Office XP... Activation???

[Mac T]

I've been considering replacing my trusty (but rather
venerable) Office 97 suite with a more up-to-date version
such as XP. However, someone recently told me that Office
XP needs to be activated and can only be
reinstalled/reactivated a set number of times before I
would need to purchase a new licence - is this true?!?

The wholly unreasonable (and impractical) activation issue
is the reason I still have Win98SE running rather than XP
(I upgrade/alter my system fairly regularly in a year and
often reinstall my OS for various reasons). So what the
heck am I going to do if all MS products become activation-
required??? Well, besides switch to Linux obviously...

 

[Mike Williams [MVP]]

I've been considering replacing my trusty (but rather
venerable) Office 97 suite with a more up-to-date version
such as XP. However, someone recently told me that Office
XP needs to be activated and can only be
reinstalled/reactivated a set number of times before I
would need to purchase a new licence - is this true?!?

Office XP has been superseded by Office 2003. Both require activation and a
full retail version may be installed on a desktop and a laptop. If you wish
to move an activated copy to another machine, unsintall from the first and
install on the next. If you have trouble activating the software over the
internet, use the telephone option provided. You don't have to purchase a
new license.

The wholly unreasonable (and impractical) activation issue

Given the number of people who pirate software it's not unreasonable. Why is
it impractical? It takes a few seconds toactivate over the internet.

is the reason I still have Win98SE running rather than XP
(I upgrade/alter my system fairly regularly in a year and
often reinstall my OS for various reasons). So what the
heck am I going to do if all MS products become activation-
required??? Well, besides switch to Linux obviously...

Well Windows 98SE is not going to support new hardware or support new
platform features so you may have to give it up anyway. Office 2003 requires
Windows 2000 SP3 or Windows XP. It's not reasonable or practical to keep
building things into applications that should be in the paltform.

--
Mike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/

Please respond in the same thread on this newsgroup - not by email!
Include details of your application and Windows versions, plus any
service pack updates. Answers may also be found by reading recent
posts, checking the FAQs or searching the relevant Google archive at.
http://groups.google.com/groups?group=microsoft.public
If something doesn't make sense, it could be worse e.g.
http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/

 

[Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]]

You are certainly free to switch to open source software, but first get your
facts straight. I currently use a mix of Linux based software and other
proprietary software and find the rhetoric is much overhyped.

Office activation is unlimited *IF* installed to the same
machine/configuration. If you change your hardware often or upgrade your PC
often, then you may need to use the telephone option for activating your
software.

Each time I have had to use the telephone method for activating my software,
it has taken a matter of minutes, No hassles and no questions.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to the
Swen virus, all e-mails sent to my actual account will be deleted w/out
reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer
Mac T <[email protected]> asked:

| I've been considering replacing my trusty (but rather
| venerable) Office 97 suite with a more up-to-date version
| such as XP. However, someone recently told me that Office
| XP needs to be activated and can only be
| reinstalled/reactivated a set number of times before I
| would need to purchase a new licence - is this true?!?
|
| The wholly unreasonable (and impractical) activation issue
| is the reason I still have Win98SE running rather than XP
| (I upgrade/alter my system fairly regularly in a year and
| often reinstall my OS for various reasons). So what the
| heck am I going to do if all MS products become activation-
| required??? Well, besides switch to Linux obviously...

 

[Mac T]

Given the number of people who pirate software it's not unreasonable. Why is
it impractical? It takes a few seconds toactivate over

the internet.

Product activation will not stop or even halt piracy -
there are 'cracked' versions of Windows XP already out
there, and have been for some time - so it really hasn't
worked. If anything, it is likely to *increase* the
number of illegal copies out there due to people
downloading these cracked versions in favour of expensive
activation-enabled versions that have a limited usage
period. It is impractical due to the fact that once MS
release a new OS/program that supercedes the current
version, they will withdraw support from it. While this
doesn't really matter too much with OS's like Win95/98/ME,
it means any product that requires activation
automatically becomes useless in the event of a re-
installation, etc. The time it takes to activate is
irrelevant if two years down the road (once you get it
secure and stable) you can no longer use it...

Well Windows 98SE is not going to support new hardware or support new
platform features so you may have to give it up anyway. Office 2003 requires
Windows 2000 SP3 or Windows XP. It's not reasonable or practical to keep
building things into applications that should be in the

paltform.

