Once again, hauling this creaky old tub of a topic back onto the track that was intended:http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=60002If you think the reduction in loading time for FSX is worth the price and aggravation of a new Operating System (which to my way of thinking smacks of getting rid of the car because the air had run out of a tyre) then you may be lucky. But if you feel that lucky, may I suggest instead putting the money on a random choice of long-odds outsider on the 3.30 at Newmarket. At least a horse race offers the chance of a return on your investment.;)Like I keep saying, Vista at this point is a waste of money for simmers. This chap sees no advantage other than initial loading time, and he has a system that on paper looks optimised for the new OS.At the risk of boring everyone, I say again that there has been no proof of any increase in FSX performance (or FS9 for that matter) to the value of the cost of installing the new OS. And that leaves aside the other problems Vista presents.At the heart of the matter, it truly is that simple. Buy some more RAM or a new graphics card and get better value for money. Leave Vista for another day - a day about twelve months from now.Allcott

...and we have discussed the EULA already ad nauseum and tried to disburse your concerns.Kev and I are not some geeky hobbyists who ride on the wave of every fanboi FUD ("fear, uncertainty and doubt"). We work professionally with MS operating systems every day. I have been doing this for 20 years and am now 36 years old. Yes, I did start to work professionally at the tender age of 16. I worked my way up from building PCs for friends, over low-level tech support, across various departments ranging from network services, database support over OS and application security testing, up to supporting 20k-60k machines. I take a lot of pride in my work and try to do things right. I have a Bachelors and Masters in Information Technology and Computer Networking and sometimes work 12 hours a day figuring out how to implement a OS to make it most secure and stable for the client while keeping it user-friendly and easy to use.Do you seriously think that a Fortune 500 company would accept the things that you previously stated while running the risk that thousands of work places are rendered out-of-service and/or are being "spied upon"?I understand your concerns, but I can also assure you that none of your concerns are actually valid.Pat

>...and we have discussed the EULA already ad nauseum and>tried to disburse your concerns.>>Kev and I are not some geeky hobbyists who ride on the wave of>every fanboi FUD ("fear, uncertainty and doubt"). We work>professionally with MS operating systems every day. I have>been doing this for 20 years and am now 36 years old. Yes, I>did start to work professionally at the tender age of 16. I>worked my way up from building PCs for friends, over low-level>tech support, across various departments ranging from network>services, database support over OS and application security>testing, up to supporting 20k-60k machines. I take a lot of>pride in my work and try to do things right. I have a>Bachelors and Masters in Information Technology and Computer>Networking and sometimes work 12 hours a day figuring out how>to implement a OS to make it most secure and stable for the>client while keeping it user-friendly and easy to use.>>Do you seriously think that a Fortune 500 company would accept>the things that you previously stated while running the risk>that thousands of work places are rendered out-of-service>and/or are being "spied upon"?>>I understand your concerns, but I can also assure you that>none of your concerns are actually valid.>>PatPat,Contained in most of your posts is a reminder and reference to your profession....as though it is the slightest bit relevant to the debate. It is not. In fact, it seems arguable that your profession may be inhibiting your ability to understand the core principle. You and Kev seem to be the most vehemently positive spokespersons for Vista and Microsoft on this forum and you are both IT guys. Is that merely coincidence? I

You win.You're comparing apples with oranges and fiction with reality.Your last attempts comparing a computer operating system with a 'grocery store robbery' and 'the government invading your home on a daily basis' made me realize that your sense of reality is so far from the truth that there's no arguing with you.You believe what you want to believe and there is nothing or noone to help you understand.Pat

Pat. They will not get it, and don't want to get it. Whether we are in IT or not, some people will just choose to disbelieve. It is nice though, to see another IT professional in here. What is even nicer though... is that the only two IT professionals who have chimed in on the subject, have agreed that WGA is not a breech of privacy, and that most of this hoopla is just a bandwagon that seems to be popular at the moment.To address someone else's question... I am 33... and I am definetely NOT your son. I am, and have been in the software, support, and more currently.... Infrastructure Management industries. I am not some kid... well I suppose I am in comparison to some other flight simmers. (no disrespect intended, some members here are quite old and quite friendly)About me referring to 'stupid' people.... notice that I have never called anyone in particular out on anything here. I simply respond to some very 'stupid' comments that are obviously unfounded byu any respect.... I do this to show the content provider just how absurd their beliefs are... especially those who referred to WGA as being much like Europe 1939, or the fella whom mentioned that MS are coming into our houses and searching us from top to bottom. Surely you all can see how absurd these remarks really are. If not, I feel sorry for you... I truly do.Look. I am not here to troll for trouble. I see a thread with a lot of people talking about incompletes, half truths, misinterpreted facts, and other really whacky comments. Being in the business that I am in, I am ALWAYS compelled to correct the user when they are either wrong, or making an unfounded assumption.... that's what I do for a living, and that's a habit in my free time. I don't actually think that any of you are 'stupid', but I feel horrendously disheartened that so many people out there never experience and learn something for themselves before actually falling to the beliefs of other human beings. Be it CNN, the Web, or the Government.... you NEED to educate yourself before deciding on what you believe..Someone mentioned Leo... well I have news for you... TechTV isn't exactly the latest-greatest IT personnel in the world... at best, they are average hobbyist computer geeks that got lucky in Hollywood. Go around some large corporations and ask their IT people what they think, you'll get real world answers.Leo reminds me of a 40+ man who lives across the street from me. He took a Net+, and a MCSD course... passed barely. He went on to open his own store immediately... sold computers, made websites, installed networks etc. It took only three months before one of his clients sued his pants off because he didn't have a clue about REAL network security... as a result, his client was not only hacked (from the inside no less)... but failure to provide a backup solution led to a COMPLETE loss of all company data. Dude lost his house, and I haven't seen him since. Leo reminds me of this guy, maybe because he kinda looks like him... mostly though, I think its because he, like Leo, is so transparent to REAL IT personnel. These kinds of people know the bare minimum to get by in a crunch.... but that's about it.

> What is even more galling about all of this is that it doesn't make any> difference to MS that in essence they're turning our PC's into locked > boxes like common 360's, etc., and having us pay for the priviledge > without stating so up front and/or on the packaging.And why shouldn't they? Too many 'users' out there that think they know what they're doing, then waste three hours on the phone wasting Microsoft's time while they try to figure out what the user screwed around with.This is why I lock ALL my machines down as much as I can so that the user can do only what their job requires... and no more. You give them an inch, your reinstalling that same day.I would like to see this 'locked' box that you speak of. I've yet to see one locked down like a 360.btw: to the dude who mentioned that 'Pat and Kev' are like Microsoft Spokesmen.... think about it... two IT people agree that your comments about the OS are absurd.... don't you think there just might be a possibility that those who DO understand the tech, can see that it aint all that bad?!?!If you search the forums well enough... you will find a HUGE rant from a few months back, when the initial Vista EULA was first released. I was appalled at Microsoft's new licensing agreement, and I wanted to get it out to the masses. Where were you then? Where were all of these people? I was laughed at for my take on the EULA.A few weeks later, the EULA was officially revoked and modified to my satisfaction, and I settled down and started taking this OS seriously again.So no... I am NOT a Microsoft spokesman, I actually detest MS quite a bit. However, I do know a good thing when I see it, and Vista certainly is a major advancement in Personal Computing. Whether you agree or not, I could care less. I'm already certain that most of you make your decisions without actually doing any research for yourselves.On the other hand though... I am rather fat. If you like, you can poke fun of me. I don't mind, nor do I get upset. I only get upset when I see potentially bright people fall prey to misinformation and illogical reasoning.I will sit here, drinking my hot chocolate, and wait with wide eyes... for the arrival of the MicroGestapoft to come and search my house to make sure that nothing is in breech of their licensing agreement... just as you guys actually believe is happening.

