Atomic Systems

lateagain wrote: He then went into great detail as to how an unnamed UK user had requested a new activation code for a hard disc change but that the (rather intrusive?) USERCHK program suggested that the programme was on a different computer. Charles, Joe, that MAY indicate pirating ...it may not? BUT .....WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH YOUR OTHER CUSTOMERS? Sorry to shout but you don't seem to be listening?

That may have been me, I posted it earlier in this thread, I can elaborate slightly on it.
What happened was I ordered ConBuilder, before I go on I have to mention that I am retired and my memory is not the best now,
I'm not making excuses I'm simply I'm being honest.

I have 3 hard drives in my PC. I got the 2 files, read the instructions, they aren't the best to read, I carried out the instructions, they informed me
to put the 2 files on a hard drive and carry out the necessary procedure. Then I sent them to Joe.
I got the program in return and I of course installed it where my other programs were installed, on my F partition on my 1st hard drive.
It did not work. I discovered I had run the 2 files on my second hard drive and that was the problem.
Maybe it was a good thing because I tend to format the Windows partition and re-install if the more serious problems arise thus saving a
lot of time. ConBuilder won't allow it, its a once install only.

Some correspondence took place between us, he accused me of being a pirate, I strongly found that remark to be very distatefull -
I have not ever pirated any software, NEVER. If I want any software I buy it so that the programmer gets his due reward
of some cash for programming it and I can ask for help when needed.
I made an image of all the websites from whom I purchased software / hardware, 108 folders, and many had more
than 1 transaction in them, I sent this to him, he didn't care.
It is very easy for me to prove it. Joe just would not listen to me.

So I carried on with 3.1.5 and I swore I'd never deal with that paranoid person again, it does not matter how the seller is feeling,
he is engaged in a lawfull transaction and must be very carefull how he deals with his customers, there is no argument in that.
His statement that I was a pirate proves my point.
As I had posted earlier I had a friend who was into computing, I knew he pirated, he eventually asked me give him a lot of my
purchased software, I refused and he has not spoken to me since then - about 2 years ago, if he wants software,
AFAIC, he can do what I do and buy it.

Thats the honest truth, I've just thought, if there is anyone who lives not too far from me and wants to look at my 'net receipts
give me a PM and we'll arrange a meeting. I do not live in England, Scotland or Wales.

lateagain wrote:
Sadly Charles response said that he thought he knew what the problem was and stated that it had not been fixed despite being looked at. He then went into great detail as to how an unnamed UK user had requested a new activation code for a hard disc change but that the (rather intrusive?) USERCHK program suggested that the programme was on a different computer. Charles, Joe, that MAY indicate pirating ...it may not? BUT .....WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH YOUR OTHER CUSTOMERS? Sorry to shout but you don't seem to be listening?

I can't comment on this other than to say that he didn't get a new activation code apparently.

I can tell you right now that that "UK User" is me, and maybe you can undesrstand why i was/am so cheesed off.

I'm 15 years old, just a boy in some peoples eyes. I am not a pirate. I have no intention on being a pirate.

My hard disk genuinley gave up on me. I "genuinley" put a new one into my computer. I "genuinley" ran the user check program. I "genuinley" was quite aggressivley refused any support, from an opinion that changed each day, that patronised and generally made my life a misery.

I brought two programs from that website, i cant remember exactly but I must have spent about £20. that might not seem much but at 15 years old £20 is alot of money. loosing that £20 for something that was nothing was terrible.

if only i'd rememberd the old , "if it sounds to good to be true, it probabably is."

have to say that refusing support/replacement software because of a dead hard drive is extremely harsh, as is refusing to provide software that runs because some system check was run on an alternative hard disk in the same machine.

I too am an unsatisfied user - my old PC gave up the ghost, and that had Conbuilder installed - I'm a registered user and I seriously doubt that I'll be able to get it working on my new PC

Anybody know how long software has to work to be classified as "fit for purpose"? I may look into obtaining a refund if possible.

gswindale wrote:have to say that refusing support/replacement software because of a dead hard drive is extremely harsh, as is refusing to provide software that runs because some system check was run on an alternative hard disk in the same machine.

I too am an unsatisfied user - my old PC gave up the ghost, and that had Conbuilder installed - I'm a registered user and I seriously doubt that I'll be able to get it working on my new PC

Anybody know how long software has to work to be classified as "fit for purpose"? I may look into obtaining a refund if possible.

Sorry to hear that Geoff.

The company is not for purpose and part of me thinks trading standards wouldnt be impressed.

Isnt it time this thread was locked. Its going nowhere. People queueing up to say they have it but cant use it, that they have been accused of theft or piracy, denials from Stagg and nothing at all from the author. Its just going around in circles now.

