Login:
Password:

Office 2007 'Stun Switch' Nothing New

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

November 21, 2006, 11:58 AM

There doesn't seem to be as much confusion over what this thing does as over what to call it: With a name that sounds straight out of "1984," what exactly is Reduced Functionality Mode (RFM) in Office 2007?

This week, Microsoft is repeating statements made over the past seven years that RFM -- which, as BetaNews reported last month, is now a mandatory feature of Office -- is nothing other than a mechanism to prevent users who won't let the company verify the product's authenticity, from doing more than testing how it works.

Meanwhile, reporters on Monday characterized Microsoft's most recent implementation of RFM as an "off switch" or a "kill switch," leaving users to speculate about the feasibility of more sinister purposes, though without much evidence to support it.

As one spokesperson explained to BetaNews Monday evening, Office 2007 retains a feature that has been present in the suite since Office XP in 2002, and which was first tested in limited release editions of Office 2000 in 1999.

This activation feature counts the number of times a user launches one of the Office applications, and if it reaches a certain number and the user continues to decline to activate the product (to signal its installation through the Internet or a phone call), it drops Office down to Reduced Functionality Mode.

Veteran Windows software tester Paul Thurrott first discovered RFM in a preview version of Office 10, which later became Office XP. As Thurrott noted then, the activation feature would drop the Office 10 beta to RFM after 20 skipped activation requests. The released edition of Office XP increased that number to 50; with Office 2007, that number has been reduced to 25.

As reporters discovered yesterday, a Microsoft Knowledgebase article updated just last week described RFM for Office 2007 as disabling a user's ability to create new documents, edit existing documents or to save documents edited within the suite, though the user can open existing documents and print them. Reports have stated this updated document is evidence that Microsoft, contrary to prior statements, is building a "kill switch" into Office, and perhaps into Windows Vista as well.

Microsoft yesterday afternoon rejected the characterization of RFM as a "kill switch," citing that RFM does not completely disable Office. But reporters have counter-argued, if you can't save and you can't edit, that's as good as killing it, isn't it? The ensuing argument is starting to take on the characteristics of Monty Python's classic "Dead Parrot Sketch." Is Office dead, or is it just resting?

One monkey wrench in the dead parrot argument is the fact that RFM has been resting in Office for several years. Much of the language from the updated knowledgebase article was first used in an earlier Knowledgebase article dated February 10, 2002. Though frequent revisions to the Knowledgebase may theoretically have enabled history to have been corrected, this earlier Microsoft Word format document advised Outlook 2002 users about RFM's existence, and this independent analysis of Office XP written during the time of Office XP's release, shows where RFM was also discovered to have been capable of disabling the suite, exactly the way last week's Knowledgebase article describes, except after 50 skips instead of 25.

When the whole "kill switch" debate began, it centered around the question of whether activation would render Office completely non-functional, or perhaps even disable parts of Windows. Now that we're talking about turning down the number of activation skips from 50 to 25, it would seem safe to perhaps stand down from red alert, and start debating the efficacy of the "stun switch."

One problem, Microsoft's spokesperson told us Monday evening, is that reporters may be confusing product activation with product validation, the latter process taking place through the aid of a feature called Genuine Advantage. While some have pointed out in the past that Microsoft may be working to merge the two features together at some point, potentially endowing Office with the future capability of reducing functionality for Windows if activation is declined, others seem to be under the impression that this has already happened. It hasn't, BetaNews was told, and it might not happen for quite some time, if at all.

"Product Activation technology is not new to Microsoft Office, which has had Product Activation since Microsoft Office 2000 SR1," the spokesperson told us. "It is important to note the distinction between activation and validation. Failure to validate your copy of the 2007 Office system as being genuine does not result in moving to reduced functionality mode (RFM) or de-featuring the product. However, if the product is not activated, it will go to RFM after starting up a Microsoft Office application 25 times."

