Getting back on track, where are the FSX benefits to a Vista installation, right here, now, today?Please show us.Or else the case is proven. QED. The time to change is NOT now.Allcott

Pat, I know exactly what I

Well said Charlie. Sufficient concern over the invasion aspect - and how that door it opens when it feels like might be misappropriated - to force my employer to enforce a `no Vista` rule for any computer running any company software. Not even under dual boot. Technically, the instruction is a `wait and see` policy, but the result is the same - I couldn't put Vista on even if I wanted to.My employer has a very special interest in security. And they have access to specialists who are real security experts, not merely IT support. Those who don't understand the underlying problems of the activation policy, not least the potential impact on productivity should a faulty Activation check show an erroneous software reading and restrict access to the computer by retarding the OS should excuse themselves from the discussion. FWIW Vista has already revealed several security flaws, which will not be addressed until Service Pack 1.That Vista must prove itself as a safe, secure and productive force before even business software will be allowed to be installed on it is exactly why I don't think the time is right to entrust my simmiong to a new OS. It may turn out these concerns are adequately addressed by MS (hands up all the eternal optimists who think Microsoft are perfect? Really? Flown FSX lately? ;)) but somehow I rather expect as time goes by the inherent flaws and weaknesses of Vista will be brought into sharp relief.Question: What software does MS as a company run on? Vista? Oh no, it doesn't.Why not?;)Allcott

I don't get your point. I really don't.Yes, the "Windows Genuine Advantage" scans your computer for hardware changes. But so does XP when you try to download a service pack. So does Radar Contact, Active Camera and numerous other pieces of software. I re-installed XP quite a few times and had to call MS to get my copy re-activated. What else is new?MICROSOFT NEEDS TO SECURE THEIR ASSETS OR THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER OS OR FLIGHT SIMULATOR FROM MICROSOFT!Don't you get it?The IT environment has drastically changed since the release of Windows XP in 2001. Broadband, peer-to-peer file sharing, plus the fact that every 10yo can nowadays run his own webserver to host pirated software, movies and music and make it accessible to hundreds of millions of users. MS would be be out of business in heartbeat, if Vista failed miserably, let alone threatened by anti-trust organizations and governments.And then what?Ever ran a spyware scanner on your machine? Be surprised how many sites/programs track your usage, which is a much more serious invasion of privacy than DRM and WGA combined. Vista fills a lot of those security flaws, better than XP ever will.In fact, I installed Vista yesterday on my laptop and found the install and initial experience very pleasant, easy and uncomplicated. The GUI is more intuitive and it "just works". The search function is great to find anything on your machine and very smart and lightweight compared to Google. The desktop feel much more responsive, sleek and easy-to-use. Of course, that can only be a "placebo effect", but I am very happy with it.Pat

Right now, there a no benefits, agreed. But there will be most likely some benefits a few months down the road.The time to change is not now; but there was also no need to change to FSX a few months ago.Pat

>In the past, I've always upgraded Windows OS changes>practically on the day they were released; however, I'm not so>sure about the new one coming on Wednesday, the 30th. Vista>will be available for the consumer mid-week, and I'm hoping>with my system, that it will be a move in the right direction>for FSX.>>How many of you will be upgrading XP on Wednesday, and if so,>with what version, and why?>>I'm curious and I think this will be a good discussion here on>AVSIM in the FSX forum as opposed to the Hardware forum.Upgraded several days ago prior to the official release.Pros:No more crashes like I had running XP no more loss of instrument guages during low visibility.Slight increase in FPSUpgraded to Vista Ultimate.Very Happy so far with the preformance of Web pages, Email etc.Cons:Have lost my ATC Chatter and Wheels touching down on Runway.FS9 does not appear to be a happy camper with Vista.Hopefully the Chatter will be rectified as others upgrade.Kenny G.>>

Pat, you didn

Now it's just getting silly in here. Too many people making assumptions and not enough actual knowledge.I wasn't going to post, because of course, it would be met with even more silliness. I'll post anyways, just because there is so much raw ignorance to the facts around here. People REALLLY need to educate themselves on what WGA is before crying about privacy.Just because I'm in the IT business doesn't make me an MS lover.. it actually makes me resent them even more than the average bear. It also doesn't lessen the likelihood that I would be any happier about a breech in my own privacy. So saying that I'm exempt from your perspective is really not correct in the least.... I am a consumer and a human being... much like you.WGA shares nothing at all with Microsoft, except that your system has changed drastically or not since your last activation with that product. They cannot tell what you changed, what you have, or how much money you make.... it's the farthest thing from a breech of privacy.Those whom do complain about allowing MS to know whether you are entitled to a reinstall or not, should maybe stop and think....Reactivating your XP or Vista allows Microsoft to know that 'Someone' out there has upgraded their computer. It doesn't identify you, (unless you opted to register, in which case you shouldn't be complaining since that was voluntary...) It also doesn't identify your computer, your parts, or what was changed out.HOW is this any less acceptable that going into Best Buy and buying Mac OS X with a credit card? You just told a cashier that you own a Mac. They can read your name on the card... and see your signature. Visa and Mastercard are also privy to the purchase, so is Best Buy. On top of it all, your Credit Card vendor AND Best Buy both have partners that trade off information with one another.....When XP dies off and you still hate Vista, have fun on your Mac :) Seriously, I'm not here to convince anyone to go buy Vista... I'm only trying to get some proven facts across in a world where facts are distorted by the bandwagon of ignorance... simple as that.To answer the initial posted question.... YES. I will be installing Vista... simply because I know it works for me (tested), and I don't fall prey to mindless rants about privacy from people who really do not understand how and what WGA transmits to Microsoft during Activation.I'm done now. I've tried my part. If that's not enough, then continue your crusade to keep everyone you can from moving along with progress. I'm not here to stop you, just to try to get you to think for yourselves rather than just mindlessly believing what you've read on the subject. Download Wireshark and activate XP or Vista, watch what WGA transmits. Look up what a Checksum is. You'll see that Microsoft really aren't getting a whole lot of info from you, other than the fact that your system has drastically changed. Once your more knowledgeable on everything it is doing, then you can complain and have that undeniable right to do so if you still find it objectionable.... but if your going to spout off about it because you read it in a forum somewhere, then I'm afraid I'm all out of ears.

> (does anyone REALLY not understand why I call Vista SPYWARE?)I forgot about this point. Really well thought out too.... but...While Vista, from time to time, will scan itself to ensure that the files required for WGA to authenticate itself have not been tampered with... it scans ONLY the files that WGA uses for authentication... it is NOT scanning your whole drive.To call that Spyware is almost laughable really. Your bank cards, credit cards, and other cards of varying types, are all scanned at ATM's and retail outlets every day. The first thing any terminal EVER does is make sure that the data on the stripe was NOT tampered with, or faked. This has been going on for a long long time now and no one has ever complained about privacy issues relating to it.Again... Vista ONLY scans it's own WGA system files for signs of tampering... you know, the 12 year old down the street who installs and runs an activation crack for his downloaded copy of an operating system that took three days to download, while him and his friends yelled and screamed that Microsoft are so unfair. Yeah... spyware indeed.Spyware tracks YOU, and what your doing. It steals information, like forms you've filled out, the sites you surf, the programs you use... it sends all this to advertising companies... or that 12 year old I mentioned earlier. Vista doing a check to make sure its own auth system is 'official' is a loooooooong way from being spyware.

Really? So your leased car checks to see who is driving, and if it doesn't like what it sees because you've merely changed your hairstyle and shaved off your beard it limits you to first gear and insists you drive to the nearest approved service facility, even when you are on your way to your mothers funeral 600 miles from home?Get real. It's YOU that doesn't understand the activation policy, not us.The principle of restricting useage of the OS unless/until verification from the vendor is intrusive on personal privacy. Using telephone acvtivation the user is required to provide a valid reason for a new code. That is basic invasion at its most fundamental and completely unnecessary for MS protection of its commercial position.It has nothing to do with the nature of the lines of code, EVERYTHING to do with the degree of control MS can now impose on the users of its OS. Any `voluntary` system provides the option to opt out or, better still, never opt-in. The Vista activation system, and its intrusive `checking`, does not. It is spyware, it is invasive, it is insidious. It is just plain wrong - and indeed it may be the subject of a challenge in the European Courts, if recent developments are pursued to their logical conclusion, Also your impression of the benevolence of MS is legally wrong: They are guilty of protectionism, anti-trust activities and commercial practices designed expressly to give Windows and its other proprietary software a Genuine Monopoly, not merely `Advantage`. Are they fit to decide who should use their OS? Check at POS by all means, but once the transaction has taken place and MS have taken the money they have a contractual obligation for the software to do what the consumer wants at the POS, not only what they allow some time later when it assumes the customer to have committed the heinous crime of installing software the mighty MS doesn't agree with, or daring to upgrade the computer to run the heap of bloated c**p that is Vista... At the very least, the verification procedure should be handled by an independent body or the judiciary, with all costs borne by MS because they are the ones making the accusations. Making false accusations against innocent individuals can be a criminal offence in most civilised countries, yet you believe MS can seemingly ride roughshod over basic human rights and commercial practices with impunity, because they are entitled to protect themselves? Germany annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 using just that excuse. More recently Saddam used the same excuse for the invasion of Kuwait. Saying it, doesn't make it so, and you would do well do understand more about the socio-economic motivations But none of this matters: The role of the OS is to provide a smooth, troublefree, optimised framweork for the operation of software installed under its umbrella. FSX does not do this with Vista, many hardware and software items don't do this under Vista. NOT YET. It is a statement of fact: Vista is NOT READY FOR FLIGHT SIMMERS. You were told to provide demonstrations of the advantages to prove your argument. You haven't because you can't. And your deflection into semantics over the extent of spyware is an irrelevant waste of your fellow simmers time. Leave it. You want Vista because you want it. That's fine. Anybody that wants Vista can simply go to the shops and buy it, but only the foolish will do so in the hope that at this point Vista offers ANYTHING that XP doen't for FS.Allcott

Leasing a car? What does that have to do with an OS? There's a big difference between a car, and software. You can't download a car and use it for free by using keygens and cracks. Activation also does not check to see if you have cut your hair or changed you underwear... much like driving a car. Very silly indeed.To drive a car though, you MUST have a licence to do so. To obtain a license, you must go thru the hoops and such. Why is activation any different? Getting your drivers licence is MUCH more invasive... yet no one complains about that...The voluntary system regarding Registration IS voluntary btw... you do not have to register the product.Microsoft are making 'accusations' simply because Activation assumes the copy is illegal? Are you kidding? The auth system does not broadcast to the world that, "HEY!!!! Activation in progress, this user aint legit!!!! OMG, This guy is illegally using me! Oh wait, I was wrong, the key checks out... nevermind." Now THAT would be an accusation.Why are you linking activation to the second world war, and Saddam? Have you lost your marbles? It's an OS. Either buy it or dont... simple as that.It isn't a statement of fact, that Vista is not ready for FSX... it's more true that FSX is not ready for Vista....FSX is a DX9 platform game... until it is DX10 patched, and explicitly designed to run for Vista, then it will still NOT be ready for Vista.For the record though.... I had FSX running just as smooth and usable under RC1 than it ran on my XP machine.... so complaints about it not working well are just the same as the XP experience.... works well on some, not so well on others.You know... if your policy of thought carried as much truth as you believe, why hasn't MS been overruled? Why is Activation deemed as a legal method of protecting software? Why is Microsoft allowed to pull this off? The answer is simple... you over reacting towards something you simply do not understand... or your jumping on a bandwagon just because its cool to complain.

This is one of the most brain-dead messages I have ever seen on this forum. Like Pat, you didn

Kev....with all due respect, I strongly urge you to go to the topic I inserted called Vista...a Cost Analysis, and the second entry(I forgot to include the link in the first!). It is very long, so be prepared to spend some time reading it completely.This should steer you in the direction those of us who consider Vista spyware; nothing to do with EULA's etc. When discussing Vista's protection system, we're talking about something much more nefarious than copy protection as the lay person recognizes it.

I really think we should leave Kev in his ideal world, we will not persuade him anymore than he will persuade us. Again, to return to the real question for simmers: Paying extra for the same performance - which is the conclusion I draw from his one sentence actually on-topic confirms what I have said, nothing more or less: At this point Vista is a waste of time, money and effort. FSX needs FSX to be `fixed` first. Fortunately, by then the Vista saga should also have proceeded and potential consumers should have a much clearer idea of the benefits versus the pitfalls. Everything else is a matter of opinion and research, and basic understanding of business goals and the strategems used to achieve them. The insidiousness with which Vista is being forced on consumers by the removal of XP from vendors shelves (it's happening in the UK too, I checked this morning) means that proof that MS are out to ram Vista down our throats is literally only a phone call away. The pricing differentials also show that MS is profiteering, as well as manipulating the market to make XP a thing of the past. Neither of these things suggests a company I should be allowing to invade my computer to make judgements on whether I am worthy to continue to receive the full functionality of their software. I also have grave doubts of the ability of the Technical Support staff to be able to deal with the multiplicity of issues that might result - just looking at6 the forums it seems there are plenty of posts where reactivation of FSX, just a piece of gaming software, has caused problems, let alone the OS. I await the plethora of inevitable posts that will follow the early adopters of Vista when first one thing, then another fails to work properly in FS. It has already begun.What we have here is new software, running on new software, in an environment where full pre-sale testing could not be carried out. The potential for things going wrong is simply too big, too obvious, too ALREADY HAPPENING to be ignored. That alone is sufficient justification for steering well clear of being a customer for Vista at this point. Everything else is irrelevant. Wait 10 months.Allcott

So much for all the anti-piracy technology built into Vista: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGQCNS3NG1.DTLOne can only wonder if those technologies were really worth the time and cost (that will be passed on to the paying customer) spent on Vista.