(and they should).

I sympathize, Jahman - you're entitled to your opinion (it's also my opinion, too) - but it's a Microsoft business decision, probably argued and shouted over for a year or more at every level of the MS organization. It's their company; their product, their right - and we use it under their license. Fact is, we're lucky that it does, indeed, work - and works very well on W7, even 64-bit.

Bloody lot of use they were.

Unfair comment about someone at the bottom of the chain; no power; no authority and no application knowledge, and taking hits from a frustrated customer - just a punching bag. Was probably someone's Mother, Father, son or daughter trying to make ends meet.. Have a nice day.

My FSX Gold box (and I imagine everyone else's) states quite clearly under System Requirements OS Windows SP2 1 Gb Windows Vista 1Gb, That's perfectly clear and Microsoft has no obligation to issue a patch for Win 7. We got what we paid for!

I sympathize, Jahman - you're entitled to your opinion (it's also my opinion, too) - but it's a Microsoft business decision, probably argued and shouted over for a year or more at every level of the MS organization. It's their company; their product, their right - and we use it under their license. Fact is, we're lucky that it does, indeed, work - and works very well on W7, even 64-bit.

Agreed!

Unfair comment about someone at the bottom of the chain; no power; no authority and no application knowledge, and taking hits from a frustrated customer - just a punching bag. Was probably someone's Mother, Father, son or daughter trying to make ends meet..

That's why when I complain to an employee of a large corporation I always preface my complaint with the explanation that the complaint is directed at the employee in his capacity as a customer representative of the corporation and no to the employee as the person.

My FSX Gold box (and I imagine everyone else's) states quite clearly under System Requirements OS Windows SP2 1 Gb Windows Vista 1Gb, That's perfectly clear and Microsoft has no obligation to issue a patch for Win 7. We got what we paid for!

Nevermind when you bought your copy of FSX W7 likely hadn't been released yet, companies never have an obligation to upkeep their reputation, that's quite true. Should Microsoft try a similar strategy in the corporate world, I can assure you they wouldn't get very far. Also your "we got what we paid for" would sound differently if you were a youngster whose dad just bought you FSX for your birthday a few days ago and then you were having activation problems on your W7 PC, and got useless product support from Microsoft to go with it. Now I know from personal experience Microsoft bends over backwards for large corporations and in certain instances even releases custom executables to make sure everything works as it should, even though no such guarantee is given in writing at any time. So much for what's written. Cheers, - jahman.

Shoudn't Dad should have checked before buying - or is no one now expected to take any responsibility themselves? Of course Microsoft bends over backwards for corporations because they pay it large sums of money both for the software and for ongoing support. I suggest the typical FS user probably pays Microsoft no more than $10-$15 a year on average. That's not going to get much support, especially for a game.

The only difference between a large corporation as a customer vs. retail is us retail folks generally don't band together to push our weight. It's too bad some folks don't realize this and always side with corporations instead (an interesting study in psychology!). It would be a lot better if we simmers could band together and, for example, try to convince MS of an SP3 that would fix all the bugs (no new features). Too late for that, I realize. As for reading the fine print, you've got a lot to learn about how the real world works, for example after a health insurance fails to approve a medical procedure for your wife (who then dies) just because said health insurance company hires staff to reject medical approvals and pays them bonuses for doing so. Yes, you might sue and win, but your wife would still be dead. Or perhaps you are out of a job and then out on the street (family included!) because of the fine print in your mortgage, because there is a recession brought about by large corporations acting irresponsibly that you had nothing at all to do with because you are just a janitor at the local police station and there are personnell cutbacks due to decreasing tax revenues. You did nothing wrong, you always played by the rules, but you and your family are out on the street because you can't get another job due to the high une,loyment rate and perhaps your age (but the fellas that wreaked havoc that we tax payers had to pay for get to keep their jobs and their bonuses and their homes!). So as far as I'm concerned, Microsoft can stick their fine print where the sun don't shine: If they release a new operating system, it better be compatible with all their Win32 software currently on sale (or else stop selling that software). Claiming your latest OS is the best and the greatest and then including fine print to the contrary is a cheap trick. So much for fine print, useless EULA's included. Cheers, - jahman.

Cheers indeed!

