What is the true deal with the EULA? Is it absolutely true that it is limited to two installations even if on the same hardware after a reformat? If that is the case, that is a complete load of crap and am going to request my money back from Microsoft with a clear response as to how much full of #### they are.I tend to reformat and reinstall my OS a couple times a year. I have it down pat so I can get it up and running in a couple of hours no problem, it keeps it running fresh, and ensures I don't have extra crap running that I don't use. If I need it, just reinstall. Otherwise this is completely crappy of MS. Since when do you license the code of a game to a specific PC?They are thinking of end consumer users like major businesses, which is completely different.I better not say much more now so that I can cool off before I say something that I regret (probably won't).

Vista is the same way. You dont own the disc or the code. They let you 'lease' the code to use on one machine and give you a few grace re-installs. If there is any trouble, you will have to call MS support. The problem with that is that you end up getting sent to some nice chap in India who may very well be the smartest guy around but does not understand American cultural nuances, so therefore the whole thing has the potential to become an episode in frustration. Microsoft always says that they are going to play hardball with licensing when a new major release comes out and then they relax a few months afterwards. I guess we will see if they react the same way this time.I am attending an online seminar for our company this friday given by our MS rep where he is going to explain just how the new enterprise licensing model works. It's a mystery to corporate admins and users just as much as it is to retail users for now. I believe he is going to tell us that we will need an enterprise licensing server for Vista to keep track of the amount of licenses that are in use. If this licensing server requires a large amount of overhead then I am going to tell him flat out that he will need to provide me a server to work in that role. If not then we simply won't be upgrading to Vista. Since there are over 70,000 workstations in my enterprise, they tend to listen when we speak.I encourage you to return the software if it doesn't meet your expectations as I have and will again do that to any software that fails me. If after I purchase FSX and I think that its negatives outweigh its positives then I will return it to whence it came in a heartbeat.

Thanks for that informative response.I liken this license to only being able to change your spark plugs in your car once before you have to change out the engine. It's completely ridiculous. This is a game, not a business application.If their operating system was stable and the registry and system in general didn't easily get congested or cluttered over time, then I might, very slight chance, might somewhat understand where they are coming from. But the fact that I have to reinstall Windows every friggin six to twelve months is a testament to their crappy programming. And I am very careful to keep a clean PC.Additionally gaming PC's are upgraded frequently. Many will be upgrading their PC's just to play FSX, and lo and behold they will be forced to buy another copy of FSX just to play it because their hardware is finally up to snuff? I don't think so.One more thing, while I'm at it, I emailed MS support about tuning FSX appropriately. I get repeated emails to respond to their email if I need more assistance, but every email got bumped back to me. Completely ridiculous.

The techies at the company I work for have already attended a seminar - and we will not be implementing Vista. An email has been circulated to ALL staff who remote-work or even occasionally work from home, asdvising us not to install it, or to install it only as a dual boot option for our personal use, but no work-related software is to be run on it. Period. That's how concerned they are. I am also told privately that a further email or intranet instruction will be made from our MD telling all staff that installing Vista on a work computer will be regarded as a disciplinary offence. So thats how concerned WE need to be!But once again someone flies off the handle without researching the FACTS. I dont know how Dave kept his reply so reasonable!Look, FSX is not the thing that is restricted to two separate installs, it's only Vista.PLEASE READ THE FORUMS BEFORE MOUTHING OFF! All the information is already here, discussion topics up the wazzoo. Read the topics and learn something, not waste everyones time puking up this garbage fot the umpteenth time.Allcott

PLEASE READ THE FORUMS BEFORE MOUTHING OFF! All the information is already here, discussion topics up the wazzoo. Read the topics and learn something, not waste everyones time puking up this garbage fot the umpteenth time.Actually I'm getting tired of reading your condescending, snotty replies. Are you related to Snave on Flight One forums? Discussion occurs here and your adversial replies are choking it with needless scoldings.Bob....

First of all, I did a search for "EULA" and "License Agreement" but nothing of significance surfaced.Secondly, the EULA is not real clear, which is why I am requesting clarification. If it is a two-time install, I'm totally ticked. If not, then fine. But which is it and can someone quote the proper part of the EULA that explains this!Thanks.

