can be spoofed) or whatever other mechanism is in place.

DRM, product activation, and serial keys do little more than irritate legitimate users. The pirates always have (and always will) find a way around things.

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 05:59 PM

Don't scare me like that! No, nor will it have a serial number. Apple (so far) has "trusted" its users to not pirate Mac OS X. Will see how long it lasts!

With the cost of $129, maybe Apple accounts for some piracy in their profits with the larger upgrade price. Who knows.

From your lips to God's ears on that one!

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 06:11 PM

You will not be buying but pirating the software!?
Naughty! :mad:
That said, I will be installing it on my two Macs - but I do own them both, so why shouldn't I? It's not like I'm a personal family!

I will open a can of worms here. Licensing agreements aside, publishers need to start to realize the real world. And I think that Apple has done so so far.

***** happens, more than once for a single user. Believe me on this one. I have done IT support. Activation does a number on these individuals.

Add to that the positive marketing aspects for Apple. For if a user has 2 or 3 Mac's, could not Apple be better served by "word of mouth" marketing by "ignoring" any violations of the license agreement. For some will buy the latest hardware to get the latest OS. Some will share the OS with others that have older hardware and then desire the latest hardware. Apple so far has not been stupid.

The problem is that some try to apply the M$ model to Apple. For M$ as a software company, their only revenue stream is from the sale of their OS and software. Apple in the end is the winner in the computer wars, even though they do not win on pure numbers.

For a system purchase leads to additional (perhaps) OS purchases down the road. Or it could lead to an iPod purchase, or an iSight purchase as the consumer realizes the ease of use. Or from a an OS purchase, that once a consumer realizes that their older Mac does not support Core Images, they buy the next best machine.

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 06:15 PM

Why would it scare you?

There are those of us that avoid any "restrictive" registration system on principle. It has to do more with Windows than OS X than anything else. Few of us have had to do multiple re-installs on the Mac, but I have been through 4 re-installs on my other half's computer in the last 1 1/2 years thanks to the lack of security and his ignorance of Windows and the net.

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 06:20 PM

Problem being I have already ordered a standard license. I almost hate owning 2 Macs! I don't need 5 licences, i only need 2! :mad:
Is is so uncommon for people to have a laptop and desktop combo?
Still by buying it i'm still being more legal than i am now! :eek:

This is what I was referring to in my other post. In this case the license should allow IMO the right to install on both as you described, since under most normal usage they would not be used at the same time.

M$ did have a system that they allowed for this for their software. I don't think they allowed for their OS. Since IMo it is their OS that derives their profits. Remember they have no computer hardware to get profits from, unlike Apple.

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 06:21 PM

I don't believe anyone *wants* activation in a product. That's just another step consumers have to deal with in order to use something.

I'm not keen on the idea of having to call Apple or re-activate when I change hardware or decide to move my O/S to a different machine.

I've have to deal with activiation issues with Quark and Windows all the time. It's is an unnecessary hassle, that only hurts honest customers.

If your a pirate, your capable of going around the activation scheme. So what's the point?

there are plenty of cracks around for those that do want to pirate.

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 06:24 PM

Show us a way to get round activation. Of course you're going to see Adobe's stuff on P2P, they haven't rolled out activation on a grand scale until CS2. Just because you might see an app up there, doesn't mean it's going to work when it's trial period is up.

I think many people misunderstand how activation works, it has little to do with serials.

Actually I know of some Mac Heads that have gotten around the M$ Office activation.

Blue Velvet

Apr 13, 2005, 06:29 PM

Actually I know of some Mac Heads that have gotten around the M$ Office activation.

MS Office on the Mac as a multi-licence corporate deal doesn't need activation. One CD, a bit of paper with the no. of licences and one serial... in the UK, anyway.

Came as a surprise to me.

sjpetry

Apr 13, 2005, 06:31 PM

An unprecedented 5 consecutive posts. :eek:

James Philp

Apr 13, 2005, 06:45 PM

Despite the M$ bashing, the last thinhg I bought was Office 2004 Student Teacher Edition, and if comes as standard with 3 product keys, which is generous! Weird thing was, I dragged the App from one machine to another, both connected to the net, with the same activation key, and it worked fine (else i would have used a different one), I thought that was odd! What happens in a couple of months when I graduate though? Will i have to give them a few hundred quid?! - I don't think so!!

