Delphi XE2 Update 1 is now available

Here is the official announcement: 

Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue. 
 
We were recently made aware that some code in the 3D support in FireMonkey may be similar to code in GLScene, an MPL open source project. We worked with Eric Grange, a key contributor to the GLScene project to remedy the issue and replace the code in question. This update replaces the code in question and therefore it is highly recommended that you rebuild any applications compiled with the original FireMonkey units using this update. 
 
If you have created any FireMonkey 3D applications, you will need to rebuild those applications using the updated version of Delphi or C++Builder to ensure that your applications have a valid redistributable license. 
 
Also included in this update are over 120 bug fixes, including many FireMonkey design time and runtime bug fixes, the addition of new VCL Styles, VCL Styles design time and runtime fixes, IDE fixes to improve stability, C++ and Delphi compiler fixes and more. 
 
 
You can download Update 1 from the following locations: 
 
 - Update 1 for RAD Studio XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28508
 - Update 1 for Delphi XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28509
 - Update 1 for C++Builder XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28510

This update involves fully uninstalling and then reinstalling the product. We strongly encourage you to update as all future patches will be based on this build and this release will be the only way to get updates. 

For detailed information, please visit: http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/en/Release_Notes_for_XE2#Please_Install_XE2_Update_1

We plan to update often and evolve and improve FireMonkey quickly. Thank you for your continued support and for making XE2 the biggest and best RAD release ever.

--
Tim Del Chiaro
Product Marketing - RAD Studio, Delphi, C++Builder, Delphi Prism and RadPHP
http://delphi-insider.blogspot.com
0
Tim
9/28/2011 1:09:44 AM
embarcadero.delphi.non-tech 5933 articles. 1 followers. Follow

377 Replies
1852 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 4

I should add that the fix list is available at: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/41649

Thanks,

Tim

--
Tim Del Chiaro
Product Marketing - RAD Studio, Delphi, C++Builder, Delphi Prism and RadPHP
http://delphi-insider.blogspot.com
0
Tim
9/28/2011 1:11:25 AM
On 9/27/2011 6:09 PM, Tim DelChiaro wrote:
> Here is the official announcement:
>
> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue.
>

Have/will the ISO images been updated???  I'm literally, right this 
minute, re-installing Windows on my laptop in preparation to install XE2 
-- I'm glad that this update is out, but would prefer to use the ISO 
image rather than the web installer (I have to update off-business 
hours, and everyone running Netflix in the evening slows down web access 
enormously).

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 1:14:56 AM
On 9/27/2011 6:14 PM, David Erbas-White wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 6:09 PM, Tim DelChiaro wrote:
>> Here is the official announcement:
>>
>> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue.
>>
>
> Have/will the ISO images been updated???

Also, does this affect Prism, RADPHP, or the Partner DVD installations???

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 1:17:34 AM
> Have/will the ISO images been updated???  

Yes. The updated ISO is available to registered users at http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28477 or for first time installs from http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28479 (if you haven't registered yet to access at the registered download link).

Thanks,

Tim

--
Tim Del Chiaro
Product Marketing - RAD Studio, Delphi, C++Builder, Delphi Prism and RadPHP
http://delphi-insider.blogspot.com
0
Tim
9/28/2011 1:55:38 AM
> {quote:title=David Erbas-White wrote:}{quote}
> On 9/27/2011 6:14 PM, David Erbas-White wrote:
> 
> Also, does this affect Prism, RADPHP, or the Partner DVD installations???
> 
> David Erbas-White

It doesn't affect any of those.

Thanks,

Tim
--
Tim Del Chiaro
Product Marketing - RAD Studio, Delphi, C++Builder, Delphi Prism and RadPHP
http://delphi-insider.blogspot.com
0
Tim
9/28/2011 1:56:14 AM
Thank you for your hard work,
are there any samples to print reports or documents with firemonkey in this 
update?
0
Gilbert
9/28/2011 2:10:09 AM
Excellent ... my show stopper in fix list.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 2:41:58 AM
When I run the Updater, it says:

"A previous version of Embarcadero RAD Studio XE2 was found on this 
system. An uninstall will be performed".

How do I update, rather than uninstall - installs are not things to be 
thrown away lightly due to the very restrictive licencing system.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 2:50:58 AM
> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> When I run the Updater, it says:
> 
> "A previous version of Embarcadero RAD Studio XE2 was found on this 
> system. An uninstall will be performed".
> 
> How do I update, rather than uninstall - installs are not things to be 
> thrown away lightly due to the very restrictive licencing system.

A re-install on the same machine shouldn't need another registration.

Still, it would be nice to have an update vs an uninstall/reinstall.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/28/2011 2:55:05 AM
On 28/09/2011 12:55 PM, Bruce McGee wrote:
> A re-install on the same machine shouldn't need another registration.

Well - I ran the updater, and it completely uninstalled XE2 without 
asking, so I'm down a registation already.

> Still, it would be nice to have an update vs an uninstall/reinstall.

It would also be nice if the updater you download didn't auto-uninstall 
(no out) on running.

Amazed at how a company that produces such a great product can 
completely screw up all the simple stuff.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 3:34:23 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> Well - I ran the updater, and it completely uninstalled XE2 without 
> asking, so I'm down a registation already.

You shouldn't be -- installing on the same machine doesn't require a
re-registration.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 3:53:50 AM
On 28/09/2011 1:53 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>> Well - I ran the updater, and it completely uninstalled XE2 without
>> asking, so I'm down a registation already.
>
> You shouldn't be -- installing on the same machine doesn't require a
> re-registration.
>
I was referring to the fact that once you run the updater, it uninstalls 
the old XE2 completely without confirmation.

Another issue is - anyone doing an install with this new updater best be 
warned not to use the default (or same) 7zip storage folders unless 
pressing OK several hundred times is something you enjoy.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 4:01:37 AM
Is there any way to get the update if you are running the trial version of XE2?
0
Troy
9/28/2011 6:37:57 AM
> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
> Here is the official announcement: 
> 
> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue. 
>  

That is great. Thanks.

I have one small request. Could someone update QC and close all fixed bugs (even
those that are fixed in original XE2 release are still marked Open). 

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/28/2011 9:20:04 AM
Am 28.09.2011 11:20, schrieb Dalija Prasnikar:
>> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
>> Here is the official announcement: 
>>
>> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue. 
>>  
> 
> That is great. Thanks.
> 
> I have one small request. Could someone update QC and close all fixed bugs (even
> those that are fixed in original XE2 release are still marked Open). 
> 
> Dalija Prasnikar

Normally there should be the sync service between RAID, the internal
system, and QC which should close them automatically if they are
properly linked.

Do you mean all QC reports are still open or are there specific ones
you're referring to?

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/28/2011 11:27:49 AM
> {quote:title=Markus Humm wrote:}{quote}
> Am 28.09.2011 11:20, schrieb Dalija Prasnikar:
> >> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
> >> Here is the official announcement: 
> >>
> >> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue. 
> >>  
> > 
> > That is great. Thanks.
> > 
> > I have one small request. Could someone update QC and close all fixed bugs (even
> > those that are fixed in original XE2 release are still marked Open). 
> > 
> > Dalija Prasnikar
> 
> Normally there should be the sync service between RAID, the internal
> system, and QC which should close them automatically if they are
> properly linked.
> 
> Do you mean all QC reports are still open or are there specific ones
> you're referring to?
> 

As far as I can see all QC reports that are in the fix list are still marked as open.
However I didn't check every single report. When XE got out it took them 
months to update QC. 

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/28/2011 11:49:13 AM
> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> On 28/09/2011 12:55 PM, Bruce McGee wrote:
> Well - I ran the updater, and it completely uninstalled XE2 without 
> asking, 

This is true.  However, you can hit the "Cancel" button.

> so I'm down a registation already.

How so?  You don't need to re-register, so you shouldn't be down a registration.  Are you seeing something different?

> It would also be nice if the updater you download didn't auto-uninstall 
> (no out) on running.

Yes, it would.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/28/2011 12:24:51 PM
> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> Another issue is - anyone doing an install with this new updater best be 
> warned not to use the default (or same) 7zip storage folders unless 
> pressing OK several hundred times is something you enjoy.

This doesn't seem to be a problem if you install using the .iso.

http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28477

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/28/2011 12:30:00 PM
Troy Otter wrote:

> Is there any way to get the update if you are running the trial
> version of XE2?

Not until they put Update 1 in the trial, which will happen eventually.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 1:12:17 PM
On 28/09/2011 10:24 PM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
>> On 28/09/2011 12:55 PM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>> Well - I ran the updater, and it completely uninstalled XE2 without
>> asking,
>
> This is true.  However, you can hit the "Cancel" button.

Dialog had OK and a close icon in the top right. I pressed [X], which 
didn't help - it had already sent the uninstall list to Windows.

That is - auto-uninstall, no options.

>> so I'm down a registation already.
>
> How so?  You don't need to re-register, so you shouldn't be down a registration.  Are you seeing something different?

Well - at the time I posted that, I was basing it on past experience.

Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 1:28:33 PM
> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> On 28/09/2011 10:24 PM, Bruce McGee wrote:
> > This is true.  However, you can hit the "Cancel" button.
> 
> Dialog had OK and a close icon in the top right. I pressed [X], which 
> didn't help - it had already sent the uninstall list to Windows.
> 
> That is - auto-uninstall, no options.

Yup, I also consider this to be a bug in the installer which should be fixed.

However, after hitting OK, you are are given the option of canceling the install (uninstall) while it's "preparing".


> Well - at the time I posted that, I was basing it on past experience.

I do this a lot.  In my experience, uninstalling and reinstalling on the same machine does not require another activation.  What version required this?


> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.

Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/28/2011 1:47:54 PM
Hi Nick,

>> Is there any way to get the update if you are running the trial
>> version of XE2?
>
> Not until they put Update 1 in the trial, which will happen eventually.

The public ISO for the DVD is already updated. So if people have not yet 
installed/registered their trial serial number, they can use the new ISO 
to install the trial (with update #1 applied).

I'm not 100% sure if they can apply the update to an existing trial 
installation, however...

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner - Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller BeNeLux
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/28/2011 1:50:41 PM
Running the stand alone Check For Update reports there are "No updates 
available".  Ok, manually download the update.  It wants to remove installed 
version.  Ok that's weird.  Installer wants to remove help.  Ok go with 
default.  Installer finishes.  Need to register.  WTF?  Ok, re-register. 
Start XE2, click on Help and no help.

Removed.  Come on guys your killing me here.  In this day and age updating 
software shouldn't be this painful.

Jeff

"Tim DelChiaro" wrote in message news:405737@forums.embarcadero.com...
> Here is the official announcement:
>
> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update 
> includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing 
> issue.
>
> We were recently made aware that some code in the 3D support in FireMonkey 
> may be similar to code in GLScene, an MPL open source project. We worked 
> with Eric Grange, a key contributor to the GLScene project to remedy the 
> issue and replace the code in question. This update replaces the code in 
> question and therefore it is highly recommended that you rebuild any 
> applications compiled with the original FireMonkey units using this 
> update.
>
> If you have created any FireMonkey 3D applications, you will need to 
> rebuild those applications using the updated version of Delphi or 
> C++Builder to ensure that your applications have a valid redistributable 
> license.
>
> Also included in this update are over 120 bug fixes, including many 
> FireMonkey design time and runtime bug fixes, the addition of new VCL 
> Styles, VCL Styles design time and runtime fixes, IDE fixes to improve 
> stability, C++ and Delphi compiler fixes and more.
>
>
> You can download Update 1 from the following locations:
>
> - Update 1 for RAD Studio XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28508
> - Update 1 for Delphi XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28509
> - Update 1 for C++Builder XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28510
>
> This update involves fully uninstalling and then reinstalling the product. 
> We strongly encourage you to update as all future patches will be based on 
> this build and this release will be the only way to get updates.
>
> For detailed information, please visit: 
> http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/en/Release_Notes_for_XE2#Please_Install_XE2_Update_1
>
> We plan to update often and evolve and improve FireMonkey quickly. Thank 
> you for your continued support and for making XE2 the biggest and best RAD 
> release ever.
>
> --
> Tim Del Chiaro
> Product Marketing - RAD Studio, Delphi, C++Builder, Delphi Prism and 
> RadPHP
> http://delphi-insider.blogspot.com
0
Jeff
9/28/2011 2:03:08 PM
Bob Swart wrote:

> The public ISO for the DVD is already updated. 

Great --

> I'm not 100% sure if they can apply the update to an existing trial 
> installation, however...

In the past you could not, no.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 2:28:29 PM
Am 28.09.2011 03:09, schrieb Tim DelChiaro:
> Here is the official announcement:
>
> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue.
>
> We were recently made aware that some code in the 3D support in FireMonkey may be similar to code in GLScene, an MPL open source project. We worked with Eric Grange, a key contributor to the GLScene project to remedy the issue and replace the code in question. This update replaces the code in question and therefore it is highly recommended that you rebuild any applications compiled with the original FireMonkey units using this update.
>
> If you have created any FireMonkey 3D applications, you will need to rebuild those applications using the updated version of Delphi or C++Builder to ensure that your applications have a valid redistributable license.
>
> Also included in this update are over 120 bug fixes, including many FireMonkey design time and runtime bug fixes, the addition of new VCL Styles, VCL Styles design time and runtime fixes, IDE fixes to improve stability, C++ and Delphi compiler fixes and more.


It's actually very nice that they reacted so fast!

But (there is always a but;): I saw that a few debugger issues were 
solved but not http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=98717
which I think is realy a showstopper (at least for me) - did they
fix it and just forgot to close it? Can anybody confirm?

kind regards
    Mike
0
Michael
9/28/2011 2:43:09 PM
Michael Rabatscher wrote:

> But (there is always a but;): I saw that a few debugger issues were 
> solved but not http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=98717
> which I think is realy a showstopper (at least for me) - did they
> fix it and just forgot to close it? Can anybody confirm?

It is not fixed in Update #1. If this really bugs you and you have a SA
then creating a support case might be an option to get the fix
(earlier).
-- 
Uwe Schuster | Hero of the Delphi 2010 FT
http://www.bitcommander.de/blog
0
Uwe
9/28/2011 3:11:02 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> Excellent ... my show stopper in fix list.

Thanks again for reporting it.
-- 
Uwe Schuster | Hero of the Delphi 2010 FT
http://www.bitcommander.de/blog
0
Uwe
9/28/2011 3:11:50 PM
On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:

>> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
>
> Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.

Didn't reactivate, or didn't *NEED* to re-activate?
0
Mike
9/28/2011 4:13:00 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> When I run the Updater, it says:
> 
> "A previous version of Embarcadero RAD Studio XE2 was found on this 
> system. An uninstall will be performed".
> 
> How do I update, rather than uninstall - installs are not things to
> be thrown away lightly due to the very restrictive licencing system.

This is by design. An uninstall will not remove licensing information
for your machine. Once you reinstall, that information should remain
intact. No need to reactivate or worry about burning a registration. If
this isn't what you're seeing, please post a message in
e.p.delphi.install with exact details of what you did... including any
manual manipulation of files.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 4:27:51 PM
> {quote:title=Mike Reublin wrote:}{quote}
> On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
> 
> >> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
> >
> > Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.
> 
> Didn't reactivate, or didn't *NEED* to re-activate?

When you uninstall and reinstall, Delphi keeps the previous activation, so you don't need to re-activate it.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/28/2011 4:53:17 PM
>
> When you uninstall and reinstall, Delphi keeps the previous activation, so 
> you don't need to re-activate it.
>
> --

All I had to do is to insert the serial number, didn't ask for activation.
0
Gilbert
9/28/2011 4:55:15 PM
It looks like that most of the fixes are to bug reports from the beta testing. Very few of the bugs reported since the release have been fixed. In particular there seems to be very few fixes to FM itself unless I read that wrong.


> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
> Here is the official announcement: 
> 
> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue. 
>  
> We were recently made aware that some code in the 3D support in FireMonkey may be similar to code in GLScene, an MPL open source project. We worked with Eric Grange, a key contributor to the GLScene project to remedy the issue and replace the code in question. This update replaces the code in question and therefore it is highly recommended that you rebuild any applications compiled with the original FireMonkey units using this update. 
>  
> If you have created any FireMonkey 3D applications, you will need to rebuild those applications using the updated version of Delphi or C++Builder to ensure that your applications have a valid redistributable license. 
>  
> Also included in this update are over 120 bug fixes, including many FireMonkey design time and runtime bug fixes, the addition of new VCL Styles, VCL Styles design time and runtime fixes, IDE fixes to improve stability, C++ and Delphi compiler fixes and more. 
>  
>  
> You can download Update 1 from the following locations: 
>  
>  - Update 1 for RAD Studio XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28508
>  - Update 1 for Delphi XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28509
>  - Update 1 for C++Builder XE2 - http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28510
> 
> This update involves fully uninstalling and then reinstalling the product. We strongly encourage you to update as all future patches will be based on this build and this release will be the only way to get updates. 
> 
> For detailed information, please visit: http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/en/Release_Notes_for_XE2#Please_Install_XE2_Update_1
> 
> We plan to update often and evolve and improve FireMonkey quickly. Thank you for your continued support and for making XE2 the biggest and best RAD release ever.
> 
> --
> Tim Del Chiaro
> Product Marketing - RAD Studio, Delphi, C++Builder, Delphi Prism and RadPHP
> http://delphi-insider.blogspot.com
0
Herbert
9/28/2011 5:05:52 PM
Am 28.09.2011 18:27, schrieb Allen Bauer:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
> 
>> When I run the Updater, it says:
>>
>> "A previous version of Embarcadero RAD Studio XE2 was found on this 
>> system. An uninstall will be performed".
>>
>> How do I update, rather than uninstall - installs are not things to
>> be thrown away lightly due to the very restrictive licencing system.
> 
> This is by design. An uninstall will not remove licensing information
> for your machine. 

That's nice on one side, but not nice on anotherone: what if you
deinstall because the PC gets sold or something like this and you need
to reinstall on another one? You're down one registration.

Wouldn't a option to remove this info without loosing a registration be
helpful?

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/28/2011 7:02:31 PM
Am 28.09.2011 19:05, schrieb Herbert Sauro:
> It looks like that most of the fixes are to bug reports from the beta testing. Very few of the bugs reported since the release have been fixed. In particular there seems to be very few fixes to FM itself unless I read that wrong.
> 

That might be, but who says this is the last XE2 update?
Couldn't it be that the next one is already in the making?

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/28/2011 7:04:27 PM
> {quote:title=Markus Humm wrote:}{quote}
 
> That might be, but who says this is the last XE2 update?
> Couldn't it be that the next one is already in the making?

I am sure there will be one more. They only released this one so quickly because they had found some proprietary code in FMX (hence full product uninstall).
0
Captain
9/28/2011 7:14:58 PM
No doubt the next one is under development, hopefully we'll see another at the end of October. But given the number of issues with FM, which to be frank, is the most visible feature of XE2, I am surprised they didn't try to fix a few of the more obvious FM bugs in the first update. For example, you loose the anchor points at design time when you select multiple components, still in Update 1. This isn't a showstopper but it is an incredibly visible bug and may suggest to newcomers that the entire product i
s on shaky ground. First impressions make a different. 

Like many, I can't yet develop with FM because of some significant bugs (QCed) in the visual components. I could of course go into the source code and try and fix the bugs myself which I might yet do especially if there isn't an update at the end of Oct. If they will issue quarterly then the next release will be end of December.


> {quote:title=Markus Humm wrote:}{quote}
> Am 28.09.2011 19:05, schrieb Herbert Sauro:
> > It looks like that most of the fixes are to bug reports from the beta testing. Very few of the bugs reported since the release have been fixed. In particular there seems to be very few fixes to FM itself unless I read that wrong.
> > 
> 
> That might be, but who says this is the last XE2 update?
> Couldn't it be that the next one is already in the making?
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Markus
0
Herbert
9/28/2011 7:20:55 PM
Captain America wrote:

> They only released this one so
> quickly because they had found some proprietary code in FMX

That's what you guess and I guess you're wrong.
-- 
Uwe Schuster | Hero of the Delphi 2010 FT
http://www.bitcommander.de/blog
0
Uwe
9/28/2011 7:24:45 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> You're down one registration.

Registrations are not Fabrege eggs.   

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 7:50:03 PM
Captain America wrote:

> They only released this one so quickly because they had found some
> proprietary code in FMX (hence full product uninstall).

That's not true.  In speaking with the EMBT folks at Delphi Live, they
had this update planned before that became an issue.

In fact, I believe this update would have been out sooner had it not
arisen.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 7:51:45 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> 
> That's not true.  In speaking with the EMBT folks at Delphi Live, they
> had this update planned before that became an issue.
> 
> In fact, I believe this update would have been out sooner had it not
> arisen.

I will tend to think this is your brainwashed/corporate thinking.
0
Captain
9/28/2011 8:05:26 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> Am 28.09.2011 18:27, schrieb Allen Bauer:
> > Christopher Burke wrote:
> > 
> >> When I run the Updater, it says:
> > > 
> >> "A previous version of Embarcadero RAD Studio XE2 was found on
> this >> system. An uninstall will be performed".
> > > 
> >> How do I update, rather than uninstall - installs are not things to
> >> be thrown away lightly due to the very restrictive licencing
> system.
> > 
> > This is by design. An uninstall will not remove licensing
> > information for your machine. 
> 
> That's nice on one side, but not nice on anotherone: what if you
> deinstall because the PC gets sold or something like this and you need
> to reinstall on another one? You're down one registration.
> 
> Wouldn't a option to remove this info without loosing a registration
> be helpful?

To be absolutely, brutally honest... the number of people that tend to
regularly exceed the allotted registrations is minuscule compared to
the total customer registrations. In my mind, tuning for such a small
percentage of the market is a case of misplaced priorities. I feel our
time is better spent on things that benefit a much larger portion of
our customer base.

While I'm not sure of the exact figure, but the average number of
registrations per customer is only slightly above 1 and significantly
below 2.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 8:16:01 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > They only released this one so quickly because they had found some
> > proprietary code in FMX (hence full product uninstall).
> 
> That's not true.  In speaking with the EMBT folks at Delphi Live, they
> had this update planned before that became an issue.
> 
> In fact, I believe this update would have been out sooner had it not
> arisen.

Maybe. It's hard to say. We *did* lock down the changes for update 1 a
little sooner in order to ensure we didn't slide past the planned
dates. In face, I think we went live a few days earlier than planned
because of the earlier lockdown of fixes...

The good news is that we've opened things back up for another round of
fixes which are right on schedule (no... I won't disclose the schedule
;-).

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 8:23:18 PM
On 29/09/2011 6:16 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:

> While I'm not sure of the exact figure, but the average number of
> registrations per customer is only slightly above 1 and significantly
> below 2.

Simple solution... Unregister option.

GO through exactly the same procedure in reverse...

For me - it means my Delphi is always bricked within 2 years, as I 
reinstall once every 6-9 months on my desktop and laptop.

ANd sometimes, it gets bricked early when the system fails.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 9:07:46 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

>Markus Humm wrote:
>
>> Am 28.09.2011 18:27, schrieb Allen Bauer:
>> > Christopher Burke wrote:
>> > 
>> >> When I run the Updater, it says:
>> > > 
>> >> "A previous version of Embarcadero RAD Studio XE2 was found on
>> this >> system. An uninstall will be performed".
>> > > 
>> >> How do I update, rather than uninstall - installs are not
>>things to  >> be thrown away lightly due to the very restrictive
>>licencing  system.
>> > 
>> > This is by design. An uninstall will not remove licensing
>> > information for your machine. 
>> 
>> That's nice on one side, but not nice on anotherone: what if you
>> deinstall because the PC gets sold or something like this and you
>>need  to reinstall on another one? You're down one registration.
>> 
>> Wouldn't a option to remove this info without loosing a
>>registration  be helpful?
>
>To be absolutely, brutally honest... the number of people that tend to
>regularly exceed the allotted registrations is minuscule compared to
>the total customer registrations. In my mind, tuning for such a small
>percentage of the market is a case of misplaced priorities. I feel our
>time is better spent on things that benefit a much larger portion of
>our customer base.
>
>While I'm not sure of the exact figure, but the average number of
>registrations per customer is only slightly above 1 and significantly
>below 2.

Thats amazingly low actually. Other then laptop + workcomputer I
install delphi to test specific situations in vmware sessions (so at
least 3 install's already). And no suprise i had to increase the limit
last year which was absolutely no problem btw...
0
Marius
9/28/2011 9:20:43 PM
On 9/28/2011 12:13 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>
>>> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
>>
>> Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.
>
> Didn't reactivate, or didn't *NEED* to re-activate?

Thanks for the clarification.
0
Mike
9/28/2011 9:52:36 PM
Captain America wrote:

> I will tend to think this is your brainwashed/corporate thinking.

"You will" or "you do"?  

If you *will*, can you let me know when?  I'm waiting with bated breath.

If you *do*, then I'm relieved that I won't have to wait. 

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 9:55:26 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 29/09/2011 6:16 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > While I'm not sure of the exact figure, but the average number of
> > registrations per customer is only slightly above 1 and
> > significantly below 2.
> 
> Simple solution... Unregister option.
> 
> GO through exactly the same procedure in reverse...

If we ever did that, I'd also limit the number of unregistrations...
Mainly because then one could easily save off the activation
information, unregister, then restore the information and have a
"registered" system not accounted for in the registration database.

Not. Good. At. All.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 9:57:04 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:


> For me - it means my Delphi is always bricked within 2 years, 

Just for the record and for posterity, "bricked" is really a hopeless
exaggeration here.


> as I 
> reinstall once every 6-9 months on my desktop and laptop.

And once again, we'll point out that a reinstall on the same machine
doesn't use registrations.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 10:00:24 PM
Marius . wrote:

> Thats amazingly low actually.

Indeed -- I was surprised as well. But that's what the numbers clearly
show.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/28/2011 10:00:57 PM
Marius . wrote:

> Thats amazingly low actually. Other then laptop + workcomputer I
> install delphi to test specific situations in vmware sessions (so at
> least 3 install's already). And no suprise i had to increase the limit
> last year which was absolutely no problem btw...

Ironically, if all you did was read this forum, one could easily get
the impression that all our customers uninstall/reinstall at least once
a month... When in fact, our data shows the complete opposite.

This was also one reason we disabled the self-service registration bump
functionality. Only a few customers availed themselves of the service,
and of those we found significant levels of abuse.

Yes, it totally *sucks* that the few ruin things for the many...
Especially since I personally pushed hard for a self-service
registration bump service. I was disheartened (though, honestly, not
surprised) when we analyzed the data and this is what we found.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 10:02:57 PM
On 9/28/2011 1:16 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>
> While I'm not sure of the exact figure, but the average number of
> registrations per customer is only slightly above 1 and significantly
> below 2.
>

To be equally brutally honest, given the experiences of many on these 
groups (who have much higher numbers of registrations over the years, 
particularly when having to reinstall an older product such as RS2007 as 
machines have aged/been replaced), that must mean that many of your 
clients have less than one as their number of registrations.

I've been using Borland products since the CP/M Turbo Pascal days.  In 
the past week, my primary client purchased a copy of XE2 so that they 
could get a license to use RS2007 (which is what I've written their code 
in).

I've since had to spend several sessions with their in-house engineer 
defending the use/choice of the product, because of the difficulties 
that they have run into just trying to INSTALL the darned thing properly 
and get it to work -- it's not a pleasant position to be in, nor can I 
defend the problems that they've experienced.

Just as one minor example, despite the fact that there was a discussion 
on this group not too long ago about how 'installation order' isn't 
significant, they found that after installing the XE2 (which they DID 
NOT want to have to do, they simply wanted to get the license to install 
RS2007), and then installing the RS2007, they had to manually go in and 
change registry settings for the RS2007 version to work, since those 
settings had initially been made by the XE2 product.

I've had a lot of shelfware over the years -- some of it in this product 
line (I don't think I ever installed some of my Delphi versions, for 
example, nor did I ever install RS2009).  Lots from other companies as 
well.  But the problems encountered, CONSISTENTLY, over the years with 
the Delphi/Builder/RAD Studio products are far and away more than any 
other single product I've ever had to deal with.

There is so much that is so 'right' about the product, but unfortunately 
a lot of the 'ancillary' aspects are so 'wrong' that it becomes 
impossible to recommend it with a straight face.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 10:04:54 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> The good news is that we've opened things back up for another round of
> fixes which are right on schedule (no... I won't disclose the schedule
> ;-).

What David I wrote in his recent blog post should be enough for the
users:

"Update #1 - the first of our monthly updates for RAD Studio XE2,
Delphi XE2 and C++Builder XE2 to evolve and improve the new FireMonkey
business application platform"
-- 
Uwe Schuster | Hero of the Delphi 2010 FT
http://www.bitcommander.de/blog
0
Uwe
9/28/2011 10:11:41 PM
On 9/28/2011 2:57 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>
> If we ever did that, I'd also limit the number of unregistrations...
> Mainly because then one could easily save off the activation
> information, unregister, then restore the information and have a
> "registered" system not accounted for in the registration database.
>
> Not. Good. At. All.
>

For you, not the customer.

Personally, although I'm not in 100% agreement with it, the way Apple 
handles the iTunes accounts as always struck me as a reasonable compromise.

You can register up to 5 machines, and once per year, you can wipe all 5 
registered machines and re-register them (this handles those cases where 
you have a machine crash so can't unregister the machine).

The problem with the current line of EMBT thinking is for those of us 
who continue to use the older product versions -- you simply must assume 
that those versions are going to be re-installed periodically, as the 
users machines are upgraded.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 10:15:34 PM
On 29/09/2011 8:00 AM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>
>> For me - it means my Delphi is always bricked within 2 years,
>
> Just for the record and for posterity, "bricked" is really a hopeless
> exaggeration here.

By 'bricked' - I mean no longer able to be used. What term would you 
think better?

They refuse to increment the counter by more than 1 .... so it means at 
point X in time I can not install it on both my machines.

That is - it is no longer functional.

>
>> as I
>> reinstall once every 6-9 months on my desktop and laptop.
>
> And once again, we'll point out that a reinstall on the same machine
> doesn't use registrations.
>

I might point out that a reinstall on the same WINDOWS installation 
doesn't use up registrations.

The reason I reinstall every 6-9 months is that I am frequently 
installing hardware/software from vendors my software needs to support 
which eventually has its toll on Windows itself.

I reinstall Windows every 6-9months ... that means 2 counters gone every 
6-9 months.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 10:21:04 PM
On 9/28/2011 3:00 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>
>> For me - it means my Delphi is always bricked within 2 years,
>
> Just for the record and for posterity, "bricked" is really a hopeless
> exaggeration here.
>
>
>> as I
>> reinstall once every 6-9 months on my desktop and laptop.
>
> And once again, we'll point out that a reinstall on the same machine
> doesn't use registrations.
>

Under what circumstances, Nick?  Most folks that I know (including 
myself) usually do a re-install either due to a hardware failure 
(generally a hard disk, which means losing the information), or a 
re-format due to a virus, etc.  They don't generally uninstall/reinstall 
just for the fun of it (unless, of course, they purchased XE2 in the 
previous month and just got the update <G>).

Especially since no information is given, nor tools to save, whatever 
'product registration information' is needed by EMBT.

So, in the SPECIFIC instance of the XE2 to XE2 Update 1 
uninstall/reinstall, one doesn't need to worry about the activation 
count.  In the more GENERAL circumstance of people re-installing their 
software on a new/repaired/reformatted computer, activations get burned.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 10:23:44 PM
On 9/28/2011 3:02 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>
> Ironically, if all you did was read this forum, one could easily get
> the impression that all our customers uninstall/reinstall at least once
> a month... When in fact, our data shows the complete opposite.
>
> This was also one reason we disabled the self-service registration bump
> functionality. Only a few customers availed themselves of the service,
> and of those we found significant levels of abuse.
>

Hey, that's fantastic news!  Since you now have hard data that certain 
folks have been violating the EULA, you'll be taking vigorous legal 
action against them, right?  You know, so that the ones who actually 
BREAK an agreement have to pay for it, rather than the ones who honor 
the agreement...

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 10:25:35 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> To be equally brutally honest, given the experiences of many on these 
> groups (who have much higher numbers of registrations over the years, 
> particularly when having to reinstall an older product such as RS2007
> as machines have aged/been replaced), that must mean that many of
> your clients have less than one as their number of registrations.

Not at all. I'm not counting any potential "non-registrations"... The
number I mentioned is of those that register at least once. 0
registrations isn't counted as part of that statistic.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 10:27:03 PM
On 29/09/2011 8:02 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> This was also one reason we disabled the self-service registration bump
> functionality. Only a few customers availed themselves of the service,
> and of those we found significant levels of abuse.

So the solution now is to leave genuine users screwed over... ?

Non hypotheical scenario.

I'm 4 days from a release, and my Windows machine dies.

1. I reinstall windows - which complains about activation, so I ring up 
a number and sort it out in minutes on the phone. Annoying - but all 
sorted out instantly OR I ignore the error and it lets me continue for 
30 days without activation.

2. I reinstall Delphi - which complains about activation, so I ... CAN 
DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no recourse that doesn't take several days.

3. I ring up my customer and apologise that I was stupid enough to 
commit to Embarcadero products... that once I get permission from them 
to continue work, I may be able to continue.

The issue here isn't about activation - you need it. But look at the 
difference between Windows and Delphi activation.... you really need to 
make it so that my $4000+ investment doesn't auto brick within 2 years.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 10:28:56 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> For you, not the customer.

For you too. If we're out of business, that's not good for our
customers, no? Us looking to reasonably protect our IP is somehow bad
for customers? Sorry, that just doesn't compute. At. All.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 10:30:11 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> 2. I reinstall Delphi - which complains about activation, so I ...
> CAN DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no recourse that doesn't take
> several days.

That is completely untrue. You have a legitimate "grace-period" before
you must activate the product.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 10:32:43 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> On 9/28/2011 3:02 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > 
> > Ironically, if all you did was read this forum, one could easily get
> > the impression that all our customers uninstall/reinstall at least
> > once a month... When in fact, our data shows the complete opposite.
> > 
> > This was also one reason we disabled the self-service registration
> > bump functionality. Only a few customers availed themselves of the
> > service, and of those we found significant levels of abuse.
> > 
> 
> Hey, that's fantastic news!  Since you now have hard data that
> certain folks have been violating the EULA, you'll be taking vigorous
> legal action against them, right?  You know, so that the ones who
> actually BREAK an agreement have to pay for it, rather than the ones
> who honor the agreement...

And you're certain we aren't. We generally don't discuss any legal
actions we may or may not be doing.

I know for certain that we've "gone after" EULA violations... The vast
majority are quickly and favorably settled.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 10:35:07 PM
On 9/28/2011 3:30 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> For you, not the customer.
>
> For you too. If we're out of business, that's not good for our
> customers, no? Us looking to reasonably protect our IP is somehow bad
> for customers? Sorry, that just doesn't compute. At. All.
>

Allen,

To be candid, if you're out of business, the only reason I'm screwed is 
because your activation servers are down.

I'm not (currently <G>) one of those who has to rush out and install the 
latest/greatest version of a compiler, particularly one with Delphi's 
track record of good and bad releases, until at least the first or 
second major update, and even then, there really needs to be a good 
reason to port.

Now, I've been supporting the company with my dollars even with versions 
that have never been (either figuratively or virtually) unwrapped, 
because I 'hope' that every few versions are worth the change - but my 
only REAL need from you folks is the activation, because frankly, the 
other aspects that of product support that I count on from other vendors 
is not really forthcoming with the Delphi product line (i.e., sufficient 
documentation, bug fixes, active participation with user problems via 
support forums, smooth installation/uninstallation procedures, etc.)

I've been heavily involved in the IP protection business, far more than 
you realize -- but because of that involvement, I also know that in most 
cases it's been the end user who has ultimately been the more damaged party.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 10:38:52 PM
On 9/28/2011 3:35 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/2011 3:02 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>>>
>>> Ironically, if all you did was read this forum, one could easily get
>>> the impression that all our customers uninstall/reinstall at least
>>> once a month... When in fact, our data shows the complete opposite.
>>>
>>> This was also one reason we disabled the self-service registration
>>> bump functionality. Only a few customers availed themselves of the
>>> service, and of those we found significant levels of abuse.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, that's fantastic news!  Since you now have hard data that
>> certain folks have been violating the EULA, you'll be taking vigorous
>> legal action against them, right?  You know, so that the ones who
>> actually BREAK an agreement have to pay for it, rather than the ones
>> who honor the agreement...
>
> And you're certain we aren't. We generally don't discuss any legal
> actions we may or may not be doing.
>
> I know for certain that we've "gone after" EULA violations... The vast
> majority are quickly and favorably settled.
>

Great!  Then you can use the funds from those settlements to create an 
activation system that doesn't punish the honest users?  You know, as 
part of their punishment, they have to pay for the actions they've 
caused to the innocent?  Can you give us a timeline on that???

Or are we merely left with the understanding that since EMBT has now 
handled the non-payment of product for those who stole it, that the 
honest users will still end up paying (in time, lost productivity, etc.) 
for these actions?

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 10:41:41 PM
On 29/09/2011 8:30 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> For you, not the customer.
>
> For you too. If we're out of business, that's not good for our
> customers, no? Us looking to reasonably protect our IP is somehow bad
> for customers? Sorry, that just doesn't compute. At. All.
>

No-one has ever asked  you to remove the activation system ... EVER. 
Including me (one of the more vocal critics of it).

What we are asking for is ... to put it in Delphi terms... BETTER 
exception handling.

I need a way of continuing to work when your system screws up, that's 
all. Long enough so that we have time to work out the solution slowly 
and steadily.

OR

You need to have 24/7 mechanisms for solving screw ups.

By the end of October - I will be at 4 on my count, and I'm only running 
it on a TWO machines. I assume that leaves me with 1 ?

That means that as of the end of October this year, my (then 2 month old 
software) becomes effectively useless if your system screws up, and 
becomes next to useless within another 6-9 months.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 10:42:35 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> Allen,
> 
> To be candid, if you're out of business, the only reason I'm screwed
> is because your activation servers are down.
> 
> I'm not (currently <G>) one of those who has to rush out and install
> the latest/greatest version of a compiler, particularly one with
> Delphi's track record of good and bad releases, until at least the
> first or second major update, and even then, there really needs to be
> a good reason to port.

