Craig,

>I don't like this activation stuff either. However, MS must answer to it's stockholders first and do what it can to increase the value of the stock. If it means forcing people to buy the product and requiring activation, that's what they'll do. Remember, they own the software and can require any type of activation/registration they want.

Speaking of stockholders...if you owned stock (you don't have to say one way or the other, this is just hypothetical), and you were reading this thread, what would you think? What I see is around 12 developers talking about the new activation policies, etc. I see roughly half of those people (in another post I said 2 or 3, but I think I was on the low side after reading some more) thinking the activation is a pain and that it is annoying. Also some worries that though it is a small thing now, it could get worse, and where do we draw the line, yada, yada...

OK, some math. That is 6 out of 12, or 50% of developers in this little cross section that are annoyed with MS and some who may be bold enough to buy fewer MS products (or have already defected on a personal level)! Now, this thread was started in an anti-MS sort of way, so that 50% is probably skewed high. Let's cut it in half. Even more. Say only 15-20% of real, average developers would be annoyed by this.

My question to you is, wouldn't that alarm you as a stockholder? If you asked MS about it and they said, "but we lose billions each year in software sales!" you could calmly tell them that these numbers are only estimates, and that they only represent _potential_ sales. (NOTE: As ever, I am not saying piracy does not exist or that I condone it, I merely think the estimates are extremely bloated and mis-representative [and subsequently mis-used]). The sales they will lose from alientating developers (who represent clients who represent businesses) is very real. What do you think?

JoeK