>To sum it up, what I'm trying to say is this:>>Shouldn't all this count for at least something? For all the>issues in this release, shouldn't we at least support them?>After they've told is in big bold type that they're looking>into our issues and supporting us, maybe we should look before>we leap.I will support them but that will only be after they fix the product (which in my opinion is make it perform at an exeptable framerate right out the box without tweaks just moving the standard sliders).So I will support them by buying FS-X if an intrim patch (for Windows XP , DX9 hardware) fixes the product.Or I will support them by buying a good working FS-X + DX10 patch after I get a new Computer with Vista.Or I will support them by buying a fixed up product improved FS-XI in 3 years time.Bottomline. I will not buy the product in its current state. To me thats rewarding all those product managers that made ACES rush this release. If we let them get away with it now they will do it again next release.I feel sorry for Aces that they did not have the time to seriously implement dual core support, that they did not have the time needed to fully revise the autogen, that there was not enough time to polish the product and make it perform beter on the current hardware. I know that given time they can do so much beter.Buying the product now will not solve their problem the upper management will be glad with the sale and the money is in the bank there will be no economic incentive to give Aces extra time and resources to further develop an already released and sold product. Having your project team work on a patch only eats up the profit that you made with the sale. Beter improve the product, ad some feautures and release FS-XI in a few years time if yo want the maximum profit.

Boshar, I think that is a very sensible approach. Much as I appreciate Jeff Nielsen posting about the involvement of the ACES team in out forums, let's not lose sight fact that OUR relationship with Microsoft is ONLY at a commercial level. It makes sense to clarify the commercial relationship before we start getting all `nice` or `nasty`. There is NOTHING in their involvement that reinforces, strengthens - or weakens - the LEGAL obligation to the consumer.Clearly, what has been quoted on the Insider website is a contravention of the EULA, but it doesn't take much figuring to see how they've blundered - they've used the Windows Vista EULA model!!!!Now, what makes this laughable is when even MS themselves can't differentiate between the respective license policies in their OWN products we are ALL in trouble as our support - supplied under the terms and conditions of the EULA that is included with the product - is at risk. The `natural` upgrade path for a simmer - and one which MS is ridiculously keen to promote - is to gravitate the FSX installation to Vista. How can they possibly have been so stupid as to quote the wrong terms on the website, which would actually PREVENT that action from taking place? The readme .rtf in the FSX folder makes an utterly irrefutable statement that FSX was designed for Windows Vista. Why then was it released into a world which does not HAVE Vista, unless there was intent to allow upgrading?OK, so the advice on the Insider website is duff. But what does that imply for the future of our commercial relationship with MS with this product? So far it's blunder after blunder, MS are so busy tripping over themselves that WE are the ones suffering: The customer. In any other market, you could take the product back as Unfit for Purpose and demand that the manufacturer or dealer fix it. Here, we are expected to pay to make the product work as advertised? It's a reach, but that's fine by me, as long as I can trust the people at the other end of the phone to re-enable my activation without a quibble when I install for the fifth time, all in the name of getting this software to work with an MS operating system. So far, it's clear we cannot. I am not interested in technical glitches, technical suport staff who don't comprehend English or the issues being raised, MS websites which misreport the business relationship with the customer, all I want is it fixed. Wash your dirty laundry in private MS, come back and join us again when you've fixed it, not before. The hardware upgrade path has been clear for some time - Vista, run with DX9, upgrade RAM and/or/ mobo and/or CPU to take advantage of Vista, then later on upgrade to a DX10 cvard when the DX10 patch is issued. At the very least MS owe us a written guarantee that these upgrades will not impact AT ALL on the number of available activations, licenses, or license re-activations for BOTH FSX and the VISTA OS. The `mistake` on the Insider website renders the FSX product unfit for purpose on my computer as its purpose is to be transferred to Vista, and I might choose to do that in stages.Advising a customer to only `install, not activate` is a disastrous abrogation of repsonsibility. I can think of numerous times when I've moved FS9 from one hard drive to another, while installing a new hard drive or whatever, then moved it back. Technically, thats two computers as the new hard drive - added specifically for FS as it happens - but under these new rules I would have used up my FSX activations doing the same thing? Sorry. Not acceptable. In the meantime, I have a product that is unusable on default settings on a computer which comfortably exceeds the minimum settings on the box.Sorry, not acceptable eitherMS. Fix it. All of it. FSX and Vista activation for FSX customers too. THEN sell it to the community. Then lets talk. Forget nice, do the job first, then we can all sit back and chew the cud.Allcott

Reading from the page:> In fact, one of the most common user requests we

Allcott - usually I take issue with your abrasivness; in this case I take my hat off to you. In my case I had a stop error which triggered this activation nonsense - followed by several hours of scanning the forums for answers, some experimentation and finally speaking to someone at MS support who was not fluent in my langauge, was unaware of the issue were having, and read the "re-install" canned solution. Thanks to someone posting the "PartMgr" fix on AvSim she's running again.Your post is a well thought-out, concise and rational summary, and I hope you will be one of the witnesses representing us if there's a forthcoming class-action suit. The agravation which this flawed programming is causing is not going to go away, and will cost MS dearly in support costs: I can forsee the MS support desk being swamped as people upgrade, have crashes and move to other machines. The business world wouldn't tolerate this, and neither should we.

Good post Allcott. Sums up matters very well, especially your points about successive harware and software upgrade steps in order to reach performance nirvana for this product, and which might trip the activation limit switch.So, folks seem to agree that the EULA and the KB article are, at best, inconsistent. Big question: Which system is actually implemented in the activation engine, EULA or KB????--Bryn