After reading a thread yesterday regarding the licensing of FSX and how you are able to activate on 2 machines provided that the hardware doesn't "significantly" change is pretty much BS in my case. Very disappointed regarding this. Here is my experience.My machines had 2 drives a 160gig data and a 300 gig system drive. My 300gig drive bought the farm and so I've returned it back to the shop for a replacment. The 300gig only had fs2004 on it. No big deal. So, I redid my 160 drive as it was only a data drive before so I put XP on it clean install. Keep in mind I haven't even purchased FSX yet. FSX finally came out in the stores and so I bought it and installed it on my clean installed 160gig drive. Still awaiting to get my new 300gig drive back from the vendor. FSX is activated on my 160 drive and running fine. Now, I've just received my replacement 300gig drive fromt the shop and deciced to use my acronis 9.1 workstation to clone the drive from my 160 to my 300. Worked like a charm except for FSX. While running FSX it now requires to activate again. This really bites!So in conclusion if you HD fails and you only replace your drive I guess Microsoft is computing that this change is significant enough for a re-activation. And the real rub here which really gets me is the FSX technology pushes the envelope and is deemed to have a large "shelf life" not like the typical game. A typical FS product shelf life is I'm guessing 3-5 years and your telling me that during that perioda lot of people won't go through at least 2 pcs at least the hardcore. If the #### activation is tripped after a hard drive swap this is insane because the reliability of the drives these days has gone down.In short, this activation just purely sucks. I understand I could probably plead my case to microsoft on some 1800 line but that is way to inconvient for me. I guess i could re-activate again but how do I know if this is going to use up my 2nd activation or not? Do I just go out on a whim and assume that the reactivation process will not consider my above scenario as a new machine? It would be nice to have some kind of feadback during the activation process to know if it is considering the new activation to be a new machine or not.Can anyone shed some light. Sorry for the long post. Regards,Jeff

Jeff, it sounds like the change you made was significant enough to require reactivation. However, that sounds like it went smoothly, correct? I'm sorry if the new design isn't perfect but most feedback has been that it's perferred to the CD-check we used for FS2004.

>Jeff, it sounds like the change you made was significant>enough to require reactivation. However, that sounds like it>went smoothly, correct? I'm sorry if the new design isn't>perfect but most feedback has been that it's perferred to the>CD-check we used for FS2004.Well at this point I've haven't reactivated the product on my new 300 gig drive yet. I don't want to waste my 2nd activation as I'll probably upgrade my system in the next 6 months to 1 year. I debating to keep running the 160gig drive now as my system drive and keep the 300 as a data volume so that I don't waste my 2nd activation.What I'd like to find out is that if I reactivate again on this new drive will it count as my second activation or not? Or will the activation process assume that it is still my original machine with a new drive and only keep my activated PCs count at 1 instead of 2?Still baffled why a new hard drive is enough to warrant a significant change when all my main hardware is still the same.Jeff

Personally I would have preferred the CD-check...this activation process seems a bit too "big brother" for me.But anyway, a harddrive change is a major change if you consider that is where all the software actually resides. It is kind of like a brain transplant--after you receive the new brain, are you the same person you previously were or do you take on the identity of the guy you received the brain from (yes yes, I know brain transplants are impossible :(). The activation server probably can't figure out the answer to that question either.

wow, i feel your pain...this is really awful news. If they wanted to implement this sort of stringent system then they needed to allow alot more activations per code...this will not "fly" (no pun intended). To me it sounds almost as if MS wants to make this a subscription based product and is trying to accomplish this in some sort of half-arsed backhanded way.Hehe, i can see why Bill has stepped down (legally speaking)...apparently he needed to get out of the way of the fan.Dave

Hmm, I think purposely holding off upgrading just for this seems a bit extreme. Even if you needed to re-activate from what I've heard from other folks the call to fix the problem is pretty quick and painless. Keep in mind Windows and Office have used this scheme for years will millions of users. If it were badly flawed (to the point of actually costing MS money) it would have bben abandoned.

I think part of the problem is that there is a perception by some that the user is limited to only two installations for the life of the product (which I believe to not be the case). If the scheme works the same as XP, one can reinstall as many times as needed due to hardware changes, etc. Maybe some words on exactly how the reactivation process works would help clear the air.Doug

