09-16-2009 09:47 AM
Quick question. I purchased two licenses for 2010 standard. Did a backup on my own machine and installed. Installation went fine, but when ACT went to open my database, it said I was in violation of the license agreement as our database has two users.
My boss has a remote database and syncs via network.
The software asked me to input the second key - and then register it - which I did.
Question is - tomorrow, when I install 2010 on my boss' machine, will I need to register both license keys again? I guess I will install with the second key and then re-register my key when I get the license violation?
09-16-2009 10:05 AM
The keys define how many active users you can have... as both users are active on the server, it see that as a license violation when only one key added.
Normally it add the keys from the workstations as they log into the database. Not sure how it works with upgrading a sync environment
If both users are sync'd to the remote, you may need to add both there also.
09-16-2009 10:11 AM
Dumb arrangement I think.
I registered with my name and details upon install using key #1.
When the install was complete - the database was converted and then I got the violation warning. I had no choice but to enter key #2 and my boss' information and register again.
But now - the copy of ACT running on my machine appears to be registered to my boss!
Should I have registered both keys in my name - and then both again in my boss' name on his pc tomorrow?
Can/should I fix this?
09-16-2009 10:17 AM
Yeah... it seems odd in how it handles the keys in an upgrade. Could be better explained or delay the warning till after the remotes have sync'd and LAN users have logged in
As long as the keys are registered to the company, it shouldn't matter
09-16-2009 10:25 AM
Yeah, both keys are registered with the company name, but I'm a bit **bleep** about this kind of stuff.
Upon installation on machine #2, I'll install with the boss' key first I guess and add mine when and if it complains - unless I hear from a mod on here to the contrary.
09-16-2009 10:27 AM