Perhaps, in this crazy modern age of consumers (no business users - i realise that situation is totally different) who may own two computers, to have USER leicenees, not SYSTEM ones?

mcadam

Apr 13, 2005, 07:08 PM

I'm still considering wether to buy the single or the family - for my pb, my iBook and my brothers... pretty much everyone around me has made fun or at least raised eyebrows when I've said I wanted to buy Tiger. Whatever I do it will be a big step up for me :o :D

Here's an anti-mac argument I got some weeks ago:"it's hard to get pirated software"!

In these discussions there often seem to be a split between older people who've earned real money for years and younger people who are mostly students.
People like my parents don't even think about the option to get pirated software and not because they are considering the morals of, they just wouldn't think of it .
I wonder how it'll be in future when everyone's grown up with free, pirated software being close to the norm.

A

eva01

Apr 13, 2005, 07:25 PM

musicpyrite

Apr 13, 2005, 07:28 PM

An unprecedented 5 consecutive posts. :eek:

I count six. :D

As for me, my father and I will be splitting the $199 cost of the family pack between 3 computers. My G4 iMac, his G3 iMac G4 Powermac.

James Philp

Apr 13, 2005, 07:28 PM

Here's an anti-mac argument I got some weeks ago:"it's hard to get pirated software"!
I take it that's sarcasm then?
In these discussions there often seem to be a split between older people who've earned real money for years and younger people who are mostly students.
People like my parents don't even think about the option to get pirated software and not because they are considering the morals of, they just wouldn't think of it .
I wonder how it'll be in future when everyone's grown up with free, pirated software being close to the norm.
A
I think you are partially right there. I'm not the most moral being of all - perhaps it sums is up when I say i'm buying a license for 2 computers, but I find more and more I am buying sofware (recently Salling Clicker, Office, VersionTracker pro and a bunch of others). I don't quite know why this is, but i'm begining to think it's because I want to stay up-to date, and generally updates and updates for cracks are some time apart. I got office cos i needed all the updates and plug-ins for excel and the like.

I do think it's wierd I buy more and more. Anyone else finding this?

link92

Apr 13, 2005, 07:38 PM

or instead of buying a family pack for 2 computers, if you can get two copies of education Tiger, would be just a bit more expensive than buying one single copy :P

because i don't believe there is a education family packIn the UK, there is an Educational Family Pack, and it is cheaper than 2 copies of the Single Educational copy, got a Educational Family Pack on order for two computers ;)

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 07:43 PM

MS Office on the Mac as a multi-licence corporate deal doesn't need activation. One CD, a bit of paper with the no. of licences and one serial... in the UK, anyway.

Came as a surprise to me.

From what I have been told YMMV.

Chip NoVaMac

Apr 13, 2005, 07:47 PM

An unprecedented 5 consecutive posts. :eek:

Sorry to offend, but some of us do believe in posting to separate thoughts. Far easier to respond. Also with what some may think are popular threads is is easier on viewers. Sorry if you were offended...

If there is a hard rule on this, please point me to it...

mkrishnan

Apr 13, 2005, 07:54 PM

Here's an anti-mac argument I got some weeks ago:"it's hard to get pirated software"!

I actually have heard otherwise intelligent people give this reason with a straight face. :(

It just goes to show you how true things like the old research on social conformity are...pirating software is a sort of groupthink problem.

jaw04005

Apr 13, 2005, 08:08 PM

I give Microsoft credit for giving three serial numbers with Office. That is a reasonable idea.

Many homes no longer just have 1 computer. I myself have three. Am I going to purchase multiple copies of the same O/S or software? No.

If your a business, that is different as you are using the product to make money. Although, a photographer I used to work for never purchased multiple licenses of Photoshop to use on his 9 or10 workstations. However, he paid the upgrade fee everytime a new version of Photoshop was released (except CS).

