Let's look at if from a business standpoint.If Microsoft were NOT responding to their customers needs, then they would not have BUILT the business that they did, NOR would they have the "monopoly" which you claim they have. If we look at it from a BUSINESS standpoint, Monopoly's are either GROWN or created by Merger. The Standard "oil" monoploy was created by Merger, but Microsoft's monopoly did not consist of them "buying" their competitors. No, they provided a product that competed, and then improved on it. If these improvements had not been welcome, they would not have done so.Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand because you have not been a part of the "focus" groups that Microsoft consistently holds. You have not been a part of various seminars on the various subjects that Microsoft holds within the industry. Marketing ploy you say. Maybe, but they DO listen.Just because, they don't respond to YOUR request IMMEDIATELY doesn't mean that they don't listen to their customers.How many improvements on Flight Simulator 9 were CONSUMER driven? Dynamic Weather? Improved ATC? Multiple Runways? Better Sky and Shading? Taxiway Signs? Were all these not included in a long laundry list of what we would all have liked to see in FS2002. Yet, because Microsoft waited until FS2004 to bring them to the table, they are callous and non responsive. Let's look at this Monopoly. How did it happen. Surely there were plenty of alternatives for the Intel platform. How many versions of Dos were there. And how about OS/2? Yet the industry and it's consumers chose Windows? Why? Did Microsoft hold a gun to the industries head and force folks to buy it? No. You also state "Given your background it's easy to see why you believe MS is not at fault here. You have been indoctrinated to believe that the software is developed, and then the consumer will fall in line. In the short term that may work. But in the long term it is the business equivalent of Russion Roulette. And Microsoft will learn that fact at some point in time. All of the testing you did at MS was defined by MS... not the consumers. All it was is MS making a somewhat educated guess about what should be. Nothing more."Really. so you worked there too? If not, then how do you have ANY idea what testing I did. In fact the majority of test cases I ran, I CREATED MY SELF!!!!! And I created them AS A CONSUMER. My job as a tester was not to validate the product but rather BREAK it. We were rewarded not on how FEW bugs we found but by how many. The entire test team was completely independent from development. But of course since you come from the perspective of NEVER working at Microsoft, you are best to know how it DEFINES it's procedures. Which is about as ridiculous as me based on my flight sim experience trying to tell a Flight Captain how to fly his 747. I'm sorry, but your broad generalizations only serve to highlight your ignorance, not only of Microsoft but of the entire Software industry.First, all of the ATI cards under development were DirectX 8 compliant. Only now is fully DX9 compliant drivers coming out. And it is not MS's job to "coordinate" it's product with ATI or any other persons drivers. The test team notes the deficiency, if it is an issue with DirectX, then DirectX team takes the lead, it it is traced to the "driver" then it is ATI's responsibility. Are you saying that Microsoft should hold it's release date until ATI decides or NOT decides to fix the driver? Secondly, the July 29 release date was announced well in advance and had it slipped, who would have been roasted on a spit. NOT ATI, NOT NVIDIA. Again, you really should stick with what you know.There is a difference between looking things from a "consumer's" perspective and making totally ignorant statements.By all means, divorce yourself from "the evil empire" and go with Linux, or Mac, and run X-Plane for your simming pleasure. By purchasing the product, you cast a vote with your dollar to maintain the Status Quo.To build a perfect piece of software is a mathematical as well as practical impossibility, even if ALL other considerations were static. To build the same piece of software, and expect it to run on entirely different computers, different CPU's, different Memory Subsystems, and Different video cards. All of which are completely defined by the end user, is mind boggling in it's scope. I am also suspect about your mention of ISO. And wonder if you have ever been through an ISO audit or implementation. My company that I currently work for just got ISO 9001:2000 certified. Have you been a part of that process? If you had, you would know what a political joke ISO really is. Talking about a monopoly. Forcing American companies to comply with beaureucratic and very expensive certification processes, just for the "privilidge" to sell in europe. Hmm. No hidden agenda there. ISO in many cases is nothing more than protective tarrifs wrapped up in a cloak of "quality".Now do many European companies have an axe to grind with Microsoft? You bet, so you wonder why Microsoft doesn't want a "non profit" consorteum of European beaurucrats telling them how to run their business.The rest of us are just too small to fight it. But again, your penchant for using industry buzzwords and broad rhetoric has shown that you have really no real basis of experience on which to make your arguements. But isn't that often the case when we substitute rhetoric for experience.

