snekgiant,ROFL! I haven't seen the commercial but from serveral posts I've read about it, it sounds like MS doesn't have much to be proud about regarding the display of performance in it.I sure wouldn't mind hearing thoughts from someone running the sim on the required specs...WinXP SP2 with 256 MB of RAM1.0 GHz CPUDirectX 9.0c comaptible Video Card with 32 MB of VRAM:(Why are there no recommended specs on the box? OR how about some recommended specs for running the sim with sliders at mid to mid-high settings? Why don't they list any specs of those types on the box? :-hmmmCheers,Jim

I think most people here buy FSX because they are flight sim fans, and they all want it to work properly.I myself, like you, have not had any problems with FSX, up to now.However, what happens the day we have to un-install & re-install FSX for some reason. That's when the badly designed copy protection software could just bring up the error 1722, unable to complete the FSX re-install.This happened to a friend on mine, and for the past week he has been without FSX, and keeps getting error 1722 right at the end of disk 2. He has spent many hours trying to get it to work.I have so many other programs and software on my computer, there would be no way I would do a full re-install of windows XP, and try to re-load all of my software and data, just to get FSX to work. It would take days of my time (many times the cost of FSX). And all because of a badly designed copy protection system.I was much happier with FS9 and the "no CD" patch that I had already downloaded even before I received my copy of FS9. I had always believed that it was actually MS that unofficially released this "no cd" patch especially for the flight sim communities to take away the hassle of having to have the cd in the drive. Perhaps I was wrong.

I just want to "tip my hat" to the moderators of this forum who have kept this thread open allowing everyone to express themselves regarding the FSX problems they may or may not be having. I believe this lends allot of credibility to the forum process.My FSX program still isn't working properly. However, I'm sure not going to start pulling my hair out or climbing the walls over it. I've learned over the years that patience is essential when working with computers. A cool, rational, and logical approach will eventually result in resolution of most technical problems over time.I sure feel a heck of allot better after having expressed my frustrations, along with many others, here in the forum. I also appreciate the helpful tips and suggestions I continually get from others here. I was really sceptical, as indicated in one of my earlier posts, that this thread and others like it would remain uncensored.I was wrong.Thank You Moderators

I will even go as far as saying that this

Good point.Sometimes I wonder how many people actually take the time to carefully read the forum posts. Could about 90% of good authorship actually be a waste of time, because it never gets read, much less responded to.Whatever, we need to continue to carry the torch and keep it lit.Cheers,flykingVirtual AviatorSystem Specs:XP PRO SP2AMD Athlon 64 2413MHzNVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT, 256MBMemory: 2048MBSB Audigy 2 ZS Audio

>I will even go as far as saying that this

Piracy is a way of life in the world of computers. Just like FS, and the first to discover a tweak, so is the case in the world of piracy. That's not to say they can not build a "pirate proof" product, they can. They just don't want to go to the total expense to do it, because it costs more that the perceived loss, and it makes the customers really mad in some cases.Really strong anti-piracy techniques have been used clear back into the mid-80's, and it has been my observation that almost without exception they have failed. Mostly this was because they have been more of a hassle for their customers than they have been worth. It other cases their own bureaucracy has gotten in the way with demands that have allowed software "holes" making the protection worthless. Then too they have discovered that those who would steal it, probably wouldn't buy it anyway, and it does broaden their base of use by legitimate customers dramatically in some cases.In my opinion, this use in FS is clearly is a major step backwards. The Aces team has allowed the term "We don't want a CD in our drives" as an excuse to allow the MS "bureaucracy" to invade their territory and get a strong foothold into an area where they are not welcome.. And these people in that bureaucracy don't have a clue as to what the customer wants, uses, or practices, nor in most cases do these bureaucrats even care. They do not realize that the game is on the cutting edge at all time, and the user base is there with them, constantly making changes to get it the software to work better.And the system provided, does not take this into account. It is therefor a total failure and a disservice to their customers. That's my opinion, as I sit here with a legitimate copy that I don't want to install because I need "activations" later on in about a year.Then also I have accumulated several machines with former FS products, which I could try it out on to see which one it works best with.What a brilliant product !!!! And I say .....NO !!!! In fact I think you can tell I quit upset.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

I really think you didn

I like having a CD in the drive. What is the problem with the CD there anyway? Mine has sat in the drive since I bought FS9 and never any bother. As the poster above wrote it's really being used as an excuse to get bureaucratic with the customer and I don't like that attitude towards the people giving you the money.Curiously enough, as an aside I also have a laptop which has 9.1 running on it- without a CD in the drive!! How? I don't know, but I dare say it could be something to do with the fact that it has never been on the internet and so never been spied on by MS. Makes you think, eh.Makes you a little paranoid, eh.Andy.ps. What criminal worth his salt would ever buy FSX anyway. Or anything else for that matter. Fighting piracy this way is like looking down a telescope the wrong way. A pointless exercise with very little reward for all the effort of holding the thing to your eye.