If users want to add a feature to their already installed Office 2007 -- for instance, adding templates to the Excel library -- a feature called Office Genuine Advantage (OGA) first verifies whether or not the installed Office is indeed licensed, before allowing the download to proceed.

This is the validation feature with which testers continue to have problems. While Microsoft insisted yesterday to BetaNews that OGA does not disable any features of Office or Windows, and that it only blocks the download from proceeding if the product is deemed not genuine, testers in the field are noticing what appears to be detrimental effects on the part of OGA perhaps working in tandem with Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA).

As veteran Excel author and expert John Walkenbach noted last month, the OGA installed with his beta copy of Excel 2007 sporadically disbelieves that he has genuine Microsoft software on his computer. However, since OGA is apparently capable of testing more than one product, it can refuse to let him download an upgrade to his Excel beta, if it believes his copy of Excel 2003 is invalid.

Walkenbach is in the business of crafting tremendously functional add-ins for Excel, though Microsoft has insisted in the past that such add-ins could not possibly alter the chemistry of installed software to the degree that validation would deem it non-genuine.

Reports yesterday cited these stories from the field of testers having trouble with validation as evidence that Microsoft is crafting new software-disabling features in its activation system. We related some of these stories to our Microsoft spokesperson yesterday, who repeated -- perhaps already past the blue-in-the-face stage -- that validation and activation are not the same system.

Activation, the spokesperson said, is a "one-time process." Once activation is completed, it will not "phone home" to Microsoft in the future, it will not force businesses and individuals to re-activate later on, or prior to some future upgrade or download or patch, nor has the spokesperson been made aware of any plans, we were told, for activation to ever do so. The problems which testers were having with validation, we were told, may have to do with a "deeper problem" with the software, perhaps with the beta of the application itself rather than with validation.

The lack of new revelations about activation, however, may not end the argument, though it may yet somehow be prolonged. While significant problems with validation may persist, after seven years, there remains no evidence of a sinister motive behind the activation process. And that's what I call a dead parrot.

Add a Comment (49 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By batteryfast

posted Nov 10, 2008 - 10:06 PM

Activation, the spokesperson said, is a "one-time process." Once activation is completed, it will not "phone home" to Microsoft in the future, it will not force businesses and individuals to re-activate later on, or prior to some future upgrade or download or patch, nor has the spokesperson been made aware of any plans, we were told, for activation to ever do so. The problems which testers were having with validation, we were told, may have to do with a "deeper problem" with the software, perhaps with the beta of the application itself rather than with validation.

The lack of new revelations about activation, however, may not end the argument, though it may yet somehow be prolonged. While significant problems with validation may persist, after seven years, there remains no evidence of a sinister motive behind the activation hp f3172b battery hp f3172a battery ibm thinkpad 660 battery process. And that's what I call a dead parrot.

Score: 0

By dougau

posted Nov 26, 2006 - 10:26 AM

When all is said and done you need to pay for it if your going to use it. This may be an unpopular concept for some users.

On the same token companies shouldn't be milking their paying customers.

Enough said!!

Score: 0

By dougau

posted Nov 26, 2006 - 10:25 AM

When all is said and done you need to pay for it if your going to use it. This may be an unpopular concept for some users.

On the same token companies shouldn't be milking their paying customers.

Enough said!!

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Nov 26, 2006 - 10:06 AM

i don't think that a kill switch is an advantages marketing tool. Basically, the program should remain on the system and functional to a point that excludes saving of files. This aspect will help out the slow buyers and the hard to convince....

microsoft needs to stop hiring monkeys for their marketing department.....