>>First, all of the ATI cards under development were DirectX 8>compliant. Only now is fully DX9 compliant drivers coming>out. And it is not MS's job to "coordinate" it's product with>ATI or any other persons drivers. The test team notes the>deficiency, if it is an issue with DirectX, then DirectX team>takes the lead, it it is traced to the "driver" then it is>ATI's responsibility. Are you saying that Microsoft should>hold it's release date until ATI decides or NOT decides to fix>the driver? Secondly, the July 29 release date was announced>well in advance and had it slipped, who would have been>roasted on a spit. NOT ATI, NOT NVIDIA. Again, you really>should stick with what you know.Of what relevance is this? FS9 is Not A DX9 game. The specs call for "DX8 video card"s to see all features and only DX8 drivers are required, further the problem is also prevalent on Nvidia equipped systems not just ATI.There are No Drivers and have never been Any drivers that allowed the menus to be displayed correctly under the various/popular AA settings available to all users of either make of video cards, not during FS9s development nor since.And how old is DX8 standard?MS Games works with DX team whom also work with ATI/NV... :-roll... and we all paid our dough and are rightly dissatisfied with the lack of a working result. It would certainly behoove MS to give the paying customer the "feeling" that this will be worked out, that it as well as other things will be "fixed" not in 2005 but soon. I don't think any of us in the community have that "feeling" that it will be fixed sooner than later. Why should we? Do we see any announcement? Anyone see or hear of any mutterings on the subject? Not even a peep! All though there was some MS representation at the AVSIM conference, hey what an opportunity! Nothing.....just dead silence.FSteam 2000: "we will be supporting the 3rd party designers by getting the SDKs out with the release of the sim"...Reality...Partial SDKs trickle out so slowly that in the more than twelve months preceding their release the design community has deciphered more than the much lacking SDKs provide.

Of what relevance is this? FS9 is Not A DX9 game. The specs call for "DX8 video card"s to see all features and only DX8 drivers are required, further the problem is also prevalent on Nvidia equipped systems not just ATI.What spec's are you looking at? On the back of my box, it clearly states that DX9.0 or later is required. Just because it doesn't use an exclusive DS9.0 feature doesn't mean it's not a DX9 game.If you look around, you will see driver manufacturers running around like chickens wither their heads cut off trying to tweak and rebuild their drivers so that they will run with other DX9 games such as halflife 2 and Homeworld 2, and many others.So the compatibility issue isn't just related to Microsoft or Flight Sim. Yes, Flight Sim may show some of the weakeness' of DX8 drivers first because, Flight Sim was one of the first DX9 games out. But of course since Microsoft is first out of the gate with a DX9 game it MUST be Microsoft's fault that current DX8 WHQL certified drivers aren't up to the task.And are you really naive to think that these "driver tweaks" that ATI and Nvidia are working so hard to come out with is really a result of Flight Sim customers, or is it indication of more problems they have with DX9 implementation, and FS is just the tip of the iceberg.I can't help but believe if FS9 were the ONLY application with these issues, ATI and Nvidia would tell you to "cowboy up" and use the work arounds that are already well known. The fact that they ARE developing new drivers that DO fix the problem leads me to believe that the problems manifested in FS9, is not isolated to FS9, but rather a problem with DX9 implementation as a whole. What FS9 has done, is allow some of these issues to be highlighted before the release of other "top shelf" games, so that when HL2 or Halo or other FS9 games are released, the gaming public will not see the quirks those of us running DX9 since July 29 have experienced.

