7.0.1 Updater will not install
Al Brassell
updater I got a message that it could not find my istallation of PS 7.0. I
manually browsed to the correct location and made sure my antivirus was
disabled and I still got the same message. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Al Brassell
Leon
"Al Brassell" <abra...@brassellgroup.com> wrote in message
news:ak80rj$4bd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
checking your serial number against a list of blacked serials, if your
serial is on the list you cannot install. If you send your serial to adobe
they will check it out, assuming you are legit that is, no offence meant.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002
TMRDD
--
Kindest regards...
The Most Reverend Doktor Dot
For the benefit of all, please post to the newsgroup first.
-----
Sites of interest:
http://www.whatwomenreallywant.ca
http://www.dasign.ca
http://www.thedoctorofdasign.net
http://www.adumbrate.net
"Al Brassell" <abra...@brassellgroup.com> wrote in message news:ak80rj$4bd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Kelvin
file that is part of the updater software containing a list of "blacklisted"
(ie: pirated) serial numbers. Someone had hacked that file and posted the
numbers online yesterday on their site as a means of reference for those
affected, but it appears to be gone today. I'm sure that if you have proof
of purchase (a sales receipt for example), Adobe will be more than happy to
help you out with a new serial number if you call them.
--
Best Regards,
Kelvin
Rick Wilson
and take a look at setup.ins with any hex editor.
"Kelvin" <spam....@nospam.com> wrote in message news:umfddbn...@corp.supernews.com...
Ronald Keller
> It's not all that hard to find the list. Unzip the update to a folder
> and take a look at setup.ins with any hex editor.
>
And very easy to change some numbers ... :-)
JM
news:VA.0000006...@planetinternet.be...
>
> > It's not all that hard to find the list. Unzip the update to a folder
> > and take a look at setup.ins with any hex editor.
> >
>
> And very easy to change some numbers ... :-)
Sure but if you change the numbers, the setup.ins file will be read as being
corrupted when you try to install the update. Anybody know how to get
around this?
Rick Wilson
The file has a binary checksum. So eg if you set bit 0 on one byte
then clear bit 0 on the adjacent byte. An easy way to do this is to
use a hex editor that allows direct bit manipulation (e.g. XVI32).
cro
Intstall Photoshop with new srial. Install update 7.0.1.
That's it!
"Al Brassell" <abra...@brassellgroup.com> wrote in message
news:ak80rj$4bd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
sky-hi
>Uninstall 7.0.
This is not necessary.
wings
> Uninstall 7.0. Use http://www.crackz.ws/?i=41001 to download keygen.
> Intstall Photoshop with new srial. Install update 7.0.1.
> That's it!
Nice to know that you're using an illegal version, otherwise you wouldn't
know where to find it.
People like you are ignored by me -----> plonk
sarah
> The file has a binary checksum. So eg if you set bit 0 on one byte
> then clear bit 0 on the adjacent byte. An easy way to do this is to
> use a hex editor that allows direct bit manipulation (e.g. XVI32).
>
>
How exactly do you "set bit 0 on one byte then clear bit 0 on the adjacent
byte?" Can you break this into small change for non-sophistos? Just
curious....
TIA
sarah
Šolin
"wings" <wings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CQ5a9.144$if4....@news20.bellglobal.com...
I have always wondered what "plonk" does? Is it a magic spell?
Also what are the consequences of being ignored by you?
Just wondered.
°¿°
being
> corrupted when you try to install the update. Anybody know how to get
> around this?
The simple fix is to download any Hex Editor and open up the Setup.ins
file. do a search for your serial number (with no spaces), and when
it is located simply transpose two of the numbers.
I personally transposed the last and third to last numbers. Then save
the file and do the install.
°¿°
"wings" <wings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CQ5a9.144$if4....@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
wings
wings
wings
Kelvin
users whose serial number matches a pirated one almost exactly except for a
number or two. Not sure if this is true or not, but it would mean that the
updater is blocking serial numbers not explicitly contained within it's
blacklist, and that's a bug.
Anyways, this is why I like to buy my software. I definitely don't need the
hassle of having problems caused by hacked/cracked software, and have
trouble understanding why people put so much trust in it. Plus I like
supporting software vendors who actually make good, worthwhile software,
especially all the little guys out there. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Kelvin
"wings" <wings...@hotmail.com> wrote:
thief
°¿°
mine.
