FM on a Mac

[Alan T Litchfield]

On 9/01/2010, at 10:35 AM, Peter Gold wrote:

> Hi, Alan:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Alan T Litchfield <alan at alphabyte.co.nz 
> > wrote:
>>
>> On 8/01/2010, at 11:08 AM, Peter Gold wrote:
>>
>>> The question, I guess, is about how Windows handles this. It's quite
>>> possible that authorizing an Adobe installed product may not be a
>>> problem across different VMs on the same physical computer, if the
>>> popular notion that the physical hard disk information is keyed to
>>> authorization.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Good point Peter. Is authorisation against each CPU address, mac  
>> address, or
>> the software system? Only the license agreement can answer that  
>> question and
>> they vary considerably across software publishers and their products.
>>
>> I would have thought that the authorisation was handled by the Adobe
>> authorisation application (you know, that's the buggy one that so  
>> often
>> fails and requires people to install components, reinstall  
>> applications, or
>> even their whole system) rather than Windows itself. Once it had been
>> installed on first-install and authorised then any subsequent
>> reinstallations ought to be regarded as reinstalls rather than as  
>> duplicate
>> installations. To be safe (license-wise) perhaps the tests can be  
>> run in
>> series and not in parallel?
>
> It's pretty clear that the kiwi culture is shaping your thoughts.
> "Test in series or parallel?" is the kind of question that, to my
> mind, falls into (or parallels) the question "is it more efficient to
> herd these sheep to the shearing pen in single file or 32-abreast?"<G>
>

LOL, probably ;)

> I agree that the popular idea in most places it's mentioned in public,
> is that Adobe product authorization is keyed to the ID information of
> what appears to be the physical drive it's installed on.

Right. So the emulated OS would identify itself according to the  
partition label assigned to it?

> I haven't
> tried to out-fox it (watch those sheep if you do<G>).

Ahh but we were not plagued with them, unlike our Ozzie cousins.  
Instead we got lawyers :}

>
> I'd suggest searching Google for all terms that relate to activating
> Adobe applications. I don't expect that FrameMaker activation
> mechanism is different from InDesign's; IOW, some or all of my
> InDesign experience may apply to FrameMaker activations.
>
>


Yes, and I think relates back to the OP issue.

Alan

--
Alan T Litchfield
AlphaByte
PO Box 141, Auckland, 1140
New Zealand
http://www.alphabyte.co.nz
http://www.alphabyte.co.nz/beatrice