>Hmm, I think purposely holding off upgrading just for this>seems a bit extreme. Even if you needed to re-activate from>what I've heard from other folks the call to fix the problem>is pretty quick and painless. Keep in mind Windows and Office>have used this scheme for years will millions of users. If it>were badly flawed (to the point of actually costing MS money)>it would have bben abandoned.Be careful, what you're implying there is it doesn't matter to MS if it costs the consumer money, time and aggravation. And that's a long way from the kind of reassurances people about to splash out fortunes on FSX and the associated hardware and OS upgrades are going to want to hear. Havng said that, I think our poster is confused between `old style` FSX activation and the danger posed by the `new style` Vista activation and intrusive verification policies, which actually do scare me.The obvious solution from the consumers standpoint, which is the only one I care about (not being an MS employee or shareholder), and in the continued absence of clarity from MS on this issue is to complete all the upgrades before buying FSX. Just don't buy it, or if you do, leave it in its box, unactivated. Far from being extreme, it might be wise.While we appreciate your candour on the MS motivations TD, the consumers role is not to support MS in its pursuit of absolute profit, but to seek justification between the COST of the product and its FUNCTION to make an informed purchase decision. If MS have made wise choices and the consumer concurs, profit will result. If not, there is no compulsion to purchase FSX this week, this month or even this year. In fact, the opposite may be true. At this time FUNCTION is called into question. Answer to support consumer not guard MS profits required, please.After all, releasing a `Windows Showcase` title that cutting-edge users fear to put on Windows is not really in keeping with the corporate philosophy, is it? Not much of a showcase - and even less of an incentive for game developers to shift to DX10 development - if the market is so afraid to move to Vista it doesn't, FSX sales stutter. Put the two issues together and MS profits suffer, not the consumer. It costs us nothing to NOT migrate and is certainly not an extreme act.The OE market takes years to migrate to new OS's across the board, simply because that 90% market that everyone seems to be quoting don't replace components or computers with anything like the frequency of the remaining 10% who represent possibly 60-66% of the TOTAL SPEND in the markteplace, cumulatively.FSX activation is causing concern. Action is needed to quell that concern before Vista reinforces that concern to the detriment of sales. It would go a long way to have a statement from MS clarifying this to simmers considering whether to purchase now and migrate to new hardware either for FSX alone, or in support of Vista. If they/we could be given assurances that we will not be inconvenienced by so doing. Notice I don't just say `cost`, as inconvenience has as much a monetary value to me as it clearly does to MS from your statement.Allcott

Still baffled why a new hard drive is enough to warrant a significant change when all my main hardware is still the same.That is NOT what you did.FSX was installed and the OS and program recognized the recorded the hard drive it was installed upon.When you cloned it - the new drive does not match the old one.This is a well known and well documented issue with XP and MS Office.A new install of the application almost never requires reactivation for a new hard drive - even a system drive.A clone or image or partition magic move - which is the easiest way to steal FSX - does require reactivation.

i'm sorry, i will never understand whats so difficult with the activation? I have changed my hardware numerous times, and as a result, XP asked me numerous times for a reactivation. And ALWAYS, this was a thing of 10 seconds for the online activation, i NEVER had any problem with this!I asume that the activation routine is the same with FSX, so i really have no fear if it has to be reactived when i change my hardware some time. I had no problems with the activation with my initial FSX install, it just took 10 seconds of my life....If you ask me, its really nothing to worry about. Cheers,Michael

i'm sorry, i will never understand whats so difficult with the activation? I have changed my hardware numerous times, and as a result, XP asked me numerous times for a reactivation. And ALWAYS, this was a thing of 10 seconds for the online activation, i NEVER had any problem with this!I asume that the activation routine is the same with FSX, so i really have no fear if it has to be reactived when i change my hardware some time. I had no problems with the activation with my initial FSX install, it just took 10 seconds of my life....If you ask me, its really nothing to worry about. Cheers,Michael

Just another question about what constitutes "hardware changes"... since the motherboard is a main system component, would flashing the BIOS affect the activation? The same question applies to the video card BIOS (I usually flash the BIOS of my VC at some point in time).Seriously, we can't expect answers to these inquiries here. But being a hadware guy I'm concerned that simply flashing a BIOS could create issues.Greg

>Jeff, it sounds like the change you made was significant>enough to require reactivation. However, that sounds like it>went smoothly, correct? I'm sorry if the new design isn't>perfect but most feedback has been that it's perferred to the>CD-check we used for FS2004.I *would* be perfect except that I figure, if I am going to reinstall FSX 2 or 3 times over the next 2 years, I am potentially out-of-luck with the activation scheme, as it stands today. What if calling in doesn't do it?? Then what does a FS'er do?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>When you cloned it - the new drive does not match the old>one.>>This is a well known and well documented issue with XP and MS>Office.>>A new install of the application almost never requires>reactivation for a new hard drive - even a system drive.>>A clone or image or partition magic move - which is the>easiest way to steal FSX - does require reactivation.If we put cloning aside. This was done to alleviate me rebuilding everything on the new drive from scratch. But putting cloning aside. Say my drive fails with FSX on it. I go buy a brand new drive, re-install XP, re-install FSX with exact same hardware (video card, mb, cpu etc.) Are you telling me on the new installation of FSX on the new drive with a new OS that I don't have to activate FSX again? I really doubt that is the case. Correct me if I'm wrong here? Thanks,Jeff

Taildragger said (second post in the thread of yesterday) that if you need re-activation you call and they "may" give you a new key.Its obvious that if they "may" rather than "will" provide a new activation that they "may not" also.I'd say that's above "perception" and becomes a worry for a percent of the people who watch carefully their purchases and expect to understand the "warrentee" before buying. In this thread TD alludes to windows xp as a "similar to" system. In my experience xp help desk does provide a new activation whenever I rebuild. Unfortunately Microsoft has asked that the consumer console him/herself over the word "may", which is backwards as I see the respective business roles. Companies are supposed to re-assure the customers that the goods will last a long time, not the other way around.Bob