One of the major problems I find with software activation is that legitimate customers like me have to deal with the "no remaining activation" message.When I purchased the VRS F/A 18 from Best Buy, I thought this would never be a problem. After deciding to create a Raid0 with my SSDs, and reinstalled everything, I got the dreaded message. Now I have a choice, contact the VRS support and request activation, or just avoid buying software that needs activation.I've decided to avoid buying anything that requires activation. Can you hear me Aerosoft?Some of you might think that, I'm out of line however activation has not stopped piracy and the only customers that are inconvenienced are the legitimate ones like me!

If you live by your declaration .., in about two years time you will not have a single software that you can buy..... hope you have already un-installed your OS.

If you live by your declaration .., in about two years time you will not have a single software that you can buy..... hope you have already un-installed your OS.

So, what's your policy on this then? 'Accept and try to forget about it'? Just wondering. Silent acceptance often enough is a safe way to support the wrong things, not only in business matters.That strange OS example was used by another guy before and just showed that these not protecting mechanisms already are so commonly used that everybody thinks that they are ok. So some of "us" seem to believe that the wrong thing turns into a good one if you find enough people to do it.If Windows does it wrong and company B does it too, only C and D have to follow to form a rule where nobody can escape from. Nice, that's business!I'm with DJ Jose, he's right to complain about more or less complicated protection mechanisms which only set up valid customers and are no protection against a pirate's mind and the motivation behind it.As explained, activation limits don't make people buy your software and let go of all those Google search results. It's the product itself which leads guys to spend some Dollars on good software and the good service will make them doing this again and again. There's a trust thing forming up then and by forcing this trust to establish with nasty protections does not succeed.

Security has not stopped terrorism and the only passengers who are inconvenienced are legitimate ones like me.

I'm not going to compare something that has to do people's lives than with how a customer should be treated.

If you live by your declaration .., in about two years time you will not have a single software that you can buy.....

I doubt it. FlyTampa has the best looking and best performing sceneries and I don't have a problem installing them. You don't see them complaining that they are going to go out of business. As long as they continue, their passionate followers will continue to support them.Sim flight add-on developers, unlike artists who might have millions of fans, have a small community of supporters. I think it would be judicious for them to continue to make them happy.As for Microsoft, I don't have to buy any of their new software and I won't!

So software companies shouldn't use basic and easy methods of copy protection all because you want to be entitled to use the software how ever you please? And can't be bothered for 2 minutes when you reinstall?

So, what's your policy on this then? 'Accept and try to forget about it'? Just wondering. Silent acceptance often enough is a safe way to support the wrong things, not only in business matters.That strange OS example was used by another guy before and just showed that these not protecting mechanisms already are so commonly used that everybody thinks that they are ok. So some of "us" seem to believe that the wrong thing turns into a good one if you find enough people to do it.If Windows does it wrong and company B does it too, only C and D have to follow to form a rule where nobody can escape from. Nice, that's business!I'm with DJ Jose, he's right to complain about more or less complicated protection mechanisms which only set up valid customers and are no protection against a pirate's mind and the motivation behind it.As explained, activation limits don't make people buy your software and let go of all those Google search results. It's the product itself which leads guys to spend some Dollars on good software and the good service will make them doing this again and again. There's a trust thing forming up then and by forcing this trust to establish with nasty protections does not succeed.

activation does not bother me .. its such a small issue.  One that you might have to deal with once per year.

So software companies shouldn't use basic and easy methods of copy protection all because you want to be entitled to use the software how ever you please? And can't be bothered for 2 minutes when you reinstall?

I think every honest customer should receive the product or service they paid for.

Hi,Did you or did you not receive the product you paid for?

Hi,Did you or did you not receive the product you paid for?

If I buy a CD that contains a software that will not work, or will work partially, then I did not receive what I paid for. If I buy a FlyTampa scenery, install it using my name and code, works as it should, then I've received the product's real value.That real value may also come from years of enjoyment.My issue is not with activation. It's with the inability to install and/or activate. The developer has my personal information. I don't see what the confusion is.

I think every honest customer should receive the product or service they paid for.

What does that even mean? You sound like a politician.

<br />If I buy a CD that contains a software that will not work, or will work partially, then I did not receive what I paid for. If I buy a FlyTampa scenery, install it using my name and code, works as it should, then I've received the product's real value.<br /><br />That real value may also come from years of enjoyment.<br /><br />My issue is not with activation. It's with the inability to install and/or activate. The developer has my personal information. I don't see what the confusion is.<br />

<br /><br /><br />The confusion is you think software should be custom made to appease your situation and yours only and anyone who doesn't do that obviously doesn't care about their customers. Your logic is faulty and attitude is boring. Go try running windows without activating. Or MS office.

First, I love the bug. My problem was I was attempting to install it on my laptop since my desktop was unavailable and got the "Only one activation at a time" message and the only way I could install it on my laptop was to regain access to my desktop (2000 miles away) and uninstall it. That did pee me off as I can understand inet activations, PMDGs works fine, but to force me buy another copy for each machine? It's not a O/S for jebeezus sakes.

In the time you have spent posting here, you could have e-mailed the company asking for re-activation, gotten an answer back, entered your code, and been using the software again.

I'm not going to compare something that has to do people's lives than with how a customer should be treated.

Why not? The logic is the same and so your argument is flawed. Criminals are criminals whether they are terrorists or pirates. No one can know in advance who is an honest customer and who is a criminal and so must protect themselves against criminals. You should blame the criminals for this - not the honest businesses who protect themselves againsy criminals.

Although I agree that sometimes activation can be a pain in the &amp;@(&#036;*, really it's difficult to see what else a company can do if it is to protect its work from the unscrupulous.One only has to have some work stolen to completely sympathise with where those companies are coming from; I've had several bits of artwork stolen from me over the years by people, including by one audacious git who actually unscrewed one of my paintings off the wall of Salford City Art Gallery, where it was in an exhibition, and buggered off with it! Some years later I was told that the same painting showed up on the set for a photograph used in an Yves Saint Laurent magazine advert of all things, so I know that whoever nicked it must have sold it for a fairly decent sum of money.When someone duplicates a bit of software without permission, it is no less flagrant an act of theft, just one that in some unscrupulous circles is somehow considered socially acceptable and is also something people can do from the privacy of their home with little risk of being caught. But that doesn't make it any less unpalatable for the person who has had their efforts stolen from them. So although it is a pain in the &amp;@(&#036;* to have to activate software, it is the price we pay for having things so easily accessible via the internet. We might not like it, but really that's the way it has to be.Al

Why not? The logic is the same and so  your argument is flawed.  Criminals are criminals whether they are terrorists or pirates. No one can know in advance who is an honest customer and who is a criminal and so must protect themselves against criminals. You should blame the criminals for this - not the honest businesses who protect themselves againsy criminals.

Comparing software pirates who get things for free and criminals and terrorists? That's beyond ridiculous.