Edited to correct spelling mistake

Maybe, if possible, it should be locked so that we as mere victims cannot post, but that Joe & (possibly) Charles can maybe post an explanation resolving all issues?

Lad491 wrote:Isnt it time this thread was locked. Its going nowhere. People cueing up to say they have it but cant use it, that they have been accused of theft or piracy, denials from Stagg and nothing at all from the author. Its just going around in circles now.

Why should it be locked Laurie? If it doesn't interest or affect you just don't bother to read it? It does affect a number of decent and respected members of the community. We don't live in a dictatorship and we supposedly stand for freedom of speech.

I would not normally discuss issues raised in a pm and in fact I only outlined the points raised in that pm from Charles. So why did I raise them? I did so because I was VERY annoyed to find this post on TS.com, that was locked and dissappearing off the radar, after I'd read his PM. It raises some VERY salient issues and IMO you should all read this.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showth ... Conbuilder

Make your own mind up about the rights and wrongs here. To me they are clear and simple. My understanding is that Carlos left the scene due to ill health? I had been trying to contact him for a permission for MEP and had given up.

I DON'T post this link to further a flame! The issue is simple. Folk have paid for a product and are having problems with support. That should be addressed and IMHO sites supporting the community should defend consumer rights just as they do copyright issues and any other due legal process.

I'll say this again. IF Joe stands back and reviews his stance he can turn this around. He alone can do that. Charles I don't want to shoot you if you're just the messenger? but as you are the messenger at least you can return these concerns?

Geoff

Why should it be locked Laurie?

Because everyone has had their say now. To keep going over the same ground achieves nothing further. Anyone reading the 5 pages of this thread will know the picture and I dont see the point in keeping on harping on about it, anymore than any other issue.

But anyway, as you say, I wont bother reading it anymore and you can whinge away happily together. It aint going to change Joe's stance Im sure, probably do the other.

Hi Laurie,
Actually there are issues that haven't even been raised here yet, but they have been covered on TS.com. Sadly locked threads in TS.com fall off the radar very quickly.

However I must question this:

Lad491 wrote:I wont bother reading it anymore and you can whinge away happily together.

Maybe Ralph Nader was a whinger, and the Consumers Association, and the makers of watchdog? Maybe Consumer protection law writers wasted their time? I'd NEVER accuse you of an "I'm alright Jack!" attitude Laurie because you are one of THE most consistently helpful people on this forum. There are many folk using this Sim who are Senior Citizens, at school, students, unemployed, living on disability support etc. In otherwords many on limited income. The point of the forum is that we share experience. Unfortunately it isn't always going to be good or constructive. 95% of it is, so surely we can offer support when it isn't?

Lad491 wrote:It aint going to change Joe's stance Im sure, probably do the other.

Well I never met Joe, I never communicated with Joe, but years of dealing with grievances and disputes taught me there are always two sides (at least) to any story and I've seen people change their hearts and minds and attitudes when they seemed to be so "dug in" that a bomb wouldn't shift them . Until I know for sure that you're fears are right I'll give Joe the benefit of the doubt? Right now I feel he's made himself a cross to bear and he needs to retrace his steps if he's to lighten the load?

Geoff

I think its time for everyone to take a step back and cool down a bit.

I've read through the majority of the thread and I have to admit that there are a few who are not very happy with the situation....but that does not mean they can use this forum to say potentially liabous comments about someone. And. I'm sorry, Geoff, the comment about us not living in a dictatorship and standing for free speech does not excuse anyone from posting within the forum rules.

The thread is not going to be locked at present, and the full Moderation Team will review the situation....and take any appropriate action that might me needed.

In the meantime, may I ask everyone to please apply some common sense. Either post sensibly.....or not at all.

Thank you

I'm sorry, but the fact my post has been edited is just silly.

I dont see how the comments I had were wrong. they were true to the point, and my opinion, not offensive or liabelous.

Atleast give me a pm telling me that you are editing my post. I dont think that just editing anyones post who you dont like is not right, you cant change what I write without telling me atleast.

desiro5 wrote: Atleast give me a pm telling me that you are editing my post. I dont think that just editing anyones post who you dont like is not right, you cant change what I write without telling me atleast.

1984.

Ali I dont think your post has been modified. Usually if a moderator does that they say so on the actual post. You have two posts recently, were you looking at the right one.

No posts have been edited on this thread. I have been back through all the logs.

Silent edits are sometimes done to correct spelling mistakes or fix broken quotes / oversized images etc. Other times that lurid moderator message appears when a point needs to be made.

Ali, I've also just gone back through the moderator logs to September 24th and found the same as John!