After the OP - I see two distinct differences developing here. In one case, we have someone who is infuriated by the "MS invasion" of his system and refuses to buy FSX and uses a cracked version. In another we have the legitimate user who purchases FSX but is infuriated with the scheme and uses the "no activation crack". On one hand I see a pirate, plain and simple - using a product he did not pay for. On the other hand, I see the FSX equivalent of the "nocd" hack. It was mentioned that technically this makes the legitimate user an "illegitimate user" - it's sad that it comes to that but I for one have no problem in applying any hack that will increase my enjoyment of a product that I purchased.Just MHO,VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

I respect the fact that you certainly have the right to disagree with the poster you replied to in your post.I hope you can also respect the fact that I strongly disagree with the comments you made in your post.I'm really tired of people like you coming along on your white horses and telling people like me, and the poster you responded to, that we need to keep bending over and taking it in the shorts. It sounds to me like your saying that I need to basically roll over and gladly accept whatever invasive anti piracy scheme some organization or individual chooses to impose upon me for whatever "noble" reason they choose to conjure up. And I'm supposed to do this because there are pirates in the world ripping everybody off.There are criminals in my state and city in which I live that are breaking into homes, robbing banks, shop lifting and stealing in newly invented ways every day. Even tho we all know this is happening, I don't have law enforcement officials knocking on my door every hour of the night and day and snooping around and making innuendos that I might be stealing too just because other people are. But I'm supposed to let MS place me under a cloud of suspicion and snoop around when they don't have any grounds to do so. No MS isn't physically knocking at the front door of my house (yet). They're basically taking a different route and are trying to control me through my computer via program elements that invade my privacy. I've given them allot of money over the years and have been generally satisfied with their products. This FSX fiasco is a whole new deal. I have my receipt for the FSX program that I purchased. I only have one copy--the copy that I purchased--the copy that I have my receipt for. I would be happy to fax a copy of my receipt to MS, you, or anyone else that may think I some how stole my copy. It would be allot easier for me if MS would send someone to the door and come in and watch me physically load the copy of FSX for which I have the receipt for. Geeesh! What a hassle MS has created for their honest customers that actually do exist. flykingVirtual AviatorSystem Specs:XP PRO SP2AMD Athlon 64 2413MHzNVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT, 256MBMemory: 2048MBSB Audigy 2 ZS Audio

>I respect the fact that you certainly have the right to>disagree with the poster you replied to in your post.>>I hope you can also respect the fact that I strongly disagree>with the comments you made in your post.>>I'm really tired of people like you coming along on your white>horses and telling people like me, and the poster you>responded to, that we need to keep bending over and taking it>in the shorts. It sounds to me like your saying that I need>to basically roll over and gladly accept whatever invasive>anti piracy scheme some organization or individual chooses to>impose upon me for whatever "noble" reason they choose to>conjure up. And I'm supposed to do this because there are>pirates in the world ripping everybody off.>>There are criminals in my state and city in which I live that>are breaking into homes, robbing banks, shop lifting and>stealing in newly invented ways every day. Even tho we all>know this is happening, I don't have law enforcement officials>knocking on my door every hour of the night and day and>snooping around and making innuendos that I might be stealing>too just because other people are. But I'm supposed to let MS>place me under a cloud of suspicion and snoop around when they>don't have any grounds to do so. No MS isn't physically>knocking at the front door of my house (yet). They're>basically taking a different route and are trying to control>me through my computer via program elements that invade my>privacy. I've given them allot of money over the years and>have been generally satisfied with their products. This FSX>fiasco is a whole new deal. I have my receipt for the FSX>program that I purchased. I only have one copy--the copy that>I purchased--the copy that I have my receipt for. I would be>happy to fax a copy of my receipt to MS, you, or anyone else>that may think I some how stole my copy. It would be allot>easier for me if MS would send someone to the door and come in>and watch me physically load the copy of FSX for which I have>the receipt for. Geeesh! What a hassle MS has created for>their honest customers that actually do exist. >>>flyking>Virtual Aviator>>System Specs:>XP PRO SP2>AMD Athlon 64 2413MHz>NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT, 256MB>Memory: 2048MB>SB Audigy 2 ZS AudioNice way of putting it, you are guilty until proven inocent instead of inocent until proven guilty!

Nicely said!