Kev, I

>You are doing anything BUT thinking for yourself here. It is those of >us who are challenging Microsoft

Though you have tried my patience, I have done my best my best to help you understand this issue, while refraining from name-calling. It comes as no surprise, of course, that you don

uh huh... your so right.Actually no. Banks do not to these checks to protect YOUR money, they do those checks to protect their money. Your money is insured at most banks, and fraud of any type is mostly refundable if the bank deems that you were indeed, not the one who took out $500 and blew it on something dumb.If you think that MS would be hurt by a few misinformed gamers deciding not to buy Vista, you are sadly mistaken. MS could survive very well in fact, even if most home users switched to Linux. This is due to the fact that Microsoft's largest income is based from corporate level sales, licensing, support, and training. Home users and gamers are a mere surface level income to them.To add to this. A whole lot of corporations already embrace the OS. The new level of security, the central management of workstations, and deployment ease, leads to many customers being extremely happy about Vista. These people see through the mist, and don't get lost in a 14 year old's rant on a webpage.As I said, I aint here to convince you of anything... in fact, I'm really sick of the fact that any post with even remotely decent Vista information, quickly become marketing ploys of the 'army of the misinformed'.Anyways.... to make things easy for you.... yes, your so right... I am an idiot. Have a good night.

"I am an idiot."A good note to end it on, Kev. Yes, you are. Your endless and mindless repetition of " don't get lost in a 14 year old's rant on a webpage" is proof positive of that. You have made no attempt whatsoever to comprehend what has been said to you and instead spew this rubbish over and over and over. Please take a break, live some real life, learn to listen, learn to comprehend, and most important - attempt some real reflection on what is right and what is wrong in this life.Two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft was once a great company, but has lost its way. They are on the wrong side of this issue and so are you. Mark my words - they will retreat from this new validation requirement, if not on activation altogether, or this Vista release will mark the beginning of their demise. You'd better believe it could happen and it could happen fast. You don't treat customers this way and succeed.

Well said Charlie. It does seem as though there is not just an age gap in the way that knowledge is being imparted here, but also a bigger question of Basic Comprehension(I'm in my fifties myself, and fought for my country before devolving into the `maverick` that refuses to toe the party line that I never even realised I was until my non-adoption of a new, over-priced, shaky OS of no benefit to an even shakier gaming product brought it to my attention! And there I was, thinking that my choice was affected only by the fact that Vista offers NOTHING of a return on the investment for FSX, and precious little for everything else at this time! If I'd only realised that made me a revolutionary rather than an edjacated consumer I'd have had t-shirts printed with my image and be making a killing on E-Bay by now. Viva Zapata!I had never realised that my employer - a world-regarded defence contractor - was also maverick. Thanks for that too! As I have said before, they have impressed upon all staff that Vista is UNACCEPTABLE as an OS for anyone that runs company software. And with all due respect to the IT professionals posting here, you are small `p` compared to the Professionals who made that decision. I am quite happy to believe them when they tell me what they tell me about the rights of access to your computer you give away to MS when you accept the EULA, and the unacceptable intrusion into software and hardware that have NOTHING to do with the operation of the OS that the new Vista EULA permits MS to undertake, in pursuit of their protection, or actually your nullification. But my perceptions are my own, just as I agree with Charlie and completely disagree with Kev, so I am happy to accept that sheep, idiots and geeks who are uninformed and in most cases, uncaring, will be quite happy to flock to Vista in droves. But anyone who thinks this is a REASON for taking Vista onboard is clearly in need of a dose of reality in a world excessively populated by `belief through repetition`. Why, I read that Vista "is the most secure operating system ever made". Bill said, so it must be true. But no it isn't. Even DOS was much more secure as it had no native networking, and code protection that could be as random as the individual user. Vista has already been hacked, cracked and broken, has already demonstrated no proven advantages in the functionality of the FSX gaming software supposedly designed for it, and carries a hefty price premium that, spent on hardware upgrades elsewhere, yield better results. So the Big Cheese lies to get you to buy his software, a company that has already been found guilty of anti-trust and profiteering? Leaving aside all notions of whether MS are fit and proper as an organisation to be allowed unnecessary access to a users computer, the commercial justification for Vista is unshown as well as unproven. Give it time, and maybe many of these objections and inconsistencies will be overcome, and the privacy of the individual assured. But let's be honest, discussing the notional concept of personal culpability with an early adopter of Vista is clearly totally and utterly a waste of time. By definition. Vista is actually totally insignificant to FSX at this point in time. How many choose to install insignificant, irrelevant software that has issues with itself, let alone with the software running on it, is merely an indication that comprehension is indeed a lost skill. Allcott