"wings" <wings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yy8a9.337$uF.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> thief
°¿°
"wings" <wings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1y8a9.334$uF.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Repuba-Bubba
> I have always wondered what "plonk" does? Is it a magic spell?
> Also what are the consequences of being ignored by you?
> Just wondered.
--
"When the going gets weird - the weird turn pro"
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Leon
> People like you are ignored by me -----> plonk
>
>
°¿°
I'll just keep plonking along. ;-)
Rick Wilson
>
> Anyways, this is why I like to buy my software. I definitely don't need the
> hassle of having problems caused by hacked/cracked software, and have
> trouble understanding why people put so much trust in it. Plus I like
> supporting software vendors who actually make good, worthwhile software,
> especially all the little guys out there. ;-)
I agree, although I don't understand Adobe's timing. It's doubtful
that anyone who's running a pirated version of PS7.0 is going to
run out and buy it just to get a minor patch.
Software vendors have every right to protect themselves from
piracy, but it's in their own interest to communicate what they're
doing. There will be thousands of IT departments and others
scratching their heads as to why the 7.0.1 patch can't find
Photoshop, which will generate thousands of support calls. A
simple message box indicating the installed version is not a
valid copy would have saved Adobe lots of money.
RickW
removethis @hotmail.com Brian K
"sky-hi" <sky...@forgetaboutit.com> wrote in message
news:p0phmu00t190d1hao...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:44:57 +0200, "cro" <zb...@vip.hr*> wrote:
>
> >Uninstall 7.0.
>
> This is not necessary.
>
Why not. How do you change the serial number?
Brian
Confused-as-usual
calls to Adobe!
No matter what they did to keep pirates from getting the update, they are going to get a ton of calls from legitimate purchaser's
who's serial number is "flagged" for no reason that they are even remotely aware of. How can one tell if a program has been copied
then resealed into the box before purchasing it at a store? It's so easy today to shrink-wrap just about anything if you have the
proper stuff and a heat gun.
*sigh*
"Rick Wilson" <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:akb8ff$1he3gb$1...@ID-82690.news.dfncis.de...
Rick Wilson
> If that box popped up and told ME that my purchased
> version was "not a valid copy", you can better believe
> I'd be making some phone calls to Adobe!
I was surprised Adobe's blacklist was so short, they probably kept
it that way to avoid this problem.
> No matter what they did to keep pirates from getting the update,
> they are going to get a ton of calls from legitimate purchaser's who's
> serial number is "flagged" for no reason that they are even remotely
> aware of. How can one tell if a program has been copied then
> resealed into the box before purchasing it at a store? It's so easy
> today to shrink-wrap just about anything if you have the proper
> stuff and a heat gun.
I'm sure Adobe would be even more interested in hearing about those.
RickW
wes
had any problems as being seen with this update. Maybe that is the best way
to buy. I wonder if, by any chance, my time will come, even though I buy
from Adobe.
"Rick Wilson" <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:akbq2c$1h8v73$1...@ID-82690.news.dfncis.de...
George Eleftheriadis
Thanks very helpfull.
a user
I had a similar situation where the updater "couldn't find the 7.0"
BUT the directory it is pointing to is the correct place where the
7.0 is!! I just thought the update of win2k to sp3 messed things up
as per m$ policy.
The "fix" was to install 7.0 again then was able to install the updater.
Looks like a problem with the updater not believing that the place where
ps 7.0 reside is the right place; possibably ps 7 wants it to be in
the "c:" partition with all the other windows junk instead of a
different partition....
wings
> Thank you. Just for the record, I have a legit copy and no problems with
> mine.
Yeah right. Some facts (and I quote you): "I personally transposed the last
and third to last numbers"
I just hope for you that some Adobe employees don't read your post...
wings
°¿°
last
> and third to last numbers"
> I just hope for you that some Adobe employees don't read your post...
Copied from another news group.
°¿°
> and now I plonk you on this PC too ----> plonk
>
>
My God a real plonker. :-))
Mike
They are all over the place.
Like locusts.
":^) ®
--
Mike
• Logo Design •
Put some fun in your next logo!