Is a EULA an actual binding legal agreement? Who knows, I know of no case where it stood up in court.

iLikeMyiMac

Apr 13, 2005, 08:24 PM

An unprecedented 5 consecutive posts. :eek:
I counted 6. :confused:

Sun Baked

Apr 13, 2005, 08:48 PM

If your a business, that is different as you are using the product to make money. Although, a photographer I used to work for never purchased multiple licenses of Photoshop to use on his 9 or10 workstations. However, he paid the upgrade fee everytime a new version of Photoshop was released (except CS).As a business, this is a bad thing to do.

Since all it takes is an angry employee, customer, or spouse to blow the whistle and get the owner in trouble with the Business Software Alliance.

Of course it could be fun to see the look on the guys face when the BSA along with federal marshalls or local law enforcement show up at his door for an "audit"

jaw04005

Apr 13, 2005, 09:10 PM

Speaking of the BSA, they busted one of Arkansas' local police stations about three years ago because they were using multiple copies of Windows 98 on their machines. I thought it was kinda ironic and funny. Microsoft ended up giving them licenses for all of their machines, in exchange for a written agreement stating from then on they would purchase legit copies for every workstation.

Capt Underpants

Apr 13, 2005, 09:33 PM

An unprecedented 5 consecutive posts. :eek:

It was 6 ;)

sorryiwasdreami

Apr 13, 2005, 09:43 PM

In the UK, there is an Educational Family Pack, and it is cheaper than 2 copies of the Single Educational copy, got a Educational Family Pack on order for two computers ;)

I wish we had that here in the USA. It would make sense for my family, with 5 studens in school.

sorryiwasdreami

Apr 13, 2005, 09:48 PM

The other reason, I think, that Apple does not require activation or a serial number is the plain fact that you have to have an Apple computer to put the software [OS X 10.4 Tiger] onto.

Apple makes out big when users want Tiger on a G3 and realize they need something more up to date. Apple is a hardware company; yes, they make excellent software but they've got more figured out than we know.

There is a sort of monopoly in that you have to have Apple's hardware to enjoy the benefits of (most) of Apple's beautiful, easy-to-use software. iTunes, Quicktime, and the very few things available for x86 are meant as candy to lure people into the Apple world.

It worked with iPods.

AlBDamned

Apr 14, 2005, 03:40 AM

840quadra

Apr 14, 2005, 05:38 AM

Add to that the positive marketing aspects for Apple. For if a user has 2 or 3 Mac's, could not Apple be better served by "word of mouth" marketing by "ignoring" any violations of the license agreement. For some will buy the latest hardware to get the latest OS. Some will share the OS with others that have older hardware and then desire the latest hardware. Apple so far has not been stupid.

This is exactly what I did.. I bought a Second hand G3 that had OSX Jaguar loaded onto it. I got the system, fell in love with OSX, and I bought a new G5 2 weeks ago..

I have also plan on visiting my local Apple store on the 29th to get a copy of Tiger OS.

I am not a "switcher" because I have had Pre OS9 comptuers since ~2000, and had little or no use for XP at home.

Timelessblur

Apr 14, 2005, 08:22 AM

It's a minor rip-off that you need to buy more than one licence to legally install an OS on more than one of your own computers. In most languages you care to use: 1 user means 1 person. In Apple speak, 1 user means 1 computer. I am one user but have three macs, all of which are used just by me - 1 user. However, to do it all properly, I've still got to buy a 'family pack'.

That not the just apple speak that is computer speak. 1 licences = 1 computer. It makes sence if you think about it. You do not buy insucercnes for each driver of a car. you buy it for each car. one policy = 1 car but their can be 10 diffence drivers for that car. Some one like you though gets in a little more trouble because you own 3 Macs that requires 3 licences of software to cover all 3 of them.