True enough, and I can understand that. I planned to
upgrade to Windows ME, but after reading the reports
regarding it's problems and the upcoming XP OS, I decided
to wait. Then I heard about the activation issue and
decided to do a little research first, and before I knew
it it's 2003 and the oldest thing in my system is the OS
which I can't find an attractive alternative for. Maybe
I'll switch to 2000 while I evaluate the Linux route.

Thanks for the speedy reply though!

 

[Mac T]

You are certainly free to switch to open source software, but first get your
facts straight. I currently use a mix of Linux based software and other
proprietary software and find the rhetoric is much

overhyped.

I assure you, a switch to an unstandardised OS such as
Linux would be done reluctantly on my part. The only PC
OS I have ever used has been Windows, and over the years
have found it perfect for my needs, and very easy to use.
But the whole activation issue is one I feel very strongly
about and will not, on principle, even consider it. For
that reason alone there really isn't too much choice since
Linux, being relatively open source is not likely to
follow the same path. But I'd have to say it feels like a
kick in the teeth and a step back into the dark ages of
computing.

Each time I have had to use the telephone method for activating my software,
it has taken a matter of minutes, No hassles and no

questions.

Maybe, but the question remains why should you need to?
What's next, activating games? Device drivers? Web
pages? Ugh, sorry for the rants tonight, it really wasn't
my intention.

 

[Steve Colburn]

Mac,

You might want to look around. Lots of companies are also requiring activation. Sun just released their desktop on top of Linux,
and guess what? It is a subscription desktop! It will cost $100 ($50 for the first year if you hurry), each year to "activate".

Just why does the whole activate process bother you?

I'm a home user that is in a constant upgrade as well as beta testing software, and have reinstalled WinXP about 20 times since the
release. The "computer" that I started with does not exist the way it did back then, but I've had no problems with the activation.
Every now and then I do have to make the dreaded phone call, but even that is quite painless, no interrogation, and is over within 5
minutes.

I've also reinstalled OfficeXP, and now even Office03. No problems.

If you do have worries do NOT buy the OEM versions. They are technically tied to the first machine you install it on. Pay the
extra few dollars, and get a retail copy. It is yours. You can legally reinstall it as many times as you want.

Get out of the dark ages!

If you do go to Linux, read the software agreements to the apps you install. You might be surprised as to what you are agreeing to!


Steve

 

[Mike Williams [MVP]]

Product activation will not stop or even halt piracy -

What's the difference between "stop" and "halt"?

there are 'cracked' versions of Windows XP already out
there, and have been for some time - so it really hasn't
worked.

Yes and burglars still break into houses despite locks, bars etc. If there
were no deterrent there would likely be more theft.

If anything, it is likely to *increase* the
number of illegal copies out there due to people
downloading these cracked versions in favour of expensive
activation-enabled versions that have a limited usage
period.

There is no "usage" period on Office as you describe. As I recall, Office
programs have gotten cheaper in real terms for decades. It used to cost at
least twice as much as Office to buy just a DOS spreadsheet program, and
that's not allowing for inflation.

It is impractical due to the fact that once MS
release a new OS/program that supercedes the current
version, they will withdraw support from it.

Eventually, but a decent period. I'm sure the number of Linux programmers
who want to be supporting ancient code is limited too. If you can propose a
business model for all consumer technology that allowed perpetually
supporting old technology when cheaper new technology is available, then I'm
sure the doors of the Fortune 500 will swing open for you.

While this
doesn't really matter too much with OS's like Win95/98/ME,
it means any product that requires activation
automatically becomes useless in the event of a re-
installation, etc. The time it takes to activate is
irrelevant if two years down the road (once you get it
secure and stable) you can no longer use it...

Well the time-periods you talk about do not apply to this discussion.

True enough, and I can understand that. I planned to
upgrade to Windows ME, but after reading the reports

The only people who thought that WinME was a good idea were the OEMs who
asked Microsoft to supply it.

regarding it's problems and the upcoming XP OS, I decided
to wait. Then I heard about the activation issue and
decided to do a little research first, and before I knew
it it's 2003 and the oldest thing in my system is the OS
which I can't find an attractive alternative for. Maybe
I'll switch to 2000 while I evaluate the Linux route.

Evaluate away. I'm sure it's a good use of your time .

 

[Mac T]

What's the difference between "stop" and "halt"?

LOL - oops I meant slow...

Yes and burglars still break into houses despite locks, bars etc. If there
were no deterrent there would likely be more theft.

