CDRLabs.com

I'm trying to install InCD 3.52.40 and its complaining that I don't have a licensed version of Nero installed.. which is BS because Nero 6.0.0.19 is installed. Anyone else run into this?

nevermind.. doesn't support this drive anyway.

Maybe it would work if you installed InCD 3.x from your Nero 5.5 install CD and then applied the update to 3.52.40.

Ian wrote:I'm trying to install InCD 3.52.40 and its complaining that I don't have a licensed version of Nero installed.. which is BS because Nero 6.0.0.19 is installed. Anyone else run into this?

Pf you first install Nero 5.*, then you can install InCD 3.5.24.0.

Then Uninstall Nero 5.* and install Nero 6.0.0.19.
However, now that Word bug is fixed, I've abandoned 3.5.24.0 and installed InCD 4.0.7.2.

Have not use it enough yet to see whether it "works".

I reported some problems in another thread.

Howard Kaikow wrote:Pf you first install Nero 5.*, then you can install InCD 3.5.24.0.

Then Uninstall Nero 5.* and install Nero 6.0.0.19.

that's a pretty f**ked up way of doing things.
if indeed InCD 3.x doesn't recognize a Nero 6 key and thus won't install - that's extremely stupid, very bad job on Ahead's part.

dodecahedron wrote:

Howard Kaikow wrote:Pf you first install Nero 5.*, then you can install InCD 3.5.24.0.

Then Uninstall Nero 5.* and install Nero 6.0.0.19.

that's a pretty f**ked up way of doing things.
if indeed InCD 3.x doesn't recognize a Nero 6 key and thus won't install - that's extremely stupid, very bad job on Ahead's part.

I, and others, pointed this out a while ago.

InCD 3.* does not recognize Nero 6 license codes, so the problem was caused by changing the Nero license code algorithm and not patching InCD 3 to take this into account.

OK, how about this workaround:
with Nero 6 installed, manually edit the registry, put in the Nero 5 license key (presumably, Nero 6 won't work at this point).
install InCD 3.xx.
edit the registry again and put in the Nero 6 license key.

does this work?

InCD 3 was discontinued long before the release of Nero 6. And as mentioned previously, InCD 3 was licensed from BHA. This was and is not source code developed by Ahead. We can not and never could make changes to this software directly. Only via request to BHA.

Seeing as the contract with BHA was over before Nero 6 was released, there is no way for Ahead to modify InCD 3 to recognize and install when Nero 6 is installed.

Our only choice is to continue working Hard to make InCD 4 rock solid. We have come a long way already towards this end. But we know we still have far to go to get InCD 4 to a point were we are satisfied with it's performance and reliability.

Again, InCD 4 is very new, whereas other Packet Writing software programs have had years to make their products as steady as possible. InCD 4 has not yet been out for a full year, but it has already come a long way in a very short time.

Thanks to everyones feedback, and patience, we have come a long way already, and we expect to continue to improve on InCD 4 on a weekly if not daily basis.

Regards,

Craig

Craig, would the work-about i suggested in my previous post work?
(it's not obvious from your reply that the answer is no).

Howard Kaikow wrote:Pf you first install Nero 5.*, then you can install InCD 3.5.24.0.

Then Uninstall Nero 5.* and install Nero 6.0.0.19.

That's what I eventually did. Didn't work with the drive so its back to DLA.

CCampbell wrote:InCD 3 was licensed from BHA. This was and is not source code developed by Ahead. We can not and never could make changes to this software directly. Only via request to BHA.

Was this disclosed by Ahead when InCD 3 was being bundled with Nero? Buried in the EULA? Personally, knowing that might have had some impact on my buying decision. I've run into a similar problem trying to resolve issues with a program which uses ViaVoice - the vendor can't touch it, has to ask IBM for any modifications and they've been, shall we say, somewhat inattentive. At least the relationship was fully disclosed up front, however. CCampbell's comments fail to address the issue of why arrangements weren't made with BHA to enable forward compatibility - that would have helped those who have encountered the problems reported here to have a functional solution pending the decontamination of InCD 4. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but seems to me it would have been in Ahead's interest to do so, not to mention the interests of their customers.

Daiwa

I'm quite sure that this information wasn't in the EULA; I always read those things very carefully.

Daiwa wrote:

CCampbell wrote:InCD 3 was licensed from BHA. This was and is not source code developed by Ahead. We can not and never could make changes to this software directly. Only via request to BHA.