Score: 0

By WRFan

edited Nov 25, 2006 - 10:26 PM

>"John Walkenbach noted last month, the OGA installed with his beta copy of Excel 2007 sporadically disbelieves that he has genuine Microsoft software on his computer. Eventually, I find out the reason why I can't download an Office 2007 template:Microsoft Office XP Professional with FrontPage: Validation Failed
"

well, obviously he DOES NOT have genuine soft on his computer. come on, just because his office 2007 is genuine doesn't mean his officexp is genuine. he stole it from MS, and now he's b****ing that MS is unfair. what a moron! There is a whole bunch of morons on the genuine forums.microsoft.com forum who actually post mgadiag reports, which show that not only they are using stolen VLK versions of Winxp, they also have stolen versions of office. And they post this on microsoft's forums, where the admins can see their IPs, and then they complain that MS tells them they are not genuine! this is so ludicrous! No, I agree with them, they are genuine, genuine morons! Some people are just too stupid for the warez business

Score: 0

By SunnyB

edited Nov 21, 2006 - 6:23 PM

".....Once activation is completed, it will not "phone home" to Microsoft in the future, it will not force businesses and individuals to re-activate later on, or prior to some future upgrade or download or patch...."

If it's activated once and only once then
why the need for "validation" and does a
second contact to Microsoft by the software
totally refute the first "one-time-only"
statement.

Once paid for and activated, I reserve the right
to do with this software as I wish, otherwise I
will rewuest a refund on the basis of non-working
or otherwise unfunctional goods.
Isn't there a warranty against this?

Score: 0

By dannysalerno1983

edited Nov 22, 2006 - 12:27 PM

I don't quite get the reasoning for the article not to mention that the Enterprise version of Office 2007 has since been leaked to the Net and already bypasses activation.

Score: 0

By bsf

posted Nov 23, 2006 - 9:49 PM

Microsoft really needs to come out with a way to prevent those leeks. If they really can prevent those leeks, maybe they would really lower the price, maybe not..

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 10:24 AM

I think what people should be asking (and I'm working under the assumption that we're talking about legitimate users here, not pirates...)

If you actually activate Microsoft products using the key and online activation, and it passes activation online (this of course is assuming you are using your own legally purchased keys), why must you validate continually and repeatedly with Microsoft afterward? You've already done it once! It should be able to read that you've passed activation, and be done with it entirely.

Your key is now in a database there, marked as being used. The current "program" in place where the system does give some leeway is fine as far as reinstallation/reactivation, but why are legal users being treated like criminals, *repeatedly* having to "validate" something that's already been "activated" online?

Why is it that we allow this kind of "treat the consumer as a suspected criminal first" mentality?

This constant validation and subsequent "controversy" over RFM just makes me think of how it would be if everything in life was like that? How about an analogy (which someone will nitpick over...):

You buy a car. You have to go to get your car repaired at the dealer. How would you feel if you had to show your title to the mechanic (your activation), THEN show him your registration (here's a validation check) for the vehicle, *every* time you needed your oil changed (monthly rootkit remover patch)? How about when you go to buy gasoline(add ram/peripherals)? Or get a tune up(Defrag your hard disk/monthly security patches)? Replace your battery(Video Card upgrade)?

And I'm not talking about getting warranty support here, I'm talking general maintenance (patch updates), something that any normal person would do.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 2:38 PM

Great points. Microsoft took my payment for the license. I activated the product which verified the license and recorded my hardware ID, IP address, name, and so on. Why keep checking my system every time I open Office 2007 unless Microsoft thinks I ditched my legal copy for an illegal one, and have overnight become a criminal?

If, after doing everything that Microsoft asks me to do to license and legally use their product, Microsoft still does not trust me, then how can I trust Microsoft? It's a two-way street.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 3:07 PM

The problem is that how would it know that you haven't given someone else your Office CD and they've installed it and used the same key? Not saying checking every time Office is opened is the best way, but what would be your preference? Plus, a majority of users do not switch their hardware often. It is only the techies in forums like this one that have a problem with it, and I would guess a huge majority of Windows users are average joes who don't mess with things.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Nov 23, 2006 - 12:10 AM

"Techies" are the only people I hang with, and all of us upgrade at will, not according to Microsoft's upgrade cycles. If I gave my Office CD to another person, that person would have to activate it, and upon activation, Microsoft would detect a new hardware ID and IP address, and could refuse to activate it until I've called in. This has happened almost every time I've upgraded my system over the years with XP and that's not a problem.