>What spec's are you looking at? On the back of my box, it>clearly states that DX9.0 or later is required. Just because>it doesn't use an exclusive DS9.0 feature doesn't mean it's>not a DX9 game.Really? Is this not a Video issue?If you knew the game you would know That DX9 requirment is not releavant to any video issues.Sorry, my mistake, not DX8 it is DX7 (see hardware requirments):http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...productinfo.asp>If you look around, you will see driver manufacturers running>around like chickens wither their heads cut off trying to>tweak and rebuild their drivers so that they will run with>other DX9 games such as halflife 2 and Homeworld 2, and many>others.Thos ARE actual DX9 games using DX9 graphic code, FS9 does not use any.It uses DX9 multiplayer code.>So the compatibility issue isn't just related to Microsoft or>Flight Sim. Yes, Flight Sim may show some of the weakeness'>of DX8 drivers first because, Flight Sim was one of the first>DX9 games out. Again, not true, just as FS2k2 was not a DX8 game but DX8 had to be installed for the game to install. >But of course since Microsoft is first out of the gate with a>DX9 game it MUST be Microsoft's fault that current DX8 WHQL>certified drivers aren't up to the task.It is probably true that MS should have worked more closly with ATI/NV to insure a working driver would have been out to "fix" the problem before its release.>And are you really naive to think that these "driver tweaks">that ATI and Nvidia are working so hard to come out with is>really a result of Flight Sim customers, or is it indication>of more problems they have with DX9 implementation, and FS is>just the tip of the iceberg.Again, FS9 does not use ANY DX9 graphical features, the problem is not with getting any special new DX9 "feature" to work. And these problems exsist on DX8 cards that will not be DX9 enabled.>>I can't help but believe if FS9 were the ONLY application with>these issues, ATI and Nvidia would tell you to "cowboy up" and>use the work arounds that are already well known. The fact>that they ARE developing new drivers that DO fix the problem>leads me to believe that the problems manifested in FS9, is>not isolated to FS9, but rather a problem with DX9>implementation as a whole. True, But the issue has more to do with public relations and perseption that at the moment is sinking for some.What FS9 has done, is allow some>of these issues to be highlighted before the release of other>"top shelf" games, so that when HL2 or Halo or other FS9 games>are released, the gaming public will not see the quirks those>of us running DX9 since July 29 have experienced.That is pure conjecture and is not relevant as again FS9 is not a "real" DX9 game.

Will,Let's break your points down one at a time."If Microsoft were NOT responding to their customers needs, then they would not have BUILT the business that they did, NOR would they have the "monopoly" which you claim they have. If we look at it from a BUSINESS standpoint, Monopoly's are either GROWN or created by Merger. The Standard "oil" monoploy was created by Merger, but Microsoft's monopoly did not consist of them "buying" their competitors. No, they provided a product that competed, and then improved on it. If these improvements had not been welcome, they would not have done so."You fail to understand the nature of a monopoly. A monopoly exists when one supplier controls the market. Simple as that. So the question we're asking you now, Will, is who controls the market? And if you believe that MS didn't gain their monopoly by "Buying" out their competition, then you are truly naive. Happened many times in the past 20 years, and continues today. It's part of Micrsoft's business model (but they wouldn't have told you that during those "focus groups")!"Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand because you have not been a part of the "focus" groups that Microsoft consistently holds. You have not been a part of various seminars on the various subjects that Microsoft holds within the industry. Marketing ploy you say. Maybe, but they DO listen."Nor would I be part of any of their "focus groups". No sense wasting time being a part of a monopoly's focus group. And their seminars and focus groups are indeed a marketing ploy. If they weren't, Microsoft would respond to their customers."Just because, they don't respond to YOUR request IMMEDIATELY doesn't mean that they don't listen to their customers."Ahhh, trying to make it MY request!! It's mine and many others. But nice try to make this all my doing. Did you not read Elrond's and Cruchacan's posts the past couple of days?"How many improvements on Flight Simulator 9 were CONSUMER driven? Dynamic Weather? Improved ATC? Multiple Runways? Better Sky and Shading? Taxiway Signs? Were all these not included in a long laundry list of what we would all have liked to see in FS2002. Yet, because Microsoft waited until FS2004 to bring them to the table, they are callous and non responsive."We're not talking here about the improvements MS has made to their Flight Sim. This discussion surrounds their responsiblity and cupability in failing to make their product work with established hardware drivers. Stay on point, please."Really. so you worked there too? If not, then how do you have ANY idea what testing I did. In fact the majority of test cases I ran, I CREATED MY SELF!!!!! And I created them AS A CONSUMER. My job as a tester was not to validate the product but rather BREAK it. We were rewarded not on how FEW bugs we found but by how many. The entire test team was completely independent from development. But of course since you come from the perspective of NEVER working at Microsoft, you are best to know how it DEFINES it's procedures. Which is about as ridiculous as me based on my flight sim experience trying to tell a Flight Captain how to fly his 747. I'm sorry, but your broad generalizations only serve to highlight your ignorance, not only of Microsoft but of the entire Software industry."No Will. I've never worked at Microsoft. As a business owner, I can tell you that I wouldn't last long at MS. Because my training and instainct would be to fire a whole lot of folks who are failing to get the job done. And the job I would want is for the company to work with others in making the product compatible. This goes against MS culture... which is to compell others to fall in line with MS doctrine (gee... that WHQL issue comes to mind)."First, all of the ATI cards under development were DirectX 8 compliant. Only now is fully DX9 compliant drivers coming out. And it is not MS's job to "coordinate" it's product with ATI or any other persons drivers. The test team notes the deficiency, if it is an issue with DirectX, then DirectX team takes the lead, it it is traced to the "driver" then it is ATI's responsibility. Are you saying that Microsoft should hold it's release date until ATI decides or NOT decides to fix the driver? Secondly, the July 29 release date was announced well in advance and had it slipped, who would have been roasted on a spit. NOT ATI, NOT NVIDIA. Again, you really should stick with what you know."You've spent way too much time in the MS world. It is every company's responsibility to make sure their products work with established and available products. Microsoft doesn't understand that... but then they are one of the few complanies in the world who actually believe that they get to make the rules. Again, arrogance!And you are wrong in your depiction of ATI cards. The 9700 Pro, introduced more than a year ago, was the first DX9 card introduced to the consumer market. Also, FS9 is not a DX9 product... rather it is DX8. So why couldn't Microsoft coordinate with an existing hardware supplier their upcoming (and still in beta) simulator?Since you are so profoundly certain that Microsoft's "focus groups" are truly aimed at what the consumer wants, please tell us if you were on the MS payroll while partaking in these groups? Anybody at MS take you to luch while you were there? Did you get the standard company line discussion while you were there? Please, tell us more about your experiences in that secret world of Microsoft.Finally, you mention ISO audit and standards certification like you know what you're taling about. All you saw is the auditors walking around, eating your pastries and drinking your coffee. I actually PAID for the whole experience! That's right, my signature is on the check that paid for it all. So don't try to tell me what it costs. And by the way, if your complany recently paid to become ISO 9000 compliant, they got ripped off. ISO 9000 is old history. ISO 9002 is the current standard. Which means that my company wouldn't buy the time of day from yours.

