Further Memory Map Navigator woes!

My latest email to MMN support describes the problem:-

====================================================
Further to my earlier problem with printing using the
latest version
(4.2.2) of MMN, which obliged me to go back to the earlier
version, I can no longer run the old version
(4.0.1). I get this message on startup:-

"Memory-Map OS Edition 2004

A new version of this software is now available.
Ordnance Survey License restrictions dictate that
you must get the latest version to continue using
this software.

Please visit www.memory-map.co.uk to download
the new version, or call Memory-Map on 0870
740 9040."

The only way around this is to alter my PC clock to an
earlier date. My present options are to do this, or to use
the latest version and be unable to print. Neither is very
satisfactory. Can you give me an estimate as to when this
problem is likely to be fixed?
====================================================

I wonder why Memory Map has so many restrictions with
respect to OS licensing, whilst Anquet apparently doesn't?
(You can use earlier OS maps with the latest 3D version of
Anquet, but Memory Map won't let you use earlier maps
without paying for them twice).

In article <om7490pta5btof17rths1q7chtg4kudn78@4ax.com>,
Chris <URL:mailtoroteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote: [snip]
> I wonder why Memory Map has so many restrictions with
> respect to OS licensing, whilst Anquet apparently doesn't?
> (You can use earlier OS maps with the latest 3D version of
> Anquet, but Memory Map won't let you use earlier maps
> without paying for them twice).
>

I believe that Anquet have different restrictions on their
software which MM does not have. For example with MM it is
possible to run the maps off of the CDs without installing
them. In Anquet every single map now has to be installed on
the hard disc, you then get a serial code to send back to
Anquet and you then receive an unlock code that makes it
work. This code is unique to a single installation on a
single computer.

So for example if you have bought several different regions
of MM software and associated maps you can install the
software on different computers and then run the chosen map
off of the CD. e.g. you could run software on a desktop and
a laptop and swap the CDs between them so long as you only
had the maps in use on one computer at a time. With Anquet
you would need to buy two copies of each map to install on
the hard disk of each computer.

I believe that one of the things that the OS objected to
with MM was the ability to calibrate scanned images of maps
rather than install OS digitial images. Thus MM has now had
to split their development between a version for use with
OS and another version for use world wide with all other
forms of maps.

Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A
mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \>
| immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/
(_) | \corn computer user"

A couple of clarifications about Anquet and MM arising from your
reply:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:46:46 +0100, Mike Clark
<mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>I believe that Anquet have different restrictions on their
>software which MM does not have. For example with MM it is
>possible to run the maps off of the CDs without installing
>them. In Anquet every single map now has to be installed on
>the hard disc, you then get a serial code to send back to
>Anquet and you then receive an unlock code that makes it
>work. This code is unique to a single installation on a
>single computer.
>

1 - With the Anquet product, the 'unlock code' procedure you
describe is presumably the same as the 'Product Activation'
mechanism used by WinXP and Dreamweaver MX2004, where a sort
of fingerprint of your PC is constructed based on the BIOS,
and a further key is generated from that, which ties that
instance of the software to that particular PC. Is that
understanding basically correct?.

I ask because I have 2 PCs running and have most apps
installed on both just for convenience. They both run the
same WinXP (and DWMX2004 before I abandoned using it) in
spite of their attempts to make life difficult and prevent
it, and ideally I would like mapping s/w on both as well.

>So for example if you have bought several different regions
>of MM software and associated maps you can install the
>software on different computers and then run the chosen map
>off of the CD. e.g. you could run software on a desktop and
>a laptop and swap the CDs between them so long as you only
>had the maps in use on one computer at a time.

2 - With the MM product, must you use the CDs on each PC
even for just one region or can you somehow install the maps
on the hard disks of both?. Using the CDs every time is a
real pain.

I really don't like what I'm hearing about any of these
mapping products!.

-- GeoffC

Mike Clark <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>I believe that one of the things that the OS objected to
>with MM was the ability to calibrate scanned images of maps
>rather than install OS digitial images. Thus MM has now had
>to split their development between a version for use with
>OS and another version for use world wide with all other
>forms of maps.
<snip> I think you are probably right about this,
although several cheap programs (such as Oziexplorer) are
around that arguably do the job better. In fact, if it
were not for the 3D visualisations I would be perfectly
happy with Oziexplorer. I wonder why the restriction to
update to the latest version? The software is obviously
time-bombed to stop running failing an update after a
certain period of time.

GeoffC <vremovethisgy@v-g.me.uk> wrote:

>2 - With the MM product, must you use the CDs on each PC
>even for just one region or can you somehow install the
>maps on the hard disks of both?. Using the CDs every time
>is a real pain.
>
You can copy the CDs to hard disk, so there is no problem
running on more than one PC. I presumed Anquet were the
same, and certainly with earlier versions you could.