So you can't say with all certainty that things are better or worse now
than in the past, right?
 
> I've been heavily involved in the IP protection business, far more
> than you realize -- but because of that involvement, I also know that
> in most cases it's been the end user who has ultimately been the more
> damaged party.

Our registration/activation process undergoes constant review,
improvement, and fine-tuning. The service as it was several years ago
was far less reliable than it is today... I'd also venture to say that
it will be more reliable and better in the future.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 10:46:37 PM
On 29/09/2011 8:32 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>> 2. I reinstall Delphi - which complains about activation, so I ...
>> CAN DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no recourse that doesn't take
>> several days.
>
> That is completely untrue. You have a legitimate "grace-period" before
> you must activate the product.
>

Until you run out of activations or until the activation server fails.

THen - you DO NOT have such a grace period.

Been there - done that.
0
Christopher
9/28/2011 10:57:54 PM
On 9/28/2011 3:46 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> Allen,
>>
>> To be candid, if you're out of business, the only reason I'm screwed
>> is because your activation servers are down.
>>
>> I'm not (currently<G>) one of those who has to rush out and install
>> the latest/greatest version of a compiler, particularly one with
>> Delphi's track record of good and bad releases, until at least the
>> first or second major update, and even then, there really needs to be
>> a good reason to port.
>
> So you can't say with all certainty that things are better or worse now
> than in the past, right?
>

Actually, I can.  Speaking from experience, if I have a bug in (let's 
say) Delphi 5, and I don't update until RS2007, and the bug is still 
present, my presumption can accurately say that the intermediate 
versions were not valuable to me.

Further, one can (again, for example) install the trial version of a 
product to see if the documentation has been improved, and make a 
determination if sufficient effort has been expended.

And finally, one doesn't have to heavily use the product to determine if 
the problems outweigh the benefits.  Getting a new version of RADStudio 
typically involved installing it, seeing what problems may be 
encountered with upgrading a current codebase to use the new version, 
and then making a decision as to whether to port the code to said new 
version.  My current 'decision tree' has left me using RS2007 for 
supporting legacy products, and using XE for new projects.  I'm really 
looking forward to using XE2, but frankly, what I've seen so far tells 
me that it's not quite ready for prime time, and again frankly, the 
FireMonkey aspects really only affect new projects, not old ones.

>> I've been heavily involved in the IP protection business, far more
>> than you realize -- but because of that involvement, I also know that
>> in most cases it's been the end user who has ultimately been the more
>> damaged party.
>
> Our registration/activation process undergoes constant review,
> improvement, and fine-tuning. The service as it was several years ago
> was far less reliable than it is today... I'd also venture to say that
> it will be more reliable and better in the future.
>

Yes, and several years ago when the system WASN'T working (according to 
you) as well as it is today, we had the same statements from Delphi 
personnel that everything was just hunky-dory and that businesses had 
nothing to worry about.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/28/2011 10:58:20 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > I will tend to think this is your brainwashed/corporate thinking.
> 
> "You will" or "you do"?  
> 
> If you *will*, can you let me know when?  I'm waiting with bated breath.
> 
> If you *do*, then I'm relieved that I won't have to wait. 

And if I *would* then ...

P.S. In my original post I was simply being nice.
0
Captain
9/28/2011 10:59:15 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> On 9/28/2011 3:46 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > David Erbas-White wrote:
> > 
> >> Allen,
> > > 
> >> To be candid, if you're out of business, the only reason I'm
> screwed >> is because your activation servers are down.
> > > 
> >> I'm not (currently<G>) one of those who has to rush out and install
> >> the latest/greatest version of a compiler, particularly one with
> >> Delphi's track record of good and bad releases, until at least the
> >> first or second major update, and even then, there really needs to
> be >> a good reason to port.
> > 
> > So you can't say with all certainty that things are better or worse
> > now than in the past, right?
> > 
 
> Actually, I can.  Speaking from experience, if I have a bug in (let's 
> say) Delphi 5, and I don't update until RS2007, and the bug is still 
> present, my presumption can accurately say that the intermediate 
> versions were not valuable to me.

I was talking about now, not about some other arbitrary point in time.
Can you say that about how things are *now*? Not between Delphi 5 and
2007...
 
> Further, one can (again, for example) install the trial version of a 
> product to see if the documentation has been improved, and make a 
> determination if sufficient effort has been expended.
> 
> And finally, one doesn't have to heavily use the product to determine
> if the problems outweigh the benefits.  Getting a new version of
> RADStudio typically involved installing it, seeing what problems may
> be encountered with upgrading a current codebase to use the new
> version, and then making a decision as to whether to port the code to
> said new version.  My current 'decision tree' has left me using
> RS2007 for supporting legacy products, and using XE for new projects.
> I'm really looking forward to using XE2, but frankly, what I've seen
> so far tells me that it's not quite ready for prime time, and again
> frankly, the FireMonkey aspects really only affect new projects, not
> old ones.

From what you've seen? IOW, you are actively using XE2? Or is "what
you've seen" only what you've read rather than personally experienced?

As far as FireMonkey, one isn't going to compress 15+ years of
framework development into a single product cycle (or even several).
FireMonkey will continue to be updated and evolved actively... to
levels the likes of which we've never, ever done for VCL.
 
> >> I've been heavily involved in the IP protection business, far more
> >> than you realize -- but because of that involvement, I also know
> that >> in most cases it's been the end user who has ultimately been
> the more >> damaged party.
> > 
> > Our registration/activation process undergoes constant review,
> > improvement, and fine-tuning. The service as it was several years
> > ago was far less reliable than it is today... I'd also venture to
> > say that it will be more reliable and better in the future.
> > 
> 
> Yes, and several years ago when the system WASN'T working (according
> to you) as well as it is today, we had the same statements from
> Delphi personnel that everything was just hunky-dory and that
> businesses had nothing to worry about.

I never said it *wasn't* working... where did I say that? Just because
you emphasised the word "WASN'T", doesn't mean I said it. I said it was
less reliable, not that it wasn't working. And "less reliable" doesn't
mean it was totally broken relative to today.

In all cases, relative to the number of transactions our system
processes, the amount of failures is miniscule... and continues to
decline.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 11:12:25 PM
Hello,

Christopher Burke wrote:

> No-one has ever asked  you to remove the activation system ... EVER. 

I think several people have vigorously demanded exactly this. Regular
followers of this newsgroup might have noticed.

While I'm not very much in favor of any kind of "copy protection" from
a consumer standpoint (don't you hate it when computer games cannot run
without the CD in the drive? One of the many reasons why I stopped
gaming some years ago), I'll now have to protect our own software with
a hardware token, so I guess it wouldn't help my credibility if I
demanded the removal of the activation system ;) I wonder how the
frequent complainers protect their software?

-- 
Hey, it compiles! Ship it!
0
Moritz
9/28/2011 11:13:08 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 29/09/2011 8:32 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > Christopher Burke wrote:
> > 
> >> 2. I reinstall Delphi - which complains about activation, so I ...
> >> CAN DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no recourse that doesn't take
> >> several days.
> > 
> > That is completely untrue. You have a legitimate "grace-period"
> > before you must activate the product.
> > 
> 
> Until you run out of activations or until the activation server fails.
> 
> THen - you DO NOT have such a grace period.

You *do* have a grace-period. The fact that you've burned all your
registrations doesn't take away from that fact. Until the product is
activated, it is running in the grace period. If it cannot be activated
because of registration limits, you are *still* in the grace period...
of course if you only attempt to activate when the grace period
expires, then you are no longer running in the grace period and you
must activate. The grace period is present, not to allow one to "game
the system", but to give one sufficient time to ensure they are able to
contact our servers and activate, and in your case time to call support
and get a manual registration bump.

When has the "activation server" failed for reasons other than
intermediate connectivity issues... (ie. routing issue which are beyond
your's or our control). I can remember only one time in the last few
years where our activation servers went down due to some environmental
issues (ie. power outage and a failure of the backup generators at the
co-lo site)... and they were down for a very small window of time. (< 8
hours).

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 11:19:43 PM
On 9/28/2011 5:52 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 12:13 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>> On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>>
>>>> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
>>>
>>> Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.
>>
>> Didn't reactivate, or didn't *NEED* to re-activate?
>
> Thanks for the clarification.

The web installer doesn't install for me. I got to the part where it was unpacking 
the zips, it hits the 100% mark and pops the dialog that it failed, offering the 
choices of retrying, or re-downloading. I tried each option 4 times with the same 
results, and finally cancelled. The zips were in a fresh empty directory.

It never announced it was doing an uninstall, but maybe that's later in the process.

The web installer worked flawlessly the first time.

The iso download has an hour and a half left to finish downloading.

<sigh>
0
Mike
9/28/2011 11:19:57 PM
Moritz Beutel wrote:

> I'll now have to protect our own software with
> a hardware token, so I guess it wouldn't help my credibility if I
> demanded the removal of the activation system ;) I wonder how the
> frequent complainers protect their software?

*I* wasn't going to bring this up... but I've seen cases where those
that clamour the loudest against us, are also the most diligent about
protecting their own IP.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 11:24:51 PM
Mike Reublin wrote:

> On 9/28/2011 5:52 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
> > On 9/28/2011 12:13 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
> >> On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
> > > 
> >>>> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
> > > > 
> >>> Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.
> > > 
> >> Didn't reactivate, or didn't NEED to re-activate?
> > 
> > Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> The web installer doesn't install for me. I got to the part where it
> was unpacking the zips, it hits the 100% mark and pops the dialog
> that it failed, offering the choices of retrying, or re-downloading.
> I tried each option 4 times with the same results, and finally
> cancelled. The zips were in a fresh empty directory.
> 
> It never announced it was doing an uninstall, but maybe that's later
> in the process.
> 
> The web installer worked flawlessly the first time.
> 
> The iso download has an hour and a half left to finish downloading.

Make, doubly, triply sure that you didn't place the setup.exe into the
same folder that contains the downloaded web-bits... You must place it
into a new, empty folder. You must also not tell it to save the
downloaded bits to the same folder as the last install.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/28/2011 11:43:53 PM
On 29/09/2011 9:19 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2011 8:32 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>>> Christopher Burke wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2. I reinstall Delphi - which complains about activation, so I ...
>>>> CAN DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no recourse that doesn't take
>>>> several days.
>>>
>>> That is completely untrue. You have a legitimate "grace-period"
>>> before you must activate the product.
>>>
>>
>> Until you run out of activations or until the activation server fails.
>>
>> THen - you DO NOT have such a grace period.
>
> You *do* have a grace-period. The fact that you've burned all your
> registrations doesn't take away from that fact.

Maybe you are meant to. Maybe you do from XE2 on ... however unless it 
has changed, it doesn't work that way in practice.

> The grace period is present, not to allow one to "game
> the system", but to give one sufficient time to ensure they are able to
> contact our servers and activate, and in your case time to call support
> and get a manual registration bump.

Well - it must be broken then.

>
> When has the "activation server" failed for reasons other than
> intermediate connectivity issues...

In the last 3 years, it has failed twice in such a way as to chew up 
(aka Brick) my software. Once for DelphiPHP and once for both my Delphi 
2010s.

> your's or our control). I can remember only one time in the last few
> years where our activation servers went down due to some environmental
> issues (ie. power outage and a failure of the backup generators at the
> co-lo site)... and they were down for a very small window of time. (<  8
> hours).

I don't care if I can't connect to the activation servers, that is an 
excusable issue. I'm talking about them bricking my software (I suspect 
by using up all my attempts in one hit).
0
Christopher
9/29/2011 12:00:10 AM
On 29/09/2011 9:24 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> Moritz Beutel wrote:
>
>> I'll now have to protect our own software with
>> a hardware token, so I guess it wouldn't help my credibility if I
>> demanded the removal of the activation system ;) I wonder how the
>> frequent complainers protect their software?
>
> *I* wasn't going to bring this up... but I've seen cases where those
> that clamour the loudest against us, are also the most diligent about
> protecting their own IP.
>
Well - one thing we don't do with our software is EVER make it possible 
for it to be unusable DUE to the software protection. EVER.

Yes - we have software protection, but as far as we are concerned - 
letting a few guilty people get free software is better than having 
innocent customers lose theirs.
0
Christopher
9/29/2011 12:02:20 AM
> {quote:title=Marius . wrote:}{quote}
> least 3 install's already). And no suprise i had to increase the limit
> last year which was absolutely no problem btw...

Lucky you. I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE) and an increase has not been granted. At least I have some installs left for D2007.
0
Jeff
9/29/2011 12:38:20 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 29/09/2011 9:19 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > Christopher Burke wrote:
> > 
> >> On 29/09/2011 8:32 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> >>> Christopher Burke wrote:
> > > > 
> >>>> 2. I reinstall Delphi - which complains about activation, so I
> ...  >>>> CAN DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no recourse that
> doesn't take >>>> several days.
> > > > 
> >>> That is completely untrue. You have a legitimate "grace-period"
> >>> before you must activate the product.
> > > > 
> > > 
> >> Until you run out of activations or until the activation server
> fails.
> > > 
> >> THen - you DO NOT have such a grace period.
> > 
> > You do have a grace-period. The fact that you've burned all your
> > registrations doesn't take away from that fact.
> 
> Maybe you are meant to. Maybe you do from XE2 on ... however unless
> it has changed, it doesn't work that way in practice.

We've had a grace period since...forever. Every time we've threatened
to disable it, the "field" (aka. the sales force and others) screamed
loudly... and for good reason.
 
> > The grace period is present, not to allow one to "game
> > the system", but to give one sufficient time to ensure they are
> > able to contact our servers and activate, and in your case time to
> > call support and get a manual registration bump.
> 
> Well - it must be broken then.

You've not commented on whether or not you waited until the end of the
grace period to try and activate the software. If you did, that still
doesn't mean there is no grace period. The "grace period" to which I
refer is the time the product is allowed to run between the point of
install and activation. That is typically anywhere from 15-30 days...
 
> > 
> > When has the "activation server" failed for reasons other than
> > intermediate connectivity issues...
> 
> In the last 3 years, it has failed twice in such a way as to chew up 
> (aka Brick) my software. Once for DelphiPHP and once for both my
> Delphi 2010s.

I'd really like to get some reproducable steps. If what you're saying
is true, it is something we should look at.
 
> > your's or our control). I can remember only one time in the last few
> > years where our activation servers went down due to some
> > environmental issues (ie. power outage and a failure of the backup
> > generators at the co-lo site)... and they were down for a very
> > small window of time. (<  8 hours).
> 
> I don't care if I can't connect to the activation servers, that is an 
> excusable issue. I'm talking about them bricking my software (I
> suspect by using up all my attempts in one hit).

Again, I'd really like to get some steps to reproduce this. This is
something we should certainly look at and address. It could be a client
side issue or a server issue. It could also be caused by proxies and/or
other in-transit items that cause the client to re-issue activation
requests over and over... not knowing that the server has responded and
already bumped the activation counts.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 12:38:54 AM
Hello,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE) and an
> increase has not been granted.

seriously?

It was the first time you ran into this limit?

Allen, what is the right thing to do in this case? Purchase another
license?

-- 
Hey, it compiles! Ship it!
0
Moritz
9/29/2011 12:46:05 AM
> {quote:title=Moritz Beutel wrote:}{quote}
> Hello,
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE) and an
> > increase has not been granted.
> 
> seriously?

I'm serious.

> 
> It was the first time you ran into this limit?
> 

Yes. I opened a support ticket which was closed, and the reg count is unchanged. I had to use a second licence to get XE back.
0
Jeff
9/29/2011 12:56:27 AM
Moritz Beutel wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE) and an
> > increase has not been granted.
> 
> seriously?
> 
> It was the first time you ran into this limit?
> 
> Allen, what is the right thing to do in this case? Purchase another
> license?

Contact support and request a activation bump... I even think we have
an online request form for doing that.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 1:01:28 AM
Jeff,

> I had to use a second licence to get XE back.

WOW.  That's unbelievable.

-- 
Dave Keighan aka TDelphiHobbyist
http://tdelphihobbyist.blogspot.com/
0
Dave
9/29/2011 2:24:03 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> By 'bricked' - I mean no longer able to be used. What term would you 
> think better?

Well as a term meaning "no longer able to be used", 'bricked' is a
marvelous term.

But of course, utterly ridiculous and superflous for the topic at hand.


> They refuse to increment the counter by more than 1 .... so it means
> at point X in time I can not install it on both my machines.
> 
> That is - it is no longer functional.

No they don't.

> I reinstall Windows every 6-9months ... that means 2 counters gone
> every 6-9 months.

And if you need more, then call and get them.  It's pathetically easy.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 3:48:24 AM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> Under what circumstances, Nick?

Under every circumstance of uninstalling and reinstalling Delphi.


> In the more GENERAL circumstance of people re-installing their 
> software on a new/repaired/reformatted computer, activations get
> burned.

On a reformatted computer, yes, you use use up one of your unlimited,
legitimate registrations.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 3:49:37 AM
Captain America wrote:

> 
> And if I would then ...

If you would, then I'd be most grateful for you ending my suspense.

> 
> P.S. In my original post I was simply being nice.

Thanks, bud.


-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 3:50:20 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> No-one has ever asked  you to remove the activation system ... EVER. 

That's completely false.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 3:54:32 AM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> Lucky you. I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE)
> and an increase has not been granted.

You asked for an increase, and the answer was "No"? 

Sorry, I don't believe that.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 3:57:54 AM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Make, doubly, triply sure that you didn't place the setup.exe into the
> same folder that contains the downloaded web-bits... You must place it
> into a new, empty folder. You must also not tell it to save the
> downloaded bits to the same folder as the last install.

....while standing on one foot, facing north, and reciting the EULA backwards...
<scnr>
--
Rick Carter
Cincinnati, OH
0
Rick
9/29/2011 4:56:40 AM
On 29/09/2011 1:48 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:

> No they don't.

Well - I feel honoured to be treated specially.....

>
>> I reinstall Windows every 6-9months ... that means 2 counters gone
>> every 6-9 months.
>
> And if you need more, then call and get them.  It's pathetically easy.
>

Except when you try and do it.... you talk theory, I speak practice - 
miles apart it seems.
0
Christopher
9/29/2011 4:57:11 AM
On 29/09/2011 10:38 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> You've not commented on whether or not you waited until the end of the
> grace period to try and activate the software. If you did, that still
> doesn't mean there is no grace period. The "grace period" to which I
> refer is the time the product is allowed to run between the point of
> install and activation. That is typically anywhere from 15-30 days...

DelphiPHP - was bricked within days of purchase
Delphi2010 - was bricked whilst active (i.e. just sitting there) in one 
licence, and on reinstall in the other on the same day.

> I'd really like to get some reproducable steps. If what you're saying
> is true, it is something we should look at.

I can't afford to create that large a sample size... it's $4000 a pop 
you now.

> Again, I'd really like to get some steps to reproduce this. This is
> something we should certainly look at and address. It could be a client
> side issue or a server issue.

I can't imagine two separate licences of Delphi 2010 both being bricked 
on the same day as a client side issue (two separate physical locations).

However - the point isn't about trying to have a 100% perfect system, 
that can never happen. The problem is ensuring a way out.

When DelphiPHP got bricked within days of purchase (used up all my 
count) - I asked to have the counter reset. Their answer was no - but 
they could increment it by one. I returned the product for a refund.

I don't have that luxury with Delphi, I make my living off Delphi. 
Someone else suggested that either registrations time out (i.e. 
increment by 1, after 6 months automatically get another), or have a 
reset button I can press at most once every 6 months.

Or have a 24/7 line for resolution, or make it so that I can use the 
software without activation after an error occurs (in reality - not just 
theory).

There are so many options - you could have 3 or 4 of them available at once.
0
Christopher
9/29/2011 5:04:08 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> Except when you try and do it.... you talk theory, I speak practice - 
> miles apart it seems.

No, I'm not talking theory. I'm talking practice.  It happens every
day.

It seems strange to me that you are unable to accomplish this
straight-forward task. Why is that, do you think?

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 6:39:07 AM
Hello Tim

Does Update 1 break binary compatibility with RTM build ?

-- 
With best regards,
Dmitry Arefiev / www.da-soft.com
AnyDAC - Firebird, SQLite, MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle, PostgreSQL,
DB2, SQL Anywhere, Access, Informix, ODBC high-speed data access lib
0
Dmitry
9/29/2011 6:44:45 AM
> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
> 
> This update involves fully uninstalling and then reinstalling the product. 

Or in my case [today] installing XE2 so I could register the product so I could get access to the Update 1 so I could then uninstall and reinstall .. Is this going to be the case for all new XE2 users?
0
Harrie
9/29/2011 7:18:55 AM
On 9/29/2011 12:18 AM, Harrie Pearce wrote:
>> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
>>
>> This update involves fully uninstalling and then reinstalling the product.
>
> Or in my case [today] installing XE2 so I could register the product so I could get access to the Update 1 so I could then uninstall and reinstall .. Is this going to be the case for all new XE2 users?

I was able to go directly to the download link that was originally given 
to me with my 'maintenance notice' and download the new ISO file (I was 
literally in the process of reinstalling Windows on my laptop prior to 
doing the first XE2 installation when I received word of the upgrade, so 
had not yet installed XE2).

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/29/2011 7:32:40 AM
> {quote:title=Bob Swart wrote:}{quote}
> Hi Nick,
> 
> >> Is there any way to get the update if you are running the trial
> >> version of XE2?
> >
> > Not until they put Update 1 in the trial, which will happen eventually.
> 
> The public ISO for the DVD is already updated. So if people have not yet 
> installed/registered their trial serial number, they can use the new ISO 
> to install the trial (with update #1 applied).
> 
> I'm not 100% sure if they can apply the update to an existing trial 
> installation, however...
> 

The web install of the trial version has been updated now. I downloaded that, and reran the install. As with the other updates, it uninstalled the old install first before installing.
0
Troy
9/29/2011 7:34:12 AM
> {quote:title=David Erbas-White wrote:}{quote}
> On 9/29/2011 12:18 AM, Harrie Pearce wrote:
> >> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
> >>
> >> This update involves fully uninstalling and then reinstalling the product.
> >
> > Or in my case [today] installing XE2 so I could register the product so I could get access to the Update 1 so I could then uninstall and reinstall .. Is this going to be the case for all new XE2 users?
> 
> I was able to go directly to the download link that was originally given 
> to me with my 'maintenance notice' and download the new ISO file (I was 
> literally in the process of reinstalling Windows on my laptop prior to 
> doing the first XE2 installation when I received word of the upgrade, so 
> had not yet installed XE2).
> 

I have an XE2 new user license and could not download the update until I had registered - which happens at the end of the install.
0
Harrie
9/29/2011 8:10:56 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> The reason I reinstall every 6-9 months is that I am frequently 
> installing hardware/software from vendors my software needs to
> support which eventually has its toll on Windows itself.
> 
> I reinstall Windows every 6-9months ... that means 2 counters gone
> every 6-9 months.

Seems like a situation where having dev tools in a VM should help, but
maybe you've already tried that and found problems?

Most programs I use nowadays are installed in VM:s - as few programs as
possible in each VM. This means that if/when I reinstall Windows (I
don't, because having everything in VM:s means that the host Windows
will not decay nearly as fast) or change computer, all I have to
install is VMWare Player - bingo! - everything is up and running as
before.

The cost is an extra Windows license for each VM (not really necessary
for all of them: with Win7 Prof. and higher the license let's me
install the OS in a VM too (the number of VM:s differ between the
different editions)) - no sweat.

Of course, if you need to install hardware drivers all the time, VM:s
will not give you the same benefit, as you have to install the driver
in both the host OS and the VM.
0
Anders
9/29/2011 8:47:43 AM
Hi,

2011.09.29. 10:10 keltezéssel, Harrie Pearce írta:

>
> I have an XE2 new user license and could not download the update until I had registered - which happens at the end of the install.

You can download the updated ISO:

http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28479

Gabor
0
Gabor
9/29/2011 9:04:31 AM
Whilst I was happy to go away and let my computer download the whole of XE2, Help and associated files, I couldn't help wondering why it wasn't possible just to restrict the download to updated items.

Also, if EMB decides that we *have* to do an uninstall and reinstall for future updates, it would be good to preserve the state of installed third-party components instead of having to re-install them over again.
0
Ian
9/29/2011 9:43:18 AM
> {quote:title=Dave Keighan wrote:}{quote}
> > I had to use a second licence to get XE back.
> 
> WOW.  That's unbelievable.

Yes, it is.  

I would love to get details of any cases where Embarcadero refused to increase the number of registrations or registrations being consumed when they shouldn't be.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/29/2011 10:45:11 AM
Hi Jeff,

> Lucky you. I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE) and an increase has not been granted.

It was not? That's the first time I've ever heard of a case where it was 
not granted... Have you asked Embarcadero why? Perhaps your request got 
lost - did you request it again??

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner - Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller BeNeLux
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/29/2011 11:04:29 AM
Hi Allen,

> Contact support and request a activation bump... I even think we have
> an online request form for doing that.

Yes, it's at http://support.embarcadero.com/Forms/bump/

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner - Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller BeNeLux
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/29/2011 11:05:54 AM
> It is not fixed in Update #1. If this really bugs you and you have a SA
> then creating a support case might be an option to get the fix
> (earlier).
Darn... I hoped it would be fixed as side effect of fixing other 
debugger issues.... I guess I'm not the only one running frequently
into that problem since the setlength functionality is not so
"uncommonly" used...

kind regards
    Mike
0
Michael
9/29/2011 11:13:52 AM
On 9/28/2011 7:43 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> Mike Reublin wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/2011 5:52 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2011 12:13 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't reactivate, or didn't NEED to re-activate?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> The web installer doesn't install for me. I got to the part where it
>> was unpacking the zips, it hits the 100% mark and pops the dialog
>> that it failed, offering the choices of retrying, or re-downloading.
>> I tried each option 4 times with the same results, and finally
>> cancelled. The zips were in a fresh empty directory.
>>
>> It never announced it was doing an uninstall, but maybe that's later
>> in the process.
>>
>> The web installer worked flawlessly the first time.
>>
>> The iso download has an hour and a half left to finish downloading.
>
> Make, doubly, triply sure that you didn't place the setup.exe into the
> same folder that contains the downloaded web-bits... You must place it
> into a new, empty folder. You must also not tell it to save the
> downloaded bits to the same folder as the last install.
>
Operator error. I had downloaded with Safari on the Mac after being warned that IE9 
had a problem with big downloads. I'm not used to the Mac/Win marriage yet, and now I 
can't even find the directory where I told it to put the zips. I'm installing from 
the iso.

It had gotten really sleepy in here, and I am a senior...... <vbg>
0
Mike
9/29/2011 11:30:21 AM
On 9/29/2011 12:56 AM, Rick Carter wrote:
>> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
>> Make, doubly, triply sure that you didn't place the setup.exe into the
>> same folder that contains the downloaded web-bits... You must place it
>> into a new, empty folder. You must also not tell it to save the
>> downloaded bits to the same folder as the last install.
>
> ...while standing on one foot, facing north, and reciting the EULA backwards...
> <scnr>
> --
> Rick Carter
> Cincinnati, OH

LOL!
0
Mike
9/29/2011 11:31:12 AM
On 9/29/2011 7:30 AM, Mike Reublin wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 7:43 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>> Mike Reublin wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/28/2011 5:52 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2011 12:13 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't reactivate, or didn't NEED to re-activate?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>> The web installer doesn't install for me. I got to the part where it
>>> was unpacking the zips, it hits the 100% mark and pops the dialog
>>> that it failed, offering the choices of retrying, or re-downloading.
>>> I tried each option 4 times with the same results, and finally
>>> cancelled. The zips were in a fresh empty directory.
>>>
>>> It never announced it was doing an uninstall, but maybe that's later
>>> in the process.
>>>
>>> The web installer worked flawlessly the first time.
>>>
>>> The iso download has an hour and a half left to finish downloading.
>>
>> Make, doubly, triply sure that you didn't place the setup.exe into the
>> same folder that contains the downloaded web-bits... You must place it
>> into a new, empty folder. You must also not tell it to save the
>> downloaded bits to the same folder as the last install.
>>
> Operator error. I had downloaded with Safari on the Mac after being warned that IE9
> had a problem with big downloads. I'm not used to the Mac/Win marriage yet, and now I
> can't even find the directory where I told it to put the zips. I'm installing from
> the iso.
>
> It had gotten really sleepy in here, and I am a senior......<vbg>

Now the iso is giving me a fit. "The installer has insufficient privileges to access 
this directory: C:\Program Files(x86)\Embarcadero\Rad Studio\9.0\InstallAware....."

I'm running it from a DVD on Win7 Pro installed under Parallels on a MacBook Pro. I'm 
running it "As Administrator". XE2 was installed here before.
0
Mike
9/29/2011 11:42:30 AM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Lucky you. I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE)
> > and an increase has not been granted.
> 
> You asked for an increase, and the answer was "No"? 
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe that.
> 
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com

I don't care what you believe. I asked for a registration increase and didn't get it. That licence is still bricked today.
0
Jeff
9/29/2011 12:35:18 PM
> {quote:title=Jeff Williams wrote:}{quote}
> I don't care what you believe. I asked for a registration increase and didn't get it. That licence is still bricked today.

Can you provide details?  I think a claim like this should be looked in to.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/29/2011 12:40:22 PM
> {quote:title=Bob Swart wrote:}{quote}
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> > Lucky you. I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE) and an increase has not been granted.
> 
> It was not? That's the first time I've ever heard of a case where it was 
> not granted... Have you asked Embarcadero why? Perhaps your request got 
> lost - did you request it again??
> 

It wasn't lost. I was quite furious at the time over having to use another licence. Now I just don't care. I didn't know the reg limit was so low. I won't be caught again, because I'm not buying another licence for any EMBT product for the forseeable future after this.
0
Jeff
9/29/2011 12:43:20 PM
Bruce McGee wrote:

> Can you provide details?  I think a claim like this should be looked
> in to.

I completely agree -- the notion that one would ask for an increase and
have that increase denied is, well, outrageous.  If that were the case,
then someone should be fired.

Hence, I don't believe it.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 1:09:26 PM
Bruce McGee wrote:

> I would love to get details of any cases where Embarcadero refused to
> increase the number of registrations or registrations being consumed
> when they shouldn't be.

I would, too -- such evidence would be very interesting indeed.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 1:13:51 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}

> I completely agree -- the notion that one would ask for an increase and
> have that increase denied is, well, outrageous.  If that were the case,
> then someone should be fired.

Many people got fired from EMBT in last year or two!
0
Captain
9/29/2011 2:18:27 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> I completely agree -- the notion that one would ask for an increase and
> have that increase denied is, well, outrageous.  

Are you serious ? The whole point of the registration scheme is to be able to deny an installation if they feel you are violating the licence. In this very thread Allen posted that they removed the user ability to automatically bump the registration count because it was being abused as they saw it. If registration increases were always granted, why bother with having a limit in the first place ? Of course they are going to refuse to increase the limit in some cases.

Maybe you're right and I was wrong. Maybe it was only five installs and not six before I hit the registration wall.  

I didn't know at first there was even a limit. I have plenty of other online-registered products and -none- of them brick at a set limit, only Delphi. Nero complains when it sees you have another install but it just unregisters the old one for you automatically. Then when I read in a post that there was a limit, I figured it must be set to something ten or so. So I was pretty surprised to find out it was only five, or maybe six. So I open a ticket. I get a response saying "limit increased". Great. Run the
 installer. "Registration limit reached". Go to the website. "Registration limit reached". Email support back to report they didn't change the limit. "Stop emailing us. This ticket is closed". It was then I realized what a scam the whole thing was. 

Allen says a normal person has maybe two installs. So they set the limit to five. They push a new release every year which means a new licence. XE2 is out now. Of course they won't actually give me any more XE licences, they gave me an XE2 licence under the SA and if I want XE3 I'll have to buy it new. Fat chance of that. I can't use XE2 because most of my components from supposed EMBT partners don't have XE2 versions. 

Fortunately I have a spare licence from a special they ran a long time ago, buy C++, get a free Delphi XE. I thought that would give me access to the older versions of Delphi,but it didn't, only the older C++ versions. I was a bit disappointed, but I could understand their reasoning, so I bought XE Studio. Then when I ran into the wall, I was able to use that free XE licence to keep going when my request for an increase was not granted. You can't even check what your usage is on the website, the whole thi
ng is broken. You click a link and it just drops you at the EDN support page.

As for pursuing it with support, what's the point ? I can see exactly how it will go "You didn't increase the limit" "Yes, it has been increased" "No, it still says limit reached" "Stop emailing us, this ticket is closed".

I've learned the lesson.
0
Jeff
9/29/2011 2:29:30 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> As for pursuing it with support, what's the point ? I can see exactly
> how it will go "You didn't increase the limit" "Yes, it has been
> increased" "No, it still says limit reached" "Stop emailing us, this
> ticket is closed".

Right, as I said, that is outrageous.  If that is what happened, then
that is outrageous.

In case you missed it, I'm on your side here.  I just find it really
hard to believe that it happened.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 3:03:53 PM
>Then when I ran into the wall, I was able to use that free XE licence to keep going when my request for an 
>increase was not granted.
This makes no sense. 2 Delphi XE licenses should a allow a double number of installations. Assuming you have 5 installs and you have a second a hot copy for exceptional cases (which usually happens on Friday evening) you must be in the position to register.  You cannot use ... is not fulfilling a contract. A similar case happened to a man on linkedin with two All Access - he was in a problem and registration service did not work. One of those who defended Delphi for a long time there (independent consulta
nt) in several discussions had only troubles. A somewhat curious answer from anther one - 'Yes, we talked to EMB one hour and from this call we now have a better understanding about their requirements' - yes ... theirs but not ours.

Same problem exists in other places maybe with .net components. The registration and temporarily installing at the customers site - maybe for the time of a launch for hottest fixes on the customers well defined standard PC is not considered ... there are many such problems with licensing.

> Allen says a normal person has maybe two installs
 No one from EMB should tell anyone until they have their processes up and running smooth, 'What's normal'. So they should never tell anyone. There is nothing normal in this company, so they should not expect 'normal' from their customers - at least I have this impression. Birds of the same feather flock together, they should be happy that we are this insane to buy there. Anyone else would not stay.

> As for pursuing it with support, what's the point ? I can see exactly how it will go "You didn't increase the 
>limit" "Yes, it has been increased" "No, it still says limit reached" "Stop emailing us, this ticket is closed".
This is nothing for support in a first place. A matter for the licensing department - I think key@emabarcadero.com should be the appropriate choice. At least in the area of DB tools you have to fill in a form.and you can register, I have to do this because E/R Studio is bound to a specific hardware. Worked perfect until today.

Sry for the Edit.

Mike

Edited by: Michael Thuma on Sep 29, 2011 9:56 AM
0
Michael
9/29/2011 4:57:19 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Marius . wrote:}{quote}
> > least 3 install's already). And no suprise i had to increase the
> > limit last year which was absolutely no problem btw...
> 
> Lucky you. I've run into the reg limit (six I believe it was for XE)
> and an increase has not been granted. At least I have some installs
> left for D2007.

To whom did you speak? I can check on this.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 5:07:53 PM
Dmitry Arefiev wrote:

> Hello Tim
> 
> Does Update 1 break binary compatibility with RTM build ?

No.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 5:08:32 PM
Am 28.09.2011 21:50, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Markus Humm wrote:
> 
>> You're down one registration.
> 
> Registrations are not Fabrege eggs.   
> 

No but the need to bump is a bit awkward when the deinstaller could
provide the option to unregister as well. The user knows his own
situation, not EMBT! ;-)

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/29/2011 5:34:55 PM
On 9/29/2011 7:42 AM, Mike Reublin wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 7:30 AM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>> On 9/28/2011 7:43 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>>> Mike Reublin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/28/2011 5:52 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2011 12:13 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/28/2011 9:47 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since then, I've posted that it didn't reactivate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Happy to see you correct that incorrect assertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't reactivate, or didn't NEED to re-activate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>>
>>>> The web installer doesn't install for me. I got to the part where it
>>>> was unpacking the zips, it hits the 100% mark and pops the dialog
>>>> that it failed, offering the choices of retrying, or re-downloading.
>>>> I tried each option 4 times with the same results, and finally
>>>> cancelled. The zips were in a fresh empty directory.
>>>>
>>>> It never announced it was doing an uninstall, but maybe that's later
>>>> in the process.
>>>>
>>>> The web installer worked flawlessly the first time.
>>>>
>>>> The iso download has an hour and a half left to finish downloading.
>>>
>>> Make, doubly, triply sure that you didn't place the setup.exe into the
>>> same folder that contains the downloaded web-bits... You must place it
>>> into a new, empty folder. You must also not tell it to save the
>>> downloaded bits to the same folder as the last install.
>>>
>> Operator error. I had downloaded with Safari on the Mac after being warned that IE9
>> had a problem with big downloads. I'm not used to the Mac/Win marriage yet, and now I
>> can't even find the directory where I told it to put the zips. I'm installing from
>> the iso.
>>
>> It had gotten really sleepy in here, and I am a senior......<vbg>
>
> Now the iso is giving me a fit. "The installer has insufficient privileges to access
> this directory: C:\Program Files(x86)\Embarcadero\Rad Studio\9.0\InstallAware....."
>
> I'm running it from a DVD on Win7 Pro installed under Parallels on a MacBook Pro. I'm
> running it "As Administrator". XE2 was installed here before.

Sorry to be the bearer of *GOOD* news, but here it is.

After fighting with the InstallAware folder for a while, I re-booted Win7. The folder 
was gone. Ite iso installed painlessly. Good news? Yes, but not *GOOD* news.

All my third party components are still there.

Now it's *GOOD* news. Kudos, EMB.
0
Mike
9/29/2011 5:51:01 PM
On 9/29/2011 5:43 AM, Ian Trackman wrote:
> Whilst I was happy to go away and let my computer download the whole of XE2, Help and associated files, I couldn't help wondering why it wasn't possible just to restrict the download to updated items.
>
> Also, if EMB decides that we *have* to do an uninstall and reinstall for future updates, it would be good to preserve the state of installed third-party components instead of having to re-install them over again.

I didn't have to re-install mine, they wee preserved.
0
Mike
9/29/2011 5:53:46 PM
I don't have XE2 (yet), but I think Allen's defence is at least conceptually wrong.

He should not, IMO, establish the limit on simple average of re-registrations, but rather look at it as what I call 'aisle/corridor problem'.

I.e., in architecture, you don't simply take the average of the width of people/vehicles that are expected to use that aisle/corridor; you do, instead, make sure that you cater for at least 90 percent of that statistical population.

So, if the max number of *legitimate* re-registrations has been, say, ten --to date--; then, the number for non-manual re-registrations should be around nine.
0
Adem
9/29/2011 7:23:59 PM
> {quote:title=Jeff Williams wrote:}{quote}
> So I open a ticket. I get a response saying "limit increased". Great. Run the installer. "Registration limit reached". Go to the website. "Registration limit reached". Email support back to report they didn't change the limit. "Stop emailing us. This ticket is closed". It was then I realized what a scam the whole thing was. 

I would love to see the actual text of this exchange.  I suspect that you are exaggerating, but if you aren't, then someone should be fired.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/29/2011 7:29:56 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> I don't have XE2 (yet), but I think Allen's defence is at least
> conceptually wrong.
> 
> He should not, IMO, establish the limit on simple average of
> re-registrations, but rather look at it as what I call
> 'aisle/corridor problem'.
> 
> I.e., in architecture, you don't simply take the average of the width
> of people/vehicles that are expected to use that aisle/corridor; you
> do, instead, make sure that you cater for at least 90 percent of that
> statistical population.
> 
> So, if the max number of legitimate re-registrations has been, say,
> ten --to date--; then, the number for non-manual re-registrations
> should be around nine.

By this logic we are *well* over the "limit"... I've already stated
that the number of registrations per license/product is a little more
than 1 and much less than 2. Also we're catering to well over 98%, when
you look at the number of users that exceed the limit vs. the number
that don't.

So exactly what is "conceptually wrong?"

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 8:25:10 PM
On 9/29/2011 1:25 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:

> So exactly what is "conceptually wrong?"
>

The fact that those remaining 2% have paid for a product and expect it 
to work without additional problems caused by activation?

Would you find it acceptable if an automobile manufacturer stated that 
their brakes work fine for 98% of their customers?

The fact that none of this is outlined UP FRONT for purchasers of the 
product, nor are any restrictions outlined, nor is there any fallback 
announced?  The fact that when Nick asked to be able to publish how 
businesses could handle this as a 'due diligence' issue a couple of 
years back he was shot down?

Do you REALLY need more?  I'll be happy to supply additional examples, 
since it is clear that you're not getting it...

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/29/2011 8:44:04 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Adem Meda wrote:
> 
> > I don't have XE2 (yet), but I think Allen's defence is at least
> > conceptually wrong.
> > 
> > He should not, IMO, establish the limit on simple average of
> > re-registrations, but rather look at it as what I call
> > 'aisle/corridor problem'.
> > 
> > I.e., in architecture, you don't simply take the average of the width
> > of people/vehicles that are expected to use that aisle/corridor; you
> > do, instead, make sure that you cater for at least 90 percent of that
> > statistical population.
> > 
> > So, if the max number of legitimate re-registrations has been, say,
> > ten --to date--; then, the number for non-manual re-registrations
> > should be around nine.
> 
> By this logic we are *well* over the "limit"... I've already stated
> that the number of registrations per license/product is a little more
> than 1 and much less than 2. Also we're catering to well over 98%, when
> you look at the number of users that exceed the limit vs. the number
> that don't.
> 
> So exactly what is "conceptually wrong?"
> 

If you ask me the whole activation system is wrong. The way it worked for Delphi 7
was acceptable for me. Now it makes me extremely nervous. I didn't have any
activation problems so far, but I am terrified with the prospect that I may have 
a problem and that it may happen at the worst time for me. 

Now I have two XE2 copies installed, one on my main computer and one on the backup 
computer. I am planning to install another on my laptop and one in Parallels. Instead of
installing them and be done with it, I am reluctant to do so because I may get a new laptop
in next few months. So instead of working and not thinking about trivial things, I am 
wasting time trying to save my activation counts.

I know that from your side it looks like there should be no problems, but the problem
on the customer side is that we don't know how it works and will we be able to activate
or don't for any reason.

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/29/2011 8:47:16 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 29/09/2011 10:38 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > You've not commented on whether or not you waited until the end of
> > the grace period to try and activate the software. If you did, that
> > still doesn't mean there is no grace period. The "grace period" to
> > which I refer is the time the product is allowed to run between the
> > point of install and activation. That is typically anywhere from
> > 15-30 days...
> 
> DelphiPHP - was bricked within days of purchase

After you attempted activation?

> Delphi2010 - was bricked whilst active (i.e. just sitting there) in
> one licence, and on reinstall in the other on the same day.

Once activated, the product does no further communication with the
servers. What kind of virus scanner, if any, are you using? We've seen
some "security suites" that are downright invasive to other
legitimately licensed software.
 
> > I'd really like to get some reproducable steps. If what you're
> > saying is true, it is something we should look at.
> 
> I can't afford to create that large a sample size... it's $4000 a pop 
> you now.

I'm not asking you to shell out more $ for new licenses just to help us
reproduce this. I was merely asking if you'd be willing to work with
support to maybe narrow down the causes. Only your time would be
expended. Do you install any third-party or personal components? If so,
maybe there is some interaction with them.
 
> > Again, I'd really like to get some steps to reproduce this. This is
> > something we should certainly look at and address. It could be a
> > client side issue or a server issue.
> 
> I can't imagine two separate licences of Delphi 2010 both being
> bricked on the same day as a client side issue (two separate physical
> locations).

As I said above, the only time I can imagine all your activations being
used up and leading to "bricking" as you say, is during the activation
process. Once the product is successfully activated, the license is now
on your machine and no further communication with our servers is
requires. Also, the local client should not be just unilaterally
invalidating an existing valid license, aside from the possibility of
external corrupting influences.
 
> However - the point isn't about trying to have a 100% perfect system, 
> that can never happen. The problem is ensuring a way out.
> 
> When DelphiPHP got bricked within days of purchase (used up all my 
> count) - I asked to have the counter reset. Their answer was no - but 
> they could increment it by one. I returned the product for a refund.

I'm sorry to hear that...
 
> I don't have that luxury with Delphi, I make my living off Delphi. 
> Someone else suggested that either registrations time out (i.e. 
> increment by 1, after 6 months automatically get another), or have a 
> reset button I can press at most once every 6 months.
> 
> Or have a 24/7 line for resolution, or make it so that I can use the 
> software without activation after an error occurs (in reality - not
> just theory).
> 
> There are so many options - you could have 3 or 4 of them available
> at once.

We do have several activation methodologies where if the built-in
network communication is the problem, you can use the web-based
activation system where we will email you a license activation file.
You can even save that file in a safe place (it *is* locked to your
specific machine instance).

Something else, do you regularly change the host-name of your machine?
That is one factor in how we determine the machine lock. Do you swap
out network cards?

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 8:49:47 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> On 9/29/2011 1:25 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > So exactly what is "conceptually wrong?"
> > 
> 
> The fact that those remaining 2% have paid for a product and expect
> it to work without additional problems caused by activation?
> 
> Would you find it acceptable if an automobile manufacturer stated
> that their brakes work fine for 98% of their customers?
> 
> The fact that none of this is outlined UP FRONT for purchasers of the 
> product, nor are any restrictions outlined, nor is there any fallback 
> announced?  The fact that when Nick asked to be able to publish how 
> businesses could handle this as a 'due diligence' issue a couple of 
> years back he was shot down?
> 
> Do you REALLY need more?  I'll be happy to supply additional
> examples, since it is clear that you're not getting it...
> 
> David Erbas-White

So you quoted only my question and started discussing a different topic
:-/? What about the rest of my message? I was talking about the notion
that we don't provide enough activations, not that some may experience
an issue during the activation process... Furthermore, the 2% number
isn't even a reference to those that have problems. I also stated that
it is "well over" 98% who find the total number of activations more
than enough for their purpose.

What you're talking about is a totally different aspect of what I was
discussing in this sub-thread.

As for "not getting it", trust me I do. I understand that some may
experience problems during the activation process. I also understand
that some find the current limits onerous and overbearing. Finally,
there is the fear that some have that they will be unable to activate
the product should the company's activation servers disappear, for
whatever reason. I get all of that... and it has been discussed here at
length.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 9:29:23 PM
On 9/29/2011 2:29 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> As for "not getting it", trust me I do. I understand that some may
> experience problems during the activation process. I also understand
> that some find the current limits onerous and overbearing. Finally,
> there is the fear that some have that they will be unable to activate
> the product should the company's activation servers disappear, for
> whatever reason. I get all of that... and it has been discussed here at
> length.
>

Yes, it has been discussed at length.

With no resolution...

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/29/2011 9:38:15 PM
On 9/29/2011 5:43 AM, Ian Trackman wrote:
> Whilst I was happy to go away and let my computer download the whole of XE2, Help and associated files, I couldn't help wondering why it wasn't possible just to restrict the download to updated items.
>
> Also, if EMB decides that we *have* to do an uninstall and reinstall for future updates, it would be good to preserve the state of installed third-party components instead of having to re-install them over again.

I didn't have to re-install mine, they were preserved.
0
Mike
9/29/2011 9:53:50 PM
On 28.09.2011 23:20, Marius . wrote:

> Thats amazingly low actually. Other then laptop + workcomputer I
> install delphi to test specific situations in vmware sessions (so at
> least 3 install's already). And no suprise i had to increase the limit
> last year which was absolutely no problem btw...


maybe most buyers buy it as a nice to have available, install it, 
register it and forget about having it on the computer.
0
Alf
9/29/2011 9:54:23 PM
On 29.09.2011 00:02, Allen Bauer wrote:
> Marius . wrote:
>
>> Thats amazingly low actually. Other then laptop + workcomputer I
>> install delphi to test specific situations in vmware sessions (so at
>> least 3 install's already). And no suprise i had to increase the limit
>> last year which was absolutely no problem btw...
>
> Ironically, if all you did was read this forum, one could easily get
> the impression that all our customers uninstall/reinstall at least once
> a month... When in fact, our data shows the complete opposite.
>
> This was also one reason we disabled the self-service registration bump
> functionality. Only a few customers availed themselves of the service,
> and of those we found significant levels of abuse.
>
> Yes, it totally *sucks* that the few ruin things for the many...
> Especially since I personally pushed hard for a self-service
> registration bump service. I was disheartened (though, honestly, not
> surprised) when we analyzed the data and this is what we found.
>

i find it amazing how stable the hard disks must be who use Delphi. Has 
it some intrinsic stabilizing codes that makes disks more reliable.

Otherwise the count should have been higher. Unless the explanation is 
majority don't use the program.

:-(
0
Alf
9/29/2011 9:57:18 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> With no resolution...

....that you like.

"Resolution" <> "What David wants"

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/29/2011 10:13:27 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> By this logic we are well over the "limit"... I've already stated that the number of registrations per license/product is a little more than 1 and much less than 2. 

It might be me having a comprehension problem here (has been known to happen), but --for some reason-- this doesn't seem to tally with what other people are claiming; i.e. quite a few more than 2.

Or did you miss the part where I said "max number of legitimate re-registrations"?

> Also we're catering to well over 98%, when you look at the number of users that exceed the limit vs. the number that don't.

As David hinted above, a limit that might make life harder/unbearable even for one single legitimate customer is wrong.

> So exactly what is "conceptually wrong?"

I do sympathize that you need to protect your revenue stream (for which you employ the euphemism and call it your IP), but you need to find a better way, IMO, than to treat your customers as potential/active shoplifters.

There's more --now that I seem to have got your ear:

Without of mincing words trying to remain politically correct, to be completely and brutally honest with you, before I do purchase XE2, I will keep an eye out for a working and cracked version of XE2.

The reason is simple, just as you are determined to protect your IP, so am I: In case of EMB goes under, gets bought out by some other entity that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance that I will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so that the source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.

And, other than a working cracked version, I don't see an assurance that would comfort me for the middle/long run --excessively restrictive limit on the registrations just adds to that discomfort.

This is the most brutal yet, at the same time, most sincere reality on this side of the screen..
0
Adem
9/29/2011 10:16:55 PM
>
>So exactly what is "conceptually wrong?"

Numbers are funny things, the calculated average is just a number and
it certainly doesn't say much about individuals.

Anywhay, bottomline is that most developers expect their product(s) to
work every time. If they want to install and uninstall it what ever
times times over a couple of years then that should not be hindered by
some embarcadero server on the other end of the world.

If you want the software to be "secure" and "acceptable" for customers
then just block any licence who are proven to be misused or stolen
(like most compagnies do), give them the benefit of the doubt, because
right now things are kind of upside down (its also costing the customer
time and money to bump the current limit and that is totaly wrong).

enough said,..
0
Marius
9/29/2011 10:29:35 PM
On 9/29/2011 3:13 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> With no resolution...
>
> ...that you like.
>
> "Resolution"<>  "What David wants"
>

I feel confident that I'm not alone.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/29/2011 10:36:26 PM
> > By this logic we are well over the "limit"... I've already stated that the number
>> of registrations per license/product is a little more than 1 and much less than 2. 
> 
> It might be me having a comprehension problem here (has been known to happen),
> but --for some reason-- this doesn't seem to tally with what other people are
> claiming; i.e. quite a few more than 2.

He's speaking of the average over the whole customer base. This is of course compatible with individuals posting here who require (and in fact, have achieved) many more than 2.

> AI don't see an assurance that would comfort me for the middle/long run
> --excessively restrictive limit on the registrations just adds to that discomfort.

But that is his point, or part of it: if the average number of activations overall is 'significantly' less than 2 per licencee, then the limit as it stands isn't 'excessively restrictive'. Well, unless you wish to argue for an non-empirical notion of 'excessive' (maybe you do).
0
Chris
9/29/2011 10:43:28 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > By this logic we are well over the "limit"... I've already stated
> > that the number of registrations per license/product is a little
> > more than 1 and much less than 2.
> 
> It might be me having a comprehension problem here (has been known to
> happen), but --for some reason-- this doesn't seem to tally with what
> other people are claiming; i.e. quite a few more than 2.

Ok, let me restate what I meant here. Our registration database *know*
what licenses were registered and how many times for each one. This is
actual registrations, not the number of licenses sold. Of those
registrations, the *average* number of registrations per license, is
only a little above one and significantly below 2. However, we allow
*without any further interaction with EMBT*, I think about 5-6
registrations per license.

Like all statistics, there are of course, the outliers. There are those
that, for whatever reason, burn through their initial allotment and
have to contact EMBT support/customer service to request a bump.
 
> Or did you miss the part where I said "max number of legitimate
> re-registrations"?
> 
> > Also we're catering to well over 98%, when you look at the number
> > of users that exceed the limit vs. the number that don't.
> 
> As David hinted above, a limit that might make life harder/unbearable
> even for one single legitimate customer is wrong.

Or course. We *do* strive to accomodate every reasonable request and
customer scenario. We also know that there are real limits to actually
achieving 100%. I know that when you're in that small group that is
hampered by the limits, to you it might as well be 0%... I get that,
totally. I'm not trying to minimize or dismiss anything.
 
> > So exactly what is "conceptually wrong?"
> 
> I do sympathize that you need to protect your revenue stream (for
> which you employ the euphemism and call it your IP), but you need to
> find a better way, IMO, than to treat your customers as
> potential/active shoplifters.

Why is our Intellectual Property a "euphamism?" Do you not respect the
fact that we've put in several man-lifetimes of effort into producing
and maintaining the product?

As for feeling like we're treating people like potential/active
shoplifters, I can respect and understand that opinion. However, maybe
if you look at it from another perspective, by protecting our IP, we're
taking active steps to ensure that we can continue to remain a viable,
profitable company in order to *better* serve our legitimate customers
now and in the future. IOW, us remaining viable is good not only for
*us* but for *you* as well.
 
> There's more --now that I seem to have got your ear:
> 
> Without of mincing words trying to remain politically correct, to be
> completely and brutally honest with you, before I do purchase XE2, I
> will keep an eye out for a working and cracked version of XE2.
>
> The reason is simple, just as you are determined to protect your IP,
> so am I: In case of EMB goes under, gets bought out by some other
> entity that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance
> that I will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so
> that the source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.

So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
proper compensation for the company producing it? You see, that is *my*
paycheck you're playing fast and lose with, not some faceless
mega-corporation (not that it is any more justified there either). It
seems that you are saying that "I don't agree with your licensing
scheme, so I'm going to unilaterally decide to use a cracked version."
How can that even begin to make sense?
 
> And, other than a working cracked version, I don't see an assurance
> that would comfort me for the middle/long run --excessively
> restrictive limit on the registrations just adds to that discomfort.

Again, you're unilaterally deciding that it is your "right" to do this,
when in fact that is plainly wrong.
 
> This is the most brutal yet, at the same time, most sincere reality
> on this side of the screen..

I see. This follows the same fear, uncertainty, and doubt that has
swirled around Delphi since before it's release... It's dying and going
away... Nevermind that we've actually been growing ever since being
acquired by Embarcadero...

Given that there should be a restriction to the number of registrations
in order to not facilitate abuse, what should this number be? 10, 100,
1million? IMO, *our* hard data says that the current limit is
sufficient along with an "escape valve" by allowing manual increases on
request. How is this not reasonable?

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 10:46:46 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
> proper compensation for the company producing it? 

I don't read his post that way at all. When there is an alternative, then he can feel safe purchasing your product because if at some future date he is unable to use said purchased product either because EMBT is gone OR his licence is bricked due to the registration count limit, his paycheck won't go down the drain thanks to that alternative.
0
Jeff
9/29/2011 10:55:58 PM
Alf Christophersen wrote:

> On 28.09.2011 23:20, Marius . wrote:
> 
> > Thats amazingly low actually. Other then laptop + workcomputer I
> > install delphi to test specific situations in vmware sessions (so at
> > least 3 install's already). And no suprise i had to increase the
> > limit last year which was absolutely no problem btw...
> 
> 
> maybe most buyers buy it as a nice to have available, install it, 
> register it and forget about having it on the computer.

That's a pretty cynical view, don't you think?

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 11:05:47 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
> > proper compensation for the company producing it? 
> 
> I don't read his post that way at all. When there is an alternative,
> then he can feel safe purchasing your product because if at some
> future date he is unable to use said purchased product either because
> EMBT is gone OR his licence is bricked due to the registration count
> limit, his paycheck won't go down the drain thanks to that
> alternative.

What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? Do people do this
for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/29/2011 11:07:37 PM
Hello,

Alf Christophersen wrote:

> maybe most buyers buy it as a nice to have available, install it, 
> register it and forget about having it on the computer.

I wish I had customers like that.

-- 
Hey, it compiles! Ship it!
0
Moritz
9/29/2011 11:12:34 PM
On 2011-09-29 18:16:55 -0400, Adem Meda <adem.meda@gmail.com> said:

> The reason is simple, just as you are determined to protect your IP, so 
> am I: In case of EMB goes under, gets bought out by some other entity 
> that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance that I 
> will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so that the 
> source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.

BS.  The reason you've given is nothing but a self-serving attempt to 
justify piracy/theft.

I could only ever seeing being in possession of a pirated copy (which I 
am not) if I also owned a legally purchased copy that became unusable 
because of some dramatic change at EMBT that made obtaining an 
activation impossible. e.g. The company going out of business and 
shutting down all avenues of activation.  While this scenario is 
certainly possible, it does not seem very probable.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/29/2011 11:12:53 PM
On 9/29/2011 6:12 PM, Kevin Powick wrote:
> On 2011-09-29 18:16:55 -0400, Adem Meda<adem.meda@gmail.com>  said:
>
>> The reason is simple, just as you are determined to protect your IP, so
>> am I: In case of EMB goes under, gets bought out by some other entity
>> that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance that I
>> will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so that the
>> source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.
>
> BS.  The reason you've given is nothing but a self-serving attempt to
> justify piracy/theft.
>

He's not talking about stealing the product - he's talking about buying 
a legal version, but having a cracked backup available in case there is 
a problem with Embarcadero down the road.

And don't give me the crap that Embarcadero aren't going anywhere any 
time soon. In this economy, nobody knows that - there have been much 
larger companies that have unexpectedly gone out of business.  If you 
really know this for certain, I'd say give up your programming job, and 
spend your days investing on the stock market.
0
Dave
9/29/2011 11:23:41 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
> proper compensation for the company producing it? You see, that is *my*
> paycheck you're playing fast and lose with...

Allen, I wonder if you might have misunderstood Adem there (though I'm 
sure he will speak for himself).

Like Adem I, also, have been tempted to get hold of a cracked version 
to keep, *alongside* my legally licensed version.

Let me repeat this: I am emphatically NOT trying to swindle Embo out of 
any money.  I've already bought the product.  It's just that I find it 
really hard to live with the idea that this really important tool that 
cost me plenty of money might one day be rendered useless and worthless 
for any number of reasons: Embo *might* decide to harden their policy 
on bumps; Embo *might* introduce a policy of disallowing activation of 
older versions; Embo *might* be bought out and asset stripped, and the 
activation servers switched off; Embo *might* make a mistake and mess 
up the activation system.

Thus I feel the need to have a fall-back option, which means I'm forced 
to go over the the dark side and keep a cracked copy somewhere safe.

As it happens, I haven't done this for Delphi because it isn't a 
business-critical product for me.  But I can absolutely empathise with 
people who feel insecure due to the current activation system.

-- 
SteveT
0
Steve
9/29/2011 11:42:43 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> Adem Meda wrote:

> Of those registrations, the average number of registrations per license, is only a little above one and significantly below 2. 

Perhaps, for some reason, you don't wish to tell us what it is; but I was specifically referring to max legit regs (not average).

As I have been, unsuccessfully, trying to explain, averages don't mean much in this case.

You just cannot build a fire escape corridor for average-sized people to pass. 

You have to accomodate the largest (well, 95% should do). 

If not, your design is wrong --and, in some jurisdictions you're liable in the case of injury or loss of life.

Same here (except, obviously, the liability thing).

> Or course. We do strive to accomodate every reasonable request and
> customer scenario. We also know that there are real limits to actually
> achieving 100%. I know that when you're in that small group that is
> hampered by the limits, to you it might as well be 0%... I get that,
> totally. I'm not trying to minimize or dismiss anything.

And, I get that you yourself may not be the sole person who decides these things and giving you hard time may be unfair.

> Why is our Intellectual Property a "euphamism?" Do you not respect the
> fact that we've put in several man-lifetimes of effort into producing
> and maintaining the product?

It is an euphemism (sorry, for the prev spelling, btw) because putting a limit on the number of registrations (for legit users) is simply a means to force that person to purchase a new license, nothing more.

That has nothing to do your IP --after all, s/he isn't going to (can't, anyway) integrate XE2 in any his/her product --unless, of course, you claim royalties on binaries compiled with XE2.

> As for feeling like we're treating people like potential/active
> shoplifters, I can respect and understand that opinion. However, maybe
> if you look at it from another perspective, by protecting our IP, we're
> taking active steps to ensure that we can continue to remain a viable,
> profitable company in order to better serve our legitimate customers
> now and in the future. IOW, us remaining viable is good not only for
> us but for you as well.

I can see the kind of catch-22 here, I really and sincerely do. 

It is a tricky situation.

It's also a prisoner's dilemma --in a way-- that even if I (or several others) paid up in full everytime EMB brought out a new version, there's still no guarantee that EMB will remain a viable concern for years to come.

Furher, I know it is pointless to discuss these things with professionals.

And here is why.

A few years ago, I was in Germany, negotiating for some machinery that cost several M$. As truth as well as a bargaining chip, I remarked that a similar set of machines producing much the same stuff cost half the price in Korea and added that, if they kept insisting on such high prices they might go out of business soon. Here is what the technical manager snapped back with: "It's OK; I'll be retiring in 2 years" :)

> So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
> proper compensation for the company producing it? You see, that is my
> paycheck you're playing fast and lose with, not some faceless
> mega-corporation (not that it is any more justified there either). It
> seems that you are saying that "I don't agree with your licensing
> scheme, so I'm going to unilaterally decide to use a cracked version."
> How can that even begin to make sense?

That is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is this: 

If, for some reason, EMB (or whoever/whatever) fails to honor its duty against a tool that I have paid in full --not rented--, in a way that can damage me severely (not being able to use that tool is just that), I will be in a position to rightly construe that all bets are off; and everyone is for himself. 

Cracked working version is just that assurance.

It has nothing to do with your (or anyone else's in your current corporation) paycheck --after all, the moment I purchase and pay for the product I will have made my contribution towards that.

> > And, other than a working cracked version, I don't see an assurance
> > that would comfort me for the middle/long run --excessively
> > restrictive limit on the registrations just adds to that discomfort.
> 
> Again, you're unilaterally deciding that it is your "right" to do this,
> when in fact that is plainly wrong.

Nope. Read above. 

You cannot --no one can-- expect me (or anyone else) to be bound unilaterally to stop life just because the seller vanished or is reluctant to honor his/her duties.

> > This is the most brutal yet, at the same time, most sincere reality
> > on this side of the screen..
> 
> I see. This follows the same fear, uncertainty, and doubt that has
> swirled around Delphi since before it's release... It's dying and going
> away... Nevermind that we've actually been growing ever since being
> acquired by Embarcadero...

Allen, I think you're making this into something I didn't say, or even imply. I didn't say you guys are likely to go under. 

Let me give you a couple of examples [we are in manufacturing]:

1) We have a high speed machine (>100,000 rpms) with a controller running under DOS --yeah, the vendor, while producing great machinery, wasn't very up-to-date with OSes. While we did have the license, even though we do have the invoice for the machine, not only have lost the license paperwork, we have also long lost the floppies. Would you expect me/us to scrap it just because MS discontinued MS DOS? [We can always get a copy of the controller software from the vendor, but they cannot sell us copies of M
S DOS anymore.]

2) We have wire-EDM machine running on OS/2 with custom software running on it. Same story about the original floppies, and licensing paperwork... And, all of a sudden its HDD crashes. What do you expect us to do?..

So.. I hope you'll agree that nothing/noone is immortal.

While I have no guarantee that I will outlive you or EMB, I am sure you'll agree that it is not unreasonable of me to consider the unfortunate case that I do outlive the product.

What then?

> Given that there should be a restriction to the number of registrations
> in order to not facilitate abuse, what should this number be? 10, 100,
> 1million? IMO, our hard data says that the current limit is
> sufficient along with an "escape valve" by allowing manual increases on
> request. How is this not reasonable?

First, as far as I am concerned, there should be time limit to that registration business. After, say, 5 years, the software should stop dictating re-registration.

Second, if you're going to insist on re-registration, you should state that when the product is discontinued (or stopped being actively supported), so will the need for re-registration be.

IOW, it should be a double-edged sword; not one-sided, as it is now.
0
Adem
9/29/2011 11:46:55 PM
Kevin Powick wrote:

> While this scenario is 
> certainly possible, it does not seem very probable.

Well, look....... the company infrastructure around the Delphi product 
hasn't been particularly stable.  Borland blew hot and cold over it, 
messed about with Inprise and then CodeGear, and now it's gone over to 
Embarcadero.

It really isn't that difficult to imagine a scenario where some future 
CEO decides to refocus their product portfolio, and that's the end of 
Delphi.  Look around the IT world - it happens a heck of a lot.

Honestly, the probability is pretty low, but by no means vanishingly 
small.



-- 
SteveT
0
Steve
9/29/2011 11:48:22 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> 
> What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? Do people do this
> for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?
> 
> -- 
> Allen Bauer
> Embarcadero Chief Scientist
> http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
> http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd

I don't know. It's not just that EMBT might disappear. Any time someone has to reinstall Delphi, they are faced with the possibility that when they go to activate their paid for product, it could be refused. It -probably- won't, -maybe- you can get a bump, but the risk that you will be denied access to it is not insignificant.

Frankly, I interpret your statement that the average re-activation rate is less than two to mean that the average purchaser installs the product once, is turned off by what he discovers in using the product and moves on to something else.
0
Jeff
9/29/2011 11:54:53 PM
In article <406670@forums.embarcadero.com>, Allen Bauer wrote:
[AM]
> > The reason is simple, just as you are determined to protect your IP,
> > so am I: In case of EMB goes under, gets bought out by some other
> > entity that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance
> > that I will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so
> > that the source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.
> 
> So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
> proper compensation for the company producing it? You see, that is *my*
> paycheck you're playing fast and lose with, not some faceless
> mega-corporation (not that it is any more justified there either).

I don't read what he's saying as intent to piracy. He, like me, has paid 
for Delphi and there is a real (perhaps tiny) risk that at some point the 
ability to activate a fresh installation of properly licensed software 
won't be there. 

I don't think it would ever happen in the case of Delphi, but when I sold 
the rights to one of my programs, they were bought by a competitor who 
immediately removed said programs from the market. It didn't use online 
activation, but if it had done there might have been issues.


-- 
Tony Bryer, Greentram Software Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
'Software to build on'  http://www.greentram.com
0
Tony
9/29/2011 11:55:41 PM
In article <406681@forums.embarcadero.com>, Allen Bauer wrote:
> What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? Do people do this
> for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?

Go back to the 1990s and the idea that Borland would not be around would 
have seems fanciful.

The difference with Delphi (and other development tools) is that the cost 
of the software is nothing compared with the investment in developing the 
code to run on said platform. Most software on my computer is readily 
replaceable - it might take a day or two to transfer accounts or 
documents to a new program. Rebuilding my code base on a non-Delphi 
platform would require a significant number of man-months. 

Of course, if there was no EMBT, no legal way of activating a new Delphi 
install and I needed to change PCs I would have to look for a hack. But 
if I was a quoted company that would probably not be an option.

It's a bit like having a furniture factory on a one in a hundred years 
flood risk site. The chances are it will never happen. But if it does, 
you're in trouble.

-- 
Tony Bryer, Greentram Software Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
'Software to build on'  http://www.greentram.com
0
Tony
9/29/2011 11:55:42 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> gets bought out by some other
> entity that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance
> that I will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so
> that the source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.

In the case of a buy-out, the need to continue operating the servers is
a *liability* that the new entity would be obligated to maintain. When
you purchase a company, you purchase the assets *and* liabilities.

Specifically, when EMBT bought CodeGear from Borland, the licensing
technology went with it. However many remaining Borland products
continued to use this technology, so EMBT was obligated to continue
(and does to this day) supporting those products until new versions
could be released that don't use our licensing tech. We are also "on
the hook" to support the existing products in the field (already at
customers' sites) for their lifetime. Some products it was only a few
more years until they are de-supported, and for others it was
significantly longer. We have servers up and running for the sole
purpose of ensuring that some old version of StarTeam or VisiBroker can
be properly activated. That costs us some real $ in terms of co-lo rack
space, electricity, backups, maintenance, etc...

If there was any other change in EMBT ownership, this Borland (now
MicroFocus) liability would remain. There is also very little chance
that we'd simply up and decide one day to send everyone home, shut
everything down, and simply "go dark." There is simply way too much at
stake here.

Yes, the pedantics among you will point out that it is still
*possible*, however miniscule... Then again, I could be hit by a
meteor, choke on a peice of broccoli... etc... While EMBT is certainly
not the same class as "too big to fail," we're not some fly-by-night
seat-of-the-pants operation either... although, some seat-of-the-pants
tactics are needed in some cases ;-)..

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 12:01:57 AM
> > Why is our Intellectual Property a "euphamism?" Do you not respect the
> > fact that we've put in several man-lifetimes of effort into producing
> > and maintaining the product?
> 
> It is an euphemism (sorry, for the prev spelling, btw) because putting a limit
> on the number of registrations (for legit users) is simply a means to force
> that person to purchase a new license, nothing more.

Where has this been conceded? The individuals who have reported severe problems in this thread have had the response that those issues should be sortable, or the system isn't working. No one has said 'well you need to buy another licence in that case'.

> It's also a prisoner's dilemma --in a way-- that even if I (or several others)
> paid up in full everytime EMB brought out a new version, there's still no
> guarantee that EMB will remain a viable concern for years to come.

As a complete aside, that is nothing like the 'prisoner's dilemma', in which the best outcome would be for fellow captives to cooperate, yet their mutual isolation means it's more rational for each to betray the other

> Cracked working version is just that assurance.

Why on earth does this need saying?

> It has nothing to do with your (or anyone else's in your current corporation) paycheck
> --after all, the moment I purchase and pay for the product I will have made my contribution towards that.

Because talk of how using cracked versions is sometimes acceptable gives a more general air of legitimacy about the things.

> > Again, you're unilaterally deciding that it is your "right" to do this,
> > when in fact that is plainly wrong.
> 
> Nope. Read above. 

You reasoning is inconsistent. On the one hand, you reject Embarcadero's position on anti-utilitarian grounds (even one unsatisfied customer is unacceptable), yet then appeal to those same grounds for your own stance (using a cracked version is wrong, accept when it isn't given the balance of circumstances).

> Allen, I think you're making this into something I didn't say, or even imply. I didn't say you guys are likely to go under. 

Then why keep going on and on about the possibility?
0
Chris
9/30/2011 12:18:43 AM
Adem Meda wrote:

> Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > Adem Meda wrote:
> 
> > Of those registrations, the average number of registrations per
> > license, is only a little above one and significantly below 2.
> 
> Perhaps, for some reason, you don't wish to tell us what it is; but I
> was specifically referring to max legit regs (not average).

If I remembered actual the number, I'd say. I do remember it being just
a bit over 1 per license... and being *very* surprised...
 
> As I have been, unsuccessfully, trying to explain, averages don't
> mean much in this case.
> 
> You just cannot build a fire escape corridor for average-sized people
> to pass.
> 
> You have to accomodate the largest (well, 95% should do). 

Ok, I think I understand what you're driving at. I, too, can be a
little dense sometimes ;-). I'll have to double check this, but the
number of licenses with > 2 activations drops sharply.. and by the time
you get to 4 activations, the relative numbers are way, way down. I'd
say that allowing, say, 5 *does*, in fact, cater to the 95% case.
 
> Same here (except, obviously, the liability thing).

Yeah, I'd hope so.
 
> > Or course. We do strive to accomodate every reasonable request and
> > customer scenario. We also know that there are real limits to
> > actually achieving 100%. I know that when you're in that small
> > group that is hampered by the limits, to you it might as well be
> > 0%... I get that, totally. I'm not trying to minimize or dismiss
> > anything.
> 
> And, I get that you yourself may not be the sole person who decides
> these things and giving you hard time may be unfair.
> 
> > Why is our Intellectual Property a "euphamism?" Do you not respect
> > the fact that we've put in several man-lifetimes of effort into
> > producing and maintaining the product?
> 
> It is an euphemism (sorry, for the prev spelling, btw) because
> putting a limit on the number of registrations (for legit users) is
> simply a means to force that person to purchase a new license,
> nothing more.

We provide a good-faith resolution process. We don't force you to
purchase a new license. Why do you think that? Because you don't want
to have to contact someone and talk to them or fill out an online
request? I consider that a good-faith solution to the problem.
 
> That has nothing to do your IP --after all, s/he isn't going to
> (can't, anyway) integrate XE2 in any his/her product --unless, of
> course, you claim royalties on binaries compiled with XE2.
> 
> > As for feeling like we're treating people like potential/active
> > shoplifters, I can respect and understand that opinion. However,
> > maybe if you look at it from another perspective, by protecting our
> > IP, we're taking active steps to ensure that we can continue to
> > remain a viable, profitable company in order to better serve our
> > legitimate customers now and in the future. IOW, us remaining
> > viable is good not only for us but for you as well.
> 
> I can see the kind of catch-22 here, I really and sincerely do. 
> 
> It is a tricky situation.
> 
> It's also a prisoner's dilemma --in a way-- that even if I (or
> several others) paid up in full everytime EMB brought out a new
> version, there's still no guarantee that EMB will remain a viable
> concern for years to come.
> 
> Furher, I know it is pointless to discuss these things with
> professionals.
> 
> And here is why.
> 
> A few years ago, I was in Germany, negotiating for some machinery
> that cost several M$. As truth as well as a bargaining chip, I
> remarked that a similar set of machines producing much the same stuff
> cost half the price in Korea and added that, if they kept insisting
> on such high prices they might go out of business soon. Here is what
> the technical manager snapped back with: "It's OK; I'll be retiring
> in 2 years" :)

Oh, geez... Yeah, I'd be a little taken aback at that, too..
 
> > So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
> > proper compensation for the company producing it? You see, that is
> > my paycheck you're playing fast and lose with, not some faceless
> > mega-corporation (not that it is any more justified there either).
> > It seems that you are saying that "I don't agree with your licensing
> > scheme, so I'm going to unilaterally decide to use a cracked
> > version." How can that even begin to make sense?
> 
> That is not what I am saying at all.
> 
> What I am saying is this: 
> 
> If, for some reason, EMB (or whoever/whatever) fails to honor its
> duty against a tool that I have paid in full --not rented--, in a way
> that can damage me severely (not being able to use that tool is just
> that), I will be in a position to rightly construe that all bets are
> off; and everyone is for himself.
> 
> Cracked working version is just that assurance.
> 
> It has nothing to do with your (or anyone else's in your current
> corporation) paycheck --after all, the moment I purchase and pay for
> the product I will have made my contribution towards that.

I appreciate that. However, you can certainly understand my aversion to
advocating the use of a product Crack, regardless of one's intentions.
 
> Allen, I think you're making this into something I didn't say, or
> even imply. I didn't say you guys are likely to go under.
> 
> Let me give you a couple of examples [we are in manufacturing]:
> 
> 1) We have a high speed machine (>100,000 rpms) with a controller
> running under DOS --yeah, the vendor, while producing great
> machinery, wasn't very up-to-date with OSes. While we did have the
> license, even though we do have the invoice for the machine, not only
> have lost the license paperwork, we have also long lost the floppies.
> Would you expect me/us to scrap it just because MS discontinued MS
> DOS? [We can always get a copy of the controller software from the
> vendor, but they cannot sell us copies of M S DOS anymore.]
> 
> 2) We have wire-EDM machine running on OS/2 with custom software
> running on it. Same story about the original floppies, and licensing
> paperwork... And, all of a sudden its HDD crashes. What do you expect
> us to do?..
> 
> So.. I hope you'll agree that nothing/noone is immortal.
> 
> While I have no guarantee that I will outlive you or EMB, I am sure
> you'll agree that it is not unreasonable of me to consider the
> unfortunate case that I do outlive the product.
> 
> What then?

I guess what I'm reacting to is that how is the uncertainly of life
somehow EMBT's responsibility? We cannot conduct business as if we'll
all be out of a job tomorrow. We make long-term plans because we in all
faith, intend to remain competitive and viable for the foreseable
future.

As has been discussed many times over, what could EMBT do to assuage
all these fears? Many suggestions have been made and many have been
pursued internally. IIRC, some of the solutions would have actually
been an ongoing cost to the company, which those making the decisions
likely saw little gain. Also, when looking at the industry in general,
our competitors (large and small), don't address this issue either.

I also know that many companies will negotiate separate deals through
the direct sales force which may contain very different terms.
 
> > Given that there should be a restriction to the number of
> > registrations in order to not facilitate abuse, what should this
> > number be? 10, 100, 1million? IMO, our hard data says that the
> > current limit is sufficient along with an "escape valve" by
> > allowing manual increases on request. How is this not reasonable?
> 
> First, as far as I am concerned, there should be time limit to that
> registration business. After, say, 5 years, the software should stop
> dictating re-registration.
> 
> Second, if you're going to insist on re-registration, you should
> state that when the product is discontinued (or stopped being
> actively supported), so will the need for re-registration be.

What would stop one from forcing the clock ahead in time to go outside
the required-reg time limit?

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 12:24:16 AM
Tony Bryer wrote:

> In article <406681@forums.embarcadero.com>, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? Do people do
> > this for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?
> 
> Go back to the 1990s and the idea that Borland would not be around
> would have seems fanciful.
> 
> The difference with Delphi (and other development tools) is that the
> cost of the software is nothing compared with the investment in
> developing the code to run on said platform. Most software on my
> computer is readily replaceable - it might take a day or two to
> transfer accounts or documents to a new program. Rebuilding my code
> base on a non-Delphi platform would require a significant number of
> man-months.
> 
> Of course, if there was no EMBT, no legal way of activating a new
> Delphi install and I needed to change PCs I would have to look for a
> hack. But if I was a quoted company that would probably not be an
> option.
> 
> It's a bit like having a furniture factory on a one in a hundred
> years flood risk site. The chances are it will never happen. But if
> it does, you're in trouble.

And how is this any different that any other company, software or
otherwise? And why is EMBT somehow being held to a higher standard than
any other comparable business in the same industry? Or is this simply a
case where we (EMBT) happen to actually listen and try and understand
and/or assuage our customers' concerns ;-)? In that case, I'd say EMBT
is pretty special :-)...

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I don't see the same
clamour and concern regarding other software company products. Adobe,
MS, etc...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 12:29:42 AM
On 9/29/2011 5:01 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>
> Specifically, when EMBT bought CodeGear from Borland, the licensing
> technology went with it. However many remaining Borland products
> continued to use this technology, so EMBT was obligated to continue
> (and does to this day) supporting those products until new versions
> could be released that don't use our licensing tech. We are also "on
> the hook" to support the existing products in the field (already at
> customers' sites) for their lifetime. Some products it was only a few
> more years until they are de-supported, and for others it was
> significantly longer. We have servers up and running for the sole
> purpose of ensuring that some old version of StarTeam or VisiBroker can
> be properly activated. That costs us some real $ in terms of co-lo rack
> space, electricity, backups, maintenance, etc...
>

Here's the point where I call BS.

Up until recently, I could do a self-bump on my RS2007 registration.  I 
can no longer do so.  That's a decision taken, and acted upon, by EMBT. 
  DESPITE the fact that at the time of my purchase of the product under 
Borland the self-bump on the registration was essentially 'part of the 
contract'.

This makes mincemeat of the argument that EMBT can't arbitrarily change 
the rules of the game.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/30/2011 12:49:19 AM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> As has been discussed many times over, what could EMBT do to assuage
> all these fears?

How about simply putting a notice on the software page stating

"This software can be activated five times. Embarcadero may, at its sole discretion, grant additional activations."

Then a prospective purchaser can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to purchase the product and how best to deploy it.

I know that if I had known that the limit was 5, I would certainly have been more circumspect  in re-installing. I don't plan on activating my XE2 licence for a very long time. 

>We provide a good-faith resolution process. We don't force you to
>purchase a new license. 

Unless the result of that process is: No increase. In which case for some people it's buy another licence or go out of business. Some choice.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 1:03:21 AM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}

> You can even save that file in a safe place (it *is* locked to your
> specific machine instance).
> 

Are you sure about that ? I seem to recall reading something when I downloaded the file that it was a one-time-use only. The fact that it's tied to the OS makes it not all -that- useful (did I reg with SP2 or SP3 ?) but it's better than nothing.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 1:32:58 AM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> Adem Meda wrote:
> 
> I'll have to double check this, but the number of licenses with > 2 activations drops sharply.. and by the time you get to 4 activations, the relative numbers are way, way down. I'd say that allowing, say, 5 does, in fact, cater to the 95% case.

OK. Fair enough.

As I said earlier, I don't have XE2, so my chiming on this very topic in has been hyphothetical.

I am, actually, more concerned about what happens years down the line.

> > Same here (except, obviously, the liability thing).
> 
> Yeah, I'd hope so.
>  
> > > Or course. We do strive to accomodate every reasonable request and
> > > customer scenario. We also know that there are real limits to
> > > actually achieving 100%. I know that when you're in that small
> > > group that is hampered by the limits, to you it might as well be
> > > 0%... I get that, totally. I'm not trying to minimize or dismiss
> > > anything.

I know you're not shrugging off.. 

And, I am not out to be a pain in the you what; but, the scenarios are almost endless. What if the customer is in a foreign country, what if s/he does not speak (much) English. What if the distributer that sold him/her has gone out of business? Heck, what if s/he is deaf and mute ;)

Incidentally, I don't expect you to solve all of these, but it would be nice if you really considered --being in a decision-maker position in a (alrge or large-ish) company sometimes gives one the appearance of a comfort to afford to ignore marginal cases, and we have all been there, but it is not only contagious it also feeds on itself: You tend to get more draconian in time --all in the name of protecting the interests of your company.. yet, working against your own customers.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you're there, yet; but --and, I may be all wrong, though-- I kind of sense a it is the general direction.

> We provide a good-faith resolution process. We don't force you to
> purchase a new license. Why do you think that? Because you don't want
> to have to contact someone and talk to them or fill out an online
> request? I consider that a good-faith solution to the problem.

Hypothetical case: Not following your procedures results in me being punished by not being able to work with the tool. Fine. [*]

What does EMB offer to balance it? 

What sort of compensation will EMB undertake if the fault lies with it --or even when it's no ones fault.

IOW, in what way is this a double-edged sword that cuts both ways when necessary?

> As has been discussed many times over, what could EMBT do to assuage
> all these fears? 

Nothing. 

Nothing you (or anyone else) do or say can change that. 

It's in our nature.

I think you should be less sensitive about hearing those worries from people (your competitors are entirely another issue); think of it --if you will-- people worrying about losing something/someone they love and cherish the company of.

And, on the flip side, we should sympathize with what people do in order to fulfil the void. 

I know my reaction: When faced with the risk of losing a loved one, I'd do anything in my power not to. If it were possible I'd revive or even clone him/her just to bring him/her back.

A working crack is just that when it comes to software.. :)

> Many suggestions have been made and many have been
> pursued internally. IIRC, some of the solutions would have actually
> been an ongoing cost to the company, which those making the decisions
> likely saw little gain. Also, when looking at the industry in general,
> our competitors (large and small), don't address this issue either.

I wish I had some original ideas to table here; but, I know they all have been discussed to death here --most probably internally at EMB too. I have no idea what your profit margins are, what your sales costs are etc. etc.; so, anything I might say will probably be totally worthless.

But, one thing nags me though: Even though most people mocked about it, I think Steve Ballmer was on to something when he jumped about chanting "Developers! Developers! Developers! .." [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE ]; yet, Delphi (producers of, that is) keeps cornering itself more and more into market niche position --it appears something of a vicious circle: the higher the price the fewer the developers, the fewer the developers the fewer the sales, the fewer the numbers sold the higher th
e cost/price, and on and on..

But, I am sure you (as the company) have studied that issue exhaustively and know what you're doing.

> > First, as far as I am concerned, there should be time limit to that
> > registration business. After, say, 5 years, the software should stop
> > dictating re-registration.
> > 
> > Second, if you're going to insist on re-registration, you should
> > state that when the product is discontinued (or stopped being
> > actively supported), so will the need for re-registration be.
> 
> What would stop one from forcing the clock ahead in time to go outside the required-reg time limit?

I don't know. Let me think outloud --which probably has too many flaws already; still..

I'd probably integrate an NTP client that securely accesses pool.ntp.org (and, only ntp.org) which has 2582 servers which isn't all likely to go out anytime soon.

Could that sort of thing be cracked? 

I am sure it could; but that sort of an arrangement would definitely, put my mind at ease.

BTW, did I say I don't envy you --not all the time, that is :)
0
Adem
9/30/2011 1:34:02 AM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> So you quoted only my question and started discussing a different topic
> :-/? 

Hi Allen.  You must be new here.

Welcome to non-tech.  You'll see a lot of that here.

And may I introduce David Erbas-White.  See previous statement.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/30/2011 1:38:03 AM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> David Erbas-White wrote:
> 
> > With no resolution...
> 
> ...that you like.
> 
> "Resolution" <> "What David wants"

Sorry for jumping in:

I'm not that much worried about the current registration limit and
about whatever procedure is needed to bump it ... but about this part
....

> Finally, there is the fear that some have that they will be unable to
> activate the product should the company's activation servers
> disappear, for whatever reason. I get all of that... and it has been
> discussed here at length.

.... I agree with David here in that there appears to be no resolution
in the remote case that this will/might ever happen.

-- 
Pieter

Flo Capp's Observation: The next best thing to doing something 
smart is not doing something stupid.
0
Pieter
9/30/2011 1:39:37 AM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> Adem Meda wrote:
> 
> > gets bought out by some other
> > entity that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance
> > that I will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so
> > that the source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.
> 
> In the case of a buy-out, the need to continue operating the servers is
> a liability that the new entity would be obligated to maintain. When
> you purchase a company, you purchase the assets and liabilities.

Just one short anectode and I'll shut up:

Some years ago I met Northrop Grumman's CEO in an informal setting. 

After some chat, I asked him "why don't we sell you anything?"

His answer was: "How large is your legal department?"

With a furtively polite smile, I uttered something like "very small.. two guys.."

And.. even though he never did come out and say it, he had a facial expression saying "you don't stand a chance"..

Well, same here..

Those liabilities probably mean a lot for those that can come after you with the might of a legal department, but an individual does not really stand a chance, does s/he?
0
Adem
9/30/2011 1:48:14 AM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? 

I have no idea, one way or the other.

My main focus isn't "OMG, Delphi is about to vanish!"..

It is this: The product that I paid for may stop working due to no fault of mine.

> Do people do this for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?

I don't know about other people.

But, in my case, it depends on the product.

For example, I am not least bit worried that MS Office may go out/discontinued. There are other products I can substitute for it.

But, there's nothing I can replace Delphi with.

[Well, there is FreePascal/lazarus but the transition is painful enough to worry about --at least for me.]
0
Adem
9/30/2011 1:54:07 AM
On 2011-09-29 19:48:22 -0400, Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> said:

> Kevin Powick wrote:
> 
>> While this scenario is
>> certainly possible, it does not seem very probable.
> 
> Well, look....... the company infrastructure around the Delphi product
> hasn't been particularly stable.  Borland blew hot and cold over it,
> messed about with Inprise and then CodeGear, and now it's gone over to
> Embarcadero.
> 
> It really isn't that difficult to imagine a scenario where some future
> CEO decides to refocus their product portfolio, and that's the end of
> Delphi.  Look around the IT world - it happens a heck of a lot.
> 
> Honestly, the probability is pretty low, but by no means vanishingly
> small.

So, your conclusion in the last sentence is pretty much exactly what I said.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/30/2011 1:58:37 AM
On 2011-09-29 19:23:41 -0400, Dave White <no@no.com> said:

> He's not talking about stealing the product - he's talking about buying
> a legal version, but having a cracked backup available in case there is
> a problem with Embarcadero down the road.

Which is exactly the situation I described in the paragraph that you 
decided not to quote.

> And don't give me the crap that Embarcadero aren't going anywhere any
> time soon. In this economy, nobody knows that

Never said it in my post or any other.  Please quote if I did.  Of 
course the future is unknown.

Following the logic that any software company could vanish without 
warning, I guess we should all be using cracked versions of MS Windows, 
just in case MS activation servers go down.  BTW, only a couple of days 
ago, I had to reactivate MS Windows after converting one of my virtual 
machines to a different format.  So, it seems this should be a 
legitimate worry to you.  And don't give me the crap that MS aren't 
going anywhere any time soon.  In this economy, nobody knows that. ;)

> If you really know this for certain, I'd say give up your programming job, and
> spend your days investing on the stock market.

What in my post indicated that I knew for certain?  Don't misrepresent 
what I posted, especially if you're not going to quote the text.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/30/2011 2:12:53 AM
On 2011-09-29 20:49:19 -0400, David Erbas-White <derbas@arachneering.com> said:

> DESPITE the fact that at the time of my purchase of the product under
> Borland the self-bump on the registration was essentially 'part of the
> contract'.

"Essentially part of the contract"?  Does the RS2007 EULA or any other 
document/contract that you received as part of that purchase actually 
state that you were entitled to this "self-bumping" feature?  I doubt 
it, but I don't have RS2007 to verify.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> This makes mincemeat of the argument that EMBT can't arbitrarily change
> the rules of the game.

Really?  Has EMBT made it *not* possible for you to activate your copy 
of RS2007?

For many of the reasons stated, I agree that self-bumping the 
activation limit was convenient for people that needed to do so for 
legitimate reasons.  However, to me anyway, it does not seem that 
removing this *convenience* has in any way changed your right to use 
the product, which I suspect is all the original EULA states.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/30/2011 2:25:21 AM
<Jeff Williams> wrote in message news:406695@forums.embarcadero.com...
>> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
>>
>> What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? Do people do this
>> for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?
>>
>> -- 
>> Allen Bauer
>> Embarcadero Chief Scientist
>> http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
>> http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
>
> I don't know. It's not just that EMBT might disappear. Any time someone 
> has to reinstall Delphi, they are faced with the possibility that when 
> they go to activate their paid for product, it could be refused. 
> It -probably- won't, -maybe- you can get a bump, but the risk that you 
> will be denied access to it is not insignificant.
>
> Frankly, I interpret your statement that the average re-activation rate is 
> less than two to mean that the average purchaser installs the product 
> once, is turned off by what he discovers in using the product and moves on 
> to something else.

I don't get that impression at all.  I've been a Delphi user since release 
1.0 and I've only had to install any particular version multiple times twice 
in all that time.  Once when a hard drive died and once when I replaced an 
old computer a few months after upgrading (which will happen again with XE2 
since I'm getting a new computer next month).

Ray
0
Lester
9/30/2011 2:39:46 AM
"David Erbas-White" <derbas@arachneering.com> wrote in message 
news:406710@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> Up until recently, I could do a self-bump on my RS2007 registration.  I
> can no longer do so.  That's a decision taken, and acted upon, by EMBT.
>  DESPITE the fact that at the time of my purchase of the product under
> Borland the self-bump on the registration was essentially 'part of the
> contract'.

Unless that feature is specified in the license (which it isn't) then it is 
not part of any contract. Your purchase is not legally binding on such a 
feature. It was a "perk", nothing more.


-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/30/2011 3:01:45 AM
"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@medisin.uio.no> wrote in message 
news:406647@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> i find it amazing how stable the hard disks must be who use Delphi. Has
> it some intrinsic stabilizing codes that makes disks more reliable.
>
> Otherwise the count should have been higher. Unless the explanation is
> majority don't use the program.


I find it amazing that you would assume such a thing. You must have terribly 
unreliable hardware over there. In all the years they have had activation, 
I've had to reregister D2009 once due to a disk crash, and a couple of other 
times on a couple of other versions due to moving to newer machines. So 
perhaps 5 re-registrations spread across 3 versions of Delphi in ~10 years 
or whatever the current activation system has been around. So far I've not 
had to reregister either D2010 or XE.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/30/2011 3:14:47 AM
> And how is this any different that any other company, software or
> otherwise? And why is EMBT somehow being held to a higher standard than
> any other comparable business in the same industry?

What higher standard? Visual Studio only requires serial number. No 
activation is needed. As for windows itself I would not worry about MS 
going out of business in such way that it will leave 100s of millions of 
users hanging. And it does actually have escrow policy in place.

What about EMB? Not trying to offend you but EMB just does not inspire 
the same trust. While activations are nuisance and can still be resolved 
what happens if EMB goes out of business?
Do you have any kind of escrow policy? I asked that question like a 100 
times but never got any answer. Can you people of EMB be straight and 
tell if you have one or not?
0
Konstantine
9/30/2011 3:16:38 AM
On 9/29/2011 8:01 PM, Wayne Niddery wrote:
> "David Erbas-White"<derbas@arachneering.com>  wrote in message
> news:406710@forums.embarcadero.com...
>>
>> Up until recently, I could do a self-bump on my RS2007 registration.  I
>> can no longer do so.  That's a decision taken, and acted upon, by EMBT.
>>   DESPITE the fact that at the time of my purchase of the product under
>> Borland the self-bump on the registration was essentially 'part of the
>> contract'.
>
> Unless that feature is specified in the license (which it isn't) then it is
> not part of any contract. Your purchase is not legally binding on such a
> feature. It was a "perk", nothing more.
>
>

You're mistaken.  A contract can be much more than a written statement. 
  It includes an offer, an agreement to that offer (an acceptance), and 
a transfer of value.  Often the offer is something that is less tangible 
-- that's the basis for prosecutions for 'bait and switch', for example.

If you purchased an iPod, and it suddenly stopped working on Tuesdays 
(whether due to a bug or intentionally), would you say that it would be 
valid to argue that Apple could claim that they never stated in their 
EULA that the product would work on Tuesdays?  No, when you bought the 
iPod, it was 'represented' as working on Tuesdays.

Part of the purchase decision is based upon the totality of the offer. 
The offer at the time of purchase was that although software had an 
activation package, that the end user could self-bump the limit if need 
be.  That was part of the 'offer'.  My acceptance of that offer did not 
in any way leave open to EMBT that they could arbitrarily change those 
conditions.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/30/2011 3:18:06 AM
On 9/29/2011 8:14 PM, Wayne Niddery wrote:
> "Alf Christophersen"<alf.christophersen@medisin.uio.no>  wrote in message
> news:406647@forums.embarcadero.com...
>>
>> i find it amazing how stable the hard disks must be who use Delphi. Has
>> it some intrinsic stabilizing codes that makes disks more reliable.
>>
>> Otherwise the count should have been higher. Unless the explanation is
>> majority don't use the program.
>
>
> I find it amazing that you would assume such a thing. You must have terribly
> unreliable hardware over there. In all the years they have had activation,
> I've had to reregister D2009 once due to a disk crash, and a couple of other
> times on a couple of other versions due to moving to newer machines. So
> perhaps 5 re-registrations spread across 3 versions of Delphi in ~10 years
> or whatever the current activation system has been around. So far I've not
> had to reregister either D2010 or XE.
>

Yes, but you're also talking about (as I understand it) having upgraded 
to, and relied upon, one current working version at a time.  As I've 
outlined, my primary work IDE right now is (still) RS2007.  So, for each 
of 2009, 2010, XE, and now XE2, I think there has probably been only one 
or two activations at most (and the 'two' is because I had severe 
problems installing 2010 and had to try a different machine).  But on 
the RS2007, I've got it on my main development machine, my test machine, 
my backup machine, my old laptop, and my new laptop.  And over time, 
each and every one of those (other than the new laptop <G>) has been 
reinstalled at least once.  I long ago hit the limit, and now the 
statements that have been made actually have an impact on HOW I work -- 
because in addition to my normal concerns about backups, and system 
failures, and normal upgrades, I have to weigh the possibility that if I 
attempt to reinstall RS2007 that I may not be able to.

Because of that, it makes me (almost) have to set aside a machine that 
is dedicated to RS2007, as a 'just in case' measure, or to (yes, really) 
put off re-installing Windows even when I know that's something that 
would be best for the system because I just can't afford the risk of the 
downtime.

I should add that is one reason I've been exploring using a dedicated 
virtual machine for this -- and of course then we run into the fact that 
I'd have to burn an activation or two just to get a good, solid 
installation that I'm willing to bet everything on.  Just in the context 
of getting an appropriate VM up and running, if I had installed RS2007 
each time I 'thought' I had everything set up and ironed out (and was 
wrong <G>), it would look like I'm pirating enough copies for a company.

But, once again, as someone who has installed Delphi/Builder/RS products 
countless times over the years, there has never been a time, not once, 
when someone other than myself has had access to any of these copies of 
the program.  I may be a corner case, but I have the feeling there are 
more than a few that are in my corner... <G>

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/30/2011 3:28:02 AM
>> It has nothing to do with your (or anyone else's in your current
>> corporation) paycheck --after all, the moment I purchase and pay for
>> the product I will have made my contribution towards that.
>
> I appreciate that. However, you can certainly understand my aversion to
> advocating the use of a product Crack, regardless of one's intentions.

Then be a man and tell that EMB does have escrow policy and not going to 
leave people dry in case it goes out of business or for whatever reason 
decides to drop product. If you had that clearly spelled out somewhere 
in EULA or wherever  I am pretty sure you'd get much less bitching about 
the situation. I am also pretty sure that if you do have large customers 
who are buying your licenses in bulk then those large customers do have 
such an assurance. Just not us small fish.
0
Konstantine
9/30/2011 3:30:55 AM
Bruce McGee wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > So you quoted only my question and started discussing a different
> > topic :-/? 
> 
> Hi Allen.  You must be new here.
> 
> Welcome to non-tech.  You'll see a lot of that here.
> 
> And may I introduce David Erbas-White.  See previous statement.


Now that's funny.  (No offense to anyone meant...don't need another
long thread)
0
Darian
9/30/2011 3:52:57 AM
"Allen Bauer"  wrote in message news:406706@forums.embarcadero.com...
Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I don't see the same
clamour and concern regarding other software company products. Adobe,
MS, etc...

Well I work for a large aerospace company, up until a year I ago I had a 
decent sized lab, I know that I had Delphi 2007(no need for unicode there) 
installed on at least 4-5 lab computers, my laptop and at home. The lab 
computers are not networked so I had to activate those by email. I had no 
problems self bumping the limit. I have no problem if in the future I have 
to send an email to Emb. to raise the limit, that's not much of a hurdle. 
It's loaded on all of my machines because it's just easier to debug the 
hardware that way. And yes, I am/was the only one using Delphi on those 
machines, our company standard lab software is that abomination Labview.

Just last month, I got pester/hounded by someone in IT about a copy of 
Teechart, I had to justify my use of it. The interesting thing is that, one 
of the boxes I had to check was did Steema have an "End of Life"(or some 
such term) plan. If I shipped any products (and I have actually delivered 
some software on occasion, but most of what I do is internal) using Teechart 
we had to have in place an "end of life plan" for Teechart. My response was 
we had the source code so it wasn't an issue. So far they haven't raised the 
issue of the development environment's "end of life". I'm waiting to see if 
the issue is raised with respect to Labview.

So it seems that maybe end of life issues are bubbling to the top now, 
whereas in the past they were just ignored.

By the way I am quite happy with Delphi since 2007 on.

Dan
0
Daniel
9/30/2011 4:16:32 AM
Kevin Powick wrote:

> Following the logic that any software company could vanish without warning, I guess we should all be using cracked versions of MS Windows, just in case MS activation servers go down.

I am sure there are people who do subscribe to that logic, but it certainly isn't one I do. I am not advocating that at all --read below.

On the subject of MS going out etc.: 

I doubt there's any MS software that doesn't have a working crack out there somewhere.

Which means, if --for example-- one of our Lord-knows-how-old XP machines crash and in the very likely case that no one has the original CDs (or restorable backups) or the serial numbers anywhere, we won't suffer a major loss.

This is good enough for me.

IOW, AFAIC, I am not interested in cracks as a means of avoiding payment for a product, but merely as a (somewhat unconventional) form of escrow account, if you like.
0
Adem
9/30/2011 4:35:16 AM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > > So, why do you somehow feel justified in using the product without
> > > proper compensation for the company producing it? 
> > 
> > I don't read his post that way at all. When there is an alternative,
> > then he can feel safe purchasing your product because if at some
> > future date he is unable to use said purchased product either because
> > EMBT is gone OR his licence is bricked due to the registration count
> > limit, his paycheck won't go down the drain thanks to that
> > alternative.
> 
> What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? Do people do this
> for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?
> 

My income is not directly connected with my other software purchases (other
than Windows). This is why this issue is very sensitive one. 

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/30/2011 9:16:01 AM
Dalija Prasnikar wrote:

> I know that from your side it looks like there should be no problems,
> but the problem on the customer side is that we don't know how it
> works and will we be able to activate or don't for any reason.

Do an installation + activation in a VM and put that in a safe. Now,
whatever happens on your real computers you can always pull a copy of
that VM and get your time critical work done.
0
Anders
9/30/2011 9:25:52 AM
> {quote:title=Anders Isaksson wrote:}{quote}
> Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
> 
> > I know that from your side it looks like there should be no problems,
> > but the problem on the customer side is that we don't know how it
> > works and will we be able to activate or don't for any reason.
> 
> Do an installation + activation in a VM and put that in a safe. Now,
> whatever happens on your real computers you can always pull a copy of
> that VM and get your time critical work done.

No. In ten years her VM software will be version 10.0 instead of 2.0 and it will not be supporting old formats. Same with the OS. Windows 15 won't be supporting her current VM software. And so on...
0
Captain
9/30/2011 9:50:01 AM
> {quote:title=Anders Isaksson wrote:}{quote}
> Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
> 
> > I know that from your side it looks like there should be no problems,
> > but the problem on the customer side is that we don't know how it
> > works and will we be able to activate or don't for any reason.
> 
> Do an installation + activation in a VM and put that in a safe. Now,
> whatever happens on your real computers you can always pull a copy of
> that VM and get your time critical work done.

I haven't used VM up till now for several reasons, and it is very unlikely that 
I will use it in the future for daily work. However, I am planning to do what
you have proposed since I am going to install Delphi in Parallels anyway.

I always have at lest three working computers I could switch (main computer,
backup computer, and laptop) and so far they have been more than sufficient.

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/30/2011 10:41:30 AM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> Frankly, I interpret your statement that the average re-activation
> rate is less than two to mean that the average purchaser installs the
> product once, is turned off by what he discovers in using the product
> and moves on to something else.

I don't know how 'average' I am, but since I started using a VM for
development work I've only installed each new version once.
0
Anders
9/30/2011 10:44:25 AM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> I know that if I had known that the limit was 5,

It's not as if it was/is difficult to find out...
0
Anders
9/30/2011 10:56:28 AM
Alf Christophersen wrote:

> maybe most buyers buy it as a nice to have available, install it, 
> register it and forget about having it on the computer.

Or maybe most buyers install it and use it and don't have any problems
- which scenario is the more probable?

I have never found the need to reinstall Windows, I have never needed
more activations of Delphi than the default limit. How would you know
if I'm typical or exceptional?
0
Anders
9/30/2011 11:17:35 AM
> {quote:title=Anders Isaksson wrote:}{quote}
> I don't know how 'average' I am, but since I started using a VM for
> development work I've only installed each new version once.

VMs can be infinitely replicated. Of course you only need to activate once. So you've chosen to crack the activation scheme by making unlimited copies. Congratulations on your original thinking.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 11:39:33 AM
On 2011-09-30 12:39:33 +0100, Jeff Williams said:

> VMs can be infinitely replicated. Of course you only need to activate 
> once. So you've chosen to crack the activation scheme by making 
> unlimited copies. Congratulations on your original thinking.

I use VMs to allow me to restore a clean working installation of my 
IDEs. I have one "virgin" "backup" machine for Delphi and another for 
VS. If, as has happened, the IDE gets its knickers in a knot, all I had 
to do was restore the virgin machine over the corrupted one and I was 
back up and running in around half an hour.

Parallels also allows for snapshots, which are very convenient for even 
faster restoration of a working environment.

I also create one copy of the VM for the appropriate IDE for each 
client, thus ensuring that one client's IP cannot easily be accessed 
whilst working with a different client.

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter
Carter Consulting
0
Joanna
9/30/2011 11:50:48 AM
> {quote:title=Jeff Williams wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Anders Isaksson wrote:}{quote}
> > I don't know how 'average' I am, but since I started using a VM for
> > development work I've only installed each new version once.
> 
> VMs can be infinitely replicated. Of course you only need to activate once. So you've chosen to crack the activation scheme by making unlimited copies. Congratulations on your original thinking.

Just another proof that the whole activation system is pointless. It 
serves no real purpose and it just annoys the customers. And if 
Embarcadero has more revenue from Delphi than Borland/CodeGear had
it is soley due to improved Delphi quality and new features than anything else. 

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/30/2011 11:57:05 AM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> As has been discussed many times over, what could EMBT do to assuage
> all these fears? 

As often happens in piracy discussions, you're asking the wrong question. Instead of asking "How can we make our customers feel better about being treated like criminals ?" you should be asking "Has our policy of treating our customers like criminals increased our profit ?"

I think the answer has to be No if for no other reason than this: Every single version of Delphi (Architect) all the way back to D7 is available for download, and requires no activation. Every -single- version.

So, everyone who is going to steal Delphi can do so, easily. All the years of developer effort, money and time has had zero effect on the availability of pirated copies of Delphi. Zero. Thus, no one who wants to steal Delphi has been forced to buy it.

I paid for XE and thanks to EMBT's anti-piracy policy, my $1300 licence is now a brick. How likely do you think it is that I would want to repeat that experience by purchasing another product from EMBT ? Do you think anybody I talk to about my experience is going to think that doing business with EMBT is a good idea ?  

How much better might XE2 have been had those developers wasting their time on an ineffective registration mechanism been working on XE2 instead ? Maybe if the folks trying out Firemonkey were able to say "Gosh, this is a cool feature that works" instead of "Nice idea, but pretty broken, wait for 2.0", maybe that would net you some new sales.

EMBT is free to do what it likes, but I really don't see how the current policy of treating customers like criminals is going to lead to increased longevity for EMBT. The same approach doesn't seem to be working very well for the music industry.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 11:59:49 AM
"Allen Bauer" wrote on Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:07:37 -0700:

> What indications are there that EMBT won't be around? Do people do this
> for all the software they purchase or just EMBT's?

I'm generally "on your side" on this one (as much as I dislike
activation), but the above brought to mind that I use a few
third-party Delphi components which are no longer sold or supported by
the people who made them.  Glad I got the source code!

-- 
Brandon Staggs
StudyLamp Software LLC
http://www.studylamp.com
0
Brandon
9/30/2011 12:09:27 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> I feel confident that I'm not alone.

Oh, I do to.  

Bottom line:  The activation system in RAD Studio is effective.  It's
also unobtrusive for 99.9% of users.  It's not a problem for 99.9% of
the people that use it.  Why it becomes a problem for that last 0.1%
is......interesting.



-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 12:53:17 PM
Pieter Zijlstra wrote:

> 
> ... I agree with David here in that there appears to be no resolution
> in the remote case that this will/might ever happen.

It is my view that EMBT should be totally up front about that.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 12:53:48 PM
"David Erbas-White" <derbas@arachneering.com> wrote in message 
news:406749@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> You're mistaken.  A contract can be much more than a written statement.
>  It includes an offer, an agreement to that offer (an acceptance), and
> a transfer of value.  Often the offer is something that is less tangible
> -- that's the basis for prosecutions for 'bait and switch', for example.

In short, it includes "terms of agreement". Bait and switch is a form of 
misleading advertising, which is fraud. EMBT has never promoted the 
self-bump site as a feature of the software package you are buying, it is 
not part of what you are buying legally whether you considered that site as 
such a feature or not.

What you are suggesting would be like if you bought my house and then sued 
me because I didn't leave all my furniture in it - only because you thought 
in deciding to buy, how nice my furniture looked with the house rather than 
whether the offer to sell actually specified any furniture or not.  I do not 
need to *explicitly exclude* my furniture to keep it out of the deal and you 
would have no basis to sue.

You cannot imagine that something is included on your own whim and then make 
a legal claim over it. You could just as easily imagine that in buying the 
software, these groups are a part of the contract - are you going to sue if 
the plug is pulled on one or more of these support groups? Lot's of luck.

> If you purchased an iPod, and it suddenly stopped working on Tuesdays
> (whether due to a bug or intentionally), would you say that it would be
> valid to argue that Apple could claim that they never stated in their
> EULA that the product would work on Tuesdays?  No, when you bought the
> iPod, it was 'represented' as working on Tuesdays.

Apples and oranges, that has to do with the basic working of the product, 
not simply some convenience that is not critical to its functionality.

> Part of the purchase decision is based upon the totality of the offer.

Yes but the *buyer* cannot decide, on his own accord, what constitutes that 
totality. You can imagine pretty much anything you want as being a part of 
that totality whether the vendor agrees or not - you really think that 
should be binding on the vendor. Again my example with the house and 
furniture.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/30/2011 1:05:22 PM
"David Erbas-White" <derbas@arachneering.com> wrote in message 
news:406752@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> Yes, but you're also talking about (as I understand it) having upgraded
> to, and relied upon, one current working version at a time.

Bad assumption. I still maintain a project in D6, one in RS2006, and 2 in 
RS2007, all of which live on my older XP box. Other projects I've started in 
RS2009 and RS2010 I've moved to XE now on my newest box - which is the one 
that suffered the disk crash.

> But, once again, as someone who has installed Delphi/Builder/RS products
> countless times over the years, there has never been a time, not once,
> when someone other than myself has had access to any of these copies of
> the program.  I may be a corner case, but I have the feeling there are
> more than a few that are in my corner... <G>

I don't doubt that - and for the record I *do* support the idea of there 
being an explicit EOL plan made public so that failure to being able to 
activate does not result in the software being "bricked". But I do tend to 
think many are emphaiszing this with EMBT much more than is warranted and 
much more than they do with products from other vendors.

It seems to be part of a general mindset that has been around since the 
beginning of Delphi - that it wouldn't last. Well, the doomsayers were 
*eventually* right about Borland (only took 15 years and a lot of effort on 
Borland's part <g>), but the products still survived that along with the 
activation servers and software.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/30/2011 1:25:01 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> because putting a limit on the number of registrations (for legit
> users) is simply a means to force that person to purchase a new
> license, nothing more.

There isn't such a limit.  

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 1:36:34 PM
> {quote:title=Joanna Carter wrote:}{quote}
> I also create one copy of the VM for the appropriate IDE for each 
> client, thus ensuring that one client's IP cannot easily be accessed 
> whilst working with a different client.
> 
> Joanna
> 
> -- 
> Joanna Carter
> Carter Consulting

Maybe I'm missing a detail on this, but this idea of infinitely replicating a VM copy of a single Delphi registration seems to me to be very much like the idea of infinitely bumping your registration count which EMBT has decided is not permitted. Unless you are buying a new licence for every VM, in which case I envy your financial resources.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 1:37:10 PM
On 09/30/2011 11:25 AM, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
>
>> I know that from your side it looks like there should be no problems,
>> but the problem on the customer side is that we don't know how it
>> works and will we be able to activate or don't for any reason.
>
> Do an installation + activation in a VM and put that in a safe. Now,
> whatever happens on your real computers you can always pull a copy of
> that VM and get your time critical work done.

Unless things have change since XE;

Using vmware

1. make sure to install vmware tools before you install/register delphi:
2. do not install new/updated vmware tools otherwise upon installation 
or upgrade of vmware tools the machine will have so many 
drivers/hardware component that you will need a new registration;
3. when grabing the copy of your vm tell the system it has been moved 
not copied, otherwise you'll need new regsitration

This happened to me with D2010 when I had to have my registration count 
bumped of a combination of reuse of a VM and upgrade to a newer version 
of vmware.

And yes at that time it was not unusual to have several resgration eaten 
during a single attempt

For what it's worth

Didier
0
didier
9/30/2011 1:47:27 PM
On 2011-09-30 07:59:49 -0400, Jeff Williams <> said:

> So, everyone who is going to steal Delphi can do so, easily. All the 
> years of developer effort, money and time has had zero effect on the 
> availability of pirated copies of Delphi. Zero. Thus, no one who wants 
> to steal Delphi has been forced to buy it.

There is the expression that locks keep honest people honest.  
Activation is not so much about curbing outright piracy because, your 
right, if someone is bent on stealing the product they can do so pretty 
easily.  Activation schemes are to reduce the temptation/ability to use 
multiple copies of a paid product in a way that violates the EULA.  
Remember the days when people just "passed around" software to 
colleagues, friends, and family?  I'm sure a lot of revenue was lost 
due to the (lack of) honour system.  Probably more than outright piracy.

> 
> I paid for XE and thanks to EMBT's anti-piracy policy, my $1300 licence 
> is now a brick.

I haven't been following every post in this thread.  Are you saying 
that your paid, legitimate copy cannot be activated and EMBT will in no 
way help you with this?  If so, it would seem to be an extreme case 
that is surely not the experience of all but a very, very few 
customers.  I would expect in such cases there must be some type of 
unusual, extenuating circumstances.

> 
> EMBT is free to do what it likes, but I really don't see how the 
> current policy of treating customers like criminals

If I lock my house, car, bicycle, am I treating everyone in my 
neighbourhood like criminals?  No, I'm trying to stop the real 
criminals, and  prevent opportunists from being tempted.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/30/2011 1:52:25 PM
Moritz Beutel wrote:

> I wish I had customers like that.

Yeah -- that's the almost perfect customer.  

The perfect customer would do that, *and* upgrade every time.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 1:53:16 PM
> {quote:title=Kevin Powick wrote:}{quote}

> If I lock my house, car, bicycle, am I treating everyone in my 
> neighbourhood like criminals?  No, I'm trying to stop the real 
> criminals, and  prevent opportunists from being tempted.
> 
> --
> Kevin Powick

If the lock manufacturer has a policy that you can only get a replacement key 5 times (and they don't tell you that is their policy) and now you are locked out of your house because you lost that fifth key, would you still think it was a good idea to buy that brand of lock ?  Would it really make a difference to you if you were the only person to which it happened ?
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 1:59:51 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> VMs can be infinitely replicated. Of course you only need to activate
> once. So you've chosen to crack the activation scheme by making
> unlimited copies. Congratulations on your original thinking.

No, I have made sure I have a backup if/when something happens.
0
Anders
9/30/2011 2:09:07 PM
Allen,

The point is simple. self administration. Then EMB can do whatever you like make one or two installations (the so called rule) which is usual also in the case of WS_FTP for example. This would be simple. Or having presented a counter.

In practice the one who calculates this numbers sits in an ivory tower. I hope this genius is not thinking that he/she can apply disciplinary measures to customers. I tell you why this works - EMB lost almost all Freelancers and mobile developers so called 'Consultants'. Having MSDN allows you to have unlimited installations (at least I never had troubles). The troubles in this corner do come from licensing issues maybe with Infragistics one example.

A companies business is about the other 2% too, especially the business process excellence does come from providing a solid solution for those exceptions. Everyone can build a licensing support system for the first 98% but excellence does come from going beyond this and stay accordant to budgets given. The reputation does not come form the first 98% it comes from the other 2%.

.... 8 pragraphs deleted because they could be seen as offense ...

Example:
I did not find any information provided what to do in case - registration count is reached - Friday night laptop breakes - I am not at my site. I can buy a laptop on saturday, Download maybe the installer. Then I am finished. As described above also buying an additional Delphi license does not help.
-> What is the solution for this case.

If it is really the case and buying additional Delphi license after reaching the counter limit does not help to increase the max registrations limit - very strange ... 

It would be interesting to know if this is really the case. There is no info ... I simply fear to register.

Mike
0
Michael
9/30/2011 2:44:49 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> Adem Meda wrote:
> 
> > because putting a limit on the number of registrations (for legit
> > users) is simply a means to force that person to purchase a new
> > license, nothing more.
> 
> There isn't such a limit.  

I must have totally misunderstood Allen, then.
0
Adem
9/30/2011 3:09:36 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> I must have totally misunderstood Allen, then.

Right -- if you are legitimate user with legitimate needs, you can get
as many installs as you want.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 3:23:10 PM
On 30.09.2011 05:14, Wayne Niddery wrote:
> "Alf Christophersen"<alf.christophersen@medisin.uio.no>  wrote in message
> news:406647@forums.embarcadero.com...
>>
>> i find it amazing how stable the hard disks must be who use Delphi. Has
>> it some intrinsic stabilizing codes that makes disks more reliable.
>>
>> Otherwise the count should have been higher. Unless the explanation is
>> majority don't use the program.
>
>
> I find it amazing that you would assume such a thing. You must have terribly
> unreliable hardware over there. In all the years they have had activation,
> I've had to reregister D2009 once due to a disk crash, and a couple of other
> times on a couple of other versions due to moving to newer machines. So
> perhaps 5 re-registrations spread across 3 versions of Delphi in ~10 years
> or whatever the current activation system has been around. So far I've not
> had to reregister either D2010 or XE.
>

My disks has been stable, but, since it was a domain based portable 
computer for a long time, I lost too frequently my user profile that 
ment also lost licensce for D2006.

Since removing it from the domain and into my own domain that is not 
hampered with by others, my installations has been stable.

Before that I had to bump licensces several times :-(
0
Alf
9/30/2011 3:32:58 PM
Am 30.09.2011 14:53, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>>
>> ... I agree with David here in that there appears to be no resolution
>> in the remote case that this will/might ever happen.
> 
> It is my view that EMBT should be totally up front about that.
> 

Yes and if I'm not wrong you wanted to come up with some official
statement about that in the past but it somehow didn't happen.

=> This means EMBT didn't understand that aspect of the problem. They
didn't even anounce "we've got a solution but we won't tell anything
about it". That would at least have shown that they are aware of this issue.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/30/2011 3:38:28 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Adem Meda wrote:
> 
> > I must have totally misunderstood Allen, then.
> 
> Right -- if you are legitimate user with legitimate needs, you can get
> as many installs as you want.
> 
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com

No, Adem didn't misunderstand Allen, it's you who continue to be mendacious.

There is in fact a registration when you activate limit. As A.B. says 
"However, we allow
without any further interaction with EMBT, I think about 5-6
registrations per license."

A physical limit that prevents you from using your paid-for software unless you take an extra step and beg the vendor for an increase, which they MAY or MAY NOT grant.

Further, unless you are an employee of EMBT and work in the licencing division, you have NO basis for making the statement that EMBT always grants as many installs as a legitimate user wants. You -don't- know that. The fact you personally have never been refused does not make that claim true. Nor does the fact you imply that anyone who reports an issue over licencing a liar improve my opinion as to the veracity of -your- statements. "I'm on your side, I just don't believe you."  

I get that your lips are welded to EMBT's cheeks, that's clear. It doesn't change the fact that EMBT's policy is what Allen says it is, not you.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 3:45:26 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> Adem Meda wrote:
> 
> > I must have totally misunderstood Allen, then.
> 
> Right -- if you are legitimate user with legitimate needs, you can get
> as many installs as you want.

Reading people's experiences here, this does not seem to be the case.

There's --it seems-- a mandatory limit (5?) after which you have to go through manual channels and hope to convince some person to re-grant you the privilege of using the tool you have long ago paid for...

I can see the added value of this for the vendor; but, what value does it have for the customers?

None. 

It doesn't even give you that awesome aura that you did the right thing.. <g>

And, even if I settled for the treatment, what are the chances I (or someone else) will find an ear (sympathetic or otherwise) at EMB 5 or 10 years down the line?
0
Adem
9/30/2011 3:54:35 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> 
> > You can even save that file in a safe place (it is locked to your
> > specific machine instance).
> > 
> 
> Are you sure about that ? I seem to recall reading something when I
> downloaded the file that it was a one-time-use only. The fact that
> it's tied to the OS makes it not all -that- useful (did I reg with
> SP2 or SP3 ?) but it's better than nothing.

You cannot move it to another machine, no, but if you need to reinstall
the product and the license information were somehow damaged, you can
get it back with this.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:05:33 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> his means EMBT didn't understand that aspect of the problem.

No, it doesn't mean they don't understand.  They do understand
completely.   They have reasons for what they do -- or in this case,
what they don't do.

> They
> didn't even anounce "we've got a solution but we won't tell anything
> about it". That would at least have shown that they are aware of this
> issue.

Oh, yeah, like they are going to do *that*.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 5:14:01 PM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> >> It has nothing to do with your (or anyone else's in your current
> >> corporation) paycheck --after all, the moment I purchase and pay
> for >> the product I will have made my contribution towards that.
> > 
> > I appreciate that. However, you can certainly understand my
> > aversion to advocating the use of a product Crack, regardless of
> > one's intentions.
> 
> Then be a man and tell that EMB does have escrow policy and not going
> to leave people dry in case it goes out of business or for whatever
> reason decides to drop product. If you had that clearly spelled out
> somewhere in EULA or wherever  I am pretty sure you'd get much less
> bitching about the situation. I am also pretty sure that if you do
> have large customers who are buying your licenses in bulk then those
> large customers do have such an assurance. Just not us small fish.

Pardon? What does me "being a man" have to do with this? If I'm not
willing to make the statement you want, I'm now somehow not a man? I'll
just leave it at that.

Also, note that I'm not the one who can make such a decision... and
I've also hinted that we've *already* looked at this issue and found
that the costs associated with it outweigh the gains... We're not
unsympathetic to the concerns here, but it *does* involve more than
simply "making a statement."

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:16:11 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> mendacious.

Wow, I had to look that one up.

And no, I'm not lying.  Please ease off on accusing someone of lying.

 
> Further, unless you are an employee of EMBT and work in the licencing
> division, you have NO basis for making the statement that EMBT always
> grants as many installs as a legitimate user wants.

I worked at EMBT for four years, and was intimately involved in the
decision making process about all of this.  During my time there, the
number of legitimate requests for registration extensions that were
denied was zero.  Those are facts.

> You -don't- know that.

Yes I -do-.

Hah.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 5:17:37 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > As has been discussed many times over, what could EMBT do to assuage
> > all these fears? 
> 
> As often happens in piracy discussions, you're asking the wrong
> question. Instead of asking "How can we make our customers feel
> better about being treated like criminals ?"

I never, ever said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I take
offense to you even insinuating that.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:17:53 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> Reading people's experiences here, this does not seem to be the case.

I believe it is the case.


-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 5:19:14 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Kevin Powick wrote:}{quote}
> 
> > If I lock my house, car, bicycle, am I treating everyone in my 
> > neighbourhood like criminals?  No, I'm trying to stop the real 
> > criminals, and  prevent opportunists from being tempted.
> > 
> > --
> > Kevin Powick
> 
> If the lock manufacturer has a policy that you can only get a
> replacement key 5 times (and they don't tell you that is their
> policy) and now you are locked out of your house because you lost
> that fifth key, would you still think it was a good idea to buy that
> brand of lock ?  Would it really make a difference to you if you were
> the only person to which it happened ?

We *don't* have that policy. You can get a replacement by merely
asking, either through online registration or by calling/filling out an
online request. It appears as if you're omitting data in order to make
your case.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:20:46 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> On 9/29/2011 5:01 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > 
> > Specifically, when EMBT bought CodeGear from Borland, the licensing
> > technology went with it. However many remaining Borland products
> > continued to use this technology, so EMBT was obligated to continue
> > (and does to this day) supporting those products until new versions
> > could be released that don't use our licensing tech. We are also "on
> > the hook" to support the existing products in the field (already at
> > customers' sites) for their lifetime. Some products it was only a
> > few more years until they are de-supported, and for others it was
> > significantly longer. We have servers up and running for the sole
> > purpose of ensuring that some old version of StarTeam or VisiBroker
> > can be properly activated. That costs us some real $ in terms of
> > co-lo rack space, electricity, backups, maintenance, etc...
> > 
> 
> Here's the point where I call BS.
> 
> Up until recently, I could do a self-bump on my RS2007 registration.
> I can no longer do so.  That's a decision taken, and acted upon, by
> EMBT.    DESPITE the fact that at the time of my purchase of the
> product under Borland the self-bump on the registration was
> essentially 'part of the contract'.
> 
> This makes mincemeat of the argument that EMBT can't arbitrarily
> change the rules of the game.
> 
> David Erbas-White

Assume all you want. But there was no contract, implied or not, that
this service was going to remain for all eternity.

I've already told people why it was removed. It was being abused, "soft
piracy" was up slightly and that makes CFO's and investors very nervous.

I'm *not* accusing you of such a thing. I'm certain to a very small
portion of our customer base that this service was used for which it
was intended.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:27:07 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> Am 30.09.2011 14:53, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> > Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> >> ... I agree with David here in that there appears to be no
> resolution >> in the remote case that this will/might ever happen.
> > 
> > It is my view that EMBT should be totally up front about that.
> > 
> 
> Yes and if I'm not wrong you wanted to come up with some official
> statement about that in the past but it somehow didn't happen.
> 
> => This means EMBT didn't understand that aspect of the problem. They
> didn't even anounce "we've got a solution but we won't tell anything
> about it". That would at least have shown that they are aware of this
> issue.

This reminds me of something I see all the time. The *assumption* that
because I don't agree with someone, I somehow have a closed mind...

You're essentially saying that "If they really understood the problem,
they'd have done something about it."

That's not the case at all. In fact this was discussed internally and
investigations were done as to what would be feasible, cost effective,
etc... The thing is *any* substantive solution *costs* real $$$...in an
ongoing basis. Thus it is far more than a mere statement.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:32:30 PM
On 2011-09-30 09:59:51 -0400, Jeff Williams <> said:

> If the lock manufacturer has a policy that you can only get a 
> replacement key 5 times (and they don't tell you that is their policy) 
> and now you are locked out of your house because you lost that fifth 
> key, would you still think it was a good idea to buy that brand of lock 
> ?  Would it really make a difference to you if you were the only person 
> to which it happened ?

Well, your point has little to do with my analogy as to a lock's 
purpose, but I will comment.

Most physical locks that your purchase commonly come with only 2 keys.  
If you would like more keys or need more because you lose them, you pay 
for someone to make you new ones.  Are you suggesting that might be a 
good system for EMBT?  You get N free activations, then you can pay a 
fee for additional activations?

Honestly, I think we're comparing apples and oranges when considering 
software activation and house locks WRT the number of keys you get with 
each.

You did not respond to the part of my post that directly asked about 
your specific situation WRT a bricked copy of Delphi. So, I still have 
seen no evidence that EMBT refuses to activate a legitimately licensed 
copy of the product, leaving me wondering what all the fuss is about.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/30/2011 5:33:00 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}

> Assume all you want. But there was no contract, implied or not, that
> this service was going to remain for all eternity.

So is no contract about activation servers!
0
Captain
9/30/2011 5:34:26 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> Nick Hodges wrote:
> 
> > Adem Meda wrote:
> > 
> > > I must have totally misunderstood Allen, then.
> > 
> > Right -- if you are legitimate user with legitimate needs, you can
> > get as many installs as you want.
> 
> Reading people's experiences here, this does not seem to be the case.

Which people? I saw exactly *one* person mention that he was unable to
get a registration bump. I even asked this person to whom did they
speak and I'll look into it... I got no response.

The rest have merely began piling on the strawmen and hypotheticals...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:35:06 PM
Anders Isaksson wrote:

> Alf Christophersen wrote:
> 
> > maybe most buyers buy it as a nice to have available, install it, 
> > register it and forget about having it on the computer.
> 
> Or maybe most buyers install it and use it and don't have any problems
> - which scenario is the more probable?
> 
> I have never found the need to reinstall Windows, I have never needed
> more activations of Delphi than the default limit. How would you know
> if I'm typical or exceptional?

I think all our customers are exceptional :-)...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:37:36 PM
Captain America wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> 
> > Assume all you want. But there was no contract, implied or not, that
> > this service was going to remain for all eternity.
> 
> So is no contract about activation servers!

Wow. Just, Wow. This isn't about the activation servers, it was about
the self-service registration limit bump. That is separate and distinct
from the activation servers. Again, there is *no* specific limit on
registrations.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 5:40:53 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}

> No, it doesn't mean they don't understand.  They do understand
> completely.   They have reasons for what they do -- or in this case,
> what they don't do.

So these are bad reasons then. Nick, what do think should be the goal of each entity in business? I know what you're going to say: staying profitable. And what I say is "happy customers". Thanks.
0
Captain
9/30/2011 5:42:06 PM
> {quote:title=Anders Isaksson wrote:}{quote}
> Do an installation + activation in a VM and put that in a safe. Now,
> whatever happens on your real computers you can always pull a copy of
> that VM and get your time critical work done.

I know, right?  I wonder about this every time someone talks about the hardships of some kind of hardware failure or upgrade.

I've been doing development almost exclusively in VMs for about 5 years, and I can't imagine going back to being tied to a physical machine.

I have been able to migrate seamlessly through a complete OS meltdown (Vista beta upgrade to Vista Pro), hardware failure (Dev machine went Kaput) and several hardware upgrades.  Once there was a working OS, I was up and running in the time it took to install VMWare, copy the VM from a backup and do a full check out from source control.

I also frequently move VMs between physical machines with very different hardware; sometimes several times a week.  For the trip to Delphi Live and an upcoming trip, I copied my primary development VM and a few VMs for testing to my laptop.

These activities don't chew up activations, and I'm not nearly as afraid of some miscellaneous problem making me lose a couple of days of productivity.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/30/2011 5:46:46 PM
> {quote:title=didier Gasser-Morlay wrote:}{quote}
> Unless things have change since XE;
> 
> Using vmware
> 
> 1. make sure to install vmware tools before you install/register delphi:
> 2. do not install new/updated vmware tools otherwise upon installation 
> or upgrade of vmware tools the machine will have so many 
> drivers/hardware component that you will need a new registration;
> 3. when grabing the copy of your vm tell the system it has been moved 
> not copied, otherwise you'll need new regsitration
> 
> This happened to me with D2010 when I had to have my registration count 
> bumped of a combination of reuse of a VM and upgrade to a newer version 
> of vmware.
> 
> And yes at that time it was not unusual to have several resgration eaten 
> during a single attempt

Over the past 5 years or so of using Delphi with VMs, this has not been my experience.

1) Not sure.  Haven't tried this.
2) I frequently upgrade my VMWare and VMWare Tools with no problems.  Even between major versions.
3) I move VMs back and forth between physical hosts all the time.  I always select the default (copied).  No problems.

I have done this specifically with Delphi 7, 2007, 2009, XE and XE2.  In fact, I did this multiple times in the past week with an XP VM that has XE and XE2 installed.

I'll upgrade my VMWare from version 7 to 8 next week and see if that causes any problems.  I'm not expecting any, but I'll back up the VMs first, just in case.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/30/2011 5:48:11 PM
On 9/29/2011 9:12 PM, Kevin Powick wrote:
> On 2011-09-29 19:23:41 -0400, Dave White<no@no.com>  said:
>
>> He's not talking about stealing the product - he's talking about buying
>> a legal version, but having a cracked backup available in case there is
>> a problem with Embarcadero down the road.
>
> Which is exactly the situation I described in the paragraph that you
> decided not to quote.
>
>> And don't give me the crap that Embarcadero aren't going anywhere any
>> time soon. In this economy, nobody knows that
>
> Never said it in my post or any other.  Please quote if I did.  Of
> course the future is unknown.
>
> Following the logic that any software company could vanish without
> warning, I guess we should all be using cracked versions of MS Windows,
> just in case MS activation servers go down.  BTW, only a couple of days
> ago, I had to reactivate MS Windows after converting one of my virtual
> machines to a different format.  So, it seems this should be a
> legitimate worry to you.  And don't give me the crap that MS aren't
> going anywhere any time soon.  In this economy, nobody knows that. ;)
>
>> If you really know this for certain, I'd say give up your programming job, and
>> spend your days investing on the stock market.
>
> What in my post indicated that I knew for certain?  Don't misrepresent
> what I posted, especially if you're not going to quote the text.
>
> --
> Kevin Powick

My first comment was in response to your statement

"BS.  The reason you've given is nothing but a self-serving attempt to
justify piracy/theft."

The way I read Adem's post was that he wasn't advocating using Delphi 
without paying for it, just that he wanted a usable backup in case there 
were problems down the road.

And my "don't give me the crap comment" was pro-active, I wasn't saying 
you had said that, I was saying to not go ahead and tell me that (isn't 
English a great language). Same with the "if you really know this for 
certain" comment - you said "While this scenario is certainly possible, 
it does not seem very probable.", suggests some future knowledge or 
assumptions about the viability of the company - so if you were to have 
a crystal ball that lets you know, if not with certainty but at least 
with very good odds, that EMB are going to be around as long as I'll be 
programming, then that kind of knowledge would serve you well in other 
fields.  Of course we're getting into semantics here - although this is 
non-tech, so it's allowed ;)

I work with a lot of very big companies, some very very big, and I see 
products, and departments and even whole companies vanishing all the 
time due to market shifts, or the investors not thinking a product is 
profitable enough.  If Delphi (or the RAD studio products), were the 
only product of a company, I'd have more confidence in the long term 
viability.  But when the dev. tools are just one product in a larger 
company, just like Borland used them as a cash cow then discarded them, 
there's no guarantee that any other company won't do the same thing. 
Not suggesting for one minute that they will, but the unknown certainly 
doesn't give a warm and fuzzy feeling.
0
Dave
9/30/2011 5:48:41 PM
Captain America wrote:

> I know what you're going to say: staying profitable. And what I say
> is "happy customers".

It's generally very difficult to be profitable without happy customers.


Creating happy customers is generally the surest way to profitability.  

And of course if you have happy customers, and aren't profitable, and
then you go out of business, you end up with a lot of unhappy customers.

So yeah, being profitable is the main purpose of being in business.  

Now, no business of any substance will have 100% happy customers.  You
all who are unhappy with the activation system aren't happy.  Duly
noted.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 5:51:43 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> Sure, I -could- open another ticket, but to what purpose ? Obviously
> someone higher up than her revoked the decision to grant a limit
> increase. Too bad they didn't have the balls to tell me that.

If you step back for a second, doen't this conclusion seem completely
crazy?

Have you considered the possibility that perhaps a simple error was
made?

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 5:54:33 PM
> {quote:title=Konstantine Poukhov wrote:}{quote}
> Visual Studio only requires serial number. No 
> activation is needed. 

Not the case for Windows or Office.


> As for windows itself I would not worry about MS 
> going out of business in such way that it will leave 100s of millions of 
> users hanging. And it does actually have escrow policy in place.

They do?  Do you have a reference to this?


> Do you have any kind of escrow policy?

If Microsoft really does have such a public policy, then it's probably fair to ask Embarcadero if they have one as well.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/30/2011 5:55:13 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> And how is this any different that any other company, software or
> otherwise? And why is EMBT somehow being held to a higher standard than
> any other comparable business in the same industry?

To be honest, Allen, I don't think it's quite like that.

Delphi has had a mixed history, with different "homes" (Borland, 
Inprise, CodeGear, Embo) and different levels of commitment to it at 
various times.  So of course it's reasonable to feel slightly less than 
100% confident in its long term future.  I'm not implying anything by 
understatement, here: I genuinely mean perhaps a few percent less than 
a hundred.

Secondly, a Delphi developer probably invests several man years in 
his/her products.  It's a really big deal, and it shines a torch on the 
one really big problem: nothing else in the market can compile your 
Delphi source code.  If your Delphi stops working and can't be 
reactivated, then you are comprehensively stuffed.  Not just you, but 
your customers, too.

Contrast this with - I don't know - a technical author or a 
professional photographer.  If Adobe suddenly went bust and you 
couldn't use PhotoShop any more (unlikely, but bear with me), then you 
at least have a way forward.  There are other graphics editors out 
there than can open PhotoShop format files, and if you archive in a 
non-proprietary format there are loads of choices.  You could buy one 
of a number of alternatives and carry on working with only a small 
glitch.

I'm sure you can see the same is true for the author.

So it's about assessing the risk.  Risk is probability multiplied by 
consequence.  If the consequence is huge (i.e. several man years of 
work rendered useless), then you need an extremely low level of 
probability.

THAT is why people are seemingly obsessing about the requirement for 
activation.

I know - you're thinking about Microsoft and Visual Studio.  Why aren't 
I making the same argument for that product?  Three reasons.  Firstly, 
Microsoft is much bigger than Embo.  It's big enough to warp 
space-time.  It isn't immune from going under, or switching off Visual 
Studio, but I judge the likelihood to be an order of magnitude less 
than the same thing happening to Delphi.

Secondly, Microsoft has a massive vested interest in maintaining the 
ecosystem around its OSs, so it would probably be commercial reckless - 
to say the least - to lose interest in Visual Studio or its successors.

Contrast this with Embo: they didn't own a Windows RAD tool until 
recently, yet they still thrived.  Ergo they could divest themselves of 
it, or de-prioritise it, or shut it down, without the same degree of 
commercial risk.

Thirdly, as far as I can make out, Visual Studio doesn't require online 
activation (unless something happens invisibly), so there's no apparent 
reason for it to stop working no matter what might happen to Microsoft.

I hope you can see that we (customers) aren't really holding Embo to an 
unfairly high standard that we don't require of other vendors.  For 
most of us, it's a thought-through risk assessment involving 
probabilities and consequences, and online activation raises the 
"probability" side of the risk equation uncomfortably high (but not 
intolerably high, in most cases, obviously).

-- 
SteveT
0
Steve
9/30/2011 5:56:24 PM
On 2011-09-30 13:48:41 -0400, Dave White <no@no.com> said:

> The way I read Adem's post was that he wasn't advocating using Delphi
> without paying for it, just that he wanted a usable backup in case there
> were problems down the road.

I agree that Adem clarified this position in follow-up posts.

> 
> And my "don't give me the crap comment" was pro-active, I wasn't saying
> you had said that, I was saying to not go ahead and tell me that (isn't
> English a great language).

Understood, but the language seemed accusatory, as if I had some type 
of reputation for making such a claim.  Which I do not.

> Same with the "if you really know this for
> certain" comment - you said "While this scenario is certainly possible,
> it does not seem very probable.", suggests some future knowledge or
> assumptions about the viability of the company

Not really.  It was just an opinion based on observation.  I 
acknowledged that any company can fold without warning, but from what I 
see, this does not seem immediately probable for EMBT.  Perhaps my 
opinion is misguided, naive, or uninformed, but I never claimed it to 
be otherwise.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/30/2011 5:58:55 PM
> {quote:title=Steve Thackery wrote:}{quote}
> Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > And how is this any different that any other company, software or
> > otherwise? And why is EMBT somehow being held to a higher standard than
> > any other comparable business in the same industry?
> 
> To be honest, Allen, I don't think it's quite like that.
> 
> Delphi has had a mixed history, with different "homes" (Borland, 
> Inprise, CodeGear, Embo) and different levels of commitment to it at 
> various times.  So of course it's reasonable to feel slightly less than 
> 100% confident in its long term future.  I'm not implying anything by 
> understatement, here: I genuinely mean perhaps a few percent less than 
> a hundred.
> 
> Secondly, a Delphi developer probably invests several man years in 
> his/her products.  It's a really big deal, and it shines a torch on the 
> one really big problem: nothing else in the market can compile your 
> Delphi source code.  If your Delphi stops working and can't be 
> reactivated, then you are comprehensively stuffed.  Not just you, but 
> your customers, too.
> 
> Contrast this with - I don't know - a technical author or a 
> professional photographer.  If Adobe suddenly went bust and you 
> couldn't use PhotoShop any more (unlikely, but bear with me), then you 
> at least have a way forward.  There are other graphics editors out 
> there than can open PhotoShop format files, and if you archive in a 
> non-proprietary format there are loads of choices.  You could buy one 
> of a number of alternatives and carry on working with only a small 
> glitch.
> 
> I'm sure you can see the same is true for the author.
> 
> So it's about assessing the risk.  Risk is probability multiplied by 
> consequence.  If the consequence is huge (i.e. several man years of 
> work rendered useless), then you need an extremely low level of 
> probability.
> 
> THAT is why people are seemingly obsessing about the requirement for 
> activation.
> 
> I know - you're thinking about Microsoft and Visual Studio.  Why aren't 
> I making the same argument for that product?  Three reasons.  Firstly, 
> Microsoft is much bigger than Embo.  It's big enough to warp 
> space-time.  It isn't immune from going under, or switching off Visual 
> Studio, but I judge the likelihood to be an order of magnitude less 
> than the same thing happening to Delphi.
> 
> Secondly, Microsoft has a massive vested interest in maintaining the 
> ecosystem around its OSs, so it would probably be commercial reckless - 
> to say the least - to lose interest in Visual Studio or its successors.
> 
> Contrast this with Embo: they didn't own a Windows RAD tool until 
> recently, yet they still thrived.  Ergo they could divest themselves of 
> it, or de-prioritise it, or shut it down, without the same degree of 
> commercial risk.
> 
> Thirdly, as far as I can make out, Visual Studio doesn't require online 
> activation (unless something happens invisibly), so there's no apparent 
> reason for it to stop working no matter what might happen to Microsoft.
> 
> I hope you can see that we (customers) aren't really holding Embo to an 
> unfairly high standard that we don't require of other vendors.  For 
> most of us, it's a thought-through risk assessment involving 
> probabilities and consequences, and online activation raises the 
> "probability" side of the risk equation uncomfortably high (but not 
> intolerably high, in most cases, obviously).
> 

Well said.

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/30/2011 5:59:53 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Sure, I -could- open another ticket, but to what purpose ? Obviously
> > someone higher up than her revoked the decision to grant a limit
> > increase. Too bad they didn't have the balls to tell me that.
> 
> If you step back for a second, doen't this conclusion seem completely
> crazy?
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that perhaps a simple error was
> made?
> 
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com

No it isn't and no I didn't. These aren't rubes who just discovered how to use a keyboard. It's a conscious decision on their part, no question about it.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 6:01:35 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> Adem Meda wrote:
> > 
> > Reading people's experiences here, this does not seem to be the case.
> 
> Which people? I saw exactly one person mention that he was unable to
> get a registration bump. I even asked this person to whom did they
> speak and I'll look into it... I got no response.
> 
> The rest have merely began piling on the strawmen and hypotheticals...

In case anyone wonders, I am the one with hypotheticals.. and, I clearly stated that I haven't yet purchased XE2.

Speaking of hypotheticals: After reading people's experiences with using Delphi under VMs, I'll probably go that route: Install XE2 in a freshly installed OS in a VM.

Even if that means I'll have to buy another Win7 license, it is much cheaper; much less hassle and a lot more comforting.

I can imagine you may not like this solution; but, it is the best compromise I can think of --other than seeking a crack.
0
Adem
9/30/2011 6:05:59 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> We *don't* have that policy. You can get a replacement by merely
> asking, either through online registration or by calling/filling out an
> online request. It appears as if you're omitting data in order to make
> your case.

Yes, REALLY, you do. I tried to register my XE and it said "Registration limit reached". That *is* your policy. Then I followed the process, I created a ticket. I was told that I was given an increase, but that was untrue. When I tried to register, I was again denied access to my product with "Registration Limit reached.". Then when I tried to reply back to Loredana all I got back was an robotic auto-response saying emails from me were not being accepted for this ticket. Case closed, no further discussion
 permitted.

Sure, I -could- open another ticket, but to what purpose ? Obviously someone higher up than her revoked the decision to grant a limit increase. Too bad they didn't have the balls to tell me that.

Like I said, EMBT is free to do what it likes, but it's pretty certain I won't be interested in XE3 and I'll be sure to make clear to anyone who expresses an interest in Delphi exactly what EMBT policy is towards paying customers.

If EMBT wants to refund me for my bricked licence, they know where to mail the cheque.

Edit: I'm done here, I think we're all pretty clear on each others position.

Edited by: Jeff Williams on Sep 30, 2011 11:05 AM
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 6:06:04 PM
Kevin Powick wrote:

> So, your conclusion in the last sentence is pretty much exactly what I 
> said.

Hmmmm...... I guess so.  :-)

And there's the rub: the probability - whilst low - is still a bit 
higher than I would wish (as I judge it).

-- 
SteveT
0
Steve
9/30/2011 6:16:29 PM
On 2011-09-30 14:37:10 +0100, Jeff Williams said:

> Maybe I'm missing a detail on this, but this idea of infinitely 
> replicating a VM copy of a single Delphi registration seems to me to be 
> very much like the idea of infinitely bumping your registration count 
> which EMBT has decided is not permitted. Unless you are buying a new 
> licence for every VM, in which case I envy your financial resources.

Maybe it's just me, but I do not even think of it as cheating, since I 
am the only one ever using the one licence and, since I only have one 
pair of hands and one pair of hands, I only ever use one copy of the 
VM, in a given state, at any one time.

All I have done is to "backup" my configuration of Windows and the 
installed IDE.

Or are you saying that I am not allowed to make as many backup copies 
as I feel necessary to ensure I always have a working copy of my chosen 
IDE.

In effect, what I do when switching from one copy of the original VM to 
another, is to revert the original machine to a previous state and then 
start working with that reverted copy.

Are you implying that I should have different physical machines for 
each client I work for?

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter
Carter Consulting
0
Joanna
9/30/2011 6:16:34 PM
Hi Jeff,

> I don't care what you believe. I asked for a registration increase and didn't get it. That licence is still bricked today.

That sounds like a request that got lost, which is quite different than 
Embarcardero telling you "No", which is what you claimed happened.

Have you tried to request the "bump" again?

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner  Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller Eurozone
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/30/2011 6:20:12 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> It's a conscious decision on their part, no question about it.

I'm beginning to suspect that there are extenuating circumstances here
that we don't know about.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 6:21:30 PM
Hi Jeff,

> As for pursuing it with support, what's the point ? I can see exactly how it will go "You didn't increase the limit" "Yes, it has been increased" "No, it still says limit reached" "Stop emailing us, this ticket is closed".

That's just <censored>... I'm sorry, but you're just making up 
scenarios, assuming the worst (and then some) for a situation which is 
most likely caused by a lost "bump" request. For goodness sake, just 
request the bump again (or ask your reseller to take care of it). Sjeesh..

> I've learned the lesson.

<shaking head>...

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner  Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller Eurozone
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/30/2011 6:22:42 PM
Hi Jeff,

>> It was not? That's the first time I've ever heard of a case where it was
>> not granted... Have you asked Embarcadero why? Perhaps your request got
>> lost - did you request it again??
>>
>
> It wasn't lost. I was quite furious at the time over having to use another licence. Now I just don't care. I didn't know the reg limit was so low. I won't be caught again, because I'm not buying another licence for any EMBT product for the forseeable future after this.

How do you know that it wasn't lost? Did you actually get a reply or 
message telling you that it was DENIED?

No, all you got was NOTHING, so you ASSUMED that it was DENIED, while in 
fact it is MORE LIKELY that it just got LOST.

I really cannot believe that you decided to purchase a new license 
instead of trying to increase the registration count again. If you are 
angry, you most likely should be with yourself...

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner  Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller Eurozone
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/30/2011 6:32:54 PM
Hi Nick,

>> I wish I had customers like that.
>
> Yeah -- that's the almost perfect customer.
>
> The perfect customer would do that, *and* upgrade every time.  ;-)

Actually, the perfect customer would have a subscription and renew it 
every year (and get the upgrades for free) ;-)

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner  Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller Eurozone
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/30/2011 6:34:06 PM
Hi Jeff,

> No it isn't and no I didn't. These aren't rubes who just discovered how to use a keyboard. It's a conscious decision on their part, no question about it.

Or maybe the request got lost. Unless you got an actual answer that told 
you the request was denied, you will never be sure. Well, YOU may be 
sure, but I'm also pretty sure that you are wrong ;-)

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner  Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller Eurozone
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/30/2011 6:36:40 PM
>
>Well said.

Yes indeed..
0
Marius
9/30/2011 6:56:22 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > We don't have that policy. You can get a replacement by merely
> > asking, either through online registration or by calling/filling
> > out an online request. It appears as if you're omitting data in
> > order to make your case.
> 
> Yes, REALLY, you do. I tried to register my XE and it said
> "Registration limit reached". That is your policy. Then I followed
> the process, I created a ticket. I was told that I was given an
> increase, but that was untrue. When I tried to register, I was again
> denied access to my product with "Registration Limit reached.". Then
> when I tried to reply back to Loredana all I got back was an robotic
> auto-response saying emails from me were not being accepted for this
> ticket. Case closed, no further discussion  permitted.

I looked up what is likely your account in the reg-database. This is
for RAD Studio XE Professional, right? On 9/12/2011, a bump was done,
by the individual you mention, which also shows that the new limit has
been reached.

I also see that the product was registered after the bump, on
9/16/2011. It also appears that the product has been installed on
several different machines... specifically three on 9/7/2011.

If you can confirm this information, I'll personally bump the limit
again for you. Also, could could send me your sanct.log and
regwizard.log files, that would really help in diagnosing potential
problems.  (abauer@embarcadero.com) Those files are located in your
user's home folder. On Vista/Win7 it is under c:\Users\<username>\. For
XP, I think it is c:\Documents and Settings\<username>.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 7:01:22 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> I can imagine you may not like this solution; but, it is the best
> compromise I can think of.

This is a common solution, yes.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 7:06:09 PM
> {quote:title=Konstantine Poukhov wrote:}{quote}
> Then be a man and tell that EMB does have escrow policy and not going to 
> leave people dry in case it goes out of business or for whatever reason 
> decides to drop product. If you had that clearly spelled out somewhere 
> in EULA or wherever  I am pretty sure you'd get much less bitching about 
> the situation. I am also pretty sure that if you do have large customers 
> who are buying your licenses in bulk then those large customers do have 
> such an assurance. Just not us small fish.

Excuse you?

Here's a policy suggestion for Embarcadero; Don't waste time answering the questions of trolls.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
9/30/2011 7:06:19 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> Frankly, I interpret your statement that the average re-activation
> rate is less than two to mean that the average purchaser installs the
> product once, is turned off by what he discovers in using the product
> and moves on to something else.

That conclusion doesn't follow logically from the given statement.
0
Tom
9/30/2011 7:15:49 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Pardon? What does me "being a man" have to do with this? If I'm not
> willing to make the statement you want, I'm now somehow not a man? I'll
> just leave it at that.
> 
> Also, note that I'm not the one who can make such a decision... and
> I've also hinted that we've *already* looked at this issue and found
> that the costs associated with it outweigh the gains... We're not
> unsympathetic to the concerns here, but it *does* involve more than
> simply "making a statement."
> 
This entire threaded seems to have degenerated into one of implication and insinuation with little factual backing and/or reluctance to divulge the facts.
I do not deny, that those who have a complaint, have valid reasons, perceived or not for voicing their views. However I feel Allen has been unreasonably attacked despite attempting be a voice of reason in what has become a very heated discussion.

My experience, and single dealing with Allen, is that of a person of integrity, who personally took up a case of an online purchase gone wrong and ensured that the issue was resolved in a reasonable and equitable manner.

Can we not turn this into a productive discussion as to how the issue could be addressed while protecting all parties  interests.
0
Ken
9/30/2011 7:24:23 PM
> {quote:title=Jeff Williams wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > 
> > > Sure, I -could- open another ticket, but to what purpose ? Obviously
> > > someone higher up than her revoked the decision to grant a limit
> > > increase. Too bad they didn't have the balls to tell me that.
> > 
> > If you step back for a second, doen't this conclusion seem completely
> > crazy?
> > 
> > Have you considered the possibility that perhaps a simple error was
> > made?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> > Gateway Ticketing Systems
> > http://www.gatewayticketing.com
> 
> No it isn't and no I didn't. These aren't rubes who just discovered how to use a keyboard. It's a conscious decision on their part, no question about it.

While I don't like current activation policy, it seems to me that you 
have jumped to the conclusions that are very likely not true. 

I am quite confident that I wouldn't easily give up if I had activation troubles.

I know that dealing with technical support (of any larger company) can 
sometimes be like talking to a computer that picks up random answers 
from a database, but if you persist usually you can get to people who will 
know how to help you.

