Multiple users with the same iPad?

My daughter has lent me her iPad. It's currently linked to her Apple account. If I try registering the iPad on my Apple account, will I be violating the license or screwing up her ability to use the device independently? Can the iPad work independently with two seperate users with two separate Apple accounts?

if you are registering your own apple id over your daughter, her account wont be able to put back in for at least 90 days. iPad will notify this fact, you this whenever you try to enter new apple id in the existing user ipads.
another way that would help is to home share your itunes content and allow photo stream features on the ipad, so you will get your contents into your daugther ipad without entering your apple id.
ipad cannot work with two user. you wont be violating any license.

Similar Messages

There are multiple users with the same display name

Hi,
We have a user and when she get an item assigned to her she sees the following alert:
"There are multiple users with the same display name USERNAME and at least one of them does not have read permissions to some of the files"
Now I looked in the database and when I run the following query with the username:
SELECT
[ProviderDisplayName]
,[DisplayName]
,[HasDisplayName]
,[Domain]
,[AccountName]
,[UniqueUserId]
,[LastSync]
FROM [Tfs_Configuration].[dbo].[tbl_Identity] where displayname like '%USERNAME%'
Then I get 2 same usernames back, How can I get rid of one of them ? When I access TFS trough the portal I only find 1 occurence of this user.
We use VS2013 and TFS2013 update 4
Best regards

Hi DSW,
Thanks for your post.
In your query result, please check if these two users have the same Account Name. if they are two different Account Name in result, it indicate there’s two users have the same display name in your AD, please check that two users’ information in
your AD. We suggest change one user’s display name in AD.
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click
HERE to participate the survey.

What's the problem with having multiple users with the same UID?

I've got three edit systems connected to the SAN using open directory off our server.
I want all edit systems to have read/write access to everything created. I don't need to protect anything from any of the systems. With all three systems logged on using the same user, I never have to change permissions.
The other cool thing about this is that Final Cut Pro will let me know if someone else is modifying a project that I have open with the warning:
“The project "projectName" has been modified externally. If another user is working on it, saving will overwrite their changes. Do you still want to save?”
This sounds great, right?
RED FLAG!!!! Apple gives the warning in this article:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302450
"You should not allow two users with the same UID to access an Xsan volume at the same time."
So why is it bad to have two (or more) users with the same UID?
I can see that in some situations it means that you can't prevent people from read/write privileges. But I don't want to restrict privileges.
What am I missing? With all of these warnings, it seems like if I do this my edit systems could all explode or something. Please help me understand the potential ramifications of having three users have the same UID.

Hi Russell,
1) If you have OD set up and "editor" has UID 1111, then when they log in to any machine that's bound to OD as editor, they will get UID 1111. Therefore, there won't be any of these permission errors. This is typically the recommended approach.
2) I assume you mean "You'd prefer to not using open directory?" Whatever the case, OD isn't mandatory with Xsan -- it's just that with multiple user accounts, managing them centrally tends to be easier. For 3 or 4 accounts and 3 or 4 machines maybe it's no big deal. If you go larger, it could get a lot more complicated. That said, if you set it up such that each machine has the exact same set of users (as you said, Mary = UID 502, Fred = UID 503, William = UID 504), then you can do what you want. Mary can log in from multiple machines at the same time, and in general you won't have permissions problems. Of course, if you try and read and write the same file from multiple workstations at the same time, you will get file locking issues, which will prohibit somebody from successfully writing the file.
File locking issues are different from general permissions errors. The former basically says "hey, someone else is editing this file. Therefore I won't let you edit it right now... you can read it if you want though." Permissions means somebody saves it, and Xsan thinks you saved it and own the file, when you really don't.
Quad-Core PMG5, 4 GB RAM, 7800 GT, 1 TB disk. Mac OS X (10.4.4)

Why do I see multiple users with the same name as an output of "users"

Recently, I found a peculiar thing when I typed "users" in the terminal. There were three users with the same name. After restart(power went down) I now see only one user there. Is this normal and why it can be happening? Why are there duplicate users sometimes?

alphaniner wrote:
Well now I'm confused. My xterm (xfce4-terminal) has that option disabled but I still get a user entry for each tab.
OT: you can run who to get a better idea of what each user is associated with. Eg. with Xorg on tty1 and terminal open with two tabs:
$ who
testing tty1 2013-12-11 08:55
testing pts/0 2013-12-11 08:55 (:0.0)
testing pts/1 2013-12-11 15:51 (:0.0)
Oh there is another option on mine besides "Run command as a login shell" called "Update login records when command is launched" I have them both disabled. Check for a second option maybe.