I don't have a problem with Activation at installation, just the idea of ongoing checks ad infinitum.

Score: 0

By ramishka

edited Nov 22, 2006 - 5:13 AM

lol. MS bringing up all these methods to crackdown on piracy makes me laugh. They should realise that whatever method they implement, pirates will always crack it. If its makable, its crackable.

Example-
Serial Key protection in early Win 9x Products- Cracked
Windows Product Activation- Cracked
Windows Genuine Advantage- Cracked (4 different ways to crack it)
Office Genuine Advantage- Cracked

Pirated products come with the crack and even a rookie can apply the crack and install without any problem. These anti piracy measures will only harass legitimate users.

i just tried office 2007 enterprise RTM with a VLK (volume licence key) just to see if it works and dude you just have to install VLK serial upon installation it wont ever bug you for activation or anything again. Thats how easy it is for pirates. (I dont like office so i uninstalled it anyways.)

Same will happen to this so called RFM.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 8:39 AM

So what you are saying is that you shouldn't put a deadbolt on your front door because a thief could just kick it in or come through the window? They have to at least make an effort, and if those tools scared off only a couple of percentage of would-be pirates, it is worth it.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Nov 22, 2006 - 2:37 PM

wouldn't the product KEY be for the "deadbolt"?

the validation routine is like having a cop walk through your house.

try to think out your analogy first next time.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 3:05 PM

He was speaking to the fact that the tools MS has developed are designed to prevent piracy. He also said that no matter what it gets cracked, thus MS should not even bother with trying to prevent piracy.

A deadbolt is designed to keep people out of your house. If a would-be thief can just come through the window, then why should I bother installing a deadbolt and using it? Or how bout this: you use a security system that will alert authorities if someone comes in your house. But what if the thief just cuts the power?

The concept is still the same. It is silly to think you shouldn't try to prevent theft just because people can get around it. As I already stated, if it prevented 2% of piracy from taking place then it is probably worth it.

If my deadbolt prevents someone from breaking into my house even though he could have come through the window but chose not to because it was more difficult, I'd say it was worth it.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 3:48 PM

"thus MS should not even bother with trying to prevent piracy."

no, just know their limits.

would you not consider a guard walking your house to be an invasion of privacy?

MS already has the deadbolt in place, always have. now they're adding security systems and watch dogs too, and the fail-safe self-destruct mechanism this article talks about.

if i was THAT paranoid about my house being broken into, i wouldn't leave it.

Score: 0

By pafinator11

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 12:38 PM

how much does it cost them to develope the deadbolt? Seems to me like the deadbolt is more expensive than the house.

Score: 0

By bsf

posted Nov 23, 2006 - 9:53 PM

if you have to sell a million houses, R&D-ing a deadbolt that cost a million isn't that much.

Score: 0

By Muaitai

edited Nov 21, 2006 - 2:36 PM

Microsoft Denies 'Kill Switch' In Office 2007
By Gregg Keizer, InformationWeek
2:39 PM EST Mon. Nov. 20, 2006

Reports that Office 2007 will sport an anti-piracy "kill switch" that can disable the upcoming application suite after it's activated are incorrect, a Microsoft executive said Monday.

As with previous versions of the productivity bundle, Office 2007 does include an activation scheme that requires users to authenticate the product key either online or by telephone, said Ashim Jaidka, the director of Office Genuine Advantage. OGA is the umbrella program for Office product activation and validation.

"Activation technology isn't new to Microsoft Office," Jaidka said in an e-mail. "It's important to note the distinction between activation and validation."

Under Office 2007's activation rules, users can launch a suite application up to 25 times without entering the product key. Once that launch allowance is exhausted, however, the applications slip into what Microsoft dubs "reduced functionality mode," under which the user cannot create, edit, or save documents. Viewing and printing of documents, however, are allowed. Office 2003, released three years ago, gives users a grace of 50 launches, twice as many as Office 2007 will allow.