"What is the true deal with the EULA? Is it absolutely true that it is limited to two installations even if on the same hardware after a reformat? If that is the case, that is a complete load of crap and am going to request my money back from Microsoft with a clear response as to how much full of #### they are."Ok on this part I know its not true I have installed it on the same PC 4 times now because of tweaks gone bad. So that 2 times on the same PC thing is a Tech Urban Legend.

>First of all, I did a search for "EULA" and "License>Agreement" but nothing of significance surfaced.>>Secondly, the EULA is not real clear, which is why I am>requesting clarification. If it is a two-time install, I'm>totally ticked. If not, then fine. But which is it and can>someone quote the proper part of the EULA that explains this!Actually, there is nothing whatever in the EULA regarding the registration process. However, ACES have made it very, very clear numerous times that you may install FSX as much and as often as you like. You may have to make a toll-free call after the second installation to a new machine or major hardware upgrade, but you should have no difficulty in reactivating FSX.

Thanks for your constructive and prompt response. That is good news. Even though MS has a stranglehold on the OS market, it would be stupid to do this with their games.

>Thanks for your constructive and prompt response. That is>good news. Even though MS has a stranglehold on the OS market,>it would be stupid to do this with their games.OTOH, if the restrictions on Vista are indeed as reported... There's going to be a revolution! :-hah

here is some information on Vista licensing.You can only install Vista twice on different machines before purchasing a new license/Copy. i.e. install on initial pc and then if you get a new pc or substantially upgrade your pc so windows sees it as enough of a change for MS to say it is a new pc then the next time it's credit card time.This does not mean that you cannot reinstall on your exisitng pc if you have to format etc.http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/2100-...tml?tag=nl.e019As far as I know this procedure is not applicable to FSX.Carlhttp://environments.flight1.net/gepro/GEPRO_BANNER_CARL.JPG

>here is some information on Vista licensing.>>You can only install Vista twice on different machines before>purchasing a new license/Copy. i.e. install on initial pc and>then if you get a new pc or substantially upgrade your pc so>windows sees it as enough of a change for MS to say it is a>new pc then the next time it's credit card time.>>This does not mean that you cannot reinstall on your exisitng>pc if you have to format etc.>>http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/2100-...tml?tag=nl.e019>>As far as I know this procedure is not applicable to FSX.>>Carl>http://environments.flight1.net/gepro/GEPRO_BANNER_CARL.JPGThe problem that has everyone so confused here is what exactly does MS constitute as a hardware upgrade? There are reports of people being asked to re-register after a driver update, a video card change, etc, etc. MS has to realize that their methods to control piracy will only affect the honest people just as they always have. The hackers and crackers will always find a way around the system just like they already have with the FSX activation crack that's all over the net. Locking down the OS so it can't be upgraded if it isn't activated with a genuine code also leads to the possibility of thousands of vulnerable PC's on the net that have been taken over as zombies by hackers because the machines can't upgrade to the latest security patches. This does nobody any good. There are so many variables involved with a sledgehammer approach to licensing that Microsoft isn't taking into account or is ignoring. I think once again that they will find their bottom line profits increasing as their strongarm licensing tactics decrease just as they have in the past. I know that I won't recommend Vista for our 70,000+ workstation environment if I feel that it is too restrictive or too demanding on our environment and I am in a position to greatly affect this decision. I'm VERY sure that I don't stand alone on this one.

FSX does not use the Vista activation system.It uses the XP activation system.

Has anyone checked the MSFT KB?http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927007/en-us

>PLEASE READ THE FORUMS BEFORE MOUTHING OFF! All the>information is already here, discussion topics up the wazzoo.>Read the topics and learn something, not waste everyones time>puking up this garbage fot the umpteenth time.>>>>Actually I'm getting tired of reading your condescending,>snotty replies. Are you related to Snave on Flight One forums?>Discussion occurs here and your adversial replies are choking>it with needless scoldings.>>Bob....Who cares what you think? You think wrong. I asked the poster nicely in the same tone in which he posted his comment. If you don't like what you read, just look at pictures.It is a fact that this forum is currently snotted down with repeated puke like this and as a direct result is simply spreading the good information too thin, too far between. This is not a discussion, just repetition. This is not a discussion, just repetition.Some of the most significant posts have already disappeared to pages 3, 4 or more. And this issue is in there.Anyway, the defnitive answer has been supplied by Taildragger. No further comment needed - by me or YOU.Allcott