Multiple users with the same work number - fouling up UM Name Lookups

Background: We are using Lync 2013 and Exchange 2013, both on premise. Our users in the same building all share a common LineURI with a unique extension (i.e. +12085551212;ext=23105). Our UM automated attendant shares the same LineURI scheme (+12085551212;ext=23000).
Here is my issue: Some of our users are putting their work number and extension in the Active Directory Telephone Number field in the format "(208) 555-1212 ext 23105). When they do this it fouls up the UM name lookup process when they use a PSTN number
to call out and back in to another extension in our dial plan. The missed call notification or voicemail now shows the name of one of the users that input their own telephone number, such as "Joe Smith"; it no longer shows the name of the building,
such as "Pocatello High School".
My question: Is there any way to specify an override that all numbers coming in to UM from +12085551212 resolve to a specific active directory object, or even specify a name that it will resolve to? Open to any suggestions.
Thanks in advance.

I appear to have solved my own issue. I supplied the following values in the msExchUMCallingLineIDs field:
+12085551212
12085551212
2085551212
That solved the issue. UM appears to be searching those values before it moves on the the Telephone Number field.

Is it possible to setup multiple users with the exact same calendar?

I am trying to setup exchange with 3 users where each user sees exactly the same calendar all precisely in sync. I don't need the users to have their own calendar. Sharing a calendar from 1 user to the others does not work for me because I need it to be
in sync with all the users' mobile devices as well as outlook.
Thanks

Hi dneray,
Base on my knowledge, it is impossible to setup multiple users with the exact same calendar.
However, as a workaround, you can try to set up a shared mailbox within these users as a shared calendar for them to share.
Best regards,
Niko
Niko Cheng
TechNet Community Support

Find my Friends : Support for multiple users under the same Apple ID?

Can multiple users under the same Apple ID use the app to find each other? My daughter uses my Apple ID with her iPod touch which allows me to monitor her purchases but it seems that only one device under an ID can use the app at a time. If that is the case then it is a major disadvantage and I will need to go back to using latitude (or Find My iPhone which also allows me to see where all of my devices are at the same time)

http://isource.com/2011/10/16/how-do-you-set-up-icloud-for-a-family/
This worked for me.

Multiple users on the same ODI installation?

Hi all
is it possible to have multiple users working with the same odi installation? We have a virtualized IT infrastructure (citrix and wmware) where we can have multiple users on the same virtual instance. From our point of view, there is no licencing issue since we have a package covering literally everything.
One of the issues are the config files stored in the installation directory of odi (../bin). Is there a way to tell odi to store them in a different location, eg. the user home?
Thanks a lot
Benno

ODI looks in the current working directory for the configuration files, mostly you would have issues with the snps_login_work.xml and snps_login_security.xml files, but these may be common across all users. (just don't store the username/passwords for the ODI users in them).
The way ODI works, most of what are creating is stored in the repository anyway, it is only local GUI config stuff that may be stored locally.
Short answer, yes, you can, but might need to modify the config files a little to make it work.

Multiple devices with the same GUID

Hi,
According to the Zenworks Command line utilities reference https://www.novell.com/documentation...a/bb15p2z.html
There exists an option to register a device with a new GUID by doing the following...
register (reg) [-g] [-k <key>] [-u <username> -p <password] <ZENworks Server addressort>
Registers the device in a Management Zone.
You can use the following options:
g - Lets you create a new device object with a new GUID and password for the device if you have multiple devices with the same GUID. When you register a device by using this switch, all the associations (policies and bundles) assigned to the original device object are removed. You cannot use this option to create a new GUID for a Primary Server or a Satellite device. The local user must have Local Administrator rights to use this option.
I would like to know if it is possible to have such a command line option for the agent installation. So built into the agent installer, a command line option to force the agent to register with a new GUID.
We are having CONTINUOUS problems with the above scenario. When we move devices from one computer lab to another and re-image the device, Zenworks keps trying to assign the same GUID to the device and this mixes up our Dynamic Workstation groups, which then affect the applicable policies to each device.
I would like to know if there is an option to tell the installer to stop remembering the GUID and simply register the device with a new guid on agent installation.
This way we can build that into the post imaging scripts which install the zenworks agent.