True enough in principle, but this isn't really the same
thing. It would be like asking someone else to let you
into your own house, then being denied after a period of
time. Activation isn't really a valid deterrent anymore,
due to the fact that you can acquire illegally cracked
versions of the software from the internet without any
real problem. So even 'casual piracy' isn't addressed
with any validity. Personally, I'd rather not use a
program than use a pirated copy, but now I don't blame
people for 'choosing' the non-activated route.

There is no "usage" period on Office as you describe. As I recall, Office
programs have gotten cheaper in real terms for decades. It used to cost at
least twice as much as Office to buy just a DOS spreadsheet program, and
that's not allowing for inflation.

The usage period I mentioned was referring to the usable
life-span of the program, sorry I didn't explain that too
well. For example, I'm still using Office 97 - still a
very usable suite with some good, solid programs.
Practically, I don't *need* to upgrade since the programs
are capable of fulfilling my relatively limited
requirements - however, under the activation system I
would not be able to say the same for XP/2003. I would be
forced to 'upgrade' whether I had a genuine need to or
not. As to the price issue, I would argue that the
software/hardware price ratio has dramatically altered
over the years. Consider a copy of WinXP (full retail)
costs around £150, while Office XP (full retail) is around
£350. That's about £500 - the price of a low- to medium-
end system! Yet it won't be usable after a couple of
years due to lack of support, in which case you'll need to
spend another £500+ again in order to have a similar
system to what you initially paid for. With the prospect
of repeating ad infinitum down the line... Unless, of
course you do the 'bad' thing and use an illegal version
of the software that is not subject to such issues. I
genuinely feel that in the long run, Microsoft is only
going to hurt itself and its loyal customers by choosing
this path.

Eventually, but a decent period. I'm sure the number of Linux programmers
who want to be supporting ancient code is limited too.

I don't mind a lack of support - I've never needed any
support for any Microsoft product to date, and nowadays I
believe I know enough about the Office 97 system to fix
most (resolvable) problems I may encounter myself. But
having a system in place that will fundamentally deny
usage of a product I have *legally* bought after a company
decides to no longer support it is certainly
unreasonable. It should be up to the user to decide when
a program they are utilising is obsolete to their own
requirements, not a company.

Heh, I'll shut up about this now.

 

[Guest]

You might want to look around. Lots of companies are

also requiring activation. Sun just released their
desktop on top of Linux,

and guess what? It is a subscription desktop! It will

cost $100 ($50 for the first year if you hurry), each year
to "activate".

Really? I didn't know that. Guess I won't be buying
Sun... But with Linux there is still an element of
choice - if you don't want to use a GUI with this kind of
principle, then you have alternatives. Microsoft is the
sole company behind Windows, and while that is in many
respects a very good thing, it does somewhat force Windows
users to follow Microsoft's dictates in this respect.

Just why does the whole activate process bother you?

Heh, I could sit up all night and day reeling off a whole
list of philosophical, practical and just plain
opinionated reasons (actually, I kind of have done...
but I think I've complained/argued enough. In short, I
firmly believe the whole activation principle is based on
flawed reasoning and inflicts an unfair penalty on the end
user. It's kind of a 'disposable software' or mass-
subscription formula that has the potential to really harm
the home computing industry. For example, Microsoft was
one of the great pioneers of affordable PC setups - 'a
computer in every home', etc. This activation system will
essentially *force* a loyal Microsoft user to shell out on
expensive replacements for their software whenever
Microsoft decide to pull support, whether or not that
software is still useful to the individual or not. In
terms of small businesses... ouch.

If you do have worries do NOT buy the OEM versions. They

are technically tied to the first machine you install it
on. Pay the

extra few dollars, and get a retail copy. It is yours.

You can legally reinstall it as many times as you want.

I really didn't know that. However, since a retail
version costs around £300+, I would have initially gone
for the OEM version (as my current Win98SE is). Still,
there remains the issue of forced obsolescence of that
program.

If you do go to Linux, read the software agreements to

the apps you install. You might be surprised as to what
you are agreeing to!

Don't worry, I've found plenty of ludicrous EULAs for
Windows-based software too so I can imagine!

 

[Steve Colburn]

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I understand what you are saying. I just don't find it enough to get me going. Years ago we had copy
protected disks, dongles, and programs that you MUST write enable the install disk so that it could be recorded that you installed
it. I had one program for script writing that we paid $500 for (early 80's!), and we could install it three times!.

So, I find the activation thing a big nothing. As I said I've reinstalled many times, not once did I feel that I was going to have
to go out and buy another copy, not once did I feel I had to justify myself to the person on the phone.