"In reduced-functionality mode, 2007 Office programs function more like viewers," stated a support document posted last week.

Windows Vista, which will release simultaneously with Office 2007 at the end of November to corporations and move to retail on Jan. 30, features an additional anti-counterfeit component called "Software Protection Platform" that can disable the operating system if it's found to be counterfeit, even if Vista has been activated earlier.

Under that scheme, Windows Vista users can run the operating system 30 days before they must validate it as legitimate. Copies judged to be counterfeit drop into a similarly named "reduced-functionality mode" that differs from the one in Office 2007: In Vista's, only the Internet Explorer browser works, and then only for an hour at a time before logging the user off automatically.

There are no plans to plant a similar "kill switch" in Office 2007, although in an October interview Jaidka said Microsoft was retaining the right to change its mind in the future. For the moment, however, Office 2007 and Vista use different definitions for the "reduced-functionality mode" term.

"Failure to validate your copy of the 2007 Office system as being genuine doesn't result in moving to reduced functionality mode or de-featuring the product," Jaidka said.

Office 2007 will have a mandatory validation feature identical to the one announced at the end of October for Office XP and Office 2003, however. That validation is required to download add-ons from the Office Web site, and features a free offer to some users who have unwittingly bought a bogus copy of the suite.

The differences between the anti-piracy approaches of Office 2007 and Windows Vista is due to the technology each uses. Office 2007 relies on the Windows XP-esque Windows Genuine Advantage software, a move that was forced on the suite's developers because Vista's Software Protection Platform wasn't ready when the choice of anti-piracy techniques had to be made.

Score: 0

By Crand3

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 6:45 PM

So, what's changed from 2003?

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Nov 21, 2006 - 6:36 PM

Windows/Office Geniune DISadvantage is right. Time to call the game in favor of StarOffice-OpenOffice, as Microsoft kills its golden goose in Office 2007. And licensing 2007's bloated, 1st-grader-neon/crayon-idiots-only UI won't help their cause either, as you won't find other office suites converting to that "Microsoft Bob"-like disaster.

Don't lecture us on the difference between validation and activation; we already know it, and that's not the issue at hand. Rather, it's this: Are you willing to give control of YOUR computer and YOUR data over to a corporation? Every single time you give a corporation control, it abuses it. OGA will fail. It will give false negatives, and it will make your life miserable when it does. And when that moment happens, you'll be spending your days and nights begging Microsoft's tech support for mercy and a second chance. OGA is eerily similar to ID theft — it's not just one credit card or one charge; it's the whole nasty mess every time you want to do anything, such as download a template or update Office, and BAM! the OGA killbot switch was flipped and you're back to screaming in the phone. If you haven't had that truck full of crap slam your life to a crushing halt, then you're in for a treat when you can't access your files because Microsoft f-d up. And skip the piracy sermon — I'm only talking about honest, paying customers like myself. Businesses small and large won't dare take the chance of having their systems remotely killed by an outside entity.

StarOffice-OpenOffice and the ISO-certified OASIS OpenDocument format is now the de facto international standard. Market share or not, "Microsoft Office 2007" can be officially pronounced Dead On Arrival November 2006, courtesy of Microsoft.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 6:59 PM

This is one of the mentalities that keeps OSS in general from being taken seriously. You are seriously comparing piracy countermeasures to identity theft?!?!

ISO-certified OASIS OpenDocument format is now the de facto international standard.
I think you mean "official" standard. MS' office formats are the defacto standards by virtue of the its market share.

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Nov 21, 2006 - 11:36 PM

No, I'm comparing giving control of your system, files, and data that Microsoft does not own over to a corporation. If Microsoft makes a mistake, it's the user that pays for it. Agreeing to OGA and Office's EULA is exactly comparable to handing over control of your own copyrighted content. If they can keep you from controlling your data, they have effectively seized it from you. (Remember, I've been a fanboy user of Office and Word/Excel since Windows 3.0, circa 1989, so I'm not interested in jumping off the bandwagon, but protecting the future integrity of my files throughout my lifetime.)

