We have discovered a recent problem that can cause an AutoCAD 2009 product, when installed on the same computer as an AutoCAD 2010 product, to crash while trying to activate a stand-alone license.
The issue is that some products in the AutoCAD 2010 product line are creating an "AdLMInfoPath" key in the registry but leaving the value blank. This registry key is used to identify the path to the location where serial number information will be stored when a stand-alone license is activated for a particular product. This information is referenced during activation to find serial number information for prior versions of a product that may be already be installed.
When a product using the 2009 version of AdLM is installed, side-by-side, on a machine with one of these 2010 products, the 2009 product can crash when trying to activate a stand-alone license. It makes no difference what order the products were installed, only that they are installed on the same computer. We have identified the following 2010 products as setting a blank "AdLMInfoPath" registry key:
AutoCAD MEP 2010
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R18.1\ACAD-9006:409]
"AdLMInfoPath"=""
AutoCAD Architecture 2010
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R18.1\ACAD-9004:409]
"AdLMInfoPath"=""
AutoCAD Structural Detailing 2010
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R18.0\ACAD-8030:409]
"AdLMInfoPath"=""
The workaround for this problem is to delete the blank "AdLMInfoPath" key from the registry of these 2010 products. This will allow the 2009 product to successfully activate its stand-alone license.
Note: This problem only applies to the 2010 products listed above and the registry key should not be deleted unless it is blank.
This information is also available in the following solution on the Autodesk Services & Support Web site:
AutoCAD 2009 Crashes During Activation of a Stand-alone License
Subscribe
I found it also affects 2008.
http://blog.jtbworld.com/2009/06/autocad-crashes-during-activation-of.html
Posted by: Jimmy Bergmark - JTB World | June 17, 2009 at 02:01 AM
I'm not surprised. I only called out 2009 but I actually expect this issue will affect versions going back a few years. The underlying mechanism that triggers this problem has likely not changed in awhile.
Posted by: Tom Stoeckel | June 17, 2009 at 04:55 PM