> I read that Vista "is the most secure operating system ever made".> Bill said, so it must be true.Actually no... the quote referenced here was more like, "is the most secure Windows ever."> Even DOS was much more secure as it had no native networking, and> code protection that could be as random as the individual user.True, keeping it from the network was a bonus... however DOS was capable of networking with third party applications. The fact that DOS also lacked any user authentication, auditing, or controls of any sort, makes DOS pretty much wide open in terms of security. WinNT4 was more secure than Dos...> ...irrelevant software that has issues with itself, let alone with> the software running on it...So... what software have you tried and had fail on you? What issues has your copy of Vista had? I'm assuming none.. since you don't have it nor want it. There are numerous posts across the planet now... people not only installing, but LOVING the OS now that they can finally try it. (these people didn't try the Beta's??) I even read that it actually turned a Mac user... sad. I never thought I'd see the day.As far as your defense contractor... well of course they are NOT going to use a commercial OS in their field. Unix based workstations are the way to go here... as security is an absolute must. With Windows, they have zero control over the implementation of military spec security... so why would they even think about it?Also... your right, I am small in comparison to the larger IT crowd.... but I'm not fully getting what your trying to say. Are you saying that since your friend or whatever, works for a military IT dept, that he is better than a civil IT pro? I have news for you, even the military has idiots... not saying the guy is one, but making a point that being there doesn't make you better.Just don't tell me that they are using XP Pro as their workstation... that would annoy me. If they think XP Pro is more secure than Vista then it really shows that they should hire better IT people.>Leaving aside all notions of whether MS are fit and proper as an >organisation to be allowed unnecessary access to a users computer, >the commercial justification for Vista is unshown as well as >unproven. Give it time, and maybe many of these objections and >inconsistencies will be overcome, and the privacy of the individual >assured. But let's be honest, discussing the notional concept of >personal culpability with an early adopter of Vista is clearly >totally and utterly a waste of time. By definition.I applaud thee. This is one of the truest statements out there. This is why I spend my time trying to get those whom have already passed judgment to just stop and think. As proven... there is no better way to waste ones time. :)

Kev, Allcott, Charlie:For the love of all things holy and right in the world.Please. Please.(stop!)The productive value of the thread hit its point of diminishing returns long ago. Things have gone from a worthwhile discussion of opinions on WGA/Validation and Vista, to an incessant bickering match where NOBODY will turn out a winner. All parties involved are far too entrenched in their respective lines of thought to move. It's an intellectual stalemate. While I have found the later posts to be *entertaining*, that is about all the value I could get out of them. SOMEone is going to have the last word - stop making it a competition to see who it will be.Respectfully,-Greg

It's not a question of persuasion Greg, it's simply perseverence to see whether - if - Kev is actually able to provide something solid enough to justify with his improved FSX performance to justify the expenditure and aggravation of a Windows Vista installation.I have asked time and again for the facts, not the fantasy, and never had the merest hint that Kev was ever going to supply it. Fortunately, in the time that this thread has been running, there have been several dozen threads on the same subject, across various sim sites. The consensus has been, and continues to be, that Vista is of no substantive benefit. Not just of no benefit in proportion with its cost and risk of installation. NO SUBSTANTIVE BENEFIT at all. So why would I pay so much for so little? And why would I risk some of the computer hardware releated to my Home Studio, that I know does not function under Vista, purely to NOT enhance my sim experience? There is no logic in that. Not a jot.Yes Kev, I have used Vista - probably as much or more than you, right up to the RTM. In fact, I was involved with a small group of technical specialists who were trying to get certain music products to function within the new API, but without the kernel mode device drivers that were a feature of Win98 and XP. These are now coming to fruition and, in the fullness of time, may mature into a signed driver set that permits most of the `old` hardware we have an interest in to function in the Vista environment (why, my mixing desk is at least five years old, so of course I should be replacing it now that Vista is here, the tail wags my dog all the time!)I only removed RTM when I casually queried Vista with some work colleagues, which seemed to spark a chain of events that led to an e-mail being sent to all employees who have a remote working function forbidding the installation of Vista to ANY computer that has company software installed at this time, not even as a dual boot.So if I wish to install Vista I need a second computer. My FSX installation runs (badly) under Win XP, and of course the new EULA will not permit a second installation without removing the first, first. Unless I lie, like Kev suggested in a particuarly hypocritical earlier post. However, my sim control hardware is attached to the computer, which also has FS9 installed on it. FSX calls some of the scenery from FS9, without the need for a separate installation.So in order for me to comply with my employers instructions I have to purchase a second computer, remove FSX from one computer, install it to the new computer, conceivably buy new joystick, yoke pedals and throttle to run it as a separate entity, as I am leaving FS9 on the old machine and fly it regularly, copy whatever scenery I currently call on from the FS9 folders,then face the problems of installing aircraft into the new FSX installation, when many of the payware vendors have yet to produce Vista-compliant installers.Reasonably, I'd look to doing that - even porting the FS9 setup over, if Vista was going to give me a substantial advantage with FSX, FS9, Silent Hunter III and any and all of the other games I play, as well as coping successfully with the moving of my Home Studio to the new rig, as I don't have the deskspace to run a second rig in the room I use for the studio, and for simming. So far I have a long list of things which DONT work under Vista.Now while I might have some exclusive needs, most of those problems face EVERY consumer to a greater or lesser extent. Problems which only the lure of double the performance, or stunning new visuals, or new features not previously available will persuade.But Vista doesn't. We all know that now.I don't care how smooth it installs, how well it copes with different setups because I will need to upgrade or update much of my hardware to see any improvement in Windows. And then I immediately run into THAT EULA and activation policy, as well as the FSX one. And frankly, I dont need the hassle, or the cost. I need MS to recognise that legitimate consumers have every right to install, reinstall or modify what they buy as they see fit to suit their needs, or else get out of the general purpose OS business. MS have created this confusing scenario, by their timing of the release of FSX before Vista.We wouldn't even be having these conversations if Vista had released first, and FSX had been released for it under DX10, as was planned. FSX would have followed Vista as night follows day. As it is I need Microsoft to realise that overpriced operating systems are no substitute for sound business practice and contract compliance, and deliver a sim worthy of the name that performs on computers that should be able to run it better than it does. Then I'll think about Vista.Why tie the two together? Because the first suggests the regard - or rather contempt - with which the mighty Corporation regards its customers. Limit the installations of FSX, so that you need to go cap in hand to MS to plead for forgiveness as you add ever more expensive hardware to fix the almighty stuff-up that MS themselves created? Don't make me laugh.When MS (finally) deliver a workable FSX environment under Vista, utilising all the DX10 features that have so much promise, but as yet no delivery, that will be the trigger to start thinking about making the transition. And my decision will be affected not by the a really excited user and early adopters, but how things pan out in the Microsoft universe in the next twelve months or so, as that will indicate to me whether MS are actually listening to the customer and responding appropriately. This Vista discussion has only served to indicate that MS (and ACES) still have a long way to go. And having wasted money on FSX I am in no mood to go messing with their latest product until they fix what I already have. It's nothing more than sound business sense, backed up by the fact that NOT buying Vista now has precisely ZERO impact on my life, in fact it may even be bettering it if the problems I keep reading about are anything to go by.Allcott