[Licensing] Use one license on several personal computers

I can't believe this thread was created in 2017 and yet in 2023 this is sill an issue... In my case I need to do lower chrome version test in my office at weekdays and use windows version excel on saturdays, it'll be really handy if i can use them both, without having to repeatedly activate and deactivate.

 

Yeah, it appears that they don't really care about keeping individual users. My guess is they are getting most of their money from large organizations. They may think that allowing the same Parallels license to be used on multiple machines would encourage users at some of these organizations to install copies of the software on other machines without purchasing an additional license. I'm glad I have read this forum because I have learned of more affordable alternatives to Parallels.

 

I just planed to move from VMware to Parallels. But I have the same problem with MBP when I'm moving around an iMac when I'm in my office. I definitively are not going to buy 2 licenses. So I guess I will reinstall fusion again. Surprising, that Parallels isn't moving to the 2 or 5 computers model, which is about normal nowadays.

 

Typically, software licenses are issued for use on a single computer or device. Using one license on several personal computers without explicit permission from the software provider may violate the terms of the license agreement. Always check the specific terms and conditions of the software license to ensure compliance with usage restrictions.

 

The license used to allow up to five computers. I have been angry about this limitation to one computer for years now.

 

Hello I just purchased a second MAC, and I for sure thought I could now buy the subscription one instead of the perpetual license!, got impressed that this is not happening! How can trusted partners allow usage of up to five devices, how can I physically use my two Macs at the same time? This way they are making less money for their trusted partners, since budgeting for the other hosts turns out to be very expensive. I would recommend a higher annual price, for more installations to be fair, otherwise perpetual.

Thank you,.

 

I need three computers. It sounds insane, but many of us end up limiting our Parallels usage due to the 1-machine license crap. I have three macOS workstations and many of us in this world are trying to reduce the subscription tax of life.

 

"I totally feel your pain! Managing a single license between a laptop and desktop can be quite a hassle. I second the request for dual licensing. Many other companies, including Adobe and Microsoft, have adopted this practice, and it's become almost an industry standard. It would make life a lot easier for users who operate on multiple devices. Fingers crossed they consider this enhancement soon!

 

I cannot believe that my pro license is limited to one computer. Like many people, I have a desktop and a laptop. All of my other expensive software like Adobe works on both with one account. It is not feasible to pay literally double to use Parallels on both of my computers. I'm disappointed in Parallel's policy on this and it's going to make me look elsewhere. Please, get with the industry standard.

 

Hey!

 

Hey!

 

Here here,

I completely grasp the necessity of preventing individuals from exploiting a single license across multiple users to avoid unauthorized sharing. However, I'm perplexed about why I can't utilize my license on both of my MacBooks. There are instances when I need to switch between them, and these restrictions are causing inconvenience. If the software is not operational on two machines simultaneously, why does it matter if I run it today on MacBook 1 and tomorrow on MacBook 2? The licensing policy seems peculiar in this regard. More money #1, it seems.

 

NO WAY! I was literally about to buy a license and then decided to double check if I could use it on both of my Macs.
Well... Will stick to VM Fusion for now then.

 

Another vote for this. I use one desktop and one laptop, and I can't physically be using both at the same moment. £200 per year for this is crazy money!

 

Locked to single computer is actually losing money for the business.
I've friend who used to be on annual plan decided to drop the subscription because he needs it on multiple computers. So he downloaded the pirated version, then he found there is no reason to keep the subscription anymore.
That's why companies like Microsoft allowed the license on multiple computers. It's better to earn less than lose all.
I keep my subscription because I wanted to support Parallels. Well, because I have no need for multiple computers yet

 

Anyway
Can I login and activate without any restriction every time I switch machine?

greetings
Piotr

 

I cancelled Parallels subscription a few weeks ago for exactly this reason. I really liked parallels, but it is just not worth the money.

 

Disappointed that a post I made on this topic (in this thread) in the last week was seemingly removed by Parallels, I assume as it mentioned a competing product. For anyone reading, the main competitor (I'm sure you all know) now offers that product free for personal use. Suggest a bit of research before you pay further for Parallels licenses.

And dear Parallels - please consider your licensing policies. I love the product, but for my needs it isn't worth paying this level of premium to be able to work on multiple machines, all of which owned by me and used in a single location for a single purpose.

 

I'm about to cancel my license as well both for this and for the lack of insight to allow the new superior sharing for Windows without having to reinstall. Some of us were excited about the new sharing functionality that could prove to make it less kludgy, but for anyone with a Windows guest/vm that is hundreds of gigs and a lot of work to re-setup, this is INSANE. I'm really angry with Parallels for not giving a flying crap about its customers.

 

Hey !
Unfortunately, the restriction on using Parallels across multiple devices without constantly activating and deactivating is quite inconvenient. It seems like they are more focused on preventing unauthorized sharing rather than enhancing user experience. It would be really cool if they adopted a more flexible licensing model like some of their competitors. Hopefully, they'll listen to user feedback and make improvements soon.