>>>>Where have you been for the past 30+ years? Commercial>>software has always been marketed this way! It's>>always been a licensed product...>>>>heh. I got the same reaction from someone else in another>thread.I'm not surprised... ;)>Not *all* commercial software has been marketed that way. But>most, yes. And in the last 10 years, seems like 99% of it.Can anyone name any? Just one would do... :9 Unless you received the source code for the comercial software, you wouldn't "own" the product. You'd merely have a license to use it.

>Unless you received the source code for the comercial>software, you wouldn't "own" the product. You'd merely have a>license to use it.>Ah what an opportunity for me to be straightened out, eh?Assume I own 5 computers. If I purchased a program, I should, in an ideal world, be able to legally install it on all 5 machines if I so choose. However, increasingly, this is quite contrary to most software licensing agreements. My mind is quite mutable, but at present I do not think it is right, proper, or good, to require 3 purchased copies of software, for 3 separate machines that are my machines.Now, certainly if I installed said software on a machine that was not mine, that would be out-of-bounds.Now, change my very open mind.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

>>Personally, I like the 'GAME' just as it is, FSX graphics are>good, performance is good and all-in-all worth the $70 (or so)> - for me, it's an 'escape' from reality 'NOT' my life! >>BTW, This SITE too, deserves much better respect for the>'POSITIVE SERVICES' it provides us (often with inside advance>information on upcoming patch releases) than the negativity>and abusive comments seemingly becoming more prevalent in the>forums towards MICROSOFT and many of the freeware designers>all of which are the reason we visit!>>>Terry, >IndiaPapa That's exactly how I also feel Terry.Stelios

>Ah what an opportunity for me to be straightened out, eh?>>Assume I own 5 computers. If I purchased a program, I should,>in an ideal world, be able to legally install it on all 5>machines if I so choose. However, increasingly, this is quite>contrary to most software licensing agreements. >>My mind is quite mutable, but at present I do not think it is>right, proper, or good, to require 3 purchased copies of>software, for 3 separate machines that are my machines.>>Now, certainly if I installed said software on a machine that>was not mine, that would be out-of-bounds.>>Now, change my very open mind.>This is exactly what I have always believed. It

>>Assume I own 5 computers. If I purchased a program, I should,>in an ideal world, be able to legally install it on all 5>machines if I so choose. However, increasingly, this is quite>contrary to most software licensing agreements. >That's called a site license and is very common in the software industry. It is still a form of licensing and does not confer ownership of the software to you in any way.

>>That's called a site license and is very common in the>software industry. It is still a form of licensing and does>not confer ownership of the software to you in any way. >A Site License is aimed at Companies and Institutions, where multiple users will be using the software simultaneously. Fair enough.It is wishful thinking however to expect the home user, who may have more than one computer, to buy multiple copies/site licenses, where the program will seldom ever be used simultaneously. Legally, he could uninstall/re-install it each time he wanted to use it on a different computer. Does this really just mean that software companies want to ensure we do the uninstall/reinstall part of things? No, they really just want to bully you into buying as many copies as possible, preferably one for every computer you own. Otherwise, in place of the uninstall/reinstall, they could just have little Enabled/Disabled checkboxes in the software, or even just use the computer

"Think of FSX as attempt #1 in creating a almost totally new program"That's EXACTLY what it is NOT.