Also I going to use you as an example here. A lot of people like you who own 3 computers would buy 1 copy of the software and then install it on all 3 computers that is where large part of pirating software comes from is it being over installed on computers, This is where activation cuts massivley into since a majority of those people are not going to have the know how on how to get around it and they would have to buy more copies of the software.

wordmunger

Apr 14, 2005, 08:32 AM

An unprecedented 5 posts on how many posts Chipnovamac made in a row. Including 3 separate corrections to the original count of 5. :rolleyes:

AlBDamned

Apr 14, 2005, 08:59 AM

That not the just apple speak that is computer speak. 1 licences = 1 computer. It makes sence if you think about it. You do not buy insucercnes for each driver of a car. you buy it for each car. one policy = 1 car but their can be 10 diffence drivers for that car. Some one like you though gets in a little more trouble because you own 3 Macs that requires 3 licences of software to cover all 3 of them.

It's a reasonable analogy, but what you're saying here relates to '10 different drivers'.

I am one 'driver'. But yeah - if one driver has three cars - they would probably have one insurance policy (effectively the family pack' that is more expensive pro-rata than it would be for just the one car.

My little beef on thesubject, and it is little because I don't feel £150 is too bad to keep my OS bang up to date for a couple of years (online updates are free etc.), comes from having to pay for the 'family pack' to update my (1 user's - not family's) macs. I think really it boils down to more of a wording issue than anything. I think they should call the family pack, the 'multi-system' pack and the 'single user' pack should be called 'single system' pack. That IMO, would be a correct descriptive. In many other markets, you could do them for misleading advertising.

Regardless, my gear will be roaring with legitimate orange and black stripes come April 30th.

James Philp

Apr 14, 2005, 09:08 AM

You do not buy insucercnes for each driver of a car. you buy it for each car. one policy = 1 car but their can be 10 diffence drivers for that car.
Bzzzt Wrong!!!
As a named driver on a car, you have to pay insurance for each driver on that car. My premium on a car that my parents own is Far higher than the same premium that my parents pay. (Of course i am including 3rd party insurance!)

Demon

Apr 14, 2005, 09:17 AM

AlBDamned

Apr 14, 2005, 09:21 AM

Bzzzt Wrong!!!
As a named driver on a car, you have to pay insurance for each driver on that car. My premium on a car that my parents own is Far higher than the same premium that my parents pay. (Of course i am including 3rd party insurance!)

The point is you have one policy (Licence) - but have to pay more for each person (system) you want to add to that policy as a named driver.

As said, it's a reasonable analogy.

If Tiger did require activation and you refused to pay for more than one licence, you could hack it fairly easily, as you can with pretty much any program (through P2P programs etc). IMO though, this doesn't do you any favours in terms of stability and online updates. I think for the time you'd spend circumnavigating the problems, you may as well just buy the extra licences.

I know a guy who loves getting everything for nothing for his box of MicroTosh, but I just couldn't be stuffed with fixing all the minor faults everywhere.

AlBDamned

Apr 14, 2005, 09:24 AM

To add more to the mix (groan from everyone else), a friend of mine recently got his paws on a new BMW 330 Ci convertible. He added his girlfriend to the policy and it went DOWN by £100. Work that out and apply it to computer licencing....

Xenious

Apr 14, 2005, 09:38 AM

After buying an iMac for my wife (2nd mac in the house) I've been cringing at the thought of a $199 family pack. Recently my company negioated an Apple discount so its only $165 for the family pack. A nice discount.

Timelessblur

Apr 14, 2005, 11:50 AM

Bzzzt Wrong!!!
As a named driver on a car, you have to pay insurance for each driver on that car. My premium on a car that my parents own is Far higher than the same premium that my parents pay. (Of course i am including 3rd party insurance!)
no it is on the car. They insuarnce is paid based primary driver. Yeah you see the based on the policy but if you also read the fine print if you allow some else to drive the car they will cover the car but anything that happens in a wreck counts agaist you (the owner of the policy) Oh that is at least how mine works. I am insured primaryly on my car. I am allowed to drive my parents car and State farm will cover me. Even when I the amount paid was based on the fact my car was the cheapest car and it had the lowest rate of all of our cars on it (now my car is the 2nd highest of the cars I can be on).