>Anyway, off my soapbox.... Why don't people try working with>Microsoft and quit expecting mission critical bug response>times for a hobby....>Yep, and it looks like this "hobby" has become a replacement for real life to some people on this forum...Marches on the MS offices at Redman????--------he,he,bla,bla,bla.......L.Adamson

>made possible only because Microsoft's OS is designed around>an open architecture in which you are free to buy your own>CPU, own Motherboard, Own Memory, Own Video Sub system, Own>soundcard, and shop around to get the cheapest or best that>you desire.And a big thank you to IBM for making the PC an open architecture. It was the only way they could catch up to Apple at the time. >Sure, MacOS X and Solaris don't have a lot of bugs. But with>those operating systems you are pretty much tied to a static>set of hardware. Kind of makes it easy to write an OS when>you force your customer to buy only YOUR hardware...You can bet if MS had created the PC dedicated hardware would be exactly what we would have today.

Finally, you mention ISO audit and standards certification like you know what you're taling about. All you saw is the auditors walking around, eating your pastries and drinking your coffee. I actually PAID for the whole experience! That's right, my signature is on the check that paid for it all. So don't try to tell me what it costs. And by the way, if your complany recently paid to become ISO 9000 compliant, they got ripped off. ISO 9000 is old history. ISO 9002 is the current standard. Which means that my company wouldn't buy the time of day from yours.Oh, and you signing the check makes you an expert.Sorry, my bad. The company that I work for is actually ISO 9001:2000 compliant, and is such because we also design our own products. You will also note, that it is THE 2000 standard is the most recent as the original ISO 9000, 9001, 9002 and 9003 standards were 1994 standards. Of course you also know that 9000, 9001, 9002, and 9003 have nothing to do about how current they are, but rather what type of business you are running.ISO 9001 is the most stringent, as it covers companies that design, produce, service and install their productsISO 9002 deals with companies that usually produce products for other companies based on other companies designs. For example, if I outsource the manufacture of my circuit board to another company, I want that company to be ISO 9002: Since they didn't design the board, they do not have the design controls.ISO 9003 deals primarily with third party organizations that do not designe or produce, but rather certify. Therefore 9003 relates mostly to testing organizations, such as UL or other "certifying" agenciesOf course you already know, You being ISO 9002, your requirements are exactly the same as our company, but since you DON'T design what you produce, you do not need to have the design controls implemented in ISO 9001. So please don't try and BS us by thinking that since your 9002 is a higher number it is somehow a more complete or recent standards. The original ISO 9000 GROUP of standards were all initially developed at the same time in 1994, and recently were upgraded to the :2000 level.I really don't care, if you are ISO9002:2000 you are compliant with the latest standard, just like the company I work for is at ISO9001:2000.