Hi Craig,
OK, I've had a look at the ZCM Reconcile rules and run a few tests to see if it is possible to get the machines not to reconcile (use a new GUID after imaging).
As I have explained before, sometimes this result is desired in our case especially when we move machines around from lab to lab.
So far, no matter what configuration I use, I cannot get Zenworks to generate a new GUID for a device that is getting re-imaged (without doing so only after the fact by unregistering the machine and reregistering the machine via the zac und and zac reg -g).
We use dynamic workstation groups to assign policies and bundles to machines so reconciling the devices is not necessary most of the time. We need an option to tell the machine to register with a new GUID on installation of the agent. Surely such an option can be built into the agent installer?
The options in the ZCM config management "reconcile settings" I tested with are:
Serial Number - Unticked/Unselected
Mac Address - Unticked/Unselected
Machine Name - Unticked/Unselected
Enable Differentiation - Unticked/Unselected
I then also tested:
Serial Number - Unticked/Unselected
Mac Address - Unticked/Unselected
Machine Name - Ticked/Selected
Enable Differentation - Ticked/Selected
and also:
Serial Number - Unticked/Unselected
Mac Address - Unticked/Unselected
Machine Name - Ticked/Selected
Enable Differentation - Unticked/Unselected
With all three different configurations, I re-imaged the same machine, which renames the machine via the first post imaging installation script to match the DNS name. Thereafter the Zenworks agent gets installed, which then renames the machine back to what it was registered into the Zenworks database with on first installation.
We need a method of telling Zenworks NOT to reconcile when we want it to. It should not reconcile every time and thereby rename the machine netBIOS name.
Is there any way to achieve this?
Originally Posted by CRAIGDWILSON
Quite Simple,
Let's say a HDD Dies and you replace it.
All you need to do is bring down an image and the machine will come back as it was with all the same WS and Device associations.
The same thing could apply if bringing in new Hardware.
If a new computer were to replace an old computer but the name stayed the same, everything could be automatic depending on the rules setup.
It is all a matter of how you tell ZCM to reconcile devices.
The Help in the ZCC under these items should explain how it works so you can setup your rules to meet your use cases.

Can we have multiple Podcasts with the same Mac Account?

Hi all,
Can we have multiple Podcasts with the same Mac Account?
For example, I have a single .MAC account and create a website with multiple Podcast pages...or within iWeb I create multiple sites, and each has a podcast.
Is there a problem?
Thks
Leo

Its not possible for the same development object. Only 1 person can access an object at a time and if mutiple users modify an object new TASKs are created under the same TRANSPORT.
Only after releasing the tr you can create a new tr on the same object.
Message was edited by:
Abhishek Jolly

I have multiple devices with the same cerificate, once I have a an exception for one, FF denys access to the others. I cannot change the certificates, I need to stop FF blocking them.

I have multiple devices with the same cerificate, once I have an exception for one, FF denys access to the others. I cannot change the certificates, I need to stop FF blocking them.
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== I attempt to access a web front end on an IBM SVC device

You can't use the same certificate more than once.
See also [[Certificate contains the same serial number as another certificate]]

WebTools Creating multiple users for the same User

I had to make a few changes to a BP in SAP which will synch back into WebTools but now I am getting multiple users for the same contact. For example my user is cspehar_1 now in Webtools there are cspehar_1, cspehar_2, cspehar_3 and so on up to _8.
This is occuring for several users in webtools.
What causes this and how do I fix it?
Thanks,
Craig Spehar

Hi Craig,
There are two ways to cause this that I am aware of:
1. Change the "Business Partner Synch Contacts Field" setting after the initial synch.
2. Change the Web UserID on the BP contact in B1 (OCPR.U_PRX_SID).
After that, update the user in WT and synch. (might also happen if you update the BP in B1)
Since the synch is using the OCPR.U_PRX_SID to identify the contact, it will not be able to find it in B1 if the U_PRX_SID has changed. When it does not find it, it assumes it needs to be created. This results in a duplicate.
The solution is to reset the U_PRX_SID back to what it was or set the synch contact field back to what it was.
Then delete the last created duplicate contact from B1.
There may be further data corruption issues here. If orders/quotes/opportunities or other dependant data has synchronized referencing the duplicate user, these data will need to be correct as well.
FYI, whatever caused this was probably at the root of your order problem as well.

Two computers and two users with the same name. Can't copy files anymore...