If it was like how you put it friends would not be allowed to drive any of you car so for road trips you take with you friend you have to drive the entire time. Also if you get pulled over by the cops they ask for proof of insurnces and it does not matter if you car has insurnces on it it only matters if that car has it no matter what the names are on the policy

James Philp

Apr 14, 2005, 12:24 PM

no it is on the car. They insuarnce is paid based primary driver. Yeah you see the based on the policy but if you also read the fine print if you allow some else to drive the car they will cover the car but anything that happens in a wreck counts agaist you (the owner of the policy) Oh that is at least how mine works. I am insured primaryly on my car. I am allowed to drive my parents car and State farm will cover me. Even when I the amount paid was based on the fact my car was the cheapest car and it had the lowest rate of all of our cars on it (now my car is the 2nd highest of the cars I can be on).

If it was like how you put it friends would not be allowed to drive any of you car so for road trips you take with you friend you have to drive the entire time. Also if you get pulled over by the cops they ask for proof of insurnces and it does not matter if you car has insurnces on it it only matters if that car has it no matter what the names are on the policy

Sorry I started this, it is completely off topic, and the rules are probably very different in the US and UK (as they are in most automotive ways - you guys drive on the wrong side etc etc!). Lets get back on target!
I WANNA USER LICENSE (not machine license!)!
Family Pack - 5 USERS
Hmm, just made myself think - that doesn't work! - OS X is a multiple User OS isn't it?! That means I can have 1 computer and 10 people using it fine, but I can't have 1 user aand 3 computers!
I just think this is unfair. It's like saying if i buy a piece of piano music I can only play it on one piano! (hmm, maybe!!)

Doctor Q

Apr 14, 2005, 12:53 PM

James Philp

Apr 14, 2005, 01:00 PM

1 Tiger per computer is actually cheaper than 1 Tiger per person if you have one Mac with multiple users.
No poo, Dr. Q!
But not cheaper if you are one person (I think most of us are - sorry all the schizophrenic people!), and have multiple computers!
"Tiger per user is actially more expensive than 1 tiger per computer if you have multiple macs with a single user."
See how those words can be interchanged!
I'm glad you're sorted out, trouble is i think there are plenty of people who have a desktop/laptop combination who only need 2 licenses, not 5!

sorryiwasdreami

Apr 14, 2005, 01:37 PM

1 licences = 1 computer. It makes sence if you think about it. You do not buy insucercnes for each driver of a car. you buy it for each car.

But you only need one license to drive many, many different cars.

krappamc

Apr 14, 2005, 01:38 PM

so what would happen if i install a single user tiger into my 2 macs?
would one not be able to update???
or is it that 2 computers cannot be logged on at same time??
please let me know what would be the disadvantage of installing single user into 2 computers..

James Philp

Apr 14, 2005, 02:05 PM

But you only need one license to drive many, many different cars.
And you tell us to ride a bike in your sign-off? :confused:

mac-er

Apr 14, 2005, 02:43 PM

krappamc

Apr 14, 2005, 02:51 PM

well..
for me being morally wrong.. i just bought a powerbook and G5 about 2 months ago and to be straightforward and honest, i only had about 100 dollars in my bank account.. which i bought the educational tiger for..now i really can't afford it and i think i really paid my due to apple :rolleyes:
so to be honest, i really don't feel like i am doing anything wrong... i guess there is problem with my morality + status of my bank acct.. so i guess i will just go ahead and install it on both macs when i get it assuming that it won't have any problem when i have both machine connected to same lan..

sorry for being such an ignorant person... really can't afford $70 extra..

I HOPE IT WORKS!!! (sorry again for not being sure, i only been a mac user for couple months..)

matticus008

Apr 15, 2005, 12:32 AM

No poo, Dr. Q!
But not cheaper if you are one person (I think most of us are - sorry all the schizophrenic people!), and have multiple computers!
"Tiger per user is actially more expensive than 1 tiger per computer if you have multiple macs with a single user."
See how those words can be interchanged!
I'm glad you're sorted out, trouble is i think there are plenty of people who have a desktop/laptop combination who only need 2 licenses, not 5!

That's true, and for power users like us, it's an inconvenience. But we're a pretty extreme minority. There are three usage patterns for computers: 1)one user, one computer, 2) one computer, multiple users, or 3) multiple computers, one user. The general market assumption is 1 computer per person, or multiple people per computer (work, families, school labs). So the license per machine works out advantageously for the more common 2 of 3 useage schemes. Licensing can't benefit everyone based on just one of the two variables unless software starts being sold based on a hybrid calculation of users/machines, which would be a complicated pricing model.