"Yep, and it looks like this "hobby" has become a replacement for real life to some people on this forum..."Glad you're happy with all of your MS products. Some don't agree. Can't wait for your next MSFS beta tesing, Larry. Being the "company" man that you are, your efforts should bode well for the consumer.When are you MS guys gonna figure this out. It's not about bugs or patches or "towing the company line". It's about a company who clearly failed to coordinate their new product development with established hardware and driver technology. And they did so due to their well established arrogance toward other developers in the industry. In this case ATI. Maybe next time it will be your video card manufacturer, Nvidia (though I'm sure they have had enough of Microsoft for a while. Afterall, Nvidia is working on their own OS... and more power to them).You have the short sighted perspective that all posting against MS here are bashing their sim. Wrong! We're unhappy due to their arrogance, usual business practice of dumping problems they've created on others, and general lack of interacion with their customers (all their customers... not just the FS buyers).

You've got alot to learn about manufacturing. The only part of your post you got right is that 9003 is certificate based. And if indeed your company is ISO 9000 compliant they are behind the times. And yes, I know what I'm talking about because it was my money that was being spent. You on the other hand were nothing more than an unwilling bystander to the process.But let's stick to the point here, Will. Tell us more about the fabulous Micrsoft focus groups, and how they make our purchases better. More succinctly, tell us who were you collecting your paychecks from during your focus groups?While you're at it, tell us how the world's largest software developer could possibly FUBAR the simple task of coordinating with one of the industry's biggest video card developers the implementation of established hardware and driver technology? And then continue to ignore, through their total silence on the matter, their paying customers (you know the one's... us folks those focus groups are directed at).We're waiting to be enlightened, Will.

Well, if you knew what YOU were talking about, you would have read that my company is ISO 9001:2000 compliant. I errored in saying ISO 9000 compliant because I was using the general term.Now since you KNOW what you are talking about, and you paid for your ISO 9002, then you ALSO know that you have until Dec of THIS year to transition to ISO 9001:2000. From the ISO website:On 15 December 2000, the revised and improved ISO 9001:2000 was published to replace the three 1994 versions of ISO 9001, ISO 9002 and ISO 9003 and thus became the only certification standard in the ISO 9000 series. Organizations certified to the 1994 versions were given a three-year period, until 15 December 2003, to make the transition to ISO 9001:2000. The new ISO 9001:2000 was part of the revision of the ISO 9000 series (link to press release 787 "Launching of ISO 9000:2000 series on 15 December") carried out by ISO technical committee ISO/TC 176. In addition, TC I76 has also developed supporting documents to assist users in making the transition to the new versions, or in undertaking ISO 9000 implementation for the first time.I admit that I may not have the total big picture of ISO, but if you think signing a dotted line that some accountant hands you and states you have to do it because it's "good for business" makes you more of an expert than a member of the audit team, then fine.But if you are ISO 9002, and not yet ISO 9001:2000 compliant, you are behind the times, wrong, or perhaps talking out your butt. But at least I know to go to the source to get my information.Which by the way, is what this is all about. You complain about Microsoft's arrogance, and their "corporate" structure, and their "practices" without ever witnessing what it is like in the first place.As a contractor, I got a view into the day to day operations of Microsoft that you will never have. But you want ME to offer up my credentials?The focus groups you speak of, go on constantly. They not only provide the opportunity for customers to be familiar with products, but also give the opportunity for Microsoft to get feedback. Hey, I can't tell you what happened with the drivers between ATI and Nvidia. I wasn't privy to that. I do know one thing. That Microsoft doesn't go around going......Ha Ha Ha... We screwed up...We'll make ATI fix it on their next driver release....You have criticized me on my ignorance of ISO procedures and various other aspects of our conversation. Yet, you have offered no expertise on what you talk about. I have worked for Microsoft as a contracter. I have worked in the test team for the games group. I DO know a little more than you do about this. BUT because of my experience, I have been "brainwashed". Please tell me I am dealing with an adult here and not some 13 year old Linux geek who has an I Hate Bill Gates bumper sticker on his scooter. Because your blatent arrogance and ignorance speak volumes.Because you wrote a check to a certifying activity and can put up an ISO 9002 plaque on your office, and put a logo on your website, you think you are an ISO expert. The same way you feel that because you purchase Microsoft products, you some how are an expert on how the internal operations, attitudes, of a company you couldn't even find on a map. I guess when you buy a car, that makes you an expert on car manufacturing too.And you say Microsoft is Arrogant. BTW: The clock is ticking.....I'd transition to ISO9001:2000 if I were you....

"I admit that I may not have the total big picture of ISO, but if you think signing a dotted line that some accountant hands you and states you have to do it because it's "good for business" makes you more of an expert than a member of the audit team, then fine."At least you can admit one of your mistakes. Too bad you're still thinking small. An accountant didn't hand me a check so that I could hang a plaque on my wall... I made the decision. It was MY money. Get it, now? And it's probably more money than you earn in three years... and that's if you have a good job. Don't for a minute believe that I didn't do my homework before I bought the package.If nothing else you have demonstrated your clear ignorance of how the world turns outside of Micrsoft. You believe their business model and practices are the norm in today's business world. They're not! They are clearly the practices of a monopoly. If you're comfortable with that monoploy, then so be it. Many are not. I and many others believe the problems of ATI cards within this latest sim is Micrsoft's mistake. Plain and simple. In the real world, they would be held accountable. We also realize that they probably won't fix the problem... instead leaving the fix to ATI.A final lesson in business for your programmer's mindset... the next time you buy a piece of hardware, remind yourself of the money ATI gets to spend to fix Microsoft's mistake. You know better than most here what companies like Nvidia and ATI spend on their driver teams. So in the end, who gets to pick up the tab on Microsoft's mistake? Not Microsoft, not nvidia, and not even ATI... it will be and I and every other consumer.

John once again Microsoft should at least tell us something. You yourself have stated how they treated you, Will has confirmed the same thing about his experience at Redmond. Now what good is that doing the rest of us who have never heard a thing from Microsoft. They won't even give us a word as to when the SDK's are going to be released or if their going to be releasing them with this version at all. Same goes for the patches. I think we all would want a good working relationship with Microsoft, I for one hate these kinds of discussions. But just because you've experienced a certain kind of treatment that the rest of us haven't seen doesn't make our comments irrelevant or wrong. Does Microsoft care for it's customers, well show us the same treatment you give these fortunate few. Give us some goodies, make good on your word or if you can

"I work in IT just like you John and my view of MS customer support is a total 180 degrees from yours."Well said post (I just included the quote above to comment on it). I do agree that Microsoft needs to do more to make itself visible to ALL simmers--not just those giving them lip service or a press release from time to time. I miss the days I mentioned where their reps would visit the small PC groups scattered throughout the country. They seemed a bit hungrier for business then.As for your quote, I can't say my relationship with Microsoft is entirely perfect. A good number of my servers I'm considering dumping 2000 in favor of Linux (I actually started my network support as a UNIX installer/application trainer for some UNIX based hotel software). Microsoft's licensing is a challenge to smallish firms (:) Or does it drive me to drinking? Anyway, ATI is a big player. That issue and the ones discussed with Autogen need attention. You know where I fall on the "paid patch" debate--it's a bunch of hogwash waiting to pay for each release when fixes are coined as "enhancements". Microsoft gave us patches when they had competition. Whoever is driving the dev team better know that our memories ain't that short that we forgot there was competition once. All I can conclude with is don't bite the hand that feeds you. Don't get members of the dev team so PO'd with catch phrases like Microshaft and M$. I suspect they are on your side, but they are also dang proud of what they do. Their kids may be reading these forums. Don't insult them--work with them......-John

Well said, John. I believe that anybody who has spent much time around these forums knows I'm not a MSFS basher. I've had pretty good luck with the various versions I've owned over the years. And I believe the dev team is indeed serious about bringing us the best product they are allowed to create. That last point says it all for me... all too often it is the corporate bean counters who make the important decisions.But Microsoft's "culture" is disheartening and beyond frustrating. Folks are frustrated on all levels... from the home user, to small business (such as me), to corporate, and even the public sector (a neighboring city to mine is doing what you're contemplating for your company... dumping their Windows OS's in favor of Linux. They've come to realize that it's financially imprudent to continue paying Microsoft for support and products they've already paid for).In the end Microsoft must choose to become more receptive and responsible to their customers and business partners, or they'll be cast by the wayside.