I really was looking at doing a dual boot with the Sun desktop, but not at a hundred dollars a year. Shoot, my upgrade to WinXP Pro
did not cost much over that, and I can have it long past when I would want it!

But, to each his own. I certainly don't fault you, but also, I don't fault MS or any other company from at least trying to protect
their assets. Sure it can be broken, so can my windows, but I still lock them. It keeps the honest people honest.

Good luck in your adventures!

Steve

Steve wrote:
You might want to look around. Lots of companies are

also requiring activation. Sun just released their
desktop on top of Linux,

and guess what? It is a subscription desktop! It will

cost $100 ($50 for the first year if you hurry), each year
to "activate".

Really? I didn't know that. Guess I won't be buying
Sun... But with Linux there is still an element of
choice - if you don't want to use a GUI with this kind of
principle, then you have alternatives. Microsoft is the
sole company behind Windows, and while that is in many
respects a very good thing, it does somewhat force Windows
users to follow Microsoft's dictates in this respect.

Just why does the whole activate process bother you?

Heh, I could sit up all night and day reeling off a whole
list of philosophical, practical and just plain
opinionated reasons (actually, I kind of have done...
but I think I've complained/argued enough. In short, I
firmly believe the whole activation principle is based on
flawed reasoning and inflicts an unfair penalty on the end
user. It's kind of a 'disposable software' or mass-
subscription formula that has the potential to really harm
the home computing industry. For example, Microsoft was
one of the great pioneers of affordable PC setups - 'a
computer in every home', etc. This activation system will
essentially *force* a loyal Microsoft user to shell out on
expensive replacements for their software whenever
Microsoft decide to pull support, whether or not that
software is still useful to the individual or not. In
terms of small businesses... ouch.

If you do have worries do NOT buy the OEM versions. They

are technically tied to the first machine you install it
on. Pay the

extra few dollars, and get a retail copy. It is yours.

You can legally reinstall it as many times as you want.

I really didn't know that. However, since a retail
version costs around £300+, I would have initially gone
for the OEM version (as my current Win98SE is). Still,
there remains the issue of forced obsolescence of that
program.

If you do go to Linux, read the software agreements to

the apps you install. You might be surprised as to what
you are agreeing to!

Don't worry, I've found plenty of ludicrous EULAs for
Windows-based software too so I can imagine!

 

[Mike Williams [MVP]]

Mac T wrote:
Personally, I'd rather not use a

program than use a pirated copy, but now I don't blame
people for 'choosing' the non-activated route.

So you're saying that you approve of lock-hating people srealing by breaking
down doors. OK.

There is no "usage" period on Office as you describe. As I recall,

The usage period I mentioned was referring to the usable
life-span of the program, sorry I didn't explain that too
well.

No, you keep tying the two things together and you do it again below.

As to the price issue, I would argue that the
software/hardware price ratio has dramatically altered
over the years.

Hardware gets turned out in a factory:. are you advocating slave labour
prices for software?

Consider a copy of WinXP (full retail)
costs around £150, while Office XP (full retail) is around
£350. That's about £500 - the price of a low- to medium-
end system!

We're all very lucky then. You get much more value for software and hardware
than you ever did in the apst. That's fantastic.


Yet it won't be usable after a couple of

years due to lack of support, in which case you'll need to
spend another £500+ again in order to have a similar
system to what you initially paid for.

No - you'll have a much much more powerful system.

With the prospect

of repeating ad infinitum down the line... Unless, of
course you do the 'bad' thing and use an illegal version
of the software that is not subject to such issues. I
genuinely feel that in the long run, Microsoft is only
going to hurt itself and its loyal customers by choosing
this path.

By keeping prices low and improving features at the same time? Yeah I guess
that's a bad thing for everyone.

But
having a system in place that will fundamentally deny
usage of a product I have *legally* bought after a company
decides to no longer support it is certainly
unreasonable. It should be up to the user to decide when
a program they are utilising is obsolete to their own
requirements, not a company.

We've already established that the activation system does not do that, so
what are you talking about now?

 

[Mac T]

So you're saying that you approve of lock-hating people
srealing by breaking

down doors. OK.

That makes no sense whatsoever. What I am saying is that
while I do not generally advocate piracy, I can
*understand* why people might be willing to illegally
obtain a version of a program that contains an unfair
restriction. I am certainly not saying that I *approve*
of piracy in any form. Your whole 'lock-hating', pro-
burglar argument is not related to the topic at all.

Hardware gets turned out in a factory:. are you advocating slave labour
prices for software?

