Hello Folks,In July I bought my new PC, this is the spec: Operating System Microsoft Windows XP ProfessionalOS Service Pack Service Pack 2DirectX 4.09.00.0904 (DirectX 9.0c) CPU Type E6600, 3000 MHz (7 x 429)Instruction Set x86, x86-64, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3Original Clock 2400 MHzL1 Code Cache 32 KBL1 Data Cache 32 KBL2 Cache 4 MB (On-Die, ATC, Full-Speed) Multi CPU Motherboard ID OEM00000 PROD00000000CPU #0 Intel® Core2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz, 3001 MHzCPU #1 Intel® Core2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz, 3001 MHz CPU Utilization CPU #1 / Core #1 / HTT Unit #1 12 %CPU #1 / Core #1 / HTT Unit #2 8 % Display Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB)Monitor Dell E151FPp [15" LCD] (4R869359N8WZ) Multimedia Audio Adapter Realtek HD Audio outputField ValuePhysical Memory Total 2814 MBUsed 1278 MBFree 1535 MBUtilization 45 % Swap Space Total 8820 MBUsed 1059 MBFree 7761 MBUtilization 12 % Virtual Memory Total 11635 MBUsed 2338 MBFree 9296 MBUtilization 20 % Physical Address Extension (PAE) Supported by Operating System YesSupported by CPU YesActive YesAs you can see above it sais:Physical Memory Total 2814 MBBut I have 4Gigs of OCZ RAM, from what I've hear I need a 64bit OS?I believe I'm currently running XP 32Bit, is 64Bit stable? Will it work with FS, Photoshop, MSN etc?Cheers!

My personal experience says, don't use XP64bit - unstable, bad drivers etc., and Vista 64bit seems much more stable and pretty good, many drivers out for it yet.

>My personal experience says, don't use XP64bit - unstable,>bad drivers etc., and Vista 64bit seems much more stable and>pretty good, many drivers out for it yet.Thanks for the info, I've heard though the perfomance isnt that good with Vista, is that true? I mean would the perfomance be better on XP 32 with 2gigs or Vista 64 with 4Gigs using FS9?Cheers

Running FS9 on both XP64bit and Vista 64bit, have no issues not even XP64bit, since most drivers are available nowadays.XP will give better performance, mere to the fact its less demanding OS.What would do better,.... running FS9 only, 2GB is enough (or 3GB if personal preference), so if you like XP32 then its fine to stay with that. For FSX id opt for 4GB+Vista64, but thats just my opinion.Regards,

>Running FS9 on both XP64bit and Vista 64bit, have no issues>not even XP64bit, since most drivers are available nowadays.>>XP will give better performance, mere to the fact its less>demanding OS.>>What would do better,.... running FS9 only, 2GB is enough (or>3GB if personal preference), so if you like XP32 then its fine>to stay with that. >>For FSX id opt for 4GB+Vista64, but thats just my opinion.>>Regards,>Hello Davis,Great to hear from you mate! I'll look to get Vista64 in Dual Boot Config with Windows XP32, I havent had many problems yet with the new PC in terms of frame rates, just the odd out memory and CTD errors (EGLL 2008 and UT Europe mostly at the cause of those).Thanks as always for the top notch help!Cheers!

The prob with 64-bit is, certain apps aren't compatible. For example parts of the current FSX SDKs. So FSX developement environments probably are 99% 32-bit. But like Davis said, most hardware and software likely is nullo problemo. Kind regards Jaap

Considering hardware:M-Audio Audiophile 2496 doesn't have nor will bring 64bit driverCanon 4200F Scanner doesn't work properly (although there is a driver)

>>>Considering hardware:M-Audio Audiophile 2496 doesn't have nor will bring 64bit driverWho's considering that? You?If so, There ARE drivers, these run fine on a Windows 64bit OS.http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.betadrivers6th from the bottom.