CANNOT REGISTER OFFICE 2000 WITH PRODUCT KEY

[garfield-n-odie [MVP]]

You are mistaken. According to
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx , "Product
Activation was piloted in Office 2000 in its 1999 release in six
countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China (including Hong Kong
SAR), New Zealand and the United States."

 

[Carol Kipling]

What a plonker!! This does mean that in Timbuktu or Nigeria we didn't
acivate Office 2000. Why does this idiot have to argue about
everything? If it was piloted does not mean it was obligatory.

Grow up little boy!!! Move on to Office 2003!

 

[Carol Kipling]

What a plonker!! This does mean that in Timbuktu or Nigeria we didn't
acivate Office 2000. Why does this idiot have to argue about
everything? If it was piloted does not mean it was obligatory.

Grow up little boy!!! Move on to Office 2003!

 

[Carol Kipling]

What a plonker!! This does mean that in Timbuktu or Nigeria we didn't
acivate Office 2000. Why does this idiot have to argue about
everything? If it was piloted does not mean it was obligatory.

Grow up little boy!!! Move on to Office 2003!

 

[Carol Kipling]

What a plonker!! This does mean that in Timbuktu or Nigeria we didn't
acivate Office 2000. Why does this idiot have to argue about
everything? If it was piloted does not mean it was obligatory.

Grow up little boy!!! Move on to Office 2003!

 

[garfield-n-odie [MVP]]

Actually, in the context of the cited article, "piloted" does
indeed mean that activation is obligatory. My intent was not to
argue, but to correct a blatant misstatement of fact... you are
the one looking for an argument. But I do understand why you
defend NewScience, because you and he both feel entitled to spout
disinformation on topics you know nothing about, and Lord help
the people who don't know better than to take your ill advice.

 

[garfield-n-odie [MVP]]

Actually, in the context of the cited article, "piloted" does
indeed mean that activation is obligatory. My intent was not to
argue, but to correct a blatant misstatement of fact... you are
the one looking for an argument. But I do understand why you
defend NewScience, because you and he both feel entitled to spout
disinformation on topics you know nothing about, and Lord help
the people who don't know better than to take your ill advice.

 

[garfield-n-odie [MVP]]

Actually, in the context of the cited article, "piloted" does
indeed mean that activation is obligatory. My intent was not to
argue, but to correct a blatant misstatement of fact... you are
the one looking for an argument. But I do understand why you
defend NewScience, because you and he both feel entitled to spout
disinformation on topics you know nothing about, and Lord help
the people who don't know better than to take your ill advice.

 

[garfield-n-odie [MVP]]

Actually, in the context of the cited article, "piloted" does
indeed mean that activation is obligatory. My intent was not to
argue, but to correct a blatant misstatement of fact... you are
the one looking for an argument. But I do understand why you
defend NewScience, because you and he both feel entitled to spout
disinformation on topics you know nothing about, and Lord help
the people who don't know better than to take your ill advice.