Again you miss the point - the price of the programs is
unwarranted, especially when those programs have a limited
lifespan *built into* them.

We're all very lucky then. You get much more value for software and hardware
than you ever did in the apst. That's fantastic.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the
statement you are commenting on? Having to shell out
another £500+ in order to continue using a set of programs
that perform essentially the same task as the ones they
are replacing (and that would still be viable if not for
the lack of activation support) is certainly
*not* 'fantastic'.

No - you'll have a much much more powerful system.

90% of which I would probably not need but would *have* to
purchase if I were to continue using a familiar product...

By keeping prices low and improving features at the same time? Yeah I guess
that's a bad thing for everyone.

Keeping prices low? An operating system for £160 and an
Office suite for £350, both with a lifespan limited by the
whims of the company that produces them??? Yes, that most
certainly *is* a bad thing for everyone concerned.

We've already established that the activation system does not do that, so
what are you talking about now?

Exactly *where* has it been established that cessation of
the activation facility would not deny usage of a
program? Of course it would. Tell you what, I'll ask you
the same question once the programs you are using cease to
be supported by Microsoft. Coasters, anyone, since you
wouldn't even be able to sell your obsolete programs
second-hand...

 

[Mike Williams [MVP]]

Again you miss the point - the price of the programs is
unwarranted, especially when those programs have a limited
lifespan *built into* them.

The lifespan is mainly determined by available hardware and economics of
consumer products. It's wayyy longer than the two years you mention.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the
statement you are commenting on? Having to shell out
another £500+ in order to continue using a set of programs
that perform essentially the same task as the ones they
are replacing (and that would still be viable if not for
the lack of activation support) is certainly
*not* 'fantastic'.

Why do you think activation support is going away?

90% of which I would probably not need but would *have* to
purchase if I were to continue using a familiar product...


Keeping prices low? An operating system for £160 and an
Office suite for £350, both with a lifespan limited by the
whims of the company that produces them??? Yes, that most
certainly *is* a bad thing for everyone concerned.

How many people are really going to want to use ancient software on new
machines with hardware that is unsupported by the operating system, and
maybe even quantities of RAM or diskspace that cannot be addressed by it?

All software has a limited lifespan. Get used to it.

Exactly *where* has it been established that cessation of
the activation facility would not deny usage of a
program? Of course it would.

You have not mentioned cessation of activation facility in any prior posts.

--
Mike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/

Please respond in the same thread on this newsgroup - not by email!
Include details of your application and Windows versions, plus any
service pack updates. Answers may also be found by reading recent
posts, checking the FAQs or searching the relevant Google archive at.
http://groups.google.com/groups?group=microsoft.public
If something doesn't make sense, it could be worse e.g.
http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/

 

[Mac T]

The lifespan is mainly determined by available hardware
and economics of

consumer products.

That used to be the case, but in the case of activation-
required software lifespan is determined by when the
activation facility is withdrawn for a given program.
Even if the program is still capable of running on the
hardware, it will be disabled due to non-activation.

Why do you think activation support is going away?

As you have yourself already stated, no company is going
to continue to give support to it's programs
indefinitely. 'Support' also includes the facility for
activation. It's inevitable that it will be withdrawn.

How many people are really going to want to use ancient software on new
machines with hardware that is unsupported by the operating system, and
maybe even quantities of RAM or diskspace that cannot be

addressed by it?

(sigh) If the software you are using does the job you
require and runs on the system you are using, what does it
matter how old it is? If a new version adds nothing that
you will make use of there isn't really much sense in
spending hundreds of pounds/dollars/euros on it. But that
is the situation we seem to be heading towards.
Personally, I would *love* an operating system with multi-
CPU support and more than 1000MB addressable RAM for 3D
rendering, and were it not for the activation issue
Windows XP would be down on my Christmas list this year
without hesitation because it has features I could
genuinely make use of. It would be a *useful* upgrade,
not a forced one.

All software has a limited lifespan. Get used to it.

I *am* used to it, however I am not prepared to be
dictated to by any company as to when that software has
reached it's 'use by' date. The lifespan of a piece of
software should end when it is either not practical to run
it on a system (ie, when the standard RAM of a system is
1000MB, but the software can only address ~700MB) or when
it becomes unsuitable for the purpose for which it was
purchased. In this instance, I am separating
the 'practical lifespan' from the 'supported lifespan'.
While I don't expect a company to support a product
forever (which would certainly be a bad thing), I don't
expect my right or ability to use a product I have bought
to be withdrawn simply because said company chooses to no
longer support it. How would people feel if a car they
bought contained a mechanism that only allowed it to start
if fed occasional signals from the manufacturer, only to
one day learn that the car is no longer supported, and due
to the cessation of 'activation' signals it no longer
started, forcing them to purchase another car if they
desired to continue driving. In any other industry it
would be seriously contested - imagine videos/DVDs/CDs
that required activation to be used, only to one day have
that essential support crutch pulled away...