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
9/30/2011 7:25:00 PM
+1


-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 7:26:22 PM
> Pardon? What does me "being a man" have to do with this? If I'm not
> willing to make the statement you want, I'm now somehow not a man? I'll
> just leave it at that.

Sorry that was a case of my bad English. Please take no offence I wanted 
to refer not to you personally but to EMB. And "being a man" in this 
case means stop avoiding the issue and give your customers clear answer 
about your escrow policy. I think paying customers do deserve it.

> Also, note that I'm not the one who can make such a decision... and
> I've also hinted that we've *already* looked at this issue and found
> that the costs associated with it outweigh the gains... We're not
> unsympathetic to the concerns here, but it *does* involve more than
> simply "making a statement."

The way I basically understand your statement is this: if EMB is in nice 
shape and in a mood of supporting Delphi everything is nice and rosy and 
if not we the customers (at least small ones) will just have to swallow 
it. If that is approach EMB has to assure their customers that using 
it's product is a wise investment then this approach is failing. 
Personally I feel that as time goes by I am less and less secure in 
using Delphi.
0
Konstantine
9/30/2011 7:32:46 PM
> This entire threaded seems to have degenerated into one of implication and insinuation with little factual backing and/or reluctance to divulge the facts.
> I do not deny, that those who have a complaint, have valid reasons, perceived or not for voicing their views. However I feel Allen has been unreasonably attacked despite attempting be a voice of reason in what has become a very heated discussion.
>
> My experience, and single dealing with Allen, is that of a person of integrity, who personally took up a case of an online purchase gone wrong and ensured that the issue was resolved in a reasonable and equitable manner.
>
> Can we not turn this into a productive discussion as to how the issue could be addressed while protecting all parties  interests.

I have no doubts about Allen's personal integrity. I can not give the 
same credit to Embarcadero though.

As for facts I only have one thing to tell, as of now there is zero 
assurance on what happens if/when Emb goes down or decides not to 
support Delphi anymore. Now THAT is a fact and it feels to me as being 
very ignorant to customer's needs.

Productive discussion IMO can be a very simple one: give me reasonable 
assurance, that is the end of it
0
Konstantine
9/30/2011 7:39:33 PM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> > Pardon? What does me "being a man" have to do with this? If I'm not
> > willing to make the statement you want, I'm now somehow not a man?
> > I'll just leave it at that.
> 
> Sorry that was a case of my bad English. Please take no offence I
> wanted to refer not to you personally but to EMB.

OK. Understood.
 
> > Also, note that I'm not the one who can make such a decision... and
> > I've also hinted that we've already looked at this issue and found
> > that the costs associated with it outweigh the gains... We're not
> > unsympathetic to the concerns here, but it does involve more than
> > simply "making a statement."
> 
> The way I basically understand your statement is this: if EMB is in
> nice shape and in a mood of supporting Delphi everything is nice and
> rosy and if not we the customers (at least small ones) will just have
> to swallow it. If that is approach EMB has to assure their customers
> that using it's product is a wise investment then this approach is
> failing.  Personally I feel that as time goes by I am less and less
> secure in using Delphi.

I suppose you could see it that way. I'm merely saying how things are,
good or bad. I think the truth (or at least as much of the truth as I
can divulge) is better than simply not saying anything or to even
dismiss the concern. I was trying to say that we *do* understand and
did actually look at this. However, it is just not as "simple" as many
here think. I really, really wish it were as simple as "making a
statement."

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 7:41:55 PM
On 1/10/2011 1:23 AM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Adem Meda wrote:
>
>> I must have totally misunderstood Allen, then.
>
> Right -- if you are legitimate user with legitimate needs, you can get
> as many installs as you want.
>
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.

Nick - take your fingers out of your ears and listen for once.

What you are talking about may be the theory, the policy .... but the 
real story is far different in so many cases.
0
Christopher
9/30/2011 7:50:41 PM
> {quote:title=Konstantine Poukhov wrote:}{quote}
 
> Productive discussion IMO can be a very simple one: give me reasonable 
> assurance, that is the end of it

My view is the issue is not as simple as you may wish to believe. What constitutes "reasonable assurance" from your POV may be poles apart from EMB. It is my hope that we could reach some common ground without unnecessarily personalizing  the discussion, which I believe is your intent. :-)
0
Ken
9/30/2011 7:53:05 PM
On 1/10/2011 3:17 AM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> And no, I'm not lying.  Please ease off on accusing someone of lying.

I don't think you are lying, I just thing you are ignorant of the real 
world facts.... and for proof....

> I worked at EMBT for four years, and was intimately involved in the
> decision making process about all of this.  During my time there, the
> number of legitimate requests for registration extensions that were
> denied was zero.  Those are facts.

There is the proof.

> Yes I -do-.

No - you don't, you know what you saw, nothing more nothing less.

The simple fact is that in many cases, people end up unable to use their 
legitimate software.

For me -

After some issues with Windows, my count for Delphi 2007 got to 0. I was 
denied an increase of 2 (granted 1), meaning I couldn't use the software 
(as I needed desktop/laptop installation). I ended up getting Delphi 
2010 upgrade to tide me over.

Delphi4PHP - on first install, it chewed up all my count and I didn't 
get a valid activation, I asked for them to be reset - answer NO. I 
ended up getting a refund on that product.

Delphi 2010 - both my licence and work's licence for me died, no 
recourse, no response to my ticket. I ended up getting a refund on that 
product.

Since then - I now ensure I have a cracked version ASAP.

I frequently get laughed at by others who don't even buy the product - 
yet never have any such issues.

So again - stop bathing in your own ignorance of how things are out and 
about.

Fix the activation system so that ZERO customers EVER get caught out 
with their tools of trade turned off, even if that means that a FEW 
customers get freebies.
0
Christopher
9/30/2011 8:02:18 PM
> My view is the issue is not as simple as you may wish to believe.What constitutes "reasonable assurance" from your POV may be poles apart 
from EMB.

> It is my hope that we could reach some common ground without unnecessarily personalizing  the discussion, which I believe is your intent. :-)

My intent is very very simple. I want to be sure that if Emb goes out of 
business and/or decides not to support Delphi anymore I should still be 
able to use something for what I paid my money and not to loose my 
customers as a result of inability to use Delphi.

If I can't have this assurance then I can't use Delphi for any serious work.

It is binary logic, I can either have this assurance or not. You can not 
tell me that I can "sort of use Delphi".
0
Konstantine
9/30/2011 8:04:12 PM
On 1/10/2011 3:35 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:

> Which people? I saw exactly *one* person mention that he was unable to
> get a registration bump. I even asked this person to whom did they
> speak and I'll look into it... I got no response.

I quoted a case number... in this forum.

I will not be publicly naming and shaming, because I firmly believe the 
flaw is in the design of the system, not in the hands of those poor 
support staff that have to deal with me whilst I'm under duress.


> The rest have merely began piling on the strawmen and hypotheticals...

If by hypothetical, you mean real occurences - that actually happened 
.... then I'm guilty as charged.

Look - I even got a refund from one helpful person, because they 
couldn't get one of my activations fixed (Delphi4PHP not Delphi).
0
Christopher
9/30/2011 8:05:56 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> What you are talking about may be the theory, the policy .... but the 
> real story is far different in so many cases.

No, it's not.  I'm sorry, Christopher, but here we have *one* single,
somewhat murky claim of not being able to bump registrations.  One.
Not 'many cases', but one case. That's a bit weird, unclear, and murky.



-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 8:06:20 PM
On 2011-09-30 14:06:04 -0400, Jeff Williams <> said:

> Then when I tried to reply back to Loredana all I got back was an 
> robotic auto-response saying emails from me were not being accepted for 
> this ticket.

She gave you the bump, then closed the ticket.  What's so unusual about 
that?  I'm sure she assumed that all was well after doing what you 
asked.  I close help desk tickets too when I believe that I've 
completed the task required.

>  Case closed, no further discussion permitted.

I assume that was not actually part of the auto-reply and was added by 
you for dramatic effect.

> Sure, I -could- open another ticket, but to what purpose ?

Oh, I don't know.  To let her know that for some reason you're still 
having difficulty activating your product?


>  Obviously someone higher up than her revoked the decision to grant a 
> limit increase.

Yeah, obviously. I described the more likely scenario above.

I see in another post that Allen B. is personally trying to help you 
out.  I hope it works out ok for you.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
9/30/2011 8:07:37 PM
> {quote:title=Konstantine Poukhov wrote:}{quote}
> It is binary logic, I can either have this assurance or not. You can not 
> tell me that I can "sort of use Delphi".

Yes, the answer is binary.
It is how we can reach the same answer that satisfies both parties, in a manner that is acceptable to both is where a productive discussion should go.
0
Ken
9/30/2011 8:11:41 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 1/10/2011 3:35 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > Which people? I saw exactly one person mention that he was unable to
> > get a registration bump. I even asked this person to whom did they
> > speak and I'll look into it... I got no response.
> 
> I quoted a case number... in this forum.
> 
> I will not be publicly naming and shaming, because I firmly believe
> the flaw is in the design of the system, not in the hands of those
> poor support staff that have to deal with me whilst I'm under duress.
> 
> 
> > The rest have merely began piling on the strawmen and
> > hypotheticals...
> 
> If by hypothetical, you mean real occurences - that actually happened 
> ... then I'm guilty as charged.
> 
> Look - I even got a refund from one helpful person, because they 
> couldn't get one of my activations fixed (Delphi4PHP not Delphi).

In your case (If this is the one instance I recall correctly), was not
about being denied a bump in registrations. I have to admit that in
your case, it was truly regretable that we were unable to resolve the
matter. I'm also happy to see that you got a deserved refund as you
were unable to use the product.

WRT my message, I was talking about the issue where one had been denied
a bump. I looked into that case, and in fact it *was* bumped as
requested, and there was a registration against that bump a day or two
later. I also checked into any *failed* registrations or ones that were
specifically denied... and there were none that were denied.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 8:19:32 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> So again - stop bathing in your own ignorance of how things are out
> and about.

You were not denied a bump in registration count.  

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/30/2011 8:21:20 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 1/10/2011 1:23 AM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> > Adem Meda wrote:
> > 
> >> I must have totally misunderstood Allen, then.
> > 
> > Right -- if you are legitimate user with legitimate needs, you can
> > get as many installs as you want.
> > 
> NO.
> NO.
> NO.
> NO.
> 
> Nick - take your fingers out of your ears and listen for once.
> 
> What you are talking about may be the theory, the policy .... but the 
> real story is far different in so many cases.

I realized that to the ones affected, it doesn't really matter that
they're in the clear minority of cases. I hope that I've never tried to
deny that there have been problems with the registration system and
that there are cases of failure... I'm merely trying to state that we
*do* try and resolve them the best we can. Yes, there have been some
cases where we were unable to resolve the problem... I also know that
we've refunded folks in those cases...

I can count on less than one hand the number of cases like this within
the last two years... Because when support cannot easily resolve the
case, I get a support engineer at my door...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 8:25:44 PM
On 1/10/2011 6:25 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:

> I can count on less than one hand the number of cases like this within
> the last two years... Because when support cannot easily resolve the
> case, I get a support engineer at my door...

So - I now have a tethered licence for Delphi XE2, can you guarantee to 
me that I wont suffer the same 'forced vaction' that occured for me with 
Delphi 2010 ?

That is - will you pay the costs of me being out of work for 4 weeks, 
because Embarcadero chose to disable my primary tool of trade ?

If not ... then everything you say is just meaningless words.

I'll assume the words are well intentioned, but carry no weight - and 
proceed with getting a reliable solution with a cracked ISO.
0
Christopher
9/30/2011 8:48:14 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > 
> > > Assume all you want. But there was no contract, implied or not, that
> > > this service was going to remain for all eternity.
> > 
> > So is no contract about activation servers!
> 
> Wow. Just, Wow. This isn't about the activation servers, it was about
> the self-service registration limit bump. That is separate and distinct
> from the activation servers. Again, there is *no* specific limit on
> registrations.

I know, I just used your argument. Nowhere in the EULA it is mentioned that I should be expecting the activation servers to stay up forever. Am I right? So if you turn them off, let's say in 10 years, there will be no EULA violation and no grounds for my complaints. It's that simple.
0
Captain
9/30/2011 9:16:57 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}

> WRT my message, I was talking about the issue where one had been denied
> a bump. I looked into that case, and in fact it *was* bumped as
> requested, and there was a registration against that bump a day or two
> later. I also checked into any *failed* registrations or ones that were
> specifically denied... and there were none that were denied.
> 
> -- 
> Allen Bauer
> Embarcadero Chief Scientist
> http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
> http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd

That's right, I just made it all up. This was that supposed successful registration.

[09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientid=CBuilder
[09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientversion=7.0
[09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientbuild=
[09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientsku=
[09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] istrial=no
[09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] usedproxy=no
[09/16/11 08:13:35 pm] Connecting to registration server
[09/16/11 08:14:36 pm] Failure Occurred:101
[09/16/11 08:14:36 pm] Error Message:Product could not be registered.  Serial number is either invalid or expired (7013).

[09/16/11 08:14:37 pm] Registration Failed.

I guess it was just all my imagination. 

What a waste of time.
0
Jeff
9/30/2011 9:51:44 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> 
> > WRT my message, I was talking about the issue where one had been
> > denied a bump. I looked into that case, and in fact it was bumped as
> > requested, and there was a registration against that bump a day or
> > two later. I also checked into any failed registrations or ones
> > that were specifically denied... and there were none that were
> > denied.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Allen Bauer
> > Embarcadero Chief Scientist
> > http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
> > http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
> 
> That's right, I just made it all up. This was that supposed
> successful registration.
> 
> [09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientid=CBuilder
> [09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientversion=7.0
> [09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientbuild=
> [09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] clientsku=
> [09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] istrial=no
> [09/16/11 08:13:34 pm] usedproxy=no
> [09/16/11 08:13:35 pm] Connecting to registration server
> [09/16/11 08:14:36 pm] Failure Occurred:101
> [09/16/11 08:14:36 pm] Error Message:Product could not be registered.
> Serial number is either invalid or expired (7013).
> 
> [09/16/11 08:14:37 pm] Registration Failed.
> 
> I guess it was just all my imagination. 
> 
> What a waste of time.

Is this the information from the regwizard.log file? Could you send me
that whole file and the sanct.log as well? I've been in contact with
the licensing team and they're very interesting in figuring this out.
It appears that from our perspective it was successful, however that
wasn't properly communicated back to the client end.

Like I mentioned in another post, I'm willing to bump your registration
count if that would help. I'd still like to get those log files so we
can try and better diagnose this issue and make sure that another
registration bump will actually work.

What kind of firewall are you using? Maybe you could try the
web-registration route. I could even generate a registration license
for your machine if you send me the "registration code" that is
displayed in the registration wizard. I can then send that file via
email.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 10:10:28 PM
Captain America wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > Captain America wrote:
> > 
> > > > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > > 
> > > > Assume all you want. But there was no contract, implied or not,
> > > > that this service was going to remain for all eternity.
> > > 
> > > So is no contract about activation servers!
> > 
> > Wow. Just, Wow. This isn't about the activation servers, it was
> > about the self-service registration limit bump. That is separate
> > and distinct from the activation servers. Again, there is no
> > specific limit on registrations.
> 
> I know, I just used your argument. Nowhere in the EULA it is
> mentioned that I should be expecting the activation servers to stay
> up forever. Am I right? So if you turn them off, let's say in 10
> years, there will be no EULA violation and no grounds for my
> complaints. It's that simple.

I would say that the registration servers are different than the
self-service registration bump...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 10:12:50 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 1/10/2011 6:25 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > I can count on less than one hand the number of cases like this
> > within the last two years... Because when support cannot easily
> > resolve the case, I get a support engineer at my door...
> 
> So - I now have a tethered licence for Delphi XE2, can you guarantee
> to me that I wont suffer the same 'forced vaction' that occured for
> me with Delphi 2010 ?

Guarantee? No, mainly because we have no control over what you do on
your machine. I can guarantee that we'll attempt to resolve any
problem, should any occur. I presume things are working fine right now,
correct?
 
> That is - will you pay the costs of me being out of work for 4 weeks, 
> because Embarcadero chose to disable my primary tool of trade ?

I think the extent of what we can do is provide a refund should you be
unable to use the product.
 
> If not ... then everything you say is just meaningless words.
> 
> I'll assume the words are well intentioned, but carry no weight - and 
> proceed with getting a reliable solution with a cracked ISO.

I see that you have successfully registered Delphi XE2. There is
currently only one registration on your account (assuming I've got the
right Christopher Burke).

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 10:21:16 PM
Allen, I'm thrilled that you're in this newsgroup.

Now, please, please, stop letting folks waste your time.  Send in a 
marketing rep for this thread if you need to, but we need you spending 
your time on the technology.

Thanks,
Dan
0
D
9/30/2011 10:43:55 PM
D Ligett wrote:

> Allen, I'm thrilled that you're in this newsgroup.
> 
> Now, please, please, stop letting folks waste your time.  Send in a 
> marketing rep for this thread if you need to, but we need you
> spending your time on the technology.

:-). I appreciate your concern... however, I never consider interacting
with customers a "waste of time."

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
9/30/2011 10:52:05 PM
> ...I'm merely trying to state that we
> *do* try and resolve them the best we can. Yes, there have been some
> cases where we were unable to resolve the problem... I also know that
> we've refunded folks in those cases...

Did I understand it right that your registration process can fail in 
such a way that even human interaction can not resolve the issue? You 
mean like one day I may end up in a situation where I can't 
deliver/update a product because development tool could not be 
registered/reregistered? Issuing refund in such case not going to be 
much help since I could be out of whole pile of money or even facing 
legal action from "happy customers" Quite frankly you've just scared the 
living ... out of me.
0
Konstantine
10/1/2011 12:11:14 AM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> > ...I'm merely trying to state that we
> > do try and resolve them the best we can. Yes, there have been some
> > cases where we were unable to resolve the problem... I also know
> > that we've refunded folks in those cases...
> 
> Did I understand it right that your registration process can fail in 
> such a way that even human interaction can not resolve the issue? 

I'm sure that if we had physical access to these failing machines, they
could be made to work, or at least be able to better diagnose the
problem. What generally happens is that there have been a very few
(like counted on one hand) where over-the-phone conversations were
unable to resolve the problem. Maybe the person didn't understand the
instructions, perform them correctly, or any number of human-based
errors.

> You 
> mean like one day I may end up in a situation where I can't 
> deliver/update a product because development tool could not be 
> registered/reregistered? Issuing refund in such case not going to be 
> much help since I could be out of whole pile of money or even facing 
> legal action from "happy customers" Quite frankly you've just scared
> the living ... out of me.

I'd rather not speculate on what may or may not happen... I can only
say that the chances of such an occurance is miniscule.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/1/2011 12:29:12 AM
On 1/10/2011 8:21 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:

> I see that you have successfully registered Delphi XE2. There is
> currently only one registration on your account (assuming I've got the
> right Christopher Burke).

Correct, however by the end of October that will be 3. My main 
computer's windows installation has become flakey and I will be 
installing on my laptop's VMWare Fusion.

That leaves me ONE more shot ...ONE more mistake before I'm done.

Will that ONE shot last the next 2 years ?
0
Christopher
10/1/2011 12:31:18 AM
On 1/10/2011 10:11 AM, Konstantine Poukhov wrote:
>> ...I'm merely trying to state that we
>> *do* try and resolve them the best we can. Yes, there have been some
>> cases where we were unable to resolve the problem... I also know that
>> we've refunded folks in those cases...
>
> Did I understand it right that your registration process can fail in
> such a way that even human interaction can not resolve the issue? You
> mean like one day I may end up in a situation where I can't
> deliver/update a product because development tool could not be
> registered/reregistered? Issuing refund in such case not going to be
> much help since I could be out of whole pile of money or even facing
> legal action from "happy customers" Quite frankly you've just scared the
> living ... out of me.

Your hypothetical is what happened to me with Delphi 2010 almost a year 
ago, and I had two separate licences dedicated to my use.

The only way I got out of the mess was to grab a cracked ISO to get 
myself up and running again.
0
Christopher
10/1/2011 12:33:55 AM
On 1/10/2011 6:02 AM, Christopher Burke wrote:
> For me -
>
> After some issues with Windows, my count for Delphi 2007 got to 0. I was
> denied an increase of 2 (granted 1), meaning I couldn't use the software
> (as I needed desktop/laptop installation). I ended up getting Delphi
> 2010 upgrade to tide me over.
>
> Delphi4PHP - on first install, it chewed up all my count and I didn't
> get a valid activation, I asked for them to be reset - answer NO. I
> ended up getting a refund on that product.
>
> Delphi 2010 - both my licence and work's licence for me died, no
> recourse, no response to my ticket. I ended up getting a refund on that
> product.

Correct here ... I ended up getting a cracked ISO for Delphi 2010. 
Dangers of cut/paste luke.
0
Christopher
10/1/2011 12:36:51 AM
> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> That leaves me ONE more shot ...ONE more mistake before I'm done.

If only there were a way to increase the number of activations.

Oh well...

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
10/1/2011 12:37:01 AM
On 1/10/2011 10:37 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
>> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
>> That leaves me ONE more shot ...ONE more mistake before I'm done.
>
> If only there were a way to increase the number of activations.

One could dream..... however increasing by 1 doesn't help me.

What would be fantastic is decaying activations, so that in 6 months I'd 
be back at 0.
0
Christopher
10/1/2011 12:53:44 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> 
> That leaves me ONE more shot ...ONE more mistake before I'm done.

Sorry, you are wrong.  You can have as many shots as you need.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
10/1/2011 1:08:24 AM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> > ...I'm merely trying to state that we
> > do try and resolve them the best we can. Yes, there have been some
> > cases where we were unable to resolve the problem... I also know
> > that we've refunded folks in those cases...
> 
> Did I understand it right that your registration process can fail in 
> such a way that even human interaction can not resolve the issue?

That depends on where this big meteorite hits earth.

> You mean like one day I may end up in a situation where I can't
> deliver/update a product because development tool could not be 
> registered/reregistered? 

Yes, but again, that depends on where this big meteorite hits earth.
There is a chance that the problem is on your site.

-- 
Pieter

"If there is no Hell, a good many preachers are obtaining money 
 under false pretences." -- William Sunday.
0
Pieter
10/1/2011 2:08:51 AM
> That depends on where this big meteorite hits earth.

It did happen to Chris Burke. Besided meteorite is an act of nature and 
activation is by design, so comparing it is really senseless.

> Yes, but again, that depends on where this big meteorite hits earth.
> There is a chance that the problem is on your site.

Well we're all very brave until that big meteorite hits you personally. 
We'll see what kind of songs you'll be singing if such thing happens to you.
0
Konstantine
10/1/2011 2:16:50 AM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> You can have as many shots as you need.

Just to be sure ... since were are close to the weekend ... are you
still talking about Delphi registrations ?-)

-- 
Pieter

"You shall find out how salt is the taste of another man's
 bread, and how hard is the way up and down another man's
 stairs."
 -- Dante
0
Pieter
10/1/2011 2:19:24 AM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> > That depends on where this big meteorite hits earth.
> 
> It did happen to Chris Burke. Besided meteorite is an act of nature
> and activation is by design, so comparing it is really senseless.

So it did happen to one person, and how did EMBT deal with this? They
gave him a refund.

> > Yes, but again, that depends on where this big meteorite hits earth.
> > There is a chance that the problem is on your site.
> 
> Well we're all very brave until that big meteorite hits you
> personally.  We'll see what kind of songs you'll be singing if such
> thing happens to you.

If that ever happens, it will probably be available on youtube,
assuming that youtube is still in business around that time ;-)

-- 
Pieter

"Two things should be cut - the second act and the child's
 throat." -- Noel Coward on a dull play with an annoying 
             child star
0
Pieter
10/1/2011 2:42:57 AM
Pieter Zijlstra wrote:

> Just to be sure ... since were are close to the weekend ... are you
> still talking about Delphi registrations ?-)

Well, registrations and tequila.  But you have to pay for the tequila.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
10/1/2011 3:09:30 AM
Pieter Zijlstra wrote:

> So it did happen to one person, and how did EMBT deal with this? They
> gave him a refund.

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

        Martin Niemöller

:)
0
Adem
10/1/2011 3:35:14 AM
On 1/10/2011 12:42 PM, Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
> Konstantine Poukhov wrote:
>
>>> That depends on where this big meteorite hits earth.
>>
>> It did happen to Chris Burke. Besided meteorite is an act of nature
>> and activation is by design, so comparing it is really senseless.
>
> So it did happen to one person, and how did EMBT deal with this? They
> gave him a refund.

Only for Delphi4PHP, for Delphi 2010 - I had to get a cracked ISO to 
continue having a job.

A refund on Delphi is pointless, as I require it to earn a living.
0
Christopher
10/1/2011 7:08:08 AM
> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> On 1/10/2011 8:21 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > I see that you have successfully registered Delphi XE2. There is
> > currently only one registration on your account (assuming I've got the
> > right Christopher Burke).
> 
> Correct, however by the end of October that will be 3. My main 
> computer's windows installation has become flakey and I will be 
> installing on my laptop's VMWare Fusion.
> 
> That leaves me ONE more shot ...ONE more mistake before I'm done.
> 
> Will that ONE shot last the next 2 years ?

Your story is scaring the hell out of me. But I have noticed that you 
are reistalling Windows much too often. What kind of stuff you do
install so that your system becomes unreliable? The last time I 
was reinstalling Windows on yearly basis was before Windows XP. 
Since then I have been working on the same Windows installs for 
years.

Also when activation failed, have you tried activating Delphi on 
another computer, have you tried activation on a clean machine,
or have you tried email activation?

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
10/1/2011 9:21:46 AM
On 1/10/2011 7:21 PM, Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
>> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
>> On 1/10/2011 8:21 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> I see that you have successfully registered Delphi XE2. There is
>>> currently only one registration on your account (assuming I've got the
>>> right Christopher Burke).
>>
>> Correct, however by the end of October that will be 3. My main
>> computer's windows installation has become flakey and I will be
>> installing on my laptop's VMWare Fusion.
>>
>> That leaves me ONE more shot ...ONE more mistake before I'm done.
>>
>> Will that ONE shot last the next 2 years ?
>
> Your story is scaring the hell out of me. But I have noticed that you
> are reistalling Windows much too often. What kind of stuff you do
> install so that your system becomes unreliable?

I frequently install odd drivers, odd hardware and various other odd 
things that get plugged into Point of Sale machines (scanners, serial 
LED displays, EFTPOS systems... and who knows what).

> The last time I
> was reinstalling Windows on yearly basis was before Windows XP.
> Since then I have been working on the same Windows installs for
> years.

Yeah ... I screw around alot with odd things as part of what I do.

> Also when activation failed, have you tried activating Delphi on
> another computer, have you tried activation on a clean machine,
> or have you tried email activation?

In the Delphi 2010 case, one of the installs was on a fresh computer - 
the other licence failed just in-situ on a computer that was at a 
different location. No forms of activation worked, and the support case 
sort of got left.

I imagine that it happens very infrequently - however that really 
doesn't help me (I've had activation issues 4 times in 5 years).
0
Christopher
10/1/2011 9:34:58 AM
> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> On 1/10/2011 7:21 PM, Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
> >
> > Your story is scaring the hell out of me. But I have noticed that you
> > are reistalling Windows much too often. What kind of stuff you do
> > install so that your system becomes unreliable?
> 
> I frequently install odd drivers, odd hardware and various other odd 
> things that get plugged into Point of Sale machines (scanners, serial 
> LED displays, EFTPOS systems... and who knows what).
> 
> > The last time I
> > was reinstalling Windows on yearly basis was before Windows XP.
> > Since then I have been working on the same Windows installs for
> > years.
> 
> Yeah ... I screw around alot with odd things as part of what I do.
> 

I know that it doesn't help you, but right now I consider myself lucky
because I don't need to do any weird things.

> > Also when activation failed, have you tried activating Delphi on
> > another computer, have you tried activation on a clean machine,
> > or have you tried email activation?
> 
> In the Delphi 2010 case, one of the installs was on a fresh computer - 
> the other licence failed just in-situ on a computer that was at a 
> different location. No forms of activation worked, and the support case 
> sort of got left.
> 
> I imagine that it happens very infrequently - however that really 
> doesn't help me (I've had activation issues 4 times in 5 years).

I see now how you got to the point where using cracked version seemed
like the best solution.

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
10/1/2011 1:37:41 PM
"Nick Hodges" <nick@nickhodges.com> wrote in message 
news:407146@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> Well, registrations and tequila.  But you have to pay for the tequila.


I'll have a shot of JD please. <g>

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
10/1/2011 2:01:05 PM
On 30.09.2011 14:53, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>
>> ... I agree with David here in that there appears to be no resolution
>> in the remote case that this will/might ever happen.
>
> It is my view that EMBT should be totally up front about that.
>

When Turbopower disappeared, they published an update to those products 
that needed activation that removed that need like the followup of 
Analyst. (And those components they had full control of, was also made 
open source)
0
Alf
10/1/2011 2:04:04 PM
I am aware that there are few cases that are hurt by the 5 registrations. It also does not hurt me.

Assuming what was said above is correct.

Allen said it below they have decided that the 2% of customers that can be hurt are not considered because it's a matter of dollar. Ok. Accepted. So the Delphi customers decisions in the future to should be focused on the dollar. This means take VS because it's cheaper ... (not telling that people should do this - but this is the same argument applied from the customers perspective).

I cannot be that you purchased a Delphi without having no chance to check the number of installations maybe run (in an exceptional case) into a situation where purchasing a new Delphi does not increase you registration limit. Means they sold you something you cannot use and you cannot develop with this Delphi version in the future until the next Delphi is released. There is no procedure that describes what do in such a case nor an email address for this few people. The world does now work according to EMB
s work hours and along business days - sorry that's not reality. This comes close to, we accept a few thousand people more dying in accidents on the street just to save a few dollars on a traffic light. I don't expect a bridge of gold across the street.

No one knows if they did discuss the traffic light or the brigde and came to the conclusion that it would be to expensive.

Sry For Edit:

I don't complain about the number of registrations ... 

Mike

> {quote:title=Adem Meda wrote:}{quote}
> I don't have XE2 (yet), but I think Allen's defence is at least conceptually wrong.
> 
> He should not, IMO, establish the limit on simple average of re-registrations, but rather look at it as what I call 'aisle/corridor problem'.
> 
> I.e., in architecture, you don't simply take the average of the width of people/vehicles that are expected to use that aisle/corridor; you do, instead, make sure that you cater for at least 90 percent of that statistical population.
> 
> So, if the max number of *legitimate* re-registrations has been, say, ten --to date--; then, the number for non-manual re-registrations should be around nine.

Edited by: Michael Thuma on Oct 1, 2011 8:32 AM
0
Michael
10/1/2011 3:33:26 PM
Dalija Prasnikar wrote:

> 
> Your story is scaring the hell out of me.

There is no need to be scared.  The system works, especially if you
don't try to game it, alter it, change it or otherwise thwart it.


> Also when activation failed, have you tried activating Delphi on 
> another computer, have you tried activation on a clean machine,
> or have you tried email activation?

EMBT provides numerous means to ensure that the activation process can
get done.

I myself have never, ever had a problem with registration, and I've
installed Delphi hundreds and hundreds of times.  I always take the
simplest path and not fought the system.

I'm sure that others have had trouble, and in those cases, the best
course of action is to contact support.  If one tries to trick the
system, beat the system, alter the system, or otherwise circumvent the
system, then one is simply asking for trouble.  Trying to remove
license files, mess with or alter licensing files, etc. all are doomed
to failure and frustration.

In the end, the solution is to accept the almost painless registration
process, and it will all be well.  Don't borrow trouble.

Nothing to fear.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
10/1/2011 3:37:25 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
> 
> > Your story is scaring the hell out of me.
> 
> There is no need to be scared.  The system works, especially if you
> don't try to game it, alter it, change it or otherwise thwart it.

All we need is the proper sound effects for this paragraph to feel right at home in a scary sci-fi movie ;)

> > Also when activation failed, have you tried activating Delphi on 
> > another computer, have you tried activation on a clean machine,
> > or have you tried email activation?

Additional question: "Have you visited your $HOLY_PLACE and repented for ALL your sins --AGAIN?"

> I'm sure that others have had trouble, and in those cases, the best
> course of action is to contact support.  If one tries to trick the
> system, beat the system, alter the system, or otherwise circumvent the
> system, then one is simply asking for trouble.  Trying to remove
> license files, mess with or alter licensing files, etc. all are doomed
> to failure and frustration.

I love the emphasis on THE SYSTEM. I really do :)

> In the end, the solution is to accept the almost painless registration
> process, and it will all be well.  Don't borrow trouble.
> 
> Nothing to fear.

"OK, OK, OK
Just a little pin prick.
There’ll be no more, aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh,
But you may feel a little sick."

[from Comfortably Numb, Pink Floyd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQWszrZHBPI ]
0
Adem
10/1/2011 4:08:20 PM
Dalija Prasnikar wrote:

> I know that it doesn't help you, but right now I consider myself lucky
> because I don't need to *do any weird things*.

I am not so sure about this :)
0
Adem
10/1/2011 4:09:32 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Your story is scaring the hell out of me.
> 
> There is no need to be scared.  The system works, especially if you
> don't try to game it, alter it, change it or otherwise thwart it.
> 
> 

Asside from the worst case scenario of Delphi beeing dead, I am
not that much worried about activation. I have organized things in
such a way that I always have few fully functional computers in case
of emergency. But I have never considered the possibility that 
activation may fail in such manner Christopher was describing, that
part is scary.

> > Also when activation failed, have you tried activating Delphi on 
> > another computer, have you tried activation on a clean machine,
> > or have you tried email activation?
> 
> EMBT provides numerous means to ensure that the activation process can
> get done.
> 

Since I am keeping my working machine quite clean, I suspect that I
probably wouldn't need any help with activation (maybe for bumping my
activation count).

> I myself have never, ever had a problem with registration, and I've
> installed Delphi hundreds and hundreds of times.  I always take the
> simplest path and not fought the system.
> 

I never had problems with activation myself, and so far I never needed bumping.

But once I managed to crash Delphi 7 in such way (feeding it with buggy code) 
that after restart showed me invalid license message. I have gone through
several attempts of uninstalling Delphi, cleaning all it's data, but no use. I had
to reinstall Windows from scratch. After that activation worked fine.

Right now I don't have problems with reinstalling Windows and Delphi if anything
similar should happen, and since Allen has reasured us that increasing 
activation bump is merely question of asking I am not afraid of that part either.

But still after saying all that "not afraid" statements, I do have mixed feelings
about activation. I had too many Moore's Law experiences in my life that anything,
however improbable, seems quite possible.

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
10/1/2011 4:15:04 PM
The worst thing you can have on a long term on an IT system are happy users. The more they are satisfied the more high is the expectation in quality of future service and disappointment is guaranteed . Happiness is relative experience. Absolute happiness called satisfaction does not come this way, this comes from the IDE's stability and putting you into position to achieve something special. Imo.

The opposite experience I had, when I was employed some time ago. Taking care of every call and treat those users, who did not come from the trusts companies that payed the major portion of our budgets (not worth mentioning in reality), in a way more personal with on the job training ..., in summary the perception was positive. I personally also had 90% that like me and what I called service and 10% that did not like me, because I maybe told them for example - Take your Smiley List and throw it into the d
ustbin or I stick it into your ... ASAP. In the end our team did not have to be the but kissers of a whining minority.

If we talk about satisfaction ... we can talk about what is shipped and the quality provided when things are so called RTM. But it will not make you happy if they work, this will make you angry if they don't do. Now we can have the perception that they decided inappropriate but they will have their reasons why they do so. I think they are aware that this will not make people happy and have decided because of other reasons than considering our happiness/satisfaction. This is maybe an argument that impacts 
our opinion on the evolution of their business processes or what we think about the management.

On the other hand, learning lessons forever will lead to lots of new customers but never renewing existing. I have an understanding for your argument about happy users - meaning user who renew not only because of technical dependency introduced by using the Delphi programming environment. For a certain period EMB can take this into account safely, the humans brain filters the bad from the past ... and reacting on this in a foreseeable problem in the future will be their answer, very likely. Their focus ar
e the new customers and not the existing ... a tool does not make you happy, ... it's a hammer. The question is, is a golden hammer the better hammer.

Mike

> {quote:title=Captain America wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> 
> > No, it doesn't mean they don't understand.  They do understand
> > completely.   They have reasons for what they do -- or in this case,
> > what they don't do.
> 
> So these are bad reasons then. Nick, what do think should be the goal of each entity in business? I know what you're going to say: staying profitable. And what I say is "happy customers". Thanks.
0
Michael
10/1/2011 4:59:07 PM
Allen,

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:16:11 +0100, Allen Bauer  
<abauer@spicedham.codegear.com> wrote:

> Also, note that I'm not the one who can make such a decision... and
> I've also hinted that we've *already* looked at this issue and found
> that the costs associated with it outweigh the gains... We're not
> unsympathetic to the concerns here, but it *does* involve more than
> simply "making a statement."

Of course it does involve more than "making a statement". You must also...

1. Make a copy of your source tree

2. Deposit copy with escrow agent specified in your statement

Exactly what some of us (your customers) have to do when we sell software  
- and from actual experience I can tell you that this process is neither  
difficult nor expensive.


PS. The "ones who can make a decision" seem to be overlooking the costs of  
NOT having a published policy for End-of-Life*

For the several years while the various companies-which-then-sold-Delphi  
have neglected to provide anything at all to satisfy the requirements of  
due-diligence lawyers our company has decided not to develop any new  
products in Delphi.

Perhaps you could ask them how it can be in the long-term benefit of EMBT  
for us NOT to buy Delphi upgrades from you but instead to buy products  
 from your competitors?


* End-of-life of the company and/or the Activation Servers going "dark"  
and/or whichever entity then owns the Delphi brand deciding to impose a  
charge for activation and/or...

-- 
Paul Scott
Information Management Systems
Macclesfield, UK
0
Paul
10/1/2011 5:00:12 PM
In article <407224@forums.embarcadero.com>, Alf Christophersen wrote:
> When Turbopower disappeared, they published an update to those products 
> that needed activation that removed that need like the followup of 
> Analyst. (And those components they had full control of, was also made 
> open source)

But they chose to go out of business. If you go out of business 
involuntarily, the decision as to what happens to the assets lies with 
the liquidator who may or may not do the right thing - his responsibility 
is to the creditors, not past customers (though the two may make the same 
course of action desirable).

