Board index » cppbuilder » C++ Builder 2007

C++ Builder 2007


2007-06-09 06:45:13 AM
cppbuilder19
Hi all,
can anyone confirm if the new C++ Builder has the same online activation
as in BDS2006?
 
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

Sig schrieb:
Quote
Hi all,

can anyone confirm if the new C++ Builder has the same online activation
as in BDS2006?
I'm also interrested.
anyone can confirm?
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

Frank Gruber wrote:
Quote
Sig schrieb:
>Hi all,
>
>can anyone confirm if the new C++ Builder has the same online
>activation as in BDS2006?

I'm also interrested.
anyone can confirm?
Yes, you need to activate BCB2007.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) On waves of silver I dreamed of gold
(Please do not email 'Till I lost the peace that dreaming gives
me directly unless I dreamed of the moment of my own death
asked. Thank You) That no one ever dreams and lives (Marillion)
 

{smallsort}

Re:C++ Builder 2007

David Dean [CodeGear] wrote:
Quote
In article <4669dba2$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Sig < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>can anyone confirm if the new C++ Builder has the same online activation
>as in BDS2006?

Yes, the same activation process exists.

Thank you for the answer. Does it still have a limited number of
activations?
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

In article <466dc0b4$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Sig < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Thank you for the answer. Does it still have a limited number of
activations?
Yes, but it should be easy to get the number bumped.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
Quote
In article <466dc0b4$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Sig < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Yes, but it should be easy to get the number bumped.
The number IMHO should at least be initially 2, not one. To install the
version at least on 2 computers.
To have a comparison if it runs not quite well on one computer.
Andre
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

Andre Kaufmann wrote:
Quote
"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>In article <466dc0b4$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Sig < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Yes, but it should be easy to get the number bumped.

The number IMHO should at least be initially 2, not one. To install the
version at least on 2 computers.
To have a comparison if it runs not quite well on one computer.

Andre
The number is higher than 2.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) On waves of silver I dreamed of gold
(Please do not email 'Till I lost the peace that dreaming gives
me directly unless I dreamed of the moment of my own death
asked. Thank You) That no one ever dreams and lives (Marillion)
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
Andre Kaufmann wrote:
>"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
>news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>In article <466dc0b4$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Sig < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>
>>Yes, but it should be easy to get the number bumped.
>
>The number IMHO should at least be initially 2, not one. To install
>the version at least on 2 computers.
>To have a comparison if it runs not quite well on one computer.
>
>Andre

The number is higher than 2.

Hello,
Is there currently a "deactivation" functionality, or plans in the
future to make one?
Jogy
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
schrieb im Newsbeitrag>
Quote
The number is higher than 2.
Hi Jeff,
at least for me the number seems to be 1. I've installed
CBuilder 2007 Trial on my PC at home and retried it to
install it on my PC at work. But I failed, because the
installer prompted that I've installed the version already
with the same account.
Or did I something wrong ?
Andre
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

Jogy wrote:
Quote
Hello,

Is there currently a "deactivation" functionality, or plans in the
future to make one?

Jogy
Not that I am aware of. No real need AFAICT. The process to get the number
bumped is very easy. I've had to do it before and within a couple of minutes I
had additional installs on my license.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) On waves of silver I dreamed of gold
(Please do not email 'Till I lost the peace that dreaming gives
me directly unless I dreamed of the moment of my own death
asked. Thank You) That no one ever dreams and lives (Marillion)
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

David Dean [CodeGear] wrote:
Quote
In article <466dc0b4$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Sig < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Thank you for the answer. Does it still have a limited number of
>activations?

Yes, but it should be easy to get the number bumped.

If it is so easy why to keep it at all? I know it might sound stupid but
just because of the activation issue we decided to move all our new
development to VS and stick with BCB6 for maintenance.
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

In article <466e20bb$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Andre Kaufmann" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
The number IMHO should at least be initially 2, not one. To install the
version at least on 2 computers.
To have a comparison if it runs not quite well on one computer.
IIRC, The number is initially 10.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

In article <466ed3ac$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Jogy < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote:
Quote
Is there currently a "deactivation" functionality, or plans in the
future to make one?
That's a good idea. Please QC it.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

In article <466eea00$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Not that I am aware of. No real need AFAICT. The process to get the number
bumped is very easy.
Well, if for some reason you need it NOW, and can't wait for support
to bump you it would be nice to be able to do something yourself to
handle it. Apple has a similar feature to activate and deactivate
computers linked to your iTunes account.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Re:C++ Builder 2007

In article <466eed8a$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Sig < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
If it is so easy why to keep it at all? I know it might sound stupid but
just because of the activation issue we decided to move all our new
development to VS and stick with BCB6 for maintenance.
I don't know. It causes me a small amount of frustration too. (and it
is another layer of testing for us in QA)
I expect it does make it easier for large companies to manage their
licensing. The concurrent users licenses wouldn't be very useful if you
could run without activation. With the renewed focus on developers
instead of enterprises, this may become less of an influence.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>