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Chris Cox
Rick Wilson
they would prefer to know about the gaping hole in their protection
scheme, rather than not know. Any 9 year-old could have figured
it out.
"Chris Cox" <cc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:270820022203112624%cc...@mindspring.com...
Charles Andrews
>Uninstall 7.0. Use http://www.crackz.ws/?i=41001 to download keygen.
>Intstall Photoshop with new srial. Install update 7.0.1.
>That's it!
Thanks for the info cro, it worked like a charm. I didn't have
to uninstall 7.0 though, I just reinstalled it with the new
password from the keygen. Thanks again for the info.
Charlie
Russell Williams
> Just a guess, but unless Adobe has their head completely up their ass
> they would prefer to know about the gaping hole in their protection
> scheme, rather than not know. Any 9 year-old could have figured
> it out.
If we'd made it hard enough for a 20 year old, it would have taken an
extra.... month? and then it's up on the warez sites and newsgroups
how to get around it anyway. We aren't playing the gamers' game,
where if they can hold off the pirates for 2 months they've won
because that's their main revenue period. For non-game software,
cracks and pirate serials will be available for the bulk of the
revenue life of the product. Complicated software anti-piracy
obfuscation just takes more resources to engineer and has
more chance of bugs that will inconvenience legitimate users.
Adobe can only change the level of brazenness and persistence
required of pirates. If somebody who pirated 7.0 and uses it
for work gets a rude surprise when s/he tries to upgrade,
that reduces the likelihood they'll do it again or recommend
piracy to their friends / coworkers.
Not that this is official policy (it isn't), but the updater makes a
little more sense in this light, doesn't it?
Russell Williams
not speaking for Adobe Systems
sky-hi
levels and was a waste of time for users, but more so for Adobe.
Furthermore, it resulted in stirring up the muck and making it more
visible, which was definitely not in Adobe's best interest.
Rick Wilson
> "Rick Wilson" <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:akhn0s$1iaj56$1...@ID-82690.news.dfncis.de...
> > Just a guess, but unless Adobe has their head completely up their ass
> > they would prefer to know about the gaping hole in their protection
> > scheme, rather than not know. Any 9 year-old could have figured
> > it out.
>
> If we'd made it hard enough for a 20 year old, it would have taken an
> extra.... month? and then it's up on the warez sites and newsgroups
> how to get around it anyway. We aren't playing the gamers' game,
> where if they can hold off the pirates for 2 months they've won
> because that's their main revenue period. For non-game software,
> cracks and pirate serials will be available for the bulk of the
> revenue life of the product. Complicated software anti-piracy
> obfuscation just takes more resources to engineer and has
> more chance of bugs that will inconvenience legitimate users.
Russell, this was the first update I've ever seen where a list of
blacklisted serials was kept in plain text format. Not only is
this lazy programming (how much effort would it have taken to
encrypt the list?), but now the entire world knows exactly
which serial numbers are being checked.
As for inconveniencing legitimate users, how much effort would
it have taken to put up a message box indicating why the update
is failing? As it is, thousands of IT departments will be simply
scratching their heads wondering why it's working for some of
their users but not for others.
> Adobe can only change the level of brazenness and persistence
> required of pirates. If somebody who pirated 7.0 and uses it
> for work gets a rude surprise when s/he tries to upgrade,
> that reduces the likelihood they'll do it again or recommend
> piracy to their friends / coworkers.
>
> Not that this is official policy (it isn't), but the updater makes a
> little more sense in this light, doesn't it?
Piracy blocks are like door locks, the only people they keep
out are those who are supposed to get in. But in any event,
if Adobe wants to start playing this game the time to do it is
with a full release, not a minor update. How many people
do you think are going to run out and buy 7.0 just so they
can get the 7.0.1 update?
RickW
Tommy Huynh
> Russell, this was the first update I've ever seen where a list of
> blacklisted serials was kept in plain text format. Not only is
> this lazy programming (how much effort would it have taken to
> encrypt the list?), but now the entire world knows exactly
> which serial numbers are being checked.
Exactly.
> As for inconveniencing legitimate users, how much effort would
> it have taken to put up a message box indicating why the update
> is failing? As it is, thousands of IT departments will be simply
> scratching their heads wondering why it's working for some of
> their users but not for others.
