Hi again, I have the choice of 4 OS for new build and will most likely dual boot: XP Pro, XP Pro 64 bit, Vista Business, Vista Business 64 bit. Which would you choose, up to two? I am concerened about the lack of driver support for 64bit, but I could use the 3 gb switch as I would like to try 4GB Ram with my OC. This is for FSX and the near future and I currently have (1) 250GB HD in this system. A DX10 board will be the next addition. Thanks for your opinions.EDIT: While here I'm askin..... I also got an easy OC to 3.2 on stock voltages (55-57C load with orthos after 8 hours). My ram timings are 5-5-5-18 - how much difference would it make to try and tighten those up to 4-4-4-12? I'd probebly have to bump up the ram voltage. Worth it? Regards, Kendall#1: E6750 0C 3.2GHZ/Coolermaster HyperTX2 Gigabyte P35-DS3L 2GB Crucial Ballistix PC6400 Seagate 250GB 7200.10 SATA2 Gigabyte X800XT -Cat 6.12's CH Yoke/Pedals/Saitek Throttle Dual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905 #2: Dell 8400 3.2 H.T. 3GB PC4200 Diamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530's

If it were me, if I were dual-booting I'd want XP Pro (32-bit), and Vista Home Premium 64-bit. But since you want Vista Business then I'd go with that. I would try the 64-bit on the Vista just because I like trying new things, and after all, I would have the 32-bit XP to fall back on in case it didn't run FS well.Regarding the mem timings, I think most Core2 users report that on their Core2 platforms, memory timings don't have much impact on FS performance. You need to hear that from the core2 users though, and don't rely on my saying that.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Rhett,We've got to start disagreeing or people are gonna talk.XP Pro 32-bit...because it works and you can get drivers and it ain't gonna let you downVista 64-bit..because that's the future and you'll be ready for it.RegardsJim

Maybe we are subconciously linked......sounds like something on Art Bell's radio show, haha.Since we're talking about dual-booting, I am considering (leaning more and more) towards doing a dual-boot config some time next year when I upgrade.My question is, how to set up the dual-boot. Would I simply make 1 partition, and install XP on it, and make another partition, and install Vista on it? Or is there some sort of boot manager type program that is built-in that allows for this?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>My question is, how to set up the dual-boot. Would I simply>make 1 partition, and install XP on it, and make another>partition, and install Vista on it? Or is there some sort of>boot manager type program that is built-in that allows for>this?>>>RhettHi guys, thanks for the replies. Rhett, FWIW with the short research I've done, I decided to set up 3 partions - 1 for XP Pro 32 bit, 1 for Vista (32/64 yet to be decided, unfortunately business is all I can get, it's free though so WTH) and 1 for storage that both versions will be able to access. Otherwise, I suppose a guy could have dual HD's, but don't think that would work with Raid. And yes, Vista comes with a boot manager. Here is mainly where I have gotten my info: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_install_04.asp I wonder if it's possible to tri-boot and have both 32/64 bit Vista in it's own partition to mess around with. I'll have to see if Nlite works with Vista and hopefully automate the installs with slipstreamed drivers etc. :7.Think I'll leave the ram timings be as I'm happy to have gotten back to 3.2 OC after adding another 2 Gigs of ram - good enuff.Regards, Kendall#1: [email protected]/Coolermaster HyperTX2 Gigabyte P35-DS3L 4GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers PC6400 Seagate 250GB 7200.10 SATA2 Gigabyte X800XT -Cat 6.12's CH Yoke/Pedals/Saitek Throttle Dual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905 #2: Dell 8400 3.2 H.T. 3GB PC4200 Diamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530's

I have 3 HDs but haven't bothered with RAID. I have a Dual boot with XP Pro 32 on 1 drive and Vista 32 Business on another drive and the 3rd drive I use for Data backup.I installed XP first then Vista, from what I remember it was all pretty easy, I did go and edit the boot.ini file afterward to make XP the default boot as Vista assumes you want Vista as the priority.RegardsJim

Hi all,Yesterday I started to consider to upgrade to Vista. So I googled and found a couple of sites that had benchmarked Vista and WinXP.I came up with these, very personal, conclusions after reading the articles:1. FSX is a 32bit application and won't benefit from Vista 64. So there is no point in getting Vista 64. 32bit applications will run a little slower on a 64bit os than on a 32 bit os.2. In general games run faster on WinXP than on Vista, and I assume that this is true for FSX as well.3. The performance gain that I will achieve from running FSX DX10 will be pretty much the same as the loss when going from XP to Vista.4. The gain in visual improvements with DX10 won't make up for the cost of purchasing Vista and the effort of installing and optimizing Vista and reinstalling FSX and all add ons. It would make more sense if I needed to build me a new pc at the same time.Please feel free to comment on item 1 to 3 (item 4 is pretty my own opinion and I don't need any comments on that, thanks). I'm no expert on Vista so any expert comments are welcome. But please don't comment on performance based on 'Vista feels faster'. I'm looking for facts, that is systematic benchmarks comparing Vista and XP based on running FSX with some heavy duty scenery add-on.So I'll continue to stick to WinXP and FSX DX9 for until I feel that there is some sense in building a new pc. But if I get hit by the reactivation error and error 1772 once again, I'd consider to install Vista since this situation required a complete reinstall of FSX and all add ons.Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 OC 3.3GHz, 4GB RAM8800GTX, dual view 1920x1200 and 1280x1024Creative SB X-Fi (Gamer mode)WinXP Pro SP2, FSX SP1, FS9.1

Hum ....My 2p worth.... :)1) If the program has LARGEADDRESS enabled then you can use a cludgewithin the 32 bit compiled programs on 64bit OS. Ie the single application can address 4Gb memory rather than the 2Gb on a 32bitOS. Since FS9/X sailsclose to the 2Gbyte app limit then this can be useful if youhave a lot of modules addon 2) Maybe only due to the extra memory loading within vista thateffects this - maybe other stuff too - the aero interface puta lot of load on the GPU