I'd suggest you need to understand how the real world works. The difference between Microsoft's commercial and retail customers is that, as I already said, commercial customers pay much more and also Microsoft relies on commercial customers for its existence. It doesn't rely on its games customers. It closed ACES because it wasn't going to deliver what it wanted and it will kill Flight if it decides that isn't either and the global effects will be negligible. Have you any idea how much 15 min of telephone support costs? I suggest it's the same order as the profit Nicrosoft makes on the sale if a single copy of flight Simulator. The way the ral qworld works means you aren't going to get ithere will always be small print in any agreement because no one, literally no one in the rweal world, is going to offer an open-ended committment. It's not a cheap trick to put the system requirements on the outside of the box. However, it is stupid to ignore them and then complain.

So much for fine print, useless EULA's included]

So you approve of ignoring, say, PMDG's and Eaglesoft's EULAs or is it only Microsoft's?

I'd suggest you need to understand how the real world works. The difference between Microsoft's commercial and retail customers is that, as I already said, commercial customers pay much more

That's a simplistic comparison because it doesn't include the millions of gamers/simmers out there. Total revenue is decidedly not negligible or Microsoft would not devote the resources to gaming that it does.

and also Microsoft relies on commercial customers for its existence.

That's a bold statement not at all supported by Microsoft's financial statements.

It doesn't rely on its games customers. It closed ACES because it wasn't going to deliver what it wanted

That sounds more like a management mistake on many levels, like poor staffing decisions and poor product feature decisions and bad timing hurried by bean counters trying to extract an extra dollar of profit. Proof the sim market is there is Microsoft is re-launching the product, but it still is inefficient to fire everyone and orphan the code, rather than keep a core team going and gradually rotate-in new talent.

and it will kill Flight if it decides that isn't either and the global effects will be negligible.

If MS kills Flight it's because they failed at developing the right product.

Have you any idea how much 15 min of telephone support costs?

What? In India? You've got to be kidding!

I suggest it's the same order as the profit Nicrosoft makes on the sale if a single copy of flight Simulator. The way the ral qworld works means you aren't going to get it

If they released more SPs they could get rid of 90% of the support calls. Now that would be intelligent! See, the fine print is useless because cutomers will still buy FSX for W7 and eventually W8 and MS will have to waste their money on needless support calls, when a recompile of the executable with the proper compile flags would solve the problem and be a lot cheaper.

here will always be small print in any agreement because no one, literally no one in the rweal world, is going to offer an open-ended committment.

The problem is not what corporates do, the problem is why folks like you defend them at any cost! It would seem you are working for Microsoft! Left to folks like you there would not be any consumer protection laws at all because, hey, every contract you entered into (credit card, checking account, insurance, mortgage) already spelled-out all necessary conditions. But of course those consumer protection laws exist, so if you are intellectually honest and consistent in your views you should write to your bank, credit-card and insurance companies and wave those consumer protection guarantees that others with views like mine have fought long and hard for folks with views like yours to benefit from for free.

It's not a cheap trick to put the system requirements on the outside of the box. However, it is stupid to ignore them and then complain.

No, it is a cheap trick because the proper trick is to recompile the executable so it runs with the new OS (less desirable: Tweak the new OS so it will run the existing executable and believe me, it has benn done a lot!).

So you approve of ignoring, say, PMDG's and Eaglesoft's EULAs or is it only Microsoft's?

Your mommy is going to spank you for putting words in my mouth. Cheers, - jahman.

The more you post the more you shw you lack of understanding of the real world. Of course Microsoft depends on its commercial custmers fior its existence. Do you really believe it would survive if it driopped them and only sold retail products? Its results for 2010 show its total revenue was $62,484M of which $8,048M was from its Entertainment & Services Division. As well a XBox hardware and softwarew and games, the latter figure includes all retail sales and marketing for Microsoft Office and Windows operating system. Its less than Microsoft's expenditure on R&D. I didn't put words in your mouth - I quoted what you said about EULAs and asked what products you applied it to. Your reasponse speaks volumes!

Like colorblind folks that don't pick-up on certain colors, there are important RW issues as I explained that you are not seeing. Your World is dominated by corporates that do as they please under retail contracts that they only get to write ("the fine print") and everybody else has to just "take it or leave it", so there really is no point in continuing with this exchange. BTW, extrapolating from me saying "EULAs are useless" to you saying "so you approve of ignoring, say, PMDG's and Eaglesoft's EULAs or is it only Microsoft's? " is a textbook case of putting words in my mouth, which says more about you than it does about me. Cheers, - jahman.

Putting the system requirements on the outside of the box is not using "small print". The answer to my question "so you approve of ignoring say, PMDG's and Eaglesoft's EULAs or it it only Microsoft's?" is a simple yes or no. The fact you didn't answer is what speaks volumes.