Exactly.
--
Tommy Huynh
http://www.lumika.org - Photos of Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, the US, Vietnam,
Belize, & technical articles on photographic equipment.
end user
> "Rick Wilson" <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:crMd9.5
>> Russell, this was the first update I've ever seen where a list of
>> blacklisted serials was kept in plain text format. Not only is
>> this lazy programming (how much effort would it have taken to
>> encrypt the list?), but now the entire world knows exactly
>> which serial numbers are being checked.
>
> Exactly.
AND what serial numbers will work for 7.0......
Russell Williams
> Piracy blocks are like door locks, the only people they keep
> out are those who are supposed to get in.
I disagree. I keep my house door locked and I bet you do too.
> But in any event,
> if Adobe wants to start playing this game the time to do it is
> with a full release, not a minor update. How many people
> do you think are going to run out and buy 7.0 just so they
> can get the 7.0.1 update?
I'm not going to say I agree with every decision that was made
about how the checks are implemented. Again, the point was
not to stop the dedicated warez users -- we can't stop them.
If you've got lots of people wandering into houses because
everybody leaves their doors unlocked, locking your doors
will stop a lot of people. The burglars will still just break a
window. Putting the check in the update catches the people
who casually installed using a pirate 7.0 serial when they go to
upgrade.
I don't think that Adobe nor anyone else in the industry has
yet found the right balance in piracy prevention vs. legitimate
user inconvenience (even having to enter those long serial
numbers on install is an inconvenience, and with most extant
schemes, the inconvenience escalates from there).
Russell Williams
> As for inconveniencing legitimate users, how much effort would
> it have taken to put up a message box indicating why the update
> is failing? As it is, thousands of IT departments will be simply
> scratching their heads wondering why it's working for some of
> their users but not for others.
Now *that* is an interesting argument: we should be more helpful
to people who've stolen our product and the corporations that permit
their employees to steal software.
Russell Williams
> tell an IT department some of their employees are using pirated
> software? Or does Adobe expect them to be mind readers?
That was my point -- it doesn't tell them. The first people it doesn't tell
are the people pirating the software, who presumably then ask somebody
(often, actually, Adobe tech support; other times their IT support). Of all
the situations in which a software vendor should be expected to be helpful
with error messages, this seems near the bottom of the list. Of course, if
there had been a helpful error message, then nobody would call tech
support in the first place ("hello, my pirated s/n doesn't work any more.
What should I do?). Most of those folks would just go out on the net
and get a new pirate s/n.
I don't know what Adobe officially expects, nor do I know what the
people who implemented the installer checking expect. But I would expect
any IT person trying to support a software package's users to spend 10
minutes on the manufacturer's support site or user forums before resorting
to mind reading. Or failing that, calling tech support. One phone call or
web search per IT department supporting pirates doesn't seem a huge
issue to me -- and now those IT departments know which employees
are using pirated copies.
I think it would be pretty major chutzpah for a shoplifter to expect that
the anti-theft tag that disabled the device they stole as they walked out
the store should have left an easy to read error message, even if they
were going to ask their corporate IT department for help.
Russell Williams
> Again, the people who don't know their software is pirated are the
> ones who will call Adobe tech support or ask their IT departments
> for help, and are NOT the ones Adobe should be nailing.
I'm talking about the people who know their software is pirated
but don't know that's why the install is failing. That turns out to be
a lot of people. The number who are running pirated software
but don't know it is very small.
>As I said at the start of this thread, one of the first signs of decline
>for a software developer is when they start focusing on piracy
>protection, and it's sad to see Adobe going down this road.
All major software manufacturers use some form of piracy
protection. Many are moving toward activation schemes
like Microsoft. Even Photoshop 2 had duplicate serial
number checking on the Mac (it looked for multiple people
trying to run with the same serial number on the local network),
so Adobe started downhill by your definition years ago.
Piracy is an increasing problem and you will certainly see most
software developers trying to find increasingly effective anti-piracy
measures without annoying customers too much. It'll take some
trial and error to find the balance, but the balance *is* moving
toward more attempts at piracy prevention industry-wide.