>I really don't like what I'm hearing about any of these
>mapping products!.
>
As I said in another post, if it were not for the 3D stuff,
and you are happy with scanned (or other) images for your
maps then Oziexplorer is probably unbeatable, and certainly
has far more functionality with regard to GPS use.

In article <c75205$5v4$1@titan.btinternet.com>, KRO
<KRO@anon.com> writes
>
>"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
>news:e20b9017c4hmoc610gtrl0f5h50n1arobb@4ax.com...
>> sslsmith@hotmail.com (Simon Smith) wrote:
>>
>> >So why is it that we can decent free data for the UK
>> >from the US government but not from our own ?
>> >
>> Presumably for the same reason that data such as
>> telephone numbers and mapping data in general is not in
>> the public domain here. So long as lots of money can be
>> made from it, and we are daft enough to pay for it, they
>> will continue to charge us. I wonder whether the GPS
>> system would be free to use if it had been a British
>> creation?
>
>Will Galileo be free? I'm guessing no, so won't see any
>reason to change.
>

There is a free signal planned but that will have about the
same accuracy as GPS. There is a better accuracy service
planned but that will require payment.

GPS receivers should be Galileo capable by the time it
becomes viable so you will be able to seamlessly use
satellites from both systems. This will increase accuracy
over single system use and will give better cover where the
sky is obstructed.

--

http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/

This is outrageous, imagine if your paper maps ceased to be
legible after a year and you had to buy them all over again
! I'd be tempted to demand your money back from MM as it
probably constitutes a restrictive practice or unfair
condition.

Have you tried Ozi3D or Trailgauge they both do 3D from
paper maps ? I reckon the Trailgauge 3D view is at least as
good as Anquet's. I haven't seen Memory Map's so can't
comment on that one.

Chris <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:<ocp49055blohe1fcumbom04muj3ef2op8p@4ax.com>...
> Mike Clark <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >I believe that one of the things that the OS objected to
> >with MM was the ability to calibrate scanned images of
> >maps rather than install OS digitial images. Thus MM has
> >now had to split their development between a version for
> >use with OS and another version for use world wide with
> >all other forms of maps.
> <snip> I think you are probably right about this,
> although several cheap programs (such as Oziexplorer) are
> around that arguably do the job better. In fact, if it
> were not for the 3D visualisations I would be perfectly
> happy with Oziexplorer. I wonder why the restriction to
> update to the latest version? The software is obviously
> time-bombed to stop running failing an update after a
> certain period of time.

sslsmith@hotmail.com (Simon Smith) wrote:

>Have you tried Ozi3D or Trailgauge they both do 3D from
>paper maps ? I reckon the Trailgauge 3D view is at least as
>good as Anquet's. I haven't seen Memory Map's so can't
>comment on that one.
>
How do you go about getting the height data?

Trailgauge automatically downloads the SRTM data that you
need once you've calibrated your map. SRTM data is spot
heights at approx 90m intervals across most of the Earth and
is freely available from the USGS ftp site.

I think OziExplorer 3D gives you more options which data you
can use but you have to gather it yourself and install it.

There's more information on the relevant websites
http://www.trailgauge.co.uk and http://www.oziexplorer.com

Chris wrote:
> sslsmith@hotmail.com (Simon Smith) wrote:
>
>
>>Have you tried Ozi3D or Trailgauge they both do 3D from
>>paper maps ? I reckon the Trailgauge 3D view is at least
>>as good as Anquet's. I haven't seen Memory Map's so can't
>>comment on that one.
>>
>
> How do you go about getting the height data?

> Trailgauge automatically downloads the SRTM data that you
> need once you've calibrated your map. SRTM data is spot
> heights at approx 90m intervals across most of the Earth
> and is freely available from the USGS ftp site.
>

So why is it that we can decent free data for the UK from
the US government but not from our own ?

sslsmith@hotmail.com (Simon Smith) wrote:

>So why is it that we can decent free data for the UK from
>the US government but not from our own ?
>
Presumably for the same reason that data such as telephone
numbers and mapping data in general is not in the public
domain here. So long as lots of money can be made from it,
and we are daft enough to pay for it, they will continue to
charge us. I wonder whether the GPS system would be free to
use if it had been a British creation?

"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:e20b9017c4hmoc610gtrl0f5h50n1arobb@4ax.com...
> sslsmith@hotmail.com (Simon Smith) wrote:
>
> >So why is it that we can decent free data for the UK from
> >the US government but not from our own ?
> >
> Presumably for the same reason that data such as telephone
> numbers and mapping data in general is not in the public
> domain here. So long as lots of money can be made from it,
> and we are daft enough to pay for it, they will continue
> to charge us. I wonder whether the GPS system would be
> free to use if it had been a British creation?

Will Galileo be free? I'm guessing no, so won't see any
reason to change.

KRO