The other side of the coin is that if we choose to invest in multiple computers, the extra cost for software per machine is something we have to take into account for that investment. There are few people who truly NEED multiple computers and simultaneously CANNOT afford the extra software costs. In fact, I personally can't think of a single reason why someone would absolutely need more than one computer for personal use (i.e. not professional/business related). It's a luxury item that isn't totally paid for at purchase. Like a car needs insurance and gas and maintenance, computers need software, and so must be taken into account for determining affordability.

Doctor Q

Apr 15, 2005, 12:55 AM

I think there are people who routinely need one desktop Mac and one portable Mac. For example, a moviemaker might need the heavy iron for most editing but need to take the show on the road to visit clients (or potential clients) and be able to do quick edits in the field. Or a traveling salesman might be more efficient on a huge screen when in the office (big spreadsheets) but need something small when hitting the road.

Recognizing that one person might have multiple computers is reasonable, and I applaud software licenses that allow multiple installations for one person. Some licenses (MS Office? -- I forget) even say you can install on two machines primarily used by the same person as long as one is portable.

mduser63

Apr 15, 2005, 01:37 AM

This thread has kind of changed subject from when it was started, but I still wanted to add my thoughts on activation. While I'm against software piracy, and don't advocate it in any way (including installing a single user copy of Tiger on multiple Macs), I must say, I despise activation schemes even more.

One of the big things that made me completely fed up with Windows was the activation system. I had an expensive Windows PC, which had many problems, both software and hardware. Luckily it had/has a lifetime warranty, so I was able to get it fixed free of charge every time it broke. It should be noted that the copy of Windows being used came with the machine, and was never installed on any other machine. It ended up needing a reinstall of Windows several times (7 or 8, I'd estimate), and after the first 3 times or whatever, the automatic activation system stopped working. Having to talk to someone on the phone in India and explain myself to them every time was rather aggravating, and by the end I basically felt like swearing at them and telling them that the reason for my reinstalling the OS was because they were incapable of making a product that worked right. It's been very refreshing to switch to Mac and not have to worry about reinstalling the OS, but knowing that even if I have to, activation won't be necessary.

My point in all this, is that I will seriously consider moving over to Linux if Apple begins requiring activation for OS X, and will be very unhappy with the change in any case.

Timelessblur

Apr 15, 2005, 01:52 AM

I would not be surpised in the least to see Apple go to an activation system in the future. Simple because activation has turned out to be the easy way and the most effect way to cut down on piraters of software. It increase the diffuclt of getting around it greatly and it increase of trouble for the user is not really increased that much.

Remeber when CD keys where brand new. I remeber hating them (hell they still bug me) but now they are common place and no one really thinks much of them. The same thing is going to happen with activation, it just going to keep becoming more and more wide spread.

rvmartinez

Apr 19, 2005, 01:06 PM

The "Family pack" is more of a "Household pack" what you're doing is still illegal if you don't buy two copies. (or the cheaper family pack)

If it is illegal, it should not be. I have 2 macs, iMac and PB 17". I use one at the office and the other at home. I never use them at the same time, except when transferring files from one to the other... why should I have to pay for 2 programs?

iMetalG5

May 3, 2005, 02:03 PM

If it is illegal, it should not be. I have 2 macs, iMac and PB 17". I use one at the office and the other at home. I never use them at the same time, except when transferring files from one to the other... why should I have to pay for 2 programs?

that's what a lot of people i talk to say. i mean no one i know is copying tiger and giving it away or whatever. i just know a few people who live by themselves who happen to own a desktop and laptop mac and use one Tiger DVD for both.

this is just a grey area. i don't know.

A friend of mine just sold his iMac G4 and will be using that loot to purchase the 1.8 revised iMac. his problem now is how does he take Tiger off the G4 and put Panther back on and how does he "prove" this to Apple. I'm like what the!?!?!?!? :confused: