Hot Tip: Running multiple copies of apps

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Just a reminder kids... you can simply copy many apps and run the copies and original all at once. I'm duplicating 5 double sided DVDs and copied Toast twice to make the copies on the 3 DVD burners I have on my system. Cuts down burn time to the same as making two copies instead of five. Just option drag the app and launch the copies. Most if not all Mac programs will work that way.

[mikehalloran]

I first discovered that trick on Windows NT (neither Win 95 nor OS 8.x could do it) and was glad to find it in OS X when released a few years later.

I am surprised that you're doing it in Toast since 11 (and 12) supports simultaneous writing to multiple burners.

Or are you using different masters as well? In that case, multiple instances is the only way that could work.

In either case, it's a cool old trick that few people know.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Yes, different masters. Five of them.

[Phil O]

Yeah, I discovered I could do that with Toast - quite by accident. Cool trick.
Phil

[bayswater]

From the EULA:

"Licensor grants to you this personal, limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-assignable license solely to use in a single copy of the Software on a single computer or device for use by a single concurrent user only, and solely provided that you adhere to all of the terms and conditions of this EULA. "

[mikehalloran]

From the EULA:

"Licensor grants to you this personal, limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-assignable license solely to use in a single copy of the Software on a single computer or device for use by a single concurrent user only, and solely provided that you adhere to all of the terms and conditions of this EULA. "

Interesting but not applicable.

Working for a software company when Win NT was introduced, I can assure you that lawyers for many companies went over ELUAs to determine that running multiple instances of a single app on one machine (the first version of NT let you run four) by one user was not in violation as long as it could not accessed by other users as in a server.

In other words, running four instances of our terminal emulation to access more than 26 connections per instance was ok; running it on a CITRIX server was not. Fortunately, our license manager didn't allow more than one instance on a CITRIX unless a special serial number let it happen–it did let evaluation happen, however.

I included that information in the FAQ that I lwrote:
http://www.askcody.com/support/faq/p8taq.asp?js=on

I am always surprised that it's still up there little changed from my last updates before I left in 2002.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

It's also unenforceable. How would they know if the app does;t call home or check for multiple instantiations? They wouldn't. It's a B.S. claim.

[mikehalloran]

It says single copy, single computer, single user. It does not say single instance. There is no violation of any EULA. These issues were settled in 1996 before Windows NT was released. I was there.

[stubbsonic]

I read this thread last night and said to my wife:

"There's a guy running 3 instances of Toast to burn 3 DVDs on 3 burners simultaneously, and I'M the one who is having system problems!?"

I'm filing this little tip away. I can imagine a day when I'll need to run a bunch of slow processes and not want to wait around for each to finish.

Is this something that the OS manages or is it something that the app/developer must "allow for"?

[bayswater]

Working for a software company when Win NT was introduced, I can assure you that lawyers for many companies went over ELUAs to determine that running multiple instances of a single app on one machine (the first version of NT let you run four) by one user was not in violation as long as it could not accessed by other users as in a server.

From a practical perspective, I doubt the single copy phrase matters much, but it is there. Why would the NT EULA or its interpretation apply to Toast? Aren't these written for each company or application, and wouldn't you have to get a legal interpretation for the specific EULA?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

It's like any rule or law. You have to get caught to be prosecuted and AFAIK Roxio isn't looking over my shoulder or having Toast calling home to verify that only one copy is running.

[bayswater]

It's like any rule or law. You have to get caught to be prosecuted and AFAIK Roxio isn't looking over my shoulder or having Toast calling home to verify that only one copy is running.

I don't disagree that running multiple copies of Toast on your computer is a trivial matter. But I'm not comfortable with the idea of drawing a line between what parts of a EULA should be observed and what can be ignored. And if one does draw a line, is the question of whether or not you'll be caught the best basis?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Surely not. The best basis is getting the software to serve one in a way that doesn't hurt the developer (ie- piracy, etc) yet allows for maximum efficiency. Would the alternative be to buy 3 copies of Toast? I don't think so and I doubt Roxio or any other company would object to this method of working. It's not at all unlike making copies of CDs for personal use only or copying a copyrighted script to keep one in the studio, one by the bed, another in the bathroom, and another to take to rehearsals. Legally one might argue those are "infringements" but in a practical sense, they are not being distributed or used by anyone but the original purchaser. At least that would be my argument. Similarly, I would't care if someone made a million copies of one of my CDs or DVDs as long as they aren't distributing or selling them. Frankly I'd be happier if a million people bought one copy each, but that's another discussion.

[mikehalloran]

Running multiple instances on one computer is not the same as running multiple copies. It's still only one copy. Feel free to disagree as is your right but if you wish to argue, you are over 18 years too late to the party. The issues were over, done and settled by late 1996 when NT was released. And yes, it was an issue that needed to be settled before MS could release NT.

CITRIX is an example of running multiple copies under one license as each one can be accessed over LAN or WAN by a different user. Again, lawyers had to get involved as every IT department hoped that they could save tons of money on software with CITRIX servers -- turns out they couldn't.

In similar fashion, the legality of subscription licenses that expire and whether or not software licenses could be tied to hardware licenses had to be settled before XP could be released. At the time, most companies elected not to go there but whether or not they could do it needed to be settled. Consumers and businesses are certainly not happy that recent releases from Microsoft, Adobe and others are subscription only but the legal arguments were over by 2002.

I just gave you a peek under the hood. Really.

[bayswater]

Running multiple instances on one computer is not the same as running multiple copies.

Well, MLC said "you can simply copy many apps and run the copies and original all at once."
And thanks for the peek. But I've been there and done that.