LownoteNB

Q: Can I install V 3.0 on El Capitan without doing harm?

I attempted to install V 3.0 of Apple Remote Desktop from my original install disk today but was warned that it could damage my system and hard disk.  I can't upgrade it without installing it.  Does anyone have a workaround.  I do have the Software Serial Number from the original package.

 

Erik

OS X El Capitan (10.11.1)

Posted on Nov 14, 2015 10:01 AM

Close

Q: Can I install V 3.0 on El Capitan without doing harm?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by MrHoffman,

    MrHoffman MrHoffman Nov 15, 2015 6:28 AM in response to LownoteNB
    Level 6 (15,627 points)
    Mac OS X
    Nov 15, 2015 6:28 AM in response to LownoteNB

    ARD 3.8 is current, obviously.

     

    I'd doubt that ARD 3.0 works here, as 3.0 is comparatively ancient, but — since you're probably not inclined purchase an upgrade to current from the Mac App Store — generate a scratch OS X 10.11 install on a scratch disk and install ARD 3.0 there, and see if it works.  Or install an older OS X release on the external scratch disk — whatever old release your Mac will boot and that supports ARD 3.0 and at least OS X 10.6.8 with Mac App Store — and see if you can get MAS to detect and recognize that and put the product in your purchase history for a subsequent upgrade on the not-scratch boot disk.    Or call Apple Support and explain your situation and see if a redemption code can be made available.  That lattermost approach might be quickest.

  • by Antonio Rocco,

    Antonio Rocco Antonio Rocco Nov 25, 2015 12:05 PM in response to LownoteNB
    Level 6 (10,606 points)
    Desktops
    Nov 25, 2015 12:05 PM in response to LownoteNB

    To get the non-App Store version of ARD installed try the instructions give here:

     

    Installing Apple Remote Desktop 3.3 in OS X Lion or later - Apple Support

     

    I doubt if it can 'harm' the OS but you never know? However if it was me you should take the plunge and 'purchase' the latest version available on the App Store instead as - IMO - this would be a better long term solution for you