Small software developers I know (right down to 1 person
shareware operations) routinely get several times as many
downloads of newly released updaters as they have registered
users. Developers also see increasing numbers of people with
pirate copies calling tech support.
Donald Link
other!!!!!
"Russell Williams" <will...@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:dT6k9.102$Vi4.1...@monger.newsread.com...
Russell Williams
> Look, the bottom line is that most people are honest and buy
> their software, pirates don't. Nothing Adobe (or Microsoft or
> any other developer) does is going to make any difference.
This isn't supported by the evidence and certainly isn't believed by those
who make decisions. It's not black and white. A developer adds an
anti-piracy measure, then looks at the change in her revenue and the
measures she has of piracy rates, and balances that against the
rate of support calls from legitimate customers who have problems
caused by the anti-piracy measures.
It's a fallacy that a cracked system is useless. People do not fall
into two categories: honest and pirates. The fact that cracks can
be downloaded from warez sites does not moot the value of
protection. Here are just two reasons: First, there's a huge sales
spike for newly released products and it takes a while for
widely disseminated cracks to be available. There are large
numbers of people who have to have the latest thing and will
buy it if they have to. Second, most anti-piracy measures are
aimed not at hard-core pirates but at "keeping honest people
honest". The more you force people to confront the fact that
they're stealing something and that it really matters to somebody,
the more people give up and buy.
Example: A common form of piracy is installing more seats than
licenses in companies both small and large. It's a hassle to cut
another PO rather than borrow your neighbor's CD, or maybe
your department's budget is short this quarter. Photoshop's
network serial number checking was very effective at stopping
that kind of piracy -- "dammit, I can't use Photoshop until Joe
quits his copy; I'm going to go ahead and order my own!".
Those are not the kind of people who will download a cracked
copy from a warez site.
Paul J Gans
Sure, but what about the people who do *not* have pirated
software. Updates fail for all sorts of reasons, many of
them strange and not reproducible.
A number of folks here claim to have had their updates
fail and they claim to have legit software. Are they now
afraid to call Adobe because they'll be marked as thieves?
It sure doesn't build confidence in Adobe.
---- Paul J. Gans
Chris Rehm
> Sure, but what about the people who do *not* have pirated
> software. Updates fail for all sorts of reasons, many of
> them strange and not reproducible.
>
> A number of folks here claim to have had their updates
> fail and they claim to have legit software. Are they now
> afraid to call Adobe because they'll be marked as thieves?
> It sure doesn't build confidence in Adobe.
Why would someone be afraid they'd be "marked as thieves" for making
such a call? Do you really think people would be installing an upgrade
to software they feel they legitimately have purchased, and when it
failed their thought would be, "Oh, my, Adobe will think I'm a thief!"?
If I installed an upgrade and it failed and the Adobe tech support said
it was because my software key was stolen, I'd burn his ear off. I'd
straighten them out about how they'd burnt me, a legitimate customer,
and they better clear this up right now.
> ---- Paul J. Gans
--
Chris Rehm
ch...@javadisciple.com
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy
people, but shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [Lev. 19:18]
Russell Williams
news:3D969906...@javadisciple.com...
> If I installed an upgrade and it failed and the Adobe tech support said
> it was because my software key was stolen, I'd burn his ear off. I'd
> straighten them out about how they'd burnt me, a legitimate customer,
> and they better clear this up right now.
Unfortunately, installers in general are notoriously problematic. That's
another reason the installer doesn't say "pirate serial number detected"
or some such. When a user calls tech support, they can verify
everything and go from there. They can verify purchase info and
give somebody a new s/n without ever being accusatory, and at
the same time accumulate useful stats on the basis of having
50 people call claiming to own the same s/n.
There are cases where a legitimate user's s/n gets
posted on pirate sites, so you can't just accuse somebody of
piracy on the basis of having used a known pirate s/n.
In the case where somebody has posted my legitimate s/n, my
standard would be the same treatment as if somebody had
posted my credit card# and I was trying to deal with a consequent
"card declined".
chris stocker
wrote on 9/29/02 2:11 AM:
I found the 7.0.1 Updater will not install but realised later
that the computer guys at my place of work had come over and
installed 7.01 while I had been away, stupid mistake but
possible.
chris
www.chris.stocker.co.uk