Was this disclosed by Ahead when InCD 3 was being bundled with Nero? Buried in the EULA? Personally, knowing that might have had some impact on my buying decision. I've run into a similar problem trying to resolve issues with a program which uses ViaVoice - the vendor can't touch it, has to ask IBM for any modifications and they've been, shall we say, somewhat inattentive. At least the relationship was fully disclosed up front, however. CCampbell's comments fail to address the issue of why arrangements weren't made with BHA to enable forward compatibility - that would have helped those who have encountered the problems reported here to have a functional solution pending the decontamination of InCD 4. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but seems to me it would have been in Ahead's interest to do so, not to mention the interests of their customers.

Daiwa

We did not hide that we licensed out our Packet Writing software. With InCD 2 we used Prassi's Packet writing software, and with InCD 3 we used BHA. If you looked at any of the files, you would have seen BHA's monicur everywhere. But we of course did not advertise this either. We want to push our name of course. But we made joint announcements with BHA, and in many of the reviews editors normally did make the connections and make mention to the fact it was developed by BHA.

As for making InCD 3 compatible with Nero 6 serial keys. I can not comment on that as I was not part of any of the work on the transition from InCD 3 to InCD 4. Or in on the contracts with BHA. It could be that this problem was not anticipated, or we could not come to an agreement that both parties could agree on. I am unsure at this time.

Regards,

Craig

CCampbell wrote:

Daiwa wrote:

CCampbell wrote:InCD 3 was licensed from BHA. This was and is not source code developed by Ahead. We can not and never could make changes to this software directly. Only via request to BHA.

Was this disclosed by Ahead when InCD 3 was being bundled with Nero? Buried in the EULA? Personally, knowing that might have had some impact on my buying decision. I've run into a similar problem trying to resolve issues with a program which uses ViaVoice - the vendor can't touch it, has to ask IBM for any modifications and they've been, shall we say, somewhat inattentive. At least the relationship was fully disclosed up front, however. CCampbell's comments fail to address the issue of why arrangements weren't made with BHA to enable forward compatibility - that would have helped those who have encountered the problems reported here to have a functional solution pending the decontamination of InCD 4. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but seems to me it would have been in Ahead's interest to do so, not to mention the interests of their customers.

Daiwa

We did not hide that we licensed out our Packet Writing software. With InCD 2 we used Prassi's Packet writing software, and with InCD 3 we used BHA. If you looked at any of the files, you would have seen BHA's monicur everywhere. But we of course did not advertise this either. We want to push our name of course. But we made joint announcements with BHA, and in many of the reviews editors normally did make the connections and make mention to the fact it was developed by BHA.

As for making InCD 3 compatible with Nero 6 serial keys. I can not comment on that as I was not part of any of the work on the transition from InCD 3 to InCD 4. Or in on the contracts with BHA. It could be that this problem was not anticipated, or we could not come to an agreement that both parties could agree on. I am unsure at this time.

Regards,

Craig

OK ,now that we know that BHA wrote the code for InCD 3 and that Aheadmay not have had the right to modify the code, it becomes clearer why InCD 4 has caused such difficulties.

Craig, i must say, it's a pity that having posted in this topic twice since i asked my question you did not answer it. even answering "i do not know" is better than igonring it.

@kaikow:

OK ,now that we know that BHA wrote the code for InCD 3 and that Ahead may not have had the right to modify the code, it becomes clearer why InCD 4 has caused such difficulties.

that is not fair - a cheap shot at Ahead ?
true they are taking way too much time to fix the problems but still...

dodecahedron wrote:Craig, i must say, it's a pity that having posted in this topic twice since i asked my question you did not answer it. even answering "i do not know" is better than igonring it.

@kaikow:

OK ,now that we know that BHA wrote the code for InCD 3 and that Ahead may not have had the right to modify the code, it becomes clearer why InCD 4 has caused such difficulties.

that is not fair - a cheap shot at Ahead ?
true they are taking way too much time to fix the problems but still...

Sorry Dodecahedron, I did not mean to ignore you. I meant to respond each time, but each of my responses were so long, that by the time I got to the end of them I had forgotten your question. Not excuseable, but true nonetheless.

But I do not know to be honest. And I suspect it will not. I will test later today when I get the chance.

Regards,

Craig

thanks, Craig.

Thanks for your prompt & forthright reply, Craig.

It's a situation we'll just have to live with, and hopefully it will ultimately be moot once Ahead's own version of InCD is reliable. To put a positive spin on it, this should help Ahead be a little more proactive in keeping the customer's needs in mind in advance of decisions/changes of this magnitude. Shipping a new product which disables a functioning product, especially one provided by the same company, is seldom a good idea, particularly when the affected product is largely intended for a critical function - data backup. 0.02

Daiwa