PMDG strongly discourages using FSX in Windows Vista

[Guest Mower]

I would love to hand fly the 744x to touchdown but the FPS are always too low.My hand built rig is new. All things being equal, I wonder if moving from XP32 to vista64 will increase the FPS?

[Guest D17S]

Moving from 32 to a 64 bit will not help FPS in the least. You just won't get OOS blue screens anymore. With FS, that's about it. The most significant FPS help with using the 744 in FS9. Hardware that will run FSX smoothly with the 744X in all regimes with normal slider settings will NEVER exist. No sense even hoping for it. A Single Core with the required HP to run a 744x/FSX combo will Never occur. We're headed in the multi-core direction. FSX's (primarily) single core software architecture sealed its fate. Wait for FSII. It's our only real hope for aircraft fidelity (PMDG) and eyecandy (FSX). Until then FS9 works fine. With a full set of addons, it can look pretty good, too. Good enough anyway, it your primary interest is the airplane.

[Tabs 2,790]

>FSX runs as a 32-bit application. Therefore, it's still>limited to 2GB.>>That said, I've seen lots of reports from people that FSX runs>just fine on Vista 64.>>- BillNo it's not. It has the /3GB switch enabled and can use up to 3GB. The 2GB limit that everyone really needs to pay attention to is on USER ADDRESS SPACE, which is dependent on the OS, not the app. Vista 64 can use something like 16GB or more.

[Guest Mower]

So what I am seeing here then is that moving from XP32 to Vista 64, all other things being equal, I will not see any net FPS improvement in the FSX PMDG 744?

[Guest D17S]

Correct. Yes.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Actually, to be totally and completely accurate, FSX has the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set.http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wz223b1z(VS.80).aspxThe /3Gb is a Windows hack to increase user memory space to 3Gb, whilst reducing the available Kernel memory to 1Gb (assuming a 4Gb limit), but the application still requires the LARGEADDRESSAWARE bit to be set for this to work. After all that, it might still not work.The 2Gb user-memory limitation is per process (an important distinction).XP is limited to running something like 2022 simultaneous processes as it requires kernel memory to track each process, which it runs out of at this limit.There is no good reason why a 32- or 64-bit app that runs on XP fine, won't run on Vista (any version).There are specific cases where this is not the case, but they're the exception and not the rule.I hope that clarifies.I recommend Vista 64-bit because not only does it support a larger memory address space, but it manages memory differently and is far superior to the 32-bit equivalent.If you have the 64-bit version of XP, I can't see a good case for "upgrading", as it already has all the benefits Vista 64-bit would offer.* NOTE THAT YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO RUN 16-bit APPLICATIONS! *Best regards,Robin.

[Guest Mower]

>* NOTE THAT YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO RUN 16-bit APPLICATIONS!Are there even any more of consequence that any of us may be uing? I cannot think of any.My problem is this:I AM NOT GOING UPGRADE TO 64 VISTA JUST BECAUSE I CAN...I NEED A REASON, LIKE FPS in FSX IMPROVING.

[Guest D17S]

Out Of Memory events will stop. Completely - absolutely. However, there will be no increase in FPS or anything else, for that matter. We'll have to see what happens when (native) 64bit programs start showing up. That will be a while, though.

[Guest Mower]

AFAIK when 64 bit games show up so will DX10.

[Guest Oz_Animal]

CurtYou should always compair "Apples with Apples" if you want true and acurate refrences.I would have XP 64 over Vista 64 and the same with XP 32 v Vista 32.Yes you will get some Vista users like yourself that have no issues but unfortunatly there are "thousands" that have serious problems. We don't want to give people the false impression that Vista is fantastic...she is far from it.As far as the FS world is concerned I will agree with the experts and say using anything other than XP 32 at this time is risky. In a few years with FS12, DX17 & the new Winmac 128 Bit platform all "Might" be ok...but I very much doubt it...lol RegardsSteve

[Guest Mower]

I am seriously considering Vista 64 to get rid of those cursed OOM errors that I cannot cure.

[Guest Mower]

I upgraded to Vista 64 and all is well with no more OOM errors and a DX 10 preview...sweet...all other payware add-ons like RC4 and Active Sky. Very stable so far, running 4 GB RAM.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

If you're on XP 32-bit and don't suffer OOMEs with FSX, then stick with it, but as I stated in my post - if you've got XP 64-bit, you will gain nothing by getting Vista 64-bit.I was totally anti Vista until about 2 months ago when I got Vista 64-bit with SP1. I ditched nearly all the new services that come with Vista, and after the initial shock of boot-up reporting 900 Mb of memory used, once I got used to running it and benchmarking it against XP 32-bit on the exact same hardware, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.XP 64-bit drivers and Vista 64-bit drivers are interchangeable, so drivers shouldn't be a problem. In fact, my sound card works better under Vista than it ever did under XP (SB Audigy Platinum).Pre SP1 Vista was a heap of junk, but SP1 is a huge improvement. I'm still bemused how the same stupid bugs occur release after release though. Vista has a few different annoying little bugs with explorer, but nothing that makes it unusable like file transfer time calcs hanging the whole thing (pre SP1).FS9.1/V64 I get 40 FPS at the default Heathrow with the Cessna.FS9.1/XP32 I get 52 FPS at the default Heathrow with the Cessna.I hope that gives you an idea. TBH I don't really notice the difference between the two, as I have the frame rate limited to 30 FPS anyway. The bonus is in the additional memory though - 4Gb is fantastic. Vista loads apps faster, too (and no thanks to ReadyBoost et al., as they're all disabled).The Aero interface appears to have zero impact on performance in apps, too. Enabled/disabled, it doesn't matter. If Aero is incompatible, it auto-disables itself, too.Back on topic for a sec: I strongly suspect the reason for PMDGs anti-Vista stance is because it means one less platform to worry about for support (I remember a similar thing occurred with RealityXP about 2 years ago regarding Windows 2000 Pro and "XP-Only", even though the only real change was preventing the installer working on Windows 2000 for a short time until enough complaints were received to re-instate Windows 2000).Best regards,Robin.

[Guest Mower]

Well I AM annoyed that my FPS didnot increase but then I was told it would not.