-- 
Tony Bryer, Greentram Software Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
'Software to build on'  http://www.greentram.com
0
Tony
10/1/2011 9:52:45 PM
> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
> Here is the official announcement: 
> 
> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue. 

Just did the initial install from the web on friday (which took quite long on my 1MB ADSL..) and I want to be sure this update is included. My delphi version in Help | About reads *16.0.4256.43595* and then "Help Release 1 for Delphi XE2". Does it include the Update 1 already?
0
Carlos
10/2/2011 3:37:43 AM
On 10/1/2011 8:37 PM, Carlos Saenz wrote:
>> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
>> Here is the official announcement:
>>
>> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue.
>
> Just did the initial install from the web on friday (which took quite long on my 1MB ADSL..) and I want to be sure this update is included. My delphi version in Help | About reads *16.0.4256.43595* and then "Help Release 1 for Delphi XE2". Does it include the Update 1 already?

I JUST finished installing XE2 on my laptop not ten minutes ago, from 
the Update 1 download ISO.

I am getting "16.0.4276.440006" for most files, and the same Help 
Release 1 for Delphi XE2.

So, it would appear that the documentation is probably the same, but the 
actual files on Update 1 are later...

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/2/2011 4:14:08 AM
> {quote:title=Adem Meda wrote:}{quote}
> Speaking of hypotheticals: After reading people's experiences with using Delphi under VMs, I'll probably go that route: Install XE2 in a freshly installed OS in a VM.

I also plan to make more use of VMs after I upgrade to a development machine with more RAM.

Another thing I have found to be useful is using drive imaging software.  I have, more than once, been fortunate enough to successfully restore a complete Windows partition to a different machine, and not need to re-activate either Windows or Delphi.  Of course, that only works if you're careful how you handle it, and if you're lucky as well.

But neither VMs nor disk imaging is a solution for everyone and every situation.

<rant mode>
I still think that software activation is just plain evil, and I can't help but detest any software company that has instituted it.  I rue the day that the company that owns Delphi joined their ranks.
</rant mode>
--
Rick Carter
Cincinnati, OH
0
Rick
10/2/2011 7:01:27 AM
> {quote:title=Rick Carter wrote:}{quote}
> 
> <rant mode>
> I still think that software activation is just plain evil, and I can't help but detest any software company that has instituted it.  I rue the day that the company that owns Delphi joined their ranks.
> </rant mode>

Agreed.

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
10/2/2011 7:46:25 AM
Am 30.09.2011 19:32, schrieb Allen Bauer:
> Markus Humm wrote:
> 
>> Am 30.09.2011 14:53, schrieb Nick Hodges:
>>> Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ... I agree with David here in that there appears to be no
>> resolution >> in the remote case that this will/might ever happen.
>>>
>>> It is my view that EMBT should be totally up front about that.
>>>
>>
>> Yes and if I'm not wrong you wanted to come up with some official
>> statement about that in the past but it somehow didn't happen.
>>
>> => This means EMBT didn't understand that aspect of the problem. They
>> didn't even anounce "we've got a solution but we won't tell anything
>> about it". That would at least have shown that they are aware of this
>> issue.
> 
> This reminds me of something I see all the time. The *assumption* that
> because I don't agree with someone, I somehow have a closed mind...
> 
> You're essentially saying that "If they really understood the problem,
> they'd have done something about it."
> 
> That's not the case at all. In fact this was discussed internally and
> investigations were done as to what would be feasible, cost effective,
> etc... The thing is *any* substantive solution *costs* real $$$...in an
> ongoing basis. Thus it is far more than a mere statement.
> 

Your assumption is wrong! Sorry! I was essentially saying: if EMBT had
discussed it internally (ok, you say you have so I belive it) they
should have at least annojnced: "we heared your requests, we do have a
plan, but we won't disclose it in public". This would at least have
given a sign that they had done something about this.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
10/2/2011 9:51:01 AM
On 10/2/2011 12:14 AM, David Erbas-White wrote:
> On 10/1/2011 8:37 PM, Carlos Saenz wrote:
>>> {quote:title=Tim DelChiaro wrote:}{quote}
>>> Here is the official announcement:
>>>
>>> Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue.
>>
>> Just did the initial install from the web on friday (which took quite long on my 1MB ADSL..) and I want to be sure this update is included. My delphi version in Help | About reads *16.0.4256.43595* and then "Help Release 1 for Delphi XE2". Does it include the Update 1 already?
>
> I JUST finished installing XE2 on my laptop not ten minutes ago, from
> the Update 1 download ISO.
>
> I am getting "16.0.4276.440006" for most files, and the same Help
> Release 1 for Delphi XE2.
>
> So, it would appear that the documentation is probably the same, but the
> actual files on Update 1 are later...
>
> David Erbas-White

I did the same install, and have the same info, but with the additional line "RAD 
Studio XE2 Delphi and C++ Builder Update 1". I only bought Delphi, no C++.
0
Mike
10/2/2011 10:38:03 AM
Am 01.10.2011 00:12, schrieb Allen Bauer:
> Captain America wrote:
> 
>>> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
>>> Captain America wrote:
>>>
>>>>> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
>>>>
>>>>> Assume all you want. But there was no contract, implied or not,
>>>>> that this service was going to remain for all eternity.
>>>>
>>>> So is no contract about activation servers!
>>>
>>> Wow. Just, Wow. This isn't about the activation servers, it was
>>> about the self-service registration limit bump. That is separate
>>> and distinct from the activation servers. Again, there is no
>>> specific limit on registrations.
>>
>> I know, I just used your argument. Nowhere in the EULA it is
>> mentioned that I should be expecting the activation servers to stay
>> up forever. Am I right? So if you turn them off, let's say in 10
>> years, there will be no EULA violation and no grounds for my
>> complaints. It's that simple.
> 
> I would say that the registration servers are different than the
> self-service registration bump...
> 

That may well be but since there's nothing about those in the EULA the
point raised is pretty similiar to the self bump application.
I don't claim you're going to do the same to them eventually, but simply
reading and interpreting what is written (and that's often wnat lawyers
etc. do) is sounds like the same. Sorry for you!

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
10/2/2011 11:20:32 AM
On 30.09.2011 02:29, Allen Bauer wrote:

> Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I don't see the same
> clamour and concern regarding other software company products. Adobe,
> MS, etc...

Maybe because their products may be used continually after registration 
and as along I have managed to keep the registration key, it is easily 
registered again, without involvement of the sellers computer.

While reregistration most possibly will fail for ever if Embarcadero is 
bought by someone who want to turn their products down due to being a 
concurrent.
(Quite usual over here)
0
Alf
10/2/2011 1:54:47 PM
"Alf Christophersen" wrote on Sun, 2 Oct 2011 06:54:47 -0700:

> On 30.09.2011 02:29, Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
>> Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I don't see the same
>> clamour and concern regarding other software company products. Adobe,
>> MS, etc...
> 
> Maybe because their products may be used continually after registration 
> and as along I have managed to keep the registration key, it is easily 
> registered again, without involvement of the sellers computer.

Not for Adobe.  A while ago, every week my Adobe CS5 suite products
would quit working (no grace period) and require activation again.
After a few times of registering the activation server started to deny
activation.  Contacted their support, and the activation was
authorized.  A week later I had the exact same problem.  This time the
support rep actually did fix it and I haven't had problems since.  But
it was a real pain and ate into productivity.

Throughout this process I didn't do a single hardware upgrade or
re-install.

I've also had mysterious "this copy of Windows is not genuine"
messages on two of my computers (both are licensed, of course).
Though they always corrected themselves with a reboot.  Again, no
hardware changes brought those on, either.

-- 
Brandon Staggs
StudyLamp Software LLC
http://www.studylamp.com
0
Brandon
10/2/2011 2:19:45 PM
You don't want to hear what people dependent on Adobe products tell about Adobe and licensing, they don't renew often. There is no difference, so make a positive one. Licensing is show stopper in sales ... I also would not use Delphi anymore if almost anything else is already on FOSS. FOSS allows the few left who license this way to survive or have at least little sales and the web applications too, be thankful.

If people would have to register more than a fistful of apps then they would simply not use those apps anymore.

Mike

> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I don't see the same
> clamour and concern regarding other software company products. Adobe,
> MS, etc...
0
Michael
10/2/2011 2:31:38 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> 
> Like I mentioned in another post, I'm willing to bump your registration
> count if that would help. I'd still like to get those log files so we
> can try and better diagnose this issue and make sure that another
> registration bump will actually work.
> 

I don't need another bump; as I said I have a second licence which has allowed me to activate XE Pro. Looking forward, I don't expect that activating Delphi is ever going to be a problem again.
0
Jeff
10/2/2011 3:40:09 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 1/10/2011 7:21 PM, Dalija Prasnikar wrote:
> >> {quote:title=Christopher Burke wrote:}{quote}
> >> On 1/10/2011 8:21 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > > 
> >>> I see that you have successfully registered Delphi XE2. There is
> >>> currently only one registration on your account (assuming I've
> got the >>> right Christopher Burke).
> > > 
> >> Correct, however by the end of October that will be 3. My main
> >> computer's windows installation has become flakey and I will be
> >> installing on my laptop's VMWare Fusion.
> > > 
> >> That leaves me ONE more shot ...ONE more mistake before I'm done.
> > > 
> >> Will that ONE shot last the next 2 years ?
> > 
> > Your story is scaring the hell out of me. But I have noticed that
> > you are reistalling Windows much too often. What kind of stuff you
> > do install so that your system becomes unreliable?
> 
> I frequently install odd drivers, odd hardware and various other odd 
> things that get plugged into Point of Sale machines (scanners, serial 
> LED displays, EFTPOS systems... and who knows what).

That could very well be one cause. You're likely changing the machine
identification lock vectors, which can affect your activation :-(... In
your case, I would strongly recommend you install and use Delphi in a
VM. That way the *virtual* hardware will remain stable, while the
physical hardware can change.

I would also recommend using XE2 because the remote debugging
experience is far better than before. You install the "Platform
Assistant" on the physical machine, then from the VM, deploy and debug.
This will allow you to debug against the physical hardware (and its
ever changing conditions) while keeping Delphi isolated and protected
in the VM.

You can also backup the VM in case you need to do a full Windows
re-install...
 
> I imagine that it happens very infrequently - however that really 
> doesn't help me (I've had activation issues 4 times in 5 years).

Your case clearly sounds somewhat unique... Another thing you could try
is to use a local license server. Even if you need to serve only one or
two licenses, that would also help isolate your machines from potential
hardware changes/reinstalls which can affect your license. Keep your
licenses on a separate physical (or even VM) machine. As long as your
dev system can talk to the license server locally (or even via a VPN),
you can acquire the licenses you need without needing to communicate
back to EMBT or worry about burning up your activations at an
inconvenient time.

All you need to do is activate the license server (which doesn't need
to be a powerful system) and put the Delphi network licenses on it.
You can even install Delphi on as many systems as you need since you'll
only be using the license on one system at a time. You can even
"checkout" a license and go off-site for up to about 2 weeks without
needing to talk back to the server.

I'm confident we have options available to handle your unique situation.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 5:47:40 PM
On 2011-10-03 18:47:40 +0100, Allen Bauer said:

> I would strongly recommend you install and use Delphi in a
> VM. That way the *virtual* hardware will remain stable, while the
> physical hardware can change.

Allen, could you say whether my way of working is supported?

I have a base clean VM with Delphi installed and then clone that VM 
when I start on a new project. This allows me to revert to the clean 
machine at any time, and to have multiple copies of Delphi, 
preconfigured for each project's component sets, etc.

Cloning VMs saves a phenomenal amount of time and effort when moving to 
another setup or reverting when things go pear shaped.

As you say, having a VM can avoid a lot of registration issues but, as 
someone pointed out, could this be in contravention of the licence?

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [Team OOAD]
0
Joanna
10/3/2011 6:16:44 PM
On 10/3/2011 11:16 AM, Joanna Carter (Team OOAD) wrote:
> Allen, could you say whether my way of working is supported?
>
> I have a base clean VM with Delphi installed and then clone that VM
> when I start on a new project. This allows me to revert to the clean
> machine at any time, and to have multiple copies of Delphi,
> preconfigured for each project's component sets, etc.
>
> Cloning VMs saves a phenomenal amount of time and effort when moving to
> another setup or reverting when things go pear shaped.
>
> As you say, having a VM can avoid a lot of registration issues but, as
> someone pointed out, could this be in contravention of the licence?
>

I recently posed a very similar question directly to an EMBT VP, and the 
response was that the intent is that a single-user license be used by a 
single user, not that the single user can't have multiple copies of a 
VM.  As long as the single user is the only one using the VM, there 
isn't/shouldn't be an issue.

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/3/2011 6:29:06 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> On 10/3/2011 11:16 AM, Joanna Carter (Team OOAD) wrote:
> > Allen, could you say whether my way of working is supported?
> > 
> > I have a base clean VM with Delphi installed and then clone that VM
> > when I start on a new project. This allows me to revert to the clean
> > machine at any time, and to have multiple copies of Delphi,
> > preconfigured for each project's component sets, etc.
> > 
> > Cloning VMs saves a phenomenal amount of time and effort when
> > moving to another setup or reverting when things go pear shaped.
> > 
> > As you say, having a VM can avoid a lot of registration issues but,
> > as someone pointed out, could this be in contravention of the
> > licence?
> > 
> 
> I recently posed a very similar question directly to an EMBT VP, and
> the response was that the intent is that a single-user license be
> used by a single user, not that the single user can't have multiple
> copies of a VM.  As long as the single user is the only one using the
> VM, there isn't/shouldn't be an issue.

Yes. As long as you don't try and boot up two VMs at the same time with
the same license information. In fact, if you do, you would likely have
to change some networking settings, such as the hostname, which would
make one of the VMs invalidate the license.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 6:39:01 PM
On 2011-10-03 19:39:01 +0100, Allen Bauer said:

> Yes. As long as you don't try and boot up two VMs at the same time with
> the same license information. In fact, if you do, you would likely have
> to change some networking settings, such as the hostname, which would
> make one of the VMs invalidate the license.

Excellent. Thank you.

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [Team OOAD]
0
Joanna
10/3/2011 6:57:20 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Yes. As long as you don't try and boot up two VMs at the same time with
> the same license information. In fact, if you do, you would likely have
> to change some networking settings, such as the hostname, which would
> make one of the VMs invalidate the license.
> 

Would you clarify this ? Are you saying if I make a non-trivial change to my system -after- I have activated XE that the licence will invalidate itself ? I was under the impression that once an installation was activated there was no further verification.
0
Jeff
10/3/2011 7:23:41 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > Yes. As long as you don't try and boot up two VMs at the same time
> > with the same license information. In fact, if you do, you would
> > likely have to change some networking settings, such as the
> > hostname, which would make one of the VMs invalidate the license.
> > 
> 
> Would you clarify this ? Are you saying if I make a non-trivial
> change to my system -after- I have activated XE that the licence will
> invalidate itself ? I was under the impression that once an
> installation was activated there was no further verification.

Each license is "node-locked" to a system. What this means is that we
look at unique factors on a system that are not expected to change.
Similar to how MS detects changes in hardware and asks you to
reactivate Windows. This "node-lock" is used to ensure that the license
available is actually a license for this machine. If these don't match,
then the license available is considered invalid.

I must also warn the few people that have stated that they've used or
are using a cracked version of the product. Many of the available
cracks for Delphi/RAD Studio can destroy any license information on a
system for *all* EMBT products, legitimate or not, running or not. The
mere act of "trying out a crack" can do this. I've also seen that some
cracks exhibit strange behaviors that a legitimately licensed product
doesn't. You have been warned.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 7:47:02 PM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> Each license is "node-locked" to a system. What this means is that we
> look at unique factors on a system that are not expected to change.
> Similar to how MS detects changes in hardware and asks you to
> reactivate Windows. This "node-lock" is used to ensure that the license
> available is actually a license for this machine. If these don't match,
> then the license available is considered invalid.
> 

I take it that means yes. Unbelievable. So,  just to be clear here, *any* time I make a change to my system (since the variables you use are unknown) I run the risk that my paid-for installation will brick. At which point I have to open a support ticket and up to three days later I -should- get my licence back.

As for cracked products invalidating legitimate licences, I can't imagine that's really a concern of anyone who would use a cracked .ISO in the first place.
0
Jeff
10/3/2011 8:05:27 PM
Hi Allen,

>> I recently posed a very similar question directly to an EMBT VP, and
>> the response was that the intent is that a single-user license be
>> used by a single user, not that the single user can't have multiple
>> copies of a VM.  As long as the single user is the only one using the
>> VM, there isn't/shouldn't be an issue.
>
> Yes. As long as you don't try and boot up two VMs at the same time with
> the same license information. In fact, if you do, you would likely have
> to change some networking settings, such as the hostname, which would
> make one of the VMs invalidate the license.

Actually, changing the IP-address (or making the VMWare client use a 
dynamic IP through DHCP) is enough to make sure I can start two VMs at 
the same time with the same license information. I often need to do that 
in order to debug a DataSnap server against a DataSnap client (without 
having them both running on the same machine).

Since I'm the only user of the license, I did not (and do not) expect 
any problems running two instances of Delphi to do that...

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner  Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller Eurozone
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
10/3/2011 8:10:36 PM
> {quote:title=Jeff Williams wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > Each license is "node-locked" to a system. What this means is that we
> > look at unique factors on a system that are not expected to change.
> > Similar to how MS detects changes in hardware and asks you to
> > reactivate Windows. This "node-lock" is used to ensure that the license
> > available is actually a license for this machine. If these don't match,
> > then the license available is considered invalid.
> > 
> 
> I take it that means yes. Unbelievable. So,  just to be clear here, *any* time I make a change to my system (since the variables you use are unknown) I run the risk that my paid-for installation will brick. At which point I have to open a support ticket and up to three days later I -should- get my licence back.
> 

How else you think activation would work. The whole point of activation is having
license tied up to specific system. 

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
10/3/2011 8:11:48 PM
Bob Swart wrote:

> Since I'm the only user of the license, I did not (and do not) expect 
> any problems running two instances of Delphi to do that...

XE Update #1 and newer cannot be started when there is another instance
with the same serial running on a different machine in the same net.
-- 
Uwe Schuster | Hero of the Delphi 2010 FT
http://www.bitcommander.de/blog
0
Uwe
10/3/2011 8:16:15 PM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > Each license is "node-locked" to a system. What this means is that
> > we look at unique factors on a system that are not expected to
> > change.  Similar to how MS detects changes in hardware and asks you
> > to reactivate Windows. This "node-lock" is used to ensure that the
> > license available is actually a license for this machine. If these
> > don't match, then the license available is considered invalid.
> > 
> 
> I take it that means yes. Unbelievable. So,  just to be clear here,
> any time I make a change to my system (since the variables you use
> are unknown) I run the risk that my paid-for installation will brick.
> At which point I have to open a support ticket and up to three days
> later I -should- get my licence back.

If you are constantly making hardware changes and are concerned about
this, I would recommend you use a VM so that the "virtual" hardware is
constant. BTW, the main factor involved is changes to the networking
stack, such as hostname. You can also run into issues if you change out
the hard-drive where the license data is stored (where ever \Users\All
Users\ is located).
 
> As for cracked products invalidating legitimate licences, I can't
> imagine that's really a concern of anyone who would use a cracked
> .ISO in the first place.

It is if one runs a cracked version on a system with legitimate
licenses not known/expecting it to affect those...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 8:19:56 PM
Uwe Schuster wrote:

> Bob Swart wrote:
> 
> > Since I'm the only user of the license, I did not (and do not)
> > expect any problems running two instances of Delphi to do that...
> 
> XE Update #1 and newer cannot be started when there is another
> instance with the same serial running on a different machine in the
> same net.

Yes it can. It counts them, and will only warn/fail on the 3rd/4th
instance, respectively.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 8:21:59 PM
"Jeff Williams" wrote in message news:407582@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> Would you clarify this ? Are you saying if I make a non-trivial change to 
> my system -after- I have activated XE that the licence will invalidate 
> itself ? I was under the impression that once an installation was 
> activated there was no further verification.



What do you consider "trivial"? Changing the host name of the computer is 
hardly trivial. Most licensing systems these days use that and/or other 
system data to lock licenses to a machine. EMBT is hardly the only one.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
10/3/2011 8:29:50 PM
Hi Allen,

>>> Since I'm the only user of the license, I did not (and do not)
>>> expect any problems running two instances of Delphi to do that...
>>
>> XE Update #1 and newer cannot be started when there is another
>> instance with the same serial running on a different machine in the
>> same net.
>
> Yes it can. It counts them, and will only warn/fail on the 3rd/4th
> instance, respectively.

Thanks for cleaning that up, since I know for sure that I can run two 
instances without any problems... (using the same serial number).
I've never had a warning (but I never ran more than two instances 
apparently) ;-)

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner  Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller Eurozone
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
10/3/2011 8:31:50 PM
On 10/3/2011 12:47 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> I've also seen that some
> cracks exhibit strange behaviors that a legitimately licensed product
> doesn't.
>

Ohhh...  You mean the product works??? <G>

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/3/2011 8:43:04 PM
> If you are constantly making hardware changes and are concerned about
> this, I would recommend you use a VM

Allen, my application uses DirectX and does not really work under VM. I 
also work with unique hardware. So what are your recommendations for me?
0
Konstantine
10/3/2011 8:45:14 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> On 10/3/2011 12:47 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > I've also seen that some
> > cracks exhibit strange behaviors that a legitimately licensed
> > product doesn't.
> > 
> 
> Ohhh...  You mean the product works??? <G>

<groan>... ;-)

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 8:47:21 PM
Uwe Schuster wrote:

> XE Update #1 and newer cannot be started when there is another instance
> with the same serial running on a different machine in the same net.

I am confused here. 

I thought, at least with the default settings, VM's are get their own IP network (an entirely different subnet and IP range) and the VM host software has its own DHCP server and uses NAT to handle communication between the host and guests.

Even though this does not affect the VM's machine's ID and and other network info (such as workgroup/domain name), the VM might get an arbitrarily different IP address.

What's more, suppose you've decided to use a different VM host --say, Oracle decided not to support VirtualBox and that the open source version isn't good enough for you anymore--, and you moved on to, say, VMWare..

This is very likely to going to alter a few of the virtual hardware (such as the kind of network card) exposed to the VM.

Or, when you've moved from an IP4 adressing scheme to IP6.

Would these kinds of changes mean you need to re-register?
0
Adem
10/3/2011 8:48:40 PM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> > If you are constantly making hardware changes and are concerned
> > about this, I would recommend you use a VM
> 
> Allen, my application uses DirectX and does not really work under VM.
> I also work with unique hardware. So what are your recommendations
> for me?

You can install RAD Studio onto the VM and then use remote-debugging to
debug on the physical hardware...

As I've stated, the main thing about the hardware is the networking
stack. Unless you're always installing/uninstalling network cards
and/or changing the hostname all the time, you shouldn't have a problem.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 8:49:07 PM
On 10/3/2011 1:47 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/2011 12:47 PM, Allen Bauer wrote:
>>> I've also seen that some
>>> cracks exhibit strange behaviors that a legitimately licensed
>>> product doesn't.
>>>
>>
>> Ohhh...  You mean the product works???<G>
>
> <groan>... ;-)
>

What do you expect when you deliver one slow and right over the plate??? <G>

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/3/2011 9:05:04 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> Uwe Schuster wrote:
> 
> > XE Update #1 and newer cannot be started when there is another
> > instance with the same serial running on a different machine in the
> > same net.
> 
> I am confused here. 
> 
> I thought, at least with the default settings, VM's are get their own
> IP network (an entirely different subnet and IP range) and the VM
> host software has its own DHCP server and uses NAT to handle
> communication between the host and guests.
> 
> Even though this does not affect the VM's machine's ID and and other
> network info (such as workgroup/domain name), the VM might get an
> arbitrarily different IP address.
> 
> What's more, suppose you've decided to use a different VM host --say,
> Oracle decided not to support VirtualBox and that the open source
> version isn't good enough for you anymore--, and you moved on to,
> say, VMWare..
> 
> This is very likely to going to alter a few of the virtual hardware
> (such as the kind of network card) exposed to the VM.
> 
> Or, when you've moved from an IP4 adressing scheme to IP6.
> 
> Would these kinds of changes mean you need to re-register?

IP address isn't a factor since that, as you have indicated, can change
frequently. Other factors like hostname and MAC address generally do
not.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 9:32:04 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> IP address isn't a factor since that, as you have indicated, can change
> frequently. Other factors like hostname and MAC address generally do
> not.

Thank you.

Where can I read about this license server mentioned in this thread?

How much does it cost, and is it available to individuals?
0
Adem
10/3/2011 9:52:47 PM
Adem Meda wrote:

> Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > IP address isn't a factor since that, as you have indicated, can
> > change frequently. Other factors like hostname and MAC address
> > generally do not.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Where can I read about this license server mentioned in this thread?
> 
> How much does it cost, and is it available to individuals?

AFAIR, the license server itself is free. You only purchase licenses.
If you're interested, I'll be happy to connect you with someone who can
better answer your questions.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/3/2011 10:01:41 PM
> {quote:title=Wayne Niddery wrote:}{quote}
> 
> What do you consider "trivial"? Changing the host name of the computer is 
> hardly trivial. Most licensing systems these days use that and/or other 
> system data to lock licenses to a machine. EMBT is hardly the only one.
> 
> -- 
> Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
> “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
> the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat

I don't expect my software stack to brick because I installed a new device driver, or update an existing one. That is what was being implied. Now that it's been clarified that it's not so much system based as it is network based, that's a little better.

EMBT may hardly be the only one to use that system, but they are the only one I've run into that would brick on a computer name change. Nothing else I have does that. I could change the name all the time under XP for example, and XP never required a reactivation. Win7 I have yet to find out if that is different.

Anyway, I can churn out VM copies now that I know that that is the given solution.
0
Jeff
10/3/2011 10:09:42 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> AFAIR, the license server itself is free. You only purchase licenses.
> If you're interested, I'll be happy to connect you with someone who can
> better answer your questions.

Thank you. 

Since the license server is an important piece of the equation (and is likely to be even more so in the future), it would probably be much more useful if someone in EMB wrote about it in some detail in a company blog or some such place so that we could all be informed.

That sort of thing probably already exists somewhere, but I haven't been able to locate it yet.
0
Adem
10/4/2011 12:03:59 AM
> {quote:title=Mike Reublin wrote:}{quote}
> >> Just did the initial install from the web on friday (which took quite long on my 1MB ADSL..) and I want to be sure this update is included. My delphi version in Help | About reads *16.0.4256.43595* and then "Help Release 1 for Delphi XE2". Does it include the Update 1 already?
> >
> > I JUST finished installing XE2 on my laptop not ten minutes ago, from
> > the Update 1 download ISO.
> >
> > I am getting "16.0.4276.440006" for most files, and the same Help
> > Release 1 for Delphi XE2.
> >
> > So, it would appear that the documentation is probably the same, but the
> > actual files on Update 1 are later...
> >
> > David Erbas-White
> 
> I did the same install, and have the same info, but with the additional line "RAD 
> Studio XE2 Delphi and C++ Builder Update 1". I only bought Delphi, no C++.

Downloaded the updated ISO, uninstalled and reinstalled and now it shows 440006 too. Thanks guys. By the way I have that "RAD Studio" line in my delphi installation too.

Edited by: Carlos Saenz on Oct 3, 2011 5:03 PM
0
Carlos
10/4/2011 12:04:16 AM
Adem Meda wrote:

> it would probably be much more useful if someone in EMB wrote about
> it in some detail in a company blog or some such place so that we
> could all be informed.

Agreed... I'll look into rattling a few cages and see what comes out of
it...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/4/2011 12:25:29 AM
> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> I must also warn the few people that have stated that they've used or
> are using a cracked version of the product. Many of the available
> cracks for Delphi/RAD Studio can destroy any license information on a
> system for *all* EMBT products, legitimate or not, running or not. The
> mere act of "trying out a crack" can do this. I've also seen that some
> cracks exhibit strange behaviors that a legitimately licensed product
> doesn't. You have been warned.

Is it true that it can also cause sterility in males?  ;)
--
Rick Carter
Cincinnati, OH
0
Rick
10/4/2011 3:56:40 AM
On 4/10/2011 3:47 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>>> Your story is scaring the hell out of me. But I have noticed that
>>> you are reistalling Windows much too often. What kind of stuff you
>>> do install so that your system becomes unreliable?
>>
>> I frequently install odd drivers, odd hardware and various other odd
>> things that get plugged into Point of Sale machines (scanners, serial
>> LED displays, EFTPOS systems... and who knows what).
>
> That could very well be one cause. You're likely changing the machine
> identification lock vectors, which can affect your activation :-(... In
> your case, I would strongly recommend you install and use Delphi in a
> VM. That way the *virtual* hardware will remain stable, while the
> physical hardware can change.

Not an option, as then I don't have proper access to all the funky stuff 
I'm trying to program for.

> I would also recommend using XE2 because the remote debugging
> experience is far better than before. You install the "Platform
> Assistant" on the physical machine, then from the VM, deploy and debug.
> This will allow you to debug against the physical hardware (and its
> ever changing conditions) while keeping Delphi isolated and protected
> in the VM.

Trying to get to XE2 - still waiting on a few 3rd party options. Then I 
can actually debug on a real till ....

> Your case clearly sounds somewhat unique... Another thing you could try
> is to use a local license server. Even if you need to serve only one or
> two licenses, that would also help isolate your machines from potential
> hardware changes/reinstalls which can affect your license. Keep your
> licenses on a separate physical (or even VM) machine.

Not a big enough customer to get one of those....

> I'm confident we have options available to handle your unique situation.

This licence server solution .... is it a free thing, or am I going to 
be paying 2 or 3 times more anyway ? If the only solution is paying you 
guys more money - then you already have that one worked out by bricking 
Delphi every so often :)
0
Christopher
10/4/2011 4:41:36 AM
On 4/10/2011 6:11 AM, Dalija Prasnikar wrote:

> How else you think activation would work. The whole point of activation is having
> license tied up to specific system.

And here I thought the software licence was mine, not my computer's.
0
Christopher
10/4/2011 5:14:17 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

Christopher,

> Not an option, as then I don't have proper access to all the funky stuff 
> I'm trying to program for.

I am pretty much in the same boat --except that the kind of hardware stuff I deal with is probably less funky than you do.

AFAIC, using VMs appear to solve my headaches.

In your case, I'd tackle the issue a little differently:

1) Install the OS, Delphi and wahatever ancillary apps you need.

2) Keep all your Delphi source code, projects, components in another disk or partition (I'd prefer another disk). This is so that (when you restore your OS disk) you don't restore old versions of your own source code and components etc.

3) Install all the updates and do all your personal/specialized tweaks to those SW.

4) Use either Acronis or Paragon software to take a higly compressed disk image and save it to somewhere else --to a NAS or an external disk. Even though I like Paragon better, I'd recommend Acronis because they have a lot more drivers in their BootCD\FlashDisk --it helps it your PC has unusual storage controllers or network cards.

Last time I did this, the image file turned out to be around 45 GB; so a 64 GB disk would be more than enough for a backup image. A 64 GB SSD disk will set you back about $100, plus $20 for a disk eclosure (USB+eSATA). That way you can carry the backup image in your pocket if you like. With a little work, you can place Acronis/Paragon boot image on that disk too. So that you won't have to carry around a CD or a flash disk for that.

5) Then, whenever your working installation is screwed up, you go back to the 'template' disk image using Acronis/Paragon CD/flashdisk as the initial boot.

6) Profit! <VBG>

How about that? :)
0
Adem
10/4/2011 5:42:53 AM
On 4/10/2011 3:42 PM, Adem Meda wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:

> 5) Then, whenever your working installation is screwed up, you go back to the 'template' disk image using Acronis/Paragon CD/flashdisk as the initial boot.
> How about that? :)

I did that, however my activation screwed up ... luckily when I did that 
I had a spare.

But yeah - that was one of the ideas I had tried.
0
Christopher
10/4/2011 7:50:15 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 4/10/2011 3:42 PM, Adem Meda wrote:
> > Christopher Burke wrote:
> 
> > 5) Then, whenever your working installation is screwed up, you go back to the 'template' disk image using Acronis/Paragon CD/flashdisk as the initial boot.
> > How about that? :)
> 
> I did that, however my activation screwed up ... luckily when I did that 
> I had a spare.

Did you do the Delphi activation before or after imaging?
0
Adem
10/4/2011 8:29:29 AM
On 4/10/2011 6:29 PM, Adem Meda wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2011 3:42 PM, Adem Meda wrote:
>>> Christopher Burke wrote:
>>
>>> 5) Then, whenever your working installation is screwed up, you go back to the 'template' disk image using Acronis/Paragon CD/flashdisk as the initial boot.
>>> How about that? :)
>>
>> I did that, however my activation screwed up ... luckily when I did that
>> I had a spare.
>
> Did you do the Delphi activation before or after imaging?

Before... along with Windows activation....
0
Christopher
10/4/2011 8:52:16 AM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 4/10/2011 6:29 PM, Adem Meda wrote:
> > Christopher Burke wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4/10/2011 3:42 PM, Adem Meda wrote:
> >>> Christopher Burke wrote:
> > > 
> >>> 5) Then, whenever your working installation is screwed up, you go back to the 'template' disk image using Acronis/Paragon CD/flashdisk as the initial boot.
> >>> How about that? :)
> > > 
> >> I did that, however my activation screwed up ... luckily when I did that
> >> I had a spare.
> > 
> > Did you do the Delphi activation before or after imaging?
> 
> Before... along with Windows activation....

IOW, you never that installation of got Delphi to activate.

If so, that's different from how things would have turned out if that glitch hadn't happened.

[BTW, you'd be wrong to assume I'm trying to be thick; I am a natural.]
0
Adem
10/4/2011 9:05:11 AM
Jeff Williams wrote:

> I take it that means yes. Unbelievable. So,  just to be clear here,
> any time I make a change to my system (since the variables you use
> are unknown) I run the risk that my paid-for installation will brick.
> At which point I have to open a support ticket and up to three days
> later I -should- get my licence back.

You have exactly the same behaviour in Windows (at least Vista or
later, maybe also XP). For example, swap your burned-out HD and you
need to reactivate.

And if you look closely in the Windows license, you may find that you
have a limited number of (re-)activations, after the limit is reached
you need to contact Microsoft.

And if you look even closer, depending on the edition of Win7 you have,
it may be limited for use in certain countries/regions.

See any similarities with Delphi?
0
Anders
10/4/2011 12:12:29 PM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> Allen, my application uses DirectX and does not really work under VM.
> I also work with unique hardware. So what are your recommendations
> for me?

You can use DirectX partially in VMWare 7, and now VMWare 8 is released
and they claim 'full' DirectX support.

"DirectX 9.0c Shader Model 3 and OpenGL 2.13D graphics in Windows
virtual machines" -
http://www.vmware.com/products/workstation/index.html

The unique hardware may make it problematic, though.
0
Anders
10/4/2011 12:17:01 PM
Allen Bauer wrote:

> I think all our customers are exceptional :-)...

Let's hope in the positive sense...
:-)
0
Anders
10/4/2011 12:28:26 PM
> You can use DirectX partially in VMWare 7, and now VMWare 8 is released
> and they claim 'full' DirectX support.
>
> "DirectX 9.0c Shader Model 3 and OpenGL 2.13D graphics in Windows
> virtual machines" -
> http://www.vmware.com/products/workstation/index.html
>
> The unique hardware may make it problematic, though.

Well we are beyond DX9 here. And I'll let someone else test their 
version of support do not have time for it.
0
Konstantine
10/4/2011 3:33:51 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> Not a big enough customer to get one of those....

Size shouldn't have anything to do with it. The license server itself
is free. Since you're situation is somewhat unique, that may be a
viable option. I know that concurrent licenses are more, but named-user
licenses should be about the same since they are locked to a user...
but the advantage is that that user can log into any machine connected
to the server and check-out their individual license.

Like I told Adem, I'll rattle some cages and get some more information.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/4/2011 4:03:10 PM
Rick Carter wrote:

> > {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
> > I must also warn the few people that have stated that they've used
> > or are using a cracked version of the product. Many of the available
> > cracks for Delphi/RAD Studio can destroy any license information on
> > a system for all EMBT products, legitimate or not, running or not.
> > The mere act of "trying out a crack" can do this. I've also seen
> > that some cracks exhibit strange behaviors that a legitimately
> > licensed product doesn't. You have been warned.
> 
> Is it true that it can also cause sterility in males?  ;)

Blindness... no wait, that's something else... ;-).

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/4/2011 4:04:03 PM
Anders Isaksson wrote:

> Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > I think all our customers are exceptional :-)...
> 
> Let's hope in the positive sense...
> :-)

Of course.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/4/2011 4:04:33 PM
On 5/10/2011 2:03 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> Christopher Burke wrote:
>
>> Not a big enough customer to get one of those....
>
> Size shouldn't have anything to do with it. The license server itself
> is free. Since you're situation is somewhat unique, that may be a
> viable option. I know that concurrent licenses are more, but named-user
> licenses should be about the same since they are locked to a user...
> but the advantage is that that user can log into any machine connected
> to the server and check-out their individual license.
>
> Like I told Adem, I'll rattle some cages and get some more information.
>

One other thing - does my development box need network connection to the 
licence server at all times ? Or just when I activate?

The reason is that my DEV box is frequently connected to Cisco VPN 
server (client database access etc), meaning that Delphi wouldn't be 
able to access the licence server for periods of time.

This wouldn't be an issue if Delphi remember the licence for days, 
rather than just failing the first time it can't connect.
0
Christopher
10/4/2011 4:14:40 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 5/10/2011 2:03 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> > Christopher Burke wrote:
> > 
> >> Not a big enough customer to get one of those....
> > 
> > Size shouldn't have anything to do with it. The license server
> > itself is free. Since you're situation is somewhat unique, that may
> > be a viable option. I know that concurrent licenses are more, but
> > named-user licenses should be about the same since they are locked
> > to a user...  but the advantage is that that user can log into any
> > machine connected to the server and check-out their individual
> > license.
> > 
> > Like I told Adem, I'll rattle some cages and get some more
> > information.
> > 
> 
> One other thing - does my development box need network connection to
> the licence server at all times ? Or just when I activate?
> 
> The reason is that my DEV box is frequently connected to Cisco VPN 
> server (client database access etc), meaning that Delphi wouldn't be 
> able to access the licence server for periods of time.
> 
> This wouldn't be an issue if Delphi remember the licence for days, 
> rather than just failing the first time it can't connect.