You do understand that the hackers have already busted both Vista and Office 2007, right? They've also busted both WGA and OGA validation, along with bypassing product activation. So Microsoft's piracy "countermeasures" have failed before the product has been officially released to the public — it's a testament to the pernicious genius of hackers and makes a joke of Microsoft's efforts to date, which have accomplished nothing more than chasing away anywhere from 10 to 100 million Microsoft Office users over the brief life of the 2007 version.

Finally, no I meant what I wrote — being the only ISO-certified file format on the planet, governments, businesses, and tens of millions of users want control, over their data and its code. That fact alone now makes ODF the real deal. Why pay to have a corporation possibly, even remotely kill the only tool that can read their file format (as of now)? If you don't think Open Source is taken seriously, then you missed last week's "Hell froze over" news about the Microsoft/Novell pact — Microsoft sure takes it seriously.

Dana Blankenhorn put it better than me:
When you are running open source you control your own code. You also control the code budget. When you are using a proprietary solution — no matter how good the solution — the vendor controls your code. They decide what you will pay, and when.... It's a pretty obvious point, but it's a vital one.... Most of the boardroom arguments over open source licensing eventually move toward this issue of control.

Score: 0

By Jonus

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 5:10 PM

Seems like the last guy just understood what product activation, product trail period, etc. means. Hello? 7 years late?

Score: 0

By acey99

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 3:38 PM

Yet another reason to use OpenOffice.org

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 5:00 PM

No thanks, it's crap, ugly looking and a memory hog...

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 7:03 PM

"it's crap"
If you're a Microsoft fanatic.

"ugly looking"
We all know software has to be beautiful to function.

"memory hog"
Time to upgrade that Walmart special.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 3:35 AM

"memory hog"
Time to upgrade that Walmart special.

I always love how OSS advocates call MS bloatware, and conveniently overlook their own bloat when it appears and blame it on "old" computers.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 22, 2006 - 4:27 PM

I never said anything about Microsoft bloatware. I never said Open office isn't bloated. I'm simply saying that if bloat is a problem it may be time to do a little upgrade in the ram department. Software is only going to become more bloated as computer technology progresses and people might as well get used to it and quit whining about it. No matter if it's Microsoft software or OSS.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 4:38 PM

Yeah, why risk having decent software forced limited when you can just use limited software...

Score: 0

By sophist_dreams

edited Nov 22, 2006 - 12:57 AM

PC_Tool, sometimes I read your stuff just to sit and laugh. There is nothing limited in Star Office or Open Office just as there is nothing limited in the amount of inanities you are willing to spout in defense of Microspud.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 5:07 PM

As long as Open Office does what I need it to do and I'm not having to feed the tyrannical beast that is Microsoft more money, I'm happy.

Score: 0

By thepeggasus

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 3:38 PM

I know we have to use M$ Office at work, but with Open Office which just flat WORKS, does anyone still use M$ Office at home? Any problem with it at work is IT's problem and the rest of us can just ignore it on our own machines. So, who cares?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 2:35 PM

I don't see what the big fuss is? The biggest gripe I've heard and experienced is OEM's whose product keys become leaked and locked out forcing legit customers to call a 1-800 number to re-activate it.

So the solution is-- OEM's need to stop entering a global OEM key for their images and let the customer enter the number printed on the side of the computer or in the packet of CD's that OEM's are SUPPOSED to ship. Even if you argue the point of recovery CD's or not at all, they usually ship documentation of some type-- and the keys could be included that way.

If the key is invalid or missing in the new computer order, no problem, you can still call the 1-800 number of the OEM or MS and activate that way.

As for re-activating for re-installs or whatnot, no problem there either... they've already made adjustments to allow more flexible limits on Vista, and Office is just key dependent. Worst case, you call the key in and MS says, "OK no problem, here's your activation code..."

