Skip to main content
G
GarethOakes16-Pearl
16-Pearl
July 1, 2011
Question

Arbortext Editor 6 and Remote Desktop

  • July 1, 2011
  • 16 replies
  • 13004 views
Hi guys,

One of our customers is trying to upgrade their system to Arbortext Editor 6.0 and has hit a roadblock.

[cid:image001.png@01CC37E7.5E5C6BB0]

In case you can't read the graphic above, the error message says:

(-103) Cannot checkout an uncounted license within a Windows Terminal Services guest session.

What the customer is trying to do is work with Arbortext Editor from home, just as they have for years previously in 5.3 and 5.4. The customer connects to his work desktop via Windows Remote Desktop. In this case, it seems that their node-locked license in Editor 6.0 does not want to play ball with Remote Desktop.

Has anyone else encountered this problem yet?

[cid:image002.jpg@01CC37E7.5E5C6BB0]

Gareth Oakes

+61-439-743-740

      16 replies

      Show previous replies
      S
      SusanFort1-Visitor
      1-Visitor
      July 1, 2011

      Hi Gareth,


      Your comment about removing functionality, I just wanted to follow up on that. No functionality was removed, in fact by moving to Flexera for licensing, there is more functionality available to customers (able to monitor usage, license borrowing, more license server capabilities, etc). Because the licensing technology changes, customer may need to make other changes, this is one example. Elan (the 5.4 and prior technology) was not particular on the type of license used in a RDP environment (fixed or floating), however, for the Flex license based products to work in RDP the license must be floating. You and your customer’s entitlements will continue to work, the entitlement will need to be upgraded from a locked license to a floating/concurrent license.


      You need to contact your PTC sales contact, they can provide you guidance on how your organization, or your customers can convert their licenses (or I can help).


      Please let me know if you have further questions.


      Thanks


      Susan


      -----------------------------------------------------------


      Susan Fort


      Product Manager, Arbortext Business Unit, PTC


      - | (937) 743-9091





      In Reply to Gareth Oakes:


      Hi Paul,

      Thanks for digging up the old thread. Good to hear others are having similar
      experiences.

      This is a massive red flag for our customers. Many are used to remoting in
      to work on things and this is a showstopper for some people. It doesn't seem
      right that PTC would remove functionality from a product "upgrade". That is
      typically known as a regression. If you purchased something then you expect
      it to keep working, and if you are paying maintenance, remain maintained in
      its functional state.

      We'll check in to what can be done for our customers. Thanks again for the
      response!

      Cheers,
      Gareth
      G
      GarethOakes16-PearlAuthor
      16-Pearl
      July 3, 2011
      We tested this on both Windows XP and Windows 7 with similar results.



      -G


      G
      GarethOakes16-PearlAuthor
      16-Pearl
      July 3, 2011
      Hi Keith,



      That's a great idea on using an alternative remote desktop tool. It seems to
      me that the licensing component is most probably using Win32 API call
      GetSystemMetrics(SM_REMOTESESSION)
      <">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724385(v=vs.85).aspx> , so any
      remoting tool that isn't based on Windows RDP should work fine.



      -Gareth


      G
      GarethOakes16-PearlAuthor
      16-Pearl
      July 3, 2011
      I can understand this problem, there isn't a 100% bulletproof way to
      uniquely identify PC hardware. I seem to remember on Sun equipment each
      motherboard would have a unique ID burned into the ROM. I think they are
      trying that on PC with the TPM chips but again that's an option and not
      guaranteed to be there.



      The other problem with the MAC address approach is if you needed to run FLEX
      licenses on a machine that had no Network Interface - say the network
      hardware had been disabled or removed for security purposes.



      -Gareth


      G
      GarethOakes16-PearlAuthor
      16-Pearl
      July 3, 2011
      Hi Susan,



      I understand this transition time will be "interesting" for those of us
      involved. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the situation for myself and
      the group. We really do appreciate all the input we get from PTC.



      BTW, I am all for the new licensing system. It does seem better than ELAN,
      and there are efficiency benefits in having a harmonised licensing model
      across the PTC software range. The RDP restriction is the only
      disappointment we have encountered so far.



      Anyway, thanks again, I now have sufficient information to work through this
      situation with our customer.



      Cheers,

      Gareth


      E
      ebenton1-Visitor
      1-Visitor
      July 5, 2011
      Sorry if this is a stupid question, but when I am buying something and I see the word "upgrade" I usually infer the words "price increase". Does a concurrent license cost more than a fixed license? If so, then having to "upgrade" to a concurrent license for the same functionality may not constitute "removing functionality" but then what would be the correct term for paying more for the same thing...?
      If there is no price difference, then never mind.
      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement