If facts derived from actual history opinions make, then I guess you're right and its my opinion. I guess what I really meant to say is: its opinion derived from the failure of obscurity in the history of this industry, until full disclosure became the norm in response.I agree there are those in the world who see Microsoft as the "great satan" (as you put it), for whatever reason. But I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread. If it was directed in my direction, as it seemed to be, I can assure you I am not a part of that group. I don't discriminate with my praise or derision of Microsoft: I apply either as appropriate where my "opinion" leads me. Microsoft's history with security issues (as well as customer support from their gaming group - what the real topic of this thread was supposed to be) happen to fall in the latter group.Take care,Elrond

Sorry, got double posted.

I think its clear I made a mistake using the Windows security headlines to highlight and link the support issues for Flight Simulator in a offhand way (in what I thought was a clever way, I should learn from this :-)). This thread has gotten way off track toward the security end, which we know has nothing to do with Flight Simulator or this particular forum.My apologies. Specially to Mike who has a good idea for the community and AVSIM for leading the topic astray from what this forum is intended.Maybe you can start a specific thread dedicated to the poll issue Mike?Again my apologies,Elrond

There is significant leeway being made in this discussion. For people here, sufficient customer support means Microsoft personally replying to posts made here and doing exactly what everyone wants. That's a pretty liberal definition, and one that doesn't clearly define whether or not Microsoft offers good customer service and relations in this area. Judging by the response I've received by showing a bit of support for Microsoft and for their software, it's no surprise that the developers don't want to spend their time here.Jim

"There is significant leeway being made in this discussion. For people here, sufficient customer support means Microsoft personally replying to posts made here and doing exactly what everyone wants. That's a pretty liberal definition, and one that doesn't clearly define whether or not Microsoft offers good customer service and relations in this area. "You assume alot, and poorly perceive what you read.

>>Its the role of the OS vendor to provide system security because its the bugs in their software that require system security. No bugs, no need for security to block exploits of those bugs. Its a simple product liability (as well as image and trust) issue for the vendors. Thats a very universal understanding, so I'm finding it hard to clearly see any argument you're making.<< Elrond,Are you saying that "system security" is only necessary because of the existence of bugs and/or exploits in an operating system? I wholeheartedly agree that vendors should fix bugs in their software whenever they are found but to assign total responsibility for "system security" to the OS vendor is ludicrous and is the point where I disagree with you.Here is my point...In post #6 you said: "Using this type of non-security, criminals out there have free reign to exploit those flaws while customers are fully ignorant of whats happening (trojans being installed, key loggers being installed, etc, etc, etc"In response, I cited examples of legitimate, commercially available keyloggers that do not operate by exploiting flaws in the operating system. And while these keyloggers have legitimate uses like monitoring employee activity, etc., in the hands of someone intent on doing harm they could be dangerous. However, it is not the role of the operating system vendor to provide security against legally available products like those I cited, even though they can be used for illegal purposes. I suppose you would blame the operating system vendor for this incident that was reported yesterday: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6973732.htm

Out of curiosity, Greg, are you always so unfriendly and rude to those who disagree with you? It's not a very attractive trait.Jim

"Are you saying that "system security" is only necessary because of the existence of bugs and/or exploits in an operating system?"Thats exactly what I'm saying. It was your idea to use the phrase "system security" in response to the Operating System issues being discussed here, not mine. So, that narrow topic is what I responded to. The bugs in an OS require system security fixes and prevention directly from the Operating System vendor. This includes effective patches, effective patching mechanisms and delivery methods, effective training and education practices, effective policies to protect the customers while patches are under development, etc, etc."but to assign total responsibility for "system security" to the OS vendor is ludicrous"I also agree. Who said anything about "total" responsibility? You can't mix two wholly separate issues into one category and expect two separate arguments from it. When it comes to application or corporate security, indeed I wholly expect customers and corporations to implement effective security policies to protect themselves from outsiders as well as insiders... This includes the information and tools provided them by OS vendors, as well as information and tools from outside resources.These are two wholly separate issues. A third issues you bring up is "legitimate, commercially available keyloggers". Thats a topic in and of itself. One which I'll decline to debate in this forum to try and keep this thread from going way too far off track.Take care,Elrond

Nitpickers ;)I for one support your efforts. Just because it's Microsoft doesn't mean they can ignore industry-standard support practices. That's what this is all about, isn't it.