Hi all, after a user migration to my new iMac I had to make a change of the shortname. I knew it was not a good idea but had no choice otherwise I had to wait other 3 hours to migrate data again...
Anyway, I managed to change my shortname with success, but one strange thing happened afterwards... I have two macs networked, both have an admin user with the same shortname/real name, 'gillo' (I followed the procedure in one of these two, the Intel iMac. The other, a Powerbook, was not modified).
While previously I had no problems in copying files from the user 'gillo' on the Powerbook TO the user 'gillo' on the iMac, after the shortname change I'm not anymore able to do it. The error I get is:
"The operation cannot be completed because you do not have sufficient privileges for some of the items"
Doesn't matter where I put the files, Desktop, Documents, even the Drop Box, I always get the same error.
I went through some checks and this is the 'log':
- The files/folders in the iMac 'gillo' directory are not locked.
- The files can be copied without troubles to the dirs of another admin user
- Permissions are the same as the other admin user and owner/group are the correct ones.
- Both Macs have 10.4.6
- The 'gillo' user on the iMac can copy files FROM the user 'gillo' on the Powerbook.
- I repaired permissions and the hard disk booting from the install DVD.
- I tried to change permissions of the directories (such as Desktop) on the iMac 'gillo' user allowing everybody to read/write. Also a no go.
Anybody went through this already? Or maybe something similar not directly related to the short name change?

Actually, everyone missed one point, when a device is priced, the cost of icloud storage space for that device is also included in it that is why they are able to give you 5gb each for each user ID, in nutshell there is nothing free coming with apple device purchase, it is paid for. What they are trying by giving only 5gb per user ID irrespective of the number of devices used is pure broadlight looting, they take money from you when you buy each device and give you nothing, This is a case of goods and services bought but not fully deliverd ie apple can be suied for discreminatory treatment towards it's users. I wonder why no one tried this yet in America where everyone sue everyone for petty things..... there is no one to take up this issue? . if tim got any love for the guys who shell out money for the devices his company makes, he should be implimenting this as priority before someone wake up from sleep and sue him.

ITunes 11... I have multiple artists with the same album name... how do i have them show up as separate albums?

I have itunes 11 with iTunes Match on 2 Macs and 2 ios devices... I know it all has bugs... but I have been ok.
I am wondering how to show my library in the column browser view when I have multiple albums with the same names? I have noticed on my ipod in my car that an album titled "Christmas" plays and includes 2 different albums titled christmas... and in itunes it lists them both when not in the artwork view... (I primarily use the column browser to navigate my library.
Just wondering if anyone else has experienced this/knows how to fix.
Thanks!

Various workarounds I can think of which basically involve playing around with tags. See which meets your needs or come up with others:
Give the albums slightly different names. For example, "Greatest Hits" [ABBA]"
Do the same but do it in the sort album field.
Add a bogus disc number to different albums. It may string them together still but at least they will be slightly grouped.

[svn] 949: Bug: BLZ-96 - When sending a HttpService request from ActionScript with multiple headers with the same name , it causes a ClassCastException in the server

Revision: 949
Author: [email protected]
Date: 2008-03-27 07:12:59 -0700 (Thu, 27 Mar 2008)
Log Message:
Bug: BLZ-96 - When sending a HttpService request from ActionScript with multiple headers with the same name, it causes a ClassCastException in the server
QA: Yes - try again with legacy-collection true and false.
Doc: No
Checkintests: Pass
Details: Another try in fixing this bug. When legacy-collection is false, Actionscript Array on the client becomes Java Array on the server and my fix yesterday assumed this case. However, when legacy-collection is true, Actionscript Array becomes Java ArrayList on the server. So added code to handle this case.
Ticket Links:
http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/BLZ-96
Modified Paths:
blazeds/branches/3.0.x/modules/proxy/src/java/flex/messaging/services/http/proxy/RequestF ilter.java

Hi all!
Just to post the solution to this if anyone ever runs accross this thread...
For some reason i had it bad the first time, don't have time right now to see why but here is what worked for me:
HashMap primaryFile = new HashMap();
primaryFile.put("fileContent", bFile);
primaryFile.put("fileName", uploadedFile.getFilename());
operationBinding.getParamsMap().put("primaryFile", primaryFile);
HashMap customDocMetadata = new HashMap();
HashMap [] properties = new HashMap[1];
HashMap customMetadataPropertyRoom = new HashMap();
customMetadataPropertyRoom.put("name", "xRoom");
customMetadataPropertyRoom.put("value", "SOME ROOM");
properties[0] = customMetadataPropertyRoom;
customDocMetadata.put("property", properties);
operationBinding.getParamsMap().put("CustomDocMetaData", customDocMetadata);
Basically an unbounded wsdl type is an array of objects (HashMaps), makes sense, i thought i had it like this before, must have messed up somewhere...
Good luck all!

Multiple users with the same iPad?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for