Registration problem on Windows 2003

[Steve Pitts]

I have just upgraded my employer's copy of Take Command to v9 (having previously used a mixture of v6 and v7) and have come across what I consider to be a strange registration issue with TC9 installed on a Windows 2003 server, in that the registration process seems to be user-specific.

To be more precise, on Friday I registered TC through the OPTION dialog whilst logged on to one user (which has domain administrator rights) but when a colleague tried to use TC today from a different user (which also has domain administrator rights) he received the dialog to say that the product had expired and was forced to enter the registration details again.

Is this the expected behaviour?? If so, that bugs me a little because I'd like to be able to install the product on the server and not have to worry which user is actually used to run the batch file system that I've created (which is used for mapping EDI messages in real time, so is fairly business critical)

 

[rconn]

Steve Pitts wrote:

> I have just upgraded my employer's copy of Take Command to v9 (having
> previously used a mixture of v6 and v7) and have come across what I
> consider to be a strange registration issue with TC9 installed on a
> Windows 2003 server, in that the registration process seems to be
> user-specific.
>
> To be more precise, I registered TC through the OPTION dialog whilst
> logged on to one user (which has domain administrator rights) but when a
> colleague tried to use TC from a different user (which also has domain
> administrator rights) he received the dialog to say that the product had
> expired and was forced to enter the registration details again.
>
> Is this the expected behaviour?? If so, that bugs me a little because
> I'd like to be able to install the product on the server and not have to
> worry which user is actually used to run the batch file system that I've
> created (which is used for mapping EDI messages in real time, so is
> fairly business critical)

WAD - for Vista compatibility, the registration had to be changed from
per-machine to per-user.

You can still make it per-machine if you use the inikey version
(ftp://jpsoft.com/tcmd/inikey/takecmd.dll), which uses a file for the
registration information instead of a registry key.

Rex Conn
JP Software

 

[Steve Pitts]

WAD - for Vista compatibility

{sigh} Ah well. I would have liked to see that made optional (so that anyone that avoids Vista can use HKLM rather than HKCU) but obviously that isn't the route you chose

You can still make it per-machine if you use the inikey version

What are the implications of doing so for updates (especially auto-updates)??

 

[rconn]

Steve Pitts wrote:

>
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rconn* View Post <showthread.php?p=1142#post1142>
> WAD - for Vista compatibility
>
> {sigh} Ah well. I would have liked to see that made optional (so that
> anyone that avoids Vista can use HKLM rather than HKCU) but obviously
> that isn't the route you chose

Not allowed by MS if you want certification.

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rconn* View Post <showthread.php?p=1142#post1142>
> You can still make it per-machine if you use the inikey version
>
> What are the implications of doing so for updates (especially
> auto-updates)??

When you do an autoupdate, you'll need to manually copy the inikey
version of takecmd.dll after the update is finished.

Rex Conn
JP Software

 

[Steve Pitts]

Not allowed by MS if you want certification

Like I said - {sigh}

When you do an autoupdate, you'll need to manually copy the inikey version of takecmd.dll after the update is finished

Which I guess is as good as no auto-update at all, since presumably the reinstatement of the original takecmd.dll by the auto-update process then breaks the registration (since the keys won't exist for the indivudual user(s) and therefore the product will magically become unregistered until such time as the inikey version of the DLL is dropped back in).

Ho hum. MS may view this as the way forward but it doesn't seem like progress to me

 

[Steve Fabian]

Steve Pitts wrote:
| Ho hum. MS may view this as the way forward but it doesn't seem like
| progress to me

It is - toward changing your PERSONAL computer to a Microsoft computer (may
not be good for the users, but good for Redmond).
--
Steve

 

[thomasl]

Steve Fábián <> wrote:

>
> Steve Pitts wrote:
> | Ho hum. MS may view this as the way forward but it doesn't seem like
> | progress to me
>
> It is - toward changing your PERSONAL computer to a Microsoft computer (may
> not be good for the users, but good for Redmond).

Good for them perhaps in the short run, but with Linux getting more
usable all the time and MS offerings getting worse, MS has to be
careful. This OS business may turn out to be a more non-linear affair
than MS thought. IOW, they could one day fall from a cliff they never
knew existed.

--
cheers thomasl

web: http://thomaslauer.com/start