You have not mentioned cessation of activation facility

in any prior posts.

**aaarrrggghhh!?!??!** That has been my whole point! My
whole 'lifespan'/'usage' argument/rant/babble has revolved
around that primary core. Sorry if I didn't clarify that
previously. If activation was merely a relavitely benign
registration issue, I would have already snapped up XP and
embraced it with a passion. It's the whole 'countdown to
cessation of activation' issue that burns me, the idea
that I will be left holding a piece of software I have
spend precious money on that, although still entirely
usable to me and my hardware, has been rendered useless by
the company that created it purely because *they* have
withdrawn support for it rather than a natural
technological progression of phasing-out.

 

[Mike Williams [MVP]]

**aaarrrggghhh!?!??!** That has been my whole point! My
whole 'lifespan'/'usage' argument/rant/babble has revolved
around that primary core. Sorry if I didn't clarify that
previously.

Well as you admitted in an earlier post you connected lifespan with other
factors, but you didn't clarify. I can't read your mind.

How would people feel if a car they
bought contained a mechanism that only allowed it to start
if fed occasional signals from the manufacturer, only to
one day learn that the car is no longer supported

This sort of thing happens all the time in the world of more expensive
consumer products, particularly electronic ones. If you think of spare-parts
and accessories as those "occasional signals from the manufacturer" then I
have plenty of hardware lying around which is useless outside a technical
museum. Just look at all the gadget and cell phone manufacturers who change
the connectors every few years so that you're forced to unnecessarily spend
hundreds of dollars on bits of wire or upgrade.

If activation was merely a relavitely benign
registration issue, I would have already snapped up XP and
embraced it with a passion. It's the whole 'countdown to
cessation of activation' issue that burns me, the idea
that I will be left holding a piece of software I have
spend precious money on that, although still entirely
usable to me and my hardware, has been rendered useless by
the company that created it purely because *they* have
withdrawn support for it rather than a natural
technological progression of phasing-out.

Entirely hypothetical. Chances are you are going to want or need to upgrade
to new software long before that might happen.

 

[Mac T]

This sort of thing happens all the time in the world of
more expensive

consumer products, particularly electronic ones.

Not quite the same - that hypothesis would equate to
withdrawn *support*. For support to be required,
something needs to have gone wrong - ie, a faulty part in
terms of electronics. Inability to use an otherwise
usable product due to the influence of the manufacturer
without any legitimate reason (in terms of functionality)
is similar to stopping the supply of electricity to said
electronic device regardless of whether or not it is
faulty or not, simply because the manufacturer decided it
shouldn't be used anymore.

Just look at all the gadget and cell phone manufacturers who change
the connectors every few years so that you're forced to unnecessarily spend
hundreds of dollars on bits of wire or upgrade.

To be honest, I can't say that I've ever noticed an
essential requirement to replace a cell phone with any
regularity. I can't stand the things, but I have family
members who are still using the same phones they've used
for years. But anyway, in terms of computing I have no
objection to having to upgrade hardware every so often -
it's essential since I realise my old P166 wouldn't run
the apps I'm running today. Heck, I'm no Luddite! And if
the software I'm running doesn't take advantage of the
shiny new technology I put into my machine then I'll
replace it with something that does. But only as long as
it isn't going to come with a subtextual dependency upon
an outside source for it's continued operation.

Entirely hypothetical. Chances are you are going to want or need to upgrade
to new software long before that might happen.

And if I don't, I'd be forced to whether I needed to or
not. I've used Windows 98 for many years and only
recently find that I want to upgrade for the simple reason
that I now want multiprocessor support, which Win98
doesn't have. In all likelihood if I adopted Windows XP I
would have expected to be using it until the hardware
outgrew it's usefulness - the activation dependency issue
however removes that option entirely. As I understand it,
support will be withdrawn from Windows XP sometime 2006 -
presumably activation will follow shortly thereafter. So
around two years of use is left in the OS before
an 'upgrade' is *essential*. Not really my idea of
gaining customer loyalty or stopping piracy. Alienating,
maybe...