Let me apologize up front to the forum members, this has doubtless been said by many others here better than by me, but my frustration compels me to post this, if the moderator allows me.I'm new to this forum as a registered member, though I've been a FS user since the beginnings at the U of I in Champaign; I first flew FS on an Apple II+ if I remember correctly.The emotion of the posts here reflects the attachment so many of us feel to FS.And personal attacks, of course, are out of bounds.But you, sir, have released a product that simply does not perform.I, and countless others, have spent THOUSANDS of dollars in a futile attempt to run the sim at half the detail supposedly available, without stuttering and stalling, without distortion of the graphics and without catastrophic bugs. We have traded tips and tried every setting imaginable, all without significant improvement in the performance of your product.So I am less than satisfied to hear you say, four months after the release of FSX, that you're working on it and a patch will be available at some indefinite point in the future that will make 30% of us happier and 70% of us even less satisfied.And you're indignant that some of us feel royally screwed, completely let down and irrationally angry?Maybe, as your loyal defenders here claim, this isn't a fiasco or a disaster... though if that's true, why are you having to spend so much time defending yourself and your product? Why, awards aside, has FSX become the subject of derision not only in FS forums, but hardware forums, general gaming forums, and every Best Buy and Circuit City in the country?I'm stuck with your product, but like so many I don't use it, because all it does is frustrate me. I honestly don't know if I'll bother installing the DX10 and SP1 patches when they arrive. At the very least I'll wait and see if those on this forum and others indicate that it actually helps anything, and continue to fly on FS9, which does very nicely with my new 695 dollar 8800GTX and 400 dollar CoreDuo and 300 dollar upgraded PS... bought in the vain hope that they would make FSX tolerable.So though I understand why you'd be so defensive, I'd hope you'd find a clue in the "ad hominem" attacks... we in the FS community are VERY attached to our FS, and I and many others are VERY emotional in our disappointment with FSX... we thought we were getting a Ferrari, and we got a Camaro; and all the aftermarket parts in the JEGS catalog won't make it a Ferrari.I feel like I did watching the State of the Union address... a lot of us are screaming at you, and y'all just don't seem to be listening or to give a flying bleep.I'm anything but a Microsoft hater, I'm not interested in any CA suits and I don't believe in any conspiracy theories... but the situation with FSX just plain flat sucks. I want my Ferrari.

>So I am less than satisfied to hear you say, four months after>the release of FSX, that you're working on it and a patch will>be available at some indefinite point in the future that will>make 30% of us happier and 70% of us even less satisfied.>And you're indignant that some of us feel royally screwed,>completely let down and irrationally angry?That is not what Tim (beatle) said. Read it again, this time paying attention to syntax, grammer and content...What Tim actually wrote was this:"Mainly because until we've implemented everything and ran it through some test passes, we won't know for sure which modifications will be in the final patch release (we may determine that a fix that helps out 30% of users winds up making life worse for the other 70% or something :-> )"It sould be obvious from the syntax and construction that that the phrase "...a fix that helps out 30% of users winds up making life worse for the other 70% or something..." is a criterion for EXCLUSION of any given "fix"!In simpler words than, if they (ACES) determine that any "fix" winds up hurting the majority for the benefit of a minority it will be excluded from the SP1 package..." :-lol >I'm stuck with your product, but like so many I don't use it,>because all it does is frustrate me. No, you are not "stuck!" Ask for and receive a full refund directly from Microsoft, as has been announced numerous times.I don't know if you deliberately "misread" what Tim wrote or simply didn't take the time to throughly think it through more carefully.What I can say with certitude is that there's more than enough FOD on the runway without folks purposely adding more!

>>That's called a site license and is very common in the>software industry. It is still a form of licensing and does>not confer ownership of the software to you in any way. >>I'm one of two people in charge of software purchasing at a mid-size company. We have a site license on a couple of our apps.I *know* it doesn't confer ownership in any way. :)That's ma point...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

That's really exactly what I am getting at.I have no real issue with site licensing as it exists at my work.But for a home user, the notion of "one machine", "one license", has always struck me the wrong way.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

>"Think of FSX as attempt #1 in creating a almost totally new>program">>That's EXACTLY what it is NOT. Then in your infinite wisdom please enlighten us all as to what it is.Craig ASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT TechLG GWA-4161 DVD/CDSeagate ST3160811AS 160GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQSeagate ST3160811AS 250GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQEVGA 7950 GT KO PCIe 512mb nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/STrack IR3 w/vectorCH Yolk & RuddersFS Genesis Terrain MeshActive SkyRC4

not my wisdom, Phil's wisdom. read his blogs. it is very clear that no attempt was made to create "a totally new program".

EDIT: Removed after thinking twice. Sometimes it's just not worth it. :-

There is one thing I would like to know about the "Service Pack";Does it have to be installed to a "vanilla" build of FSX? For those of us who have modified our sim, with smaller textures and add on textures to get better frames, are we going to get a patch install failure?Also, as my last thread was locked with no contact, and no apparent reason, there is PLENTY wrong with the sim, especially with the toll it takes on hardware. It's fine to say "a two year lifespan", and talk of CPU/GPU and RAM that hasn't even been developed yet, but what about those of us NOW with existing "high end" systems?And FS9 was NEVER like this.Kindest regards,Andrew.