>Those of you complaining about the patch breaking your No-CD>hack should be made aware that the No-CD hack is ILLEGAL. You>do not own your copy of FS9, you license it from Microsoft.>It's just like rent, except you don't pay a recurring fee.>Just as renters are not allowed to make unauthorized>modifications to rental property, you are not allowed to make>illegal modifications to your licensed copy of FS9. Doing so>violates your license to use the software, and in the eyes of>the law makes you no better than the pirates who trade payware>airplanes on Kazaa. It is not Microsoft's fault that your>illegal hack stops working!Blah, blah, whine. Guess what? I repainted my apartment, too.Dan

I just installed the patch and it doesn't affect the No-CD hack exe. I think Microsoft unofficially endorces the file anyway seeing they left it alone... :-) I love the new patch, I just need my extra autogen back.....

There will another "hack" out by the end of the weekend, I'm sure. In the meantime, I don't think that anyone here needs a righteous lecture.

Yes it kind of pointless...I don

"It is not Microsoft's fault that your illegal hack stops working!"I used to spout the same nonsense, until I realized that many people I respect here use the No-CD fix to preserve wear and tear on their hardware. Never mind the legal right users have to make archival media. It's been argued in courts with some cases still pending that copy protecting software in a manner where it can't be backed up is illegal, as it can deprive users the right to execute their end of the license. And, with only 13 posts under your belt, I believe you really need to establish your bona fides here before you come in with language that only incites animosity and anger.... Calling someone the legal equal of a pirate without taking into context the entire picture seems more grandstanding than anything else. And btw--was that you going five miles under the speed limit today on I-10 today? I know you NEVER speed since that's breaking the law and you'd be the legal equivalent of a criminal :) It must have been you, right....'Nuff said-John

ROFLMAO. A card carrying member of the former hall monitors society of America. :D

>ROFLMAO. A card carrying member of the former hall monitors>society of America. :DNo, it's not that. I'm referring to the people in the other thread #### about "MS is probably just trying to be arseholes and say we can't use the patch", and crapping on MS for giving us a patch just because they can't use the No-CD hack.I don't care if you use it, I don't care if someone makes it, but don't crap on MS for giving us a patch just because it breaks your hack!I probably could have worded this better but I was mad. I'm a programmer myself and this is really insulting.

Apparently a backup folder is made of all old files in case an uninstall is needed. Perhaps if the backup folder contains fs9.exe (assuming one does as MS says and replaces the hack with the correct one before installing) then it would seem there is a new fs9.exe as MS says, and in that case I would assume they are telling the truth that replacing the hack file afterwards will lose some of the features of the upgrade. That's how it would logically seem to me anyway. I suppose the only way to know is to compare results over a longer period with the proper new one and the hack.

"I probably could have worded this better but I was mad. I'm a programmer myself and this is really insulting."In that context I understand--same profession here to a degree, although my side is writing the programming specs and designing the client/server architecture. I get pretty miffed when people try to hack into our software package.We used to use a "lock/key" mechanism to control our licenses. A month before New Years, during the nightly close of business routine, a message would print saying "30". The next night, "29", and so on. At "0", we'd lock the customer out from their data.We received a call one night from an auditor, saying he saw this funny number printing in his reports nightly--what to do? Turns out the owner of his business had copied our software and installed it at another location. The owner paid up ($30,000) when caught in the act--better than court.Similar copy protection can be used in entertainment titles. That would still allow for users to make archival copies of their work. That doesn't excuse people making the comments you quoted, and also my respect for you went up umpteen notches with your quote above..Regards,John

Installed the patch. Ran my PMDG 737NG and used my old No-CD patch. NO problem and disk is still in my desk drawer.

>"I probably could have worded this better but I was mad. I'm>a programmer myself and this is really insulting.">>In that context I understand--same profession here to a>degree, although my side is writing the programming specs and>designing the client/server architecture. I get pretty miffed>when people try to hack into our software package.>>We used to use a "lock/key" mechanism to control our licenses.> A month before New Years, during the nightly close of>business routine, a message would print saying "30". The next>night, "29", and so on. At "0", we'd lock the customer out>from their data.>>We received a call one night from an auditor, saying he saw>this funny number printing in his reports nightly--what to do?> Turns out the owner of his business had copied our software>and installed it at another location. The owner paid up>($30,000) when caught in the act--better than court.>>Similar copy protection can be used in entertainment titles. >That would still allow for users to make archival copies of>their work. That doesn't excuse people making the comments>you quoted, and also my respect for you went up umpteen>notches with your quote above..>>Regards,>>JohnI agree to an extent; what I can't understand is why MS gave us FS2002 without the CD checking, and then put it back in for FS9, just like that POS FS2000 had.Another thing I have a hard time understanding is why MS couldn't just implement the same verification they use with XP and have to have the software activated??I 'proudly' bought my copy of FS9 for 54.99, and I also happily used that 'hack', simply because I got sick and tired of having to take it out and put it back in all the time.

>Those of you complaining about the patch breaking your No-CD>hack should be made aware that the No-CD hack is ILLEGAL. You>do not own your copy of FS9, you license it from Microsoft.>It's just like rent, except you don't pay a recurring fee.>Just as renters are not allowed to make unauthorized>modifications to rental property, you are not allowed to make>illegal modifications to your licensed copy of FS9. Doing so>violates your license to use the software, and in the eyes of>the law makes you no better than the pirates who trade payware>airplanes on Kazaa. It is not Microsoft's fault that your>illegal hack stops working!>>That's not the case if you live in Germany.A NoCD Patch is legal in Germany.

Nein, ist er seit ein paar Jahren schon nicht mehr.

>Nein, ist er seit ein paar Jahren schon nicht mehr.Dann lies mal auf folgender Seite die Punkte 15-18:http://www.internetrecht-rostock.de/urheberrecht-faq.htmEin NoCD Crack ist erlaubt, zumindest der Besitz und das Benutzen,vorrausgesetzt man hat das Original.Das einzige was verboten ist ist das Vertreiben/Verteilen eines NoCD Cracks.

Thoughts about the patch and no cd crack. I have active cam which needs to be updated with the patch. I did that and no prblems then I read that you dont need to get rid of your no cd crack prior to installing the patch. I uninstalled the patch put back the modified no cd crack then patched FS9 but I could not get active cam to work. So my thoughts are that you can keep the no cd crack but the patch althougt will install will no let the patch work even if the sim starts.