I just read where both Samsung and Dell, as companies, have advised that any system running the future VISTA operating system will need TWO GIGS OF SYSTEM RAM or more for the benefits of VISTA over XP to be seen. That's just for the SYSTEM, let alone what FSX seems to want to use!http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/27/dell_2gb_vista/I just ordered two more GIGS from MICRON to add to my one for a total of three. One of the white papers said that VISTA will be very good at CACHING session and program files...and will greatly speed up the input/output to the screen The more RAM you will have available for VISTA to use, will be what will maximize its performance over XP.Between VISTA and FSX in apparently loving to suck up the RAM, perhaps the best FSX 'tweak' of all will be to have three to four gigs of system RAM available for the both of them. I think having four would be over-kill.Cheers!Mitch R.

We've already had the warning from Phil Taylor at MS that FSX will probably run slower under Vista than XP. There wasn't any `unless more RAM is added` either. So I think you're probably on a hiding to nothing as far as FS is concerned. For general purpose use you are on the right track for Vista, I reckon.Once the DX10 patch is available, things might be different, as even with FSX as it is now there are I/O limits all over the place and even if you solved the problem of limits in the OS, you would only be transferring the bottleneck somewhere else. Possibly, there may be the capacity to put the whole of the sim into RAM. If that proves to be the case then investing in a RAM Disk to increase the amount of RAM available my be a pricey, but effective solution. And that could provide a massive boost to everything in the computer, from boot-up time to defragmentation runs.Anyone from ACES care to tell how much RAM would be needed to run FSX entirely from memory?Allcott

Hello,From what I am gleaning from my technical reads, is that (they claim, not me, lol) VISTA will be able to keep greater numbers of files in its CASCHE that XP does not do, and therefore will be able to shed off latency for when that information is gleaned by the program/CPU cycle.If that is the case, and FSX will be interpreted by VISTA, that would indeed have an effect on what and how fast scenes are rendered to the screen.Bottlenecks? Of course, but VISTA would be one more advancement/solution (assuming the user's computer has ample RAM 3-4 Gigs) for the usage of VISTA to do its part for greater FPS from FSX.It would stand to reason, BUT....before I dump XP in favor of VISTA, I will not be an early adopter, and will be content to read the reports of those that have decided for their reasons to make the leap-of-faith at the forefront.Let's see where the dust will settle on Vista/FSX. :)Cheers!Mitch R.

I think that's the smart move, Mitch. I would have to run a dual bot system anyway, so I'm more interested in the performance-per-pound scenario. And Vista/DX9 is a non-starter. Vista looks like it will be a very expensive de-upgrade as far as FSX is concerned, until more hardware (and more expense) is thrown at it. Frankly, throwing all the money at hardware and keeping FSX on XP looks to be the better medium-term bet. Long term, Let someone else be the beta tester. Otherwise it could be a vary expensive mistake. Eventually we will all shift to DX10 anyway. Allcott

Allcott, I concur with everything you just posted, 'pound-for-pound'.I AM finding this whole FSX beef and/or entertainment fest quite amusing. Why?Here's why, lol.....we all go out and buy a $79.00 program...and not soon after we get home...ALL OF US....are whipping out the plastic towards pre-Christmas meltdown....spending hundreds of dollars to get that $79.00 vunderbar to the point it will suspend disbelief (30 plus frames...) Gawd, we are all F.S. junkies!I just ordered $257.99 more in RAM modules (2 GB) just because I want to pump a few more FPS. Next, it will be an XT1950XTX 512 meg. I wonder if all this could be tax deductible when in the throes of divorce proceedings??!? Hmmmm.........I'd think that most other 'gamers' (I wince at that word when referencing flight simulation...) would think we'd need deep emotional counseling, for all the POST FSX RELEASE DATE systems being bought, and upgrades in situ...and ALL for one program, ROTFLMBO! I DO include myself in this.....jeez......lol.(I stand up...and clear my throat) "Hello, my name is Mitch, and I am a Flight Simulation simo-holic...."Hello Mitch, welcome to the circle...now please take a seat and let the next guy/gal introduce himself/herself....." ;)Ya have to maintain a sense of humor in all of this......whew....Cheers!Mitch R.

Lord knows, if you didn't laugh, you'd cry! :)Everybody EXCEPT MS make games for the hardware around at the time of release, (or very soon after)! Not MS, oh no!, They have to release a game now that won't actually be playable for two or three years, by which time most have long since been removed from the hard drive, consigned to the scrapheap or packed away in a box in the loft. MS could have workde with one or more of the majoir card manufacturers to offer a simultaneous release of a GC solution capable of running and designed for FSX. They didn't. They have only just started on DX10 development - and blame the card manufacturers for the delay in getting their hands on reliable product for the delay! Not only that, but the only modifications that can make the game playable on most current hardware are not included in the graphical user menu system, but involve delving deep into files that aren't even stored in the game folder! It is impossible for the casual user to get the game to work properly. Even experts are struggling! What a disappointment that must be, and what a disincentive for the purchase of the next edition! Looking inside the game we find error after error, a Learning Center that doesn't actually teach anybody anything useful and which contains incorrect information designed to confuse rather than educate, features which have been `forgotten` when they are stated as included (detailed airports) and all the signs of having been ruched into RTM before it was ready. Backward compatibility is a joke that has worn pretty thin, and that `requirement` is blamed for not advancing the engine much beyond FS9 levels!And none of this would have been insurmountable, but the OS for which it is designed is STILL not available! MS need to sit down and reconsider their priorities. The sim will ALWAYS lack the sophistication that the enthusiast market demands as long as the main appeal is directed at the casual user and gamer, but what is there in this package to appeal to the casual user? What incentive or imperative is there for Little Jimmy to persevere trying to get this bag of bolts to run like a swiss watch? Its over-copmplicated and over-reaching for the first time buyer, crude and unsophisticated for the seasoned simmer. Man, they got it wrong this time, and the only hope (and it is more miracle cure than expectation) is that DX10 will come along and save the day?And who is it that ends up picking up the cost of the MS blundering? Why, you and me of course. Frankly, once the performance limitations werre known, MS should have offered (and should still offer) a free copy of Vista to every purchaser of FSX, or a free copy of FSX to every purchaser of Vista. At least that would be recognition of the mistakes and acceptance of some responsibility for them.Until then, autogen off the sim makes a nice glider simulator. If I want more I have to spend hundreds and hundreds of pounds, with no guarantee of results, and warnings from MS that performance under Vista with DX9 will probably be lower! Just how gullible do they think we are? Yes we have to laugh, but at them, not with them.Allcott