As long as you don't "lie" to them and tell them it's for that second computer in the kid's room or wife's office or whatever, they barely question it.

Problem solved.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 1:55 PM

HAHA Microsux does it again.

Have fun just trying to use Office, hahaha

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 1:51 PM

Is it so hard to believe that the version that'll be on IRC will be the one that's the corporate, non-WGA version? In the meantime, every time you call in and beg the person from India to let you reinstall on the machine that now has a new video card, you have to start wondering if it's worth all the money...

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Nov 21, 2006 - 2:38 PM

The last report I heard was that all versions will now require activation for an initial install. Only that Volume License keys will not be as sensitive about lock-out.

On a side note... those support agents from India are actually pretty easy to work with if not so easy to understand. Sure, I have to ask them to repeat a number sequence once in a while. Big deal. I've never been on hold longer than 5-10 minutes.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 3:59 PM

I agree -- they're not hard. It's not the ten minutes for me. It's the 400 seat licenses for the IT guy...

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 7:02 PM

Maybe "the IT guy" should have tried to keep a tighter leash on the corporate key, and I am pretty sure he isn't going to have to spend 10 minutes on the phone per machine.

Score: 0

By lazarus98

edited Nov 21, 2006 - 1:31 PM

Vista: kinda NOT worth the hassle.

This WGA crud is getting very irratating. I have XP machines occasionally that say they are not legite because they do not connect properly to the network for various reasons and since a normal network user doesn't have the rights needed it stays that way till I log in as admin. Whats going to happen to Office with this carppola? Probably the same damned thing. MS needs to get there heads out there butts and do this a better way. I don't have an issue with making sure things are licensed, but having it connect to MS all the time pretty well sucks!

Score: 0

By burfadel

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 1:22 PM

The problem with Windows activation and Office activation is that it keeps the honest people out! It would stop many users from just installing it from a friend, and thats just about it. Those that are intent on getting it for free will do so and will find ways to do it, thats just a fact of life.

The killswitch mentioned sounds like it essentially turns Office into 'Office Reader" such as the Word viewer, Powerpoint viewer etc. that have been features of Office in the past.

Don't know whether a killswitch is the correct approach, maybe just severely limiting what the person can do in terms of editing. Of course, giving plenty of warning that the kill switch will be enabled. My approach would be a time and opening limit. That is, the software can be installed for say, a minimum of two weeks, then thereafter limit to 25 openings. That would still have the same benefit for Microsoft in terms of killing the app and doesn't disadvantage the honest people that can't activate it for some reason at that present time.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 2:42 PM

Hasn't kept me out... I buy my license, I install it accordingly, and I use it. I update it. I install add-ons. No problem whatsoever.

You call them honest, but sharing with a friend isn't exactly honest or legal. It's generous, certainly, but that's not the issue. A better argument is that it is not as effective on mass copying as it should be.

Considering how much it nags you when it's not activated, I think they give more than ample warning within 25 days.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 12:47 PM

Vista: kinda worth the hassle.

Office: No longer as essential to get our jobs done. This just reeks of danger.

Still, as an IT manager, I worry about a screwup by Microsoft that accidentally sets the killbit on millions of machines, either through incompetence or mistake. Hey, they've made mistakes before, and lately their hotfixes have been *very* shoddy.

Microsoft's Achilles heel is this product activation. If a hacker got access to it or to modify the update process, they could wipe out an industry...

Score: 0

By Crand3

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 6:49 PM

Manager? It's a sad, sad world indeed.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 5:45 PM

hope it happens.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 2:44 PM

In my environment, we build one system image (using Ghost) per hardware configuration. This way, it can be cloned without issue for the hundreds of machines we get with that configuration.

The only headache we may encounter in the future is when we have to swap out bad motherboards, but even then we can just re-image and problem solved.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 7:03 PM

And you really don't even need Ghost, although I know it streamlines the process.

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Nov 21, 2006 - 12:22 PM

Good job Microsoft, for making ppl's life better.

Score: 0