You can "check-out" the license up to some maximum number of days
before you have to "check-in" to refresh it. When running with a
license-server based license, there are some extra menu items that
allow you to manage this. This would allow you to "check-in" your
license, adjust your hardware, reinstall the OS, move to a completely
different machine, etc... and then "check-out" the license when needed
again.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/4/2011 4:47:40 PM
Am 04.10.2011 02:25, schrieb Allen Bauer:
> Adem Meda wrote:
> 
>> it would probably be much more useful if someone in EMB wrote about
>> it in some detail in a company blog or some such place so that we
>> could all be informed.
> 
> Agreed... I'll look into rattling a few cages and see what comes out of
> it...
> 

I once even made the suggestion to put that on the installation media,
but I guess Nick was the one saying it's not in a state for this. Has
this maybe changed since then?

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
10/4/2011 4:59:01 PM
On 5/10/2011 2:47 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:

> You can "check-out" the license up to some maximum number of days
> before you have to "check-in" to refresh it. When running with a
> license-server based license, there are some extra menu items that
> allow you to manage this. This would allow you to "check-in" your
> license, adjust your hardware, reinstall the OS, move to a completely
> different machine, etc... and then "check-out" the license when needed
> again.

Sounds perfect.... so when is that info blog/notes coming up so I can 
sign up for it.

I assume then I just have to activate the server, which I could then 
theoretically have in a VM on my dev box ?

Or even on a VPN connected remote managed server for example ?
0
Christopher
10/4/2011 5:00:56 PM
>> This wouldn't be an issue if Delphi remember the licence for days,
>> rather than just failing the first time it can't connect.
>
> You can "check-out" the license up to some maximum number of days
> before you have to "check-in" to refresh it. When running with a
> license-server based license, there are some extra menu items that
> allow you to manage this. This would allow you to "check-in" your
> license, adjust your hardware, reinstall the OS, move to a completely
> different machine, etc... and then "check-out" the license when needed
> again.

Hi Allen, this sounds interesting and I am basically in the same boat as 
Chris - working with unique hardware (coin acceptors, lighting systems, 
virtual simulators etc) and get called to customer's site. So if I can 
as you said temporarily check out license to work on particular machine 
with eve changing hardware this might solve many of my worries. Is there 
any way you can forward same information to me after "rattling some cages"?
My email is "kostya___at___exsotron___com"
0
Konstantine
10/4/2011 5:08:16 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> Am 04.10.2011 02:25, schrieb Allen Bauer:
> > Adem Meda wrote:
> > 
> >> it would probably be much more useful if someone in EMB wrote about
> >> it in some detail in a company blog or some such place so that we
> >> could all be informed.
> > 
> > Agreed... I'll look into rattling a few cages and see what comes
> > out of it...
> > 
> 
> I once even made the suggestion to put that on the installation media,
> but I guess Nick was the one saying it's not in a state for this. Has
> this maybe changed since then?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe. There has been a lot of work in this area
related to All-Access, AppWave, etc...

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/4/2011 5:19:28 PM
Christopher Burke wrote:

> On 5/10/2011 2:47 AM, Allen Bauer wrote:
> 
> > You can "check-out" the license up to some maximum number of days
> > before you have to "check-in" to refresh it. When running with a
> > license-server based license, there are some extra menu items that
> > allow you to manage this. This would allow you to "check-in" your
> > license, adjust your hardware, reinstall the OS, move to a
> > completely different machine, etc... and then "check-out" the
> > license when needed again.
> 
> Sounds perfect.... so when is that info blog/notes coming up so I can 
> sign up for it.

I've started some internal threads on this. Don't know the time
horizon...
 
> I assume then I just have to activate the server, which I could then 
> theoretically have in a VM on my dev box ?

Theoretically, yes. I would suggest you set aside some older
decommissioned hardware for the server. The license traffic would be so
miniscule that an old laptop would likely work ;-).
 
> Or even on a VPN connected remote managed server for example ?

Yep, that's the idea.

-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer
http://twitter.com/@kylix_rd
0
Allen
10/4/2011 5:23:24 PM
Am 04.10.2011 19:19, schrieb Allen Bauer:
> Markus Humm wrote:
> 
>> Am 04.10.2011 02:25, schrieb Allen Bauer:
>>> Adem Meda wrote:
>>>
>>>> it would probably be much more useful if someone in EMB wrote about
>>>> it in some detail in a company blog or some such place so that we
>>>> could all be informed.
>>>
>>> Agreed... I'll look into rattling a few cages and see what comes
>>> out of it...
>>>
>>
>> I once even made the suggestion to put that on the installation media,
>> but I guess Nick was the one saying it's not in a state for this. Has
>> this maybe changed since then?
> 
> Oh, I don't know. Maybe. There has been a lot of work in this area
> related to All-Access, AppWave, etc...
> 

So it would be worth to reconsider this?
It would calm down quite a lot people I guess if it were included and
documented on the installation media.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
10/4/2011 8:30:06 PM
Thank you Tim, and all the ... team.

With all this talk about licensing and stuff, please do not forget that there are tons of happy and excited Delphi users out there.

Keep up the good work!

Albert Ivanov
0
Albert
10/10/2011 11:04:15 AM
> {quote:title=Albert Ivanov wrote:}{quote}
> With all this talk about licensing and stuff, please do not forget that there are tons of happy and excited Delphi users out there.

Yes, there are.

--
Regards
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
0
Bruce
10/10/2011 2:48:22 PM
> {quote:title=Bruce McGee wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Albert Ivanov wrote:}{quote}
> > With all this talk about licensing and stuff, please do not forget that there are tons of happy and excited Delphi users out there.
> 
> Yes, there are.
> 

Count me in :)

Dalija Prasnikar
0
Dalija
10/11/2011 7:55:44 PM
Allen,

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 01:01:57 +0100, Allen Bauer  
<abauer@spicedham.codegear.com> wrote:

>> gets bought out by some other
>> entity that decides to discontinue it etc. etc., I need an assurance
>> that I will be able to use the tool I paid for for years to come so
>> that the source code (my IP) does not have to go down the drain.
>
> In the case of a buy-out, the need to continue operating the [activation] 
> servers is a *liability* that the new entity would be obligated to  
> maintain.When you purchase a company, you purchase the assets *and*  
> liabilities.

You must have forgotten your own contribution to a discussion in this very  
forum about one software company which had acquired some assets from  
another, but had declined to accept the support liabilities?

"EMBT, in fact, only acquired the IP from KSDev. KSDev as an entity has  
ceased operations"
Allen Bauer, 7-Feb-2011 4:03pm
https://forums.embarcadero.com/thread.jspa?threadID=49165

-- 
Paul Scott
Information Management Systems
Macclesfield, UK
0
Paul
10/25/2011 11:13:26 AM
On 9/30/2011 12:56 PM, Steve Thackery wrote:
> Allen Bauer wrote:
>> And how is this any different that any other company, software or
>> otherwise? And why is EMBT somehow being held to a higher standard than
>> any other comparable business in the same industry?
>
> To be honest, Allen, I don't think it's quite like that.
>
> Delphi has had a mixed history, with different "homes" (Borland,
> Inprise, CodeGear, Embo) and different levels of commitment to it at
> various times.  So of course it's reasonable to feel slightly less than
> 100% confident in its long term future.  I'm not implying anything by
> understatement, here: I genuinely mean perhaps a few percent less than
> a hundred.

Personally, I'm at way less than 100% confidence that Delphi will 
continue. I think a 50% chance of it making it until I retire in 20 
years is reasonable, but not much higher than that. Embarcadero will 
survive, but Delphi I'm not sure about. Besides the troubled past of the 
owners and their commitment to the product, there's the fact that it is 
owned by an investor-driven company. They want profits, and so will cut 
anything to maintain those. I would not be surprised that if in a couple 
years Embarcadero is treating Delphi similar to how Borland did, just 
because that would bring more profits to the investors.

The general message I get from Embarcadero is that they are far more 
interested in maximizing profits than in making a good products or 
making the customers happy. They really want to do all three - but are 
willing to sacrifice customer happiness and product quality in a 
heartbeat to maintain/increase profits. If this isn't Embaradero's true 
message, then I suggest they review their various positions and 
statements here in the newsgroups, as it's a sure thing I'm not the only 
one getting the wrong message.

Many will say that maximizing profits are the only thing a company 
should worry about. Maybe so, but this concentration on profits over all 
else leads me to believe that Delphi will either be sold or discontinued 
when its profit level drops. Given that new, sexy programming languages 
appear every few years, free IDE and languages are becoming more common, 
and few schools teach Pascal any more, I fully expect Delphi to become 
even more of a niche product in the future. This leads me to think other 
products will eventually be more profitable, and thus Delphi will yet 
again be looking for a new home.



-- 
Jon Purvis
Wildlife Data Analyst
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Austin, TX
0
Jon
10/28/2011 7:30:46 PM
Jon Purvis wrote:

> The general message I get from Embarcadero is that they are far more 
> interested in maximizing profits than in making a good products or 
> making the customers happy. 

I'm always amused by such a statement.  By huge, enormous margins, the
most popular way to make profits is to sell products customers want.
Generally, to do that, you have to have good products and make
customers happy.

I mean, do you think they can maximize profits by making crappy
products and pissing off customers?

Do you think that making crappy products and pissing off customers is
an expressed corporate goal?

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
10/28/2011 8:28:16 PM
On 10/28/2011 1:28 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
>
> I mean, do you think they can maximize profits by making crappy
> products and pissing off customers?
>

In the short term, yes, absolutely.  That's what the term 'cash cow' 
means, after all.  And the decision to turn a product into a cash cow 
over the short term, instead of concentrating on long-term 
profitability/existence, has been problematic for many companies over 
the years.

 > Do you think that making crappy products and pissing off customers is
 > an expressed corporate goal?
 >


Frankly, you're in a better position to answer that one, since you were 
at Borland, and you now freely admit that as an employee you would say 
things on behalf of the company that you wouldn't say otherwise.  So, 
those times when you were spinning the truth, did you feel that pissing 
off customers and making crappy products was an expressed corporate goal?

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/28/2011 8:50:05 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> you now freely admit that as an employee you would say 
> things on behalf of the company that you wouldn't say otherwise.

I thought we talked about you doing this kind of underhanded, childish
crap.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
10/28/2011 9:27:30 PM
On 10/28/2011 2:27 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> you now freely admit that as an employee you would say
>> things on behalf of the company that you wouldn't say otherwise.
>
> I thought we talked about you doing this kind of underhanded, childish
> crap.
>

Please go back and re-read your own responses earlier this month about 
the state of the help in D2007.

Also, feel free to re-read your own rantings and ravings (such as "folks 
complaining about things that happened 233 years ago...) and perhaps 
you'll wish to re-address the 'underhanded, childish' comments.

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/28/2011 10:27:29 PM
On 28/10/2011 4:50 PM, David Erbas-White wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 1:28 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
>>
>> I mean, do you think they can maximize profits by making crappy
>> products and pissing off customers?
>>
>
> In the short term, yes, absolutely.  That's what the term 'cash cow'
> means, after all.  And the decision to turn a product into a cash cow
> over the short term, instead of concentrating on long-term
> profitability/existence, has been problematic for many companies over
> the years.
>
>   >  Do you think that making crappy products and pissing off customers is
>   >  an expressed corporate goal?
>   >
>
>
> Frankly, you're in a better position to answer that one, since you were
> at Borland, and you now freely admit that as an employee you would say
> things on behalf of the company that you wouldn't say otherwise.  So,
> those times when you were spinning the truth, did you feel that pissing
> off customers and making crappy products was an expressed corporate goal?
>
> David Erbas-White

My observations is they are in it for the long haul. Cash cowing
would mean leaving Delphi as an ANSI Windows only 32bit product
while increasing prices and lowering quality.

Instead it's Unicode, Windows/Mac/IOS, 32/64bit, has a Starter
edition along with higher SKUs providing previous version licenses
on request and while the backlog of bugs is still there it looks
to be getting smaller and not larger with each release.

Borland/Inprise always seemed to be looking for a sales knockout
and when it didn't come would switch resources to something else
it thought would be. Embarcadero doesn't show any signs of that
pathology. Looks much more disciplined in adding features and
growing products rationally so there is no need for a sales
knockout to keep the lights on.

Brian
0
Brian
10/29/2011 3:48:38 PM
On 10/29/2011 8:48 AM, Brian Evans wrote:
>
> My observations is they are in it for the long haul. Cash cowing
> would mean leaving Delphi as an ANSI Windows only 32bit product
> while increasing prices and lowering quality.
>
> Instead it's Unicode, Windows/Mac/IOS, 32/64bit, has a Starter
> edition along with higher SKUs providing previous version licenses
> on request and while the backlog of bugs is still there it looks
> to be getting smaller and not larger with each release.
>
> Borland/Inprise always seemed to be looking for a sales knockout
> and when it didn't come would switch resources to something else
> it thought would be. Embarcadero doesn't show any signs of that
> pathology. Looks much more disciplined in adding features and
> growing products rationally so there is no need for a sales
> knockout to keep the lights on.
>

Brian,

Great response, and I should have been clearer.  My description of 'cash 
cow' was more in line with responding to the general question about what 
corporations will do with a product, and the difference between 
short/long term profitability.

I do think that EMBT is 'milking' the product, but not in the 'classic' 
sense of a cash cow.  Introducing a not-ready-for-prime-time product 
such as Fire Monkey indicates (to me) that they are doing there best to 
'milk' the existing customer base for as much additional revenue as 
possible, particularly when the don't supply the necessary documentation 
to support use of the product by 'new' users to the Delphi product line.

The only way that EMBT can continue to obtain money from the existing 
customer base is by introducing (near-)annual changes to the product, 
thus requiring the existing customers to upgrade (or pay the annual SA 
fee).  There are a lot of reasons why companies will continue doing this 
(i.e., a regularized charge for expense purposes, ongoing annual 
incident support, etc.), but if the product 'upgrades' decline in 
quality, there will be some drop-off over time.

EMBT is not alone in this regard -- many technology companies take this 
path (and ultimately fail, I might add), because at some point the 
customers decide that Version XXX is 'good enough' to continue using, 
until some major paradigm shift comes along (i.e., the switch from 
16-bit to 32/64-bit, Windows vs. OSX vs. Linux, etc.).  I would estimate 
that easily half of the programs I use are not in a 'latest version' 
state, as companies will often make programs worse (though not 
necessarily intentionally) when trying to make an 'upgrade' that will 
bring in additional cash.  One can point to different versions of the 
Roxio CD-burning products, for example, to see the rise and fall of 
quality over time.

Delphi is interesting in that there have been several peaks/valleys of 
the product due to this process.  Ultimately, I believe that XE2 will be 
seen as a 'low point' (yes, really), in much the same way that early 
..NET-enabled Delphi versions weren't done well.  At this point, XE2 has 
Fire Monkey as its main selling point, and FM simply isn't ready for 
prime time yet.

Make no mistake, I believe that EMBT has put far more resources into 
Delphi than Borland did in recent years.  I think they have made some 
improvements, but I also think they've made some things worse (the 
problems with activation and the EULA started with Borland but are 
getting worse with EMBT).  The documentation has seen some improvement 
for the core product, but there is no excuse for the state of 
documentation for Fire Monkey.  And this is definitively a management 
issue -- in terms of planning, resources, and product release.

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/29/2011 4:22:44 PM
Am 29.10.2011 18:22, schrieb David Erbas-White:
> On 10/29/2011 8:48 AM, Brian Evans wrote:
>>
>> My observations is they are in it for the long haul. Cash cowing
>> would mean leaving Delphi as an ANSI Windows only 32bit product
>> while increasing prices and lowering quality.
>>
>> Instead it's Unicode, Windows/Mac/IOS, 32/64bit, has a Starter
>> edition along with higher SKUs providing previous version licenses
>> on request and while the backlog of bugs is still there it looks
>> to be getting smaller and not larger with each release.
>>
>> Borland/Inprise always seemed to be looking for a sales knockout
>> and when it didn't come would switch resources to something else
>> it thought would be. Embarcadero doesn't show any signs of that
>> pathology. Looks much more disciplined in adding features and
>> growing products rationally so there is no need for a sales
>> knockout to keep the lights on.
>>
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Great response, and I should have been clearer.  My description of 'cash 
> cow' was more in line with responding to the general question about what 
> corporations will do with a product, and the difference between 
> short/long term profitability.
> 
> I do think that EMBT is 'milking' the product, but not in the 'classic' 
> sense of a cash cow.  Introducing a not-ready-for-prime-time product 
> such as Fire Monkey indicates (to me) that they are doing there best to 
> 'milk' the existing customer base for as much additional revenue as 
> possible, particularly when the don't supply the necessary documentation 
> to support use of the product by 'new' users to the Delphi product line.
> 
> The only way that EMBT can continue to obtain money from the existing 
> customer base is by introducing (near-)annual changes to the product, 
> thus requiring the existing customers to upgrade (or pay the annual SA 
> fee).  There are a lot of reasons why companies will continue doing this 
> (i.e., a regularized charge for expense purposes, ongoing annual 
> incident support, etc.), but if the product 'upgrades' decline in 
> quality, there will be some drop-off over time.
> 
> EMBT is not alone in this regard -- many technology companies take this 
> path (and ultimately fail, I might add), because at some point the 
> customers decide that Version XXX is 'good enough' to continue using, 
> until some major paradigm shift comes along (i.e., the switch from 
> 16-bit to 32/64-bit, Windows vs. OSX vs. Linux, etc.).  I would estimate 
> that easily half of the programs I use are not in a 'latest version' 
> state, as companies will often make programs worse (though not 
> necessarily intentionally) when trying to make an 'upgrade' that will 
> bring in additional cash.  One can point to different versions of the 
> Roxio CD-burning products, for example, to see the rise and fall of 
> quality over time.
> 

Hm, and how does this relate to a blog post from a few months stating
that since (don't remember the timeframe but was > 1 ear) there was a
15% increase in sales?
So it seems it's not onl the existing customer base who's milked...

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
10/29/2011 5:08:57 PM
On 10/29/2011 10:08 AM, Markus Humm wrote:
>
> Hm, and how does this relate to a blog post from a few months stating
> that since (don't remember the timeframe but was>  1 ear) there was a
> 15% increase in sales?
> So it seems it's not onl the existing customer base who's milked...
>

There is very little to respond to in that statement.

Is it 15% more income?  Is it from a year-to-year increase in units?  Is 
it due to some accounting scheme where two releases occurred during a 
fiscal year?  Is it due to an increase in the price of SA renewals?  Is 
it an 'apparent' increase due to cutting costs in another area of the 
company and basing the sales as a percentage of company worth?  Is it 
increase in sales of EMBT as a whole, or Delphi in particular?  Is it 
due to the large block sale to the Russian school system (or similar 
events)?

Without detailed knowledge of any/all of the above, a 'blog post' that 
states that sales have increased by 15% means essentially nothing...

David Erbas-White
0
David
10/29/2011 5:47:44 PM
Brian Evans wrote:

> My observations is they are in it for the long haul. Cash cowing
> would mean leaving Delphi as an ANSI Windows only 32bit product
> while increasing prices and lowering quality.

People have been saying Delphi was a "cash cow" for years, but it keeps
on getting invested in.

I wonder why overwhelming evidence that Delphi isn't being treated that
way doesn't sway people.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
10/29/2011 11:23:10 PM
On 30.09.2011 20:06, Jeff Williams wrote:
>> {quote:title=Allen Bauer wrote:}{quote}
>> We *don't* have that policy. You can get a replacement by merely
>> asking, either through online registration or by calling/filling out an
>> online request. It appears as if you're omitting data in order to make
>> your case.
>
> Yes, REALLY, you do. I tried to register my XE and it said "Registration limit reached". That *is* your policy. Then I followed the process, I created a ticket. I was told that I was given an increase, but that was untrue. When I tried to register, I was again denied access to my product with "Registration Limit reached.". Then when I tried to reply back to Loredana all I got back was an robotic auto-response saying emails from me were not being accepted for this ticket. Case closed, no further discussi
on
>   permitted.
>
> Sure, I -could- open another ticket, but to what purpose ? Obviously someone higher up than her revoked the decision to grant a limit increase. Too bad they didn't have the balls to tell me that.
>
> Like I said, EMBT is free to do what it likes, but it's pretty certain I won't be interested in XE3 and I'll be sure to make clear to anyone who expresses an interest in Delphi exactly what EMBT policy is towards paying customers.
>
> If EMBT wants to refund me for my bricked licence, they know where to mail the cheque.
>
> Edit: I'm done here, I think we're all pretty clear on each others position.

In such occasions I would have sent a ticket and asked them contact me 
online with Skype and when connected, I would have fired up Teamviewer, 
started it in demonstration mode, sent them the ID and demo password and 
asked them join go.teamviewer.com and enter the Id and Password and run 
then the sessions that fails once more so they could see in reality what 
fails and then you could discuss what to do, maybe hand over to the the 
control of keyboard so they could check registry and files to clear up 
misunderstandings etc. etc.

Prepared for that ?
0
Alf
10/30/2011 2:26:29 PM
On 10/28/2011 3:28 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Jon Purvis wrote:
>
>> The general message I get from Embarcadero is that they are far more
>> interested in maximizing profits than in making a good products or
>> making the customers happy.
>
> I'm always amused by such a statement.  By huge, enormous margins, the
> most popular way to make profits is to sell products customers want.
> Generally, to do that, you have to have good products and make
> customers happy.

Another way is to make products that customers need, or at least think 
think they need.  As long as the need is great enough, the company can 
upset the customers all they want because they have no other choice if 
they want that product.  We can always hope that a better company will 
move into that product space, but it's just as likely that the new 
company will be just as bad.

> I mean, do you think they can maximize profits by making crappy
> products and pissing off customers?

Yes.  Quite easily, in fact.  Customer relations can be expensive. 
Doing things that would make some or all the customers very happy can be 
seen as too expensive for the return.  Businesses want the customers to 
be happy enough with them to buy their product.  At some point, adding 
to customer happiness starts to cut into the bottom line, instead of 
adding to it.  We just differ in where we think Embarcadero (and most 
businesses, I'd guess) sit, and where they should be.

Remember the tv movie some years back about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs? 
There's a scene in which Jobs is very upset with Gates because he stole 
the windows idea from Apple.  Jobs says that Apple is still the better 
product.  Gates replies that it doesn't matter.  This is my take on most 
businesses.  Make it good enough to sell, but don't bother past that point.

> Do you think that making crappy products and pissing off customers is
> an expressed corporate goal?

Expressed as such, no.  But if they can do so and still make a level of 
profit that pleases the investors, I think many, many large businesses 
will do so.  I would go so far as to say most businesses don't care 
about customer happiness at all - they only care about sales.  If 
customer happiness is the key to sales, they'll do it, but only because 
of that, and only as long as it doesn't cut into sales.  If happiness 
doesn't affect sales, most will not do a thing about it.

-- 
Jon Purvis
Wildlife Data Analyst
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Austin, TX
0
Jon
10/31/2011 6:47:13 PM
Jon Purvis wrote:

> 
> Another way is to make products that customers need, or at least
> think think they need.  As long as the need is great enough, the
> company can upset the customers all they want because they have no
> other choice if they want that product.  We can always hope that a
> better company will move into that product space, but it's just as
> likely that the new company will be just as bad.

Yes, that is another way.  It is also an extremely uncommon,
infrequent, and risky way, but it does happen.  It seems almost such a
small percentage of the overall business world that it's silly to
assume that anyone would do things that way unless it was manifestly
clear that they were doing so.

> 
> Yes.  Quite easily, in fact. 

I don't agree.  It's not easy at all.  It's a *very* difficult path to
profitability when your business plan is "Let's build crappy products
and piss off customers".  Describing that as an easy thing to do is
ridiculous in my view.


> If 
> customer happiness is the key to sales, they'll do it, but only
> because of that, and only as long as it doesn't cut into sales.  If
> happiness doesn't affect sales, most will not do a thing about it.

I find such a pessimistic view hard to fathom, much less accept as true.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
11/1/2011 1:23:35 PM
When is a customer happy. A customer is never happy with a tool. You can compare IDE's/technologies to training devices in a gym. I found no better match in reality.

Technologies and/or tools and in the end both are very comparable to the gym. If you train to early with high sophisticated stuff, it's a very safe way but you don't get the feeling of having achieved something because of a special way you found for your body.  The training device did the job in the end. 

Example - Your girl fried/wife tells you - my friend its time to do something, you are perfect in emptying the fridge but little more fun is required. You go to a gym take the bike a plain bike, you have to take care that you stay at your fat burning level or whatever you want to achieve and it makes no difference, if your muscles grow unintended (they don't grow if its not supported by specific food or diet) also no problem, With the time experience grows, girl friend is happy and a certain 'laziness' is
 introduced caused by disappointment because the old way does not work and then there are reactions. People give up or blame the device,  people use more sophisticated devices to fine tune and you work with you multi - functional devices. - after 2 years usually.

Some people still find their way to maybe train with a mulit-purpose device for different muscles or groups of muscles. This works too, but best of breed devices are the better choice. This is the first step to specialization. Anyway there is the next step. 

You are trained meet others and talk about training do posing and every gym has a culture they tend to train special muscles to achieve a certain condition that looks good or allows whatever.

Then one comes back to owner of the gym,says to the owner I want a machine to train this muscle or group.... but you will not get immediately, because it takes space and costs money better said requires an investment. More evil a sales-man listens to the group a people one paragraph above and says  - this is a good thing we adopt a machine for this demand and tell people, now you can train especially these muscles very good and of course the one but they need more customers and push a hype - this happens 
shoulder comes into focus or whatever. Lots of people know know then also if they have lot's of fat to burn, when they train this muscle than they can solve a certain class of physical work or at least look good. Everyone introduces this device.

The one, who was happy before with hanging around in his gym, the technology world had fun with colleagues maybe feels bad but in the meanwhile has forgotten that instead of burning fat he is now doing something different. The one still has all the good devices he always used, fun with the girls on the bar but they are always the same and some of them already married in the meanwhile. Before the one quits the gym, he takes a look and thinks, these devices, only fat beginners (ok there are maybe 2 out of 3
0 ... ignoring the 20 other colleagues he had fun with over the years), goes to the new gym with the different image, the more young girls - he is interested now a lot more in the girls because his first girl friend left him and said you are always in the gym you have no time for me -  and the cool devices because the gym is bigger and because of the price the people training are younger, maybe blames the old gym for having to have too much time spent with the multi functional devices, not being in the po
sition to train this special muscle which of course would have helped to keep his relation intact and not the fact to go earlier home sometimes and hang around with girls.

The vendor and the technology are little mixed up in comparison to ITs - EMB is in this case a Gym that builds tools on their own and the others simply lease big devices and take huge loans to maximize the offering in big rooms. 

The satisfaction with Delphi is - stay with your girl-friend/wife, burn your fat and don't listen to much to other body builders because comparing muscles does say nothing about the goal they want to reach. Maybe a one night stand with a young girl in a gym that thinks man with muscle are more clever and a good option in the future because they know to train on a special device special muscles but anyway and they also have heard people who train this special muscle are good do-it-yourself home worker beca
use they relax looking tool-time which leads us to devexpress:). Serious ... it is not the device that makes a customer happy ... it is always what you can do with it. 

The problem starts when the device breaks and hurts your shoulder, because you to much ... and rebuilding the trust into a device that hurt you although if it obvious what happend will not make you stay. It will happen in another gym too, maybe or not, but no one knows.

The comparison is not flawless, but believe me people that work with too specialized devices in the end end up as fat guys that know a lot about things you cannot do with specialized devices aka. consultant when they sit together with the former young girls who still sit in the gym but 15 years later and still believe that people who are training special muscles are the one (vendor locked in Enterprise ITs). I know some of them, both kinds, strange but true both kinds still want to marry me but I never tr
ained on specialized devices and my body is no longer steel only:)

I don't know if they are happy.

Mike

--
Michael Bunny [Team 101st Hareborne] Nuts!
Bunny @ Bugs - Shift + F7 - Insect of terror, face your faith like a man!

> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Jon Purvis wrote:
> > If 
> > customer happiness is the key to sales, they'll do it, but only
> > because of that, and only as long as it doesn't cut into sales.  If
> > happiness doesn't affect sales, most will not do a thing about it.
> 
> I find such a pessimistic view hard to fathom, much less accept as true.
> 
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Michael
11/1/2011 8:01:04 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Delphi XE Update 1 is now available
Update 1 for Delphi XE and C++Builder XE is now available. It's available first through the auto update system. It should be available from the registered users download pages within two hours and available in the full product installers and ISOs for purchasers, customers and trial downloaders next week. For more information, see the following. Update 1 or Delphi XE and C++Builder XE Readme http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/40881 Update 1 for Delphi XE and C++Builder XE Fix List http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/40984 Thanks, Tim -- Tim Del Chiaro Product Marketi...

Delphi XE2 Update 1
Hi All From previous messages about Update 1, I gathered that it completely reinstalls XE2. Is this so? Where I live there internet connection is not so good and I have just downloaded the 2.3gig install with difficulty. Please tell me that for each update, I do not have to do this. Is there an update 1 that just updates and does not reinstall? Thanks Godfrey On 9/29/2011 12:11 AM, Godfrey Fletcher wrote: > Hi All > > From previous messages about Update 1, I gathered that it completely > reinstalls XE2. Is this so? > > Where I live there interne...

Delphi 2010 November update (Updates 2, 3 and Boost) is now available
For those running Vista/Win7 and do not check for Updates on a regular base. Readme: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/40061 For a complete list of the specific problems fixed in Update 2, see the following articles: For Delphi: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/40139/ For C++Builder: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/40157/ -- Pieter "Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do." -- Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Pieter Zijlstra wrote: > For those running Vista/Win7 and do not check for Updates on a regular > ba...

Move from Delphi 2009 to Delphi XE2 and now failing
I recently moved from Delphi 2009 to Delphi XE2 (combined with a new computer). The XML that is now created no longer accepted by the webservice. The specific steps I went through were. 1) Delphi 2009 with old pas file. Worked. 2) Delphi XE2 with old pas file. Didn't work. 3) Delphi XE2 with new pas file imported by Delphi XE2. Didn't work. The new pas file has the following lines, but commenting them out doesn't change the XML. { InvRegistry.RegisterParamInfo(TypeInfo(FaCSIADiagnosticInterface), 'Ping', 'Ping_Input', '&...

When will Delphi 2009 Update 1 available?
Hi, Any ideas when will Delphi 2009 update 1 available? I face issues with Delphi 2009 project management and can't upgrade my Delphi 2007 projects over. -- Best regards, Chau Chee Yang E Stream Software Sdn Bhd URL: www.sql.com.my SQL Financial Accounting Chee-Yang Chau 周起阳 wrote: > Hi, > > Any ideas when will Delphi 2009 update 1 available? I face issues with Delphi 2009 project management and can't upgrade my Delphi 2007 projects over. > Didn't think update 1 was already being requested. Just curious, what issues are you facing with D200...

Update 2 for Delphi 2009 is now available
Update 2 for C++Builder 2009 and Delphi 2009 (and the Delphi and C++Builder portions of RAD Studio 2009) is now available. You'll be prompted to download the update when you start/restart the IDE if you chose to be notified when updates are available. You can also get the update by running Check for Updates from the Start menu. If you need to reinstall or access the update separately, you can get it from our registered users download page at http://cc.codegear.com/item/26310 Release notes for the update are at: http://dn.codegear.com/article/39005 The bug fix list for the updat...

HTML Editor Library trial is now available for Delphi 6
HTML Editor Library trial is now available for Delphi 6 - Delphi XE8 Please use the following link to download the trial: http://delphihtmlcomponents.com/editor.html Hi! Do you have another emailadress than the support@delphihtmlcomponents.com, because I would like to upgrade to the Editor-package, but I can't email you. Gruß aus den Bergen Günter Please use asviridenkov at gmail.com > {quote:title=G|nter Kieninger wrote:}{quote} > Hi! > > Do you have another emailadress than the > support@delphihtmlcomponents.com, because I would like t...

Delphi 7 to Delphi XE2
Hi, Still using that old workhorse, Delphi7, but am going to the conference in London hosted by Embarcadero on Delphi XE2. Although I would like to "move with the times" and am keen to get the UNICODE and 64-bit support offered by the latest IDEs, I confess to being more than a little scared about all the UNICODE/String/AnsiString and 32/64 bit issues I'm probably going to fall over. Anyone recently upgraded from Delphi7 to one of the latest Delphi IDEs? Thanks, Alain On 03/02/2012 08:55, Alain Dekker wrote: > Still using that old workhorse, Delphi7, but...

C++Builder XE2 Update 1 is now available
Here is the official announcement: Update 1 for Delphi and C++Builder XE2 is now available. This update includes more than 120 bug fixes and addresses an important licensing issue. We were recently made aware that some code in the 3D support in FireMonkey may be similar to code in GLScene, an MPL open source project. We worked with Eric Grange, a key contributor to the GLScene project to remedy the issue and replace the code in question. This update replaces the code in question and therefore it is highly recommended that you rebuild any applications compiled with the original FireMonk...

Delphi XE2 Update 1
Delphi XE2 Update 1 - initial impressions based on a quick 10 minute explore... Help files for FM seem to have been fattened up quite a bit, with some good new articles explaining important topics such as FMX component design. But at the same time, there's still some big gaps in the documentation, particularly of FM properties and methods - and lots of topics are still just stubs awaiting content. The F12 handling (to toggle between code and design view) seems more reliable. Still no selection handles when selecting multiple FM controls in the IDE Form Designer! Surprised by this...

Delphi 5 (6.18) Update Pack 1 availability?
I'm attempting to duplicate my Delphi 5 environment on a new computer (the old one is 8 years old), but I cannot find Update Pack 1 for D5. Any suggestions? Thanks, Scott Any of these work... <Scott Gast> wrote in message news:640690@forums.embarcadero.com... > I'm attempting to duplicate my Delphi 5 environment on a new computer (the > old one is 8 years old), but I cannot find Update Pack 1 for D5. Any > suggestions? > http://www.torry.net/quicksearchd.php?String=delphi+5+update&Title=Yes > http://www.torry.net/quicksearchd.php?String=de...

ANN: ReportBuilder 14.0 is now available including Delphi XE2 support!
Digital Metaphors Corporation announces the release of ReportBuilder 14.0! ReportBuilder 14.0 includes VCL support for Delphi XE2, Delphi XE, Delphi 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, and Delphi 7. Overview: http://www.digital-metaphors.com/rbwiki/General/What's_New/RB_14 New Feature List: http://www.digital-metaphors.com/PDF/NewFeatures.pdf Pricing: http://www.digital-metaphors.com/order Upgrade here! https://www.digital-metaphors.com/secure Version 14.0 - 10/21/2011 ------------------------- - Delphi XE2 support for VCL Win32 - Delphi XE2 support for VCL Win64 ...

ANN: ModelMaker Code Explorer 9.1 with Delphi XE2 support available
Hi all, A ModelMaker Code Explorer v9.1.0 update with Delphi XE2 support has been released. More details on this service update can be found here: http://www.modelmakertools.com/code-explorer/history/mmx910.html This is a free update for existing MMX9 customers. =========== ModelMaker Code Explorer =========== An award winning Delphi Refactoring Browser with Two way navigation, build-in refactorings. Create, Edit, Convert classes fields methods and properties with drag&drop and point&click. ModelMaker Code Explorer not only inserts new code, it also allows you to ed...

Delphi 2010 Help Update and Delphi Updates 4 & 5
I installed Delphi 2010 Update 4 a few weeks ago. Is there a help update that corresponds with Delphi 2010 Update 4? If not where can I find the latest help update. How do I update help? > {quote:title=Bill Miller wrote:}{quote} > I installed Delphi 2010 Update 4 a few weeks ago. Is there a help update > that corresponds with Delphi 2010 Update 4? If not where can I find the > latest help update. How do I update help? The last help update for Delphi/C++ Builder 2010 was Help Update 1, released around the first of November 2009. It's available on the Embarcad...

Web resources about - Delphi XE2 Update 1 is now available - embarcadero.delphi.non-tech

Gripping photos show tense moments after San Bernardino shooting
At least 14 people were killed and another 17 were injured in a mass shooting at a center for people with developmental disabilities in San Bernardino, ...

Did Google Mine Children’s Data From School-Issued Chromebooks?
Is Google a company that really follows its motto by not doing any evil? I suppose unless one can agree on a solid moral framework, the question ...

Join a Live Google+ Hangout with Mike O'Brien at the Paris Climate Talks This Friday
You. Me. Mike. This Friday. The internet. City of Seattle We're not in Paris for the big international climate change conference, so it seemed ...

Yahoo's board is still debating the Alibaba spinoff
Yahoo's board of directors finished its first of three days of meetings on Wednesday without reaching a decision on whether to press ahead with ...

Facebook's Zuckerberg takes philanthropy into profit, politics
By Yasmeen Abutaleb SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Mark Zuckerberg, who famously urged his company Facebook Inc to "move fast and break things," is ...

Uber To Introduce ‘Ride Request’ Buttons On Its App
Ride-sharing service Uber, which has earned the ire of taxi drivers all over the world, is back with a new sense of adventure, that is, to include ...

Black Friday guns sales break all previous records
Ho, ho, ho. Now I have a (non) machine gun. All Die Hard references aside, it turns out that last Friday was a great day for sales. Not so much ...

Montenegro: From NATO Enemy to Potential Ally
New York Times Montenegro: From NATO Enemy to Potential Ally New York Times Kotor, on Montenegro's Adriatic coast. Montenegro came into being ...

Texas Files Suit to Block Syrian Refugees
Complaint says Feds aren't meeting their legal obligations to consult with Texas

The Week in iOS Accessories: More stands for the Apple Watch
New stands for the Apple Watch This week’s roundup of accessories offers three new ways to charge up your Apple Watch—and just two of them also ...

Resources last updated: 12/3/2015 1:39:54 AM