"sufficient customer support means Microsoft personally replying to posts made here and doing exactly what everyone wants."That may be the intent, or the perceived intent, of a few souls here (I haven't read any as yet), but its certainly not the main argument being made in these recent threads.Quite the opposite actually, as you see in the "poll" section below as well as in other threads. Whats being asked of MS Game Studios is parity with whats being provided by many of the top gaming houses in the world today and nothing more: that MS Game Studios directly interact with their End User Developers in an Appropriate and dedicated forum... Which isn't, I'll point out again, posts made here in this or any other general (usually politically charged) forum. Its inside access to technical details, technical data and the technical thoughts of the internal developers thats being called for. Exactly the type of support that other top ten games receive today.The second thing being asked is for MS Game Studios to support their software post release in a much more thorough fashion: by releasing patches to fix non-critical bugs. This too is industry standard support from the top gaming houses today - support that MS Game Studios routinely resists. Indeed, they only provide this type of fix by upselling you the next version of the software... Which also includes new features - with new bugs. This goes on and on.I hope that clears up any misunderstanding what "customer support" is being asked of MS Game Studios by the majority here.Take care,Elrond

Thank you Daniel. Indeed that is the exact issue and idea this is all about. Even as I accidently did take it into the deep dark forest of the security headlines :-doh.Take care,Elrond

"Out of curiosity, Greg, are you always so unfriendly and rude to those who disagree with you? It's not a very attractive trait."No, Jim, just those I find offensive. Such as those who would be so narrowminded as to make a point of bashing anyone who refuses to accept their perspective on the world. And to bash without offering a single piece of evidence to support their point. And I will confess that I have a low tolerance for trolls and others who lack the capacity to offer anything useful.

>More brilliant contributions from the kiddy crowd. >>Enjoy your crippled software.huh?...crippled software?...not for me sir:FS2002 works great with FS2004 textures hehe...and,if you don't mind,a wee bit of advice for you sir: LIGHTEN UP!![/font]

i'm only twelve years old,you can't hold that against me!....actually,you can,but since it was YOUR post that started the "kiddy-crowd" ,what does that make you sir?...1:a clown?2:the head master?3:a grumpy old man?4:you decide?....

>Just to keep the flamers away, I'm sure you meant they>haven't been worthy of much respect when it comes to security,>and not all aspects of Microsoft. If that is the case, I>agree to an extent. I do believe the situation has gotten so>bad that they will indeed make some much needed changes now>that have not been done to date (such as supplying all>consumer versions of Windows with minimal services enabled and>built-in protection such as firewalls enabled - sooner rather>than later).>>Microsoft does indeed deserve a lot of respect in a lot of>areas: and a lot of wary criticism in a lot of other areas. >Security, unfortunately, falls in the latter category to date.> As does support for its gaming community.>>Which brings us back to what the point of the thread was>really about: that our continued voices can indeed capture MS>Game Studio's attention to *our* problems.>>Take care,>>ElrondNo sir, I mean Microsoft as a whole is not worth of my respect. Let me say that I am typing this on WinXP(I dual boot with linux...) I disliek M$ and there practices so much that I have switched my entire computing needs to linux based alternatives and have had a merry time doing it. This solution isn't for everyone, but this solution is becoming more viable for more people. The only reason M$ anything is on my HDD is because of MSFS. Plain and simple. I think there simulator is probably the best choice out there, and unfortunetly for me I can only play it under windows.I can give a whole philisophical debate about how M$ is bad, etc etc, and I am sure some people in this forum would love to defend M$, but suffice to say my choice has been made, and I won't be talked out of it. And I respect others descions to stay with windows, not that I understand it ;-)