I think a fairly common problem many people are having is that different applications require a different way to activate - different types of codes, sequence of install, and the location where registration codes changes from program to program.
It would be a big step forward if developers could agree on a standard way to register or activate a program - for example - via "Help-> About" and clicking on "Register". Wherever it is - it doesn't matter, but at least some consistency would be fantastic.
Yesterday we saw for the first time, a program (The Alchemist) that required activation AFTER setup, as the developers in all their wisdom, erase any registration information during the program setup. This is crazy.
Does this mean every time they release a patch or bug fix, the user has to dig out their registration details and enter them again? for what purpose? Does this prove they are as legitimate as they were before installing the patch? Clearly someone has dropped the ball.
I always make an effort to be patient and help as best I can to help others who are having issues. I recognise that many other users have limited experience in navigating new software products and getting new programs up and running, or fixing aborted installs. But surely the software developers could assist by making the process of registering a new program as easy as possible.
If it was as difficult to pick up the keys to a newly purchased motor vehicle, we would all be riding bicycles.
Finally, getting onto GOTD case - how about ditching the "Setup.exe", "Activate.exe" and "SetupandActivate.exe". These filenames are half the problem. As some people have discovered - if Winzip sees a "Setup.exe" in an archive - it just runs it and exits. Then the user complains that it's not registered.
What happenned to "readme.txt" that some people continually preach "you should've read it... it's all in the instructions". Did it occur to them that maybe the poor user never even saw that file... or Activate.exe for that matter.
(I use WinRAR - so I don't get the "helpful assistance" from Winzips wizard).
If the files were called something like "STEP1.EXE" and "STEP2.EXE" I wonder if presenting these files to a user would make the sequence clearer to install correctly - and doing so - maybe they might even notice the "Readme.txt" file - and the Winzip wizard wouldn't take them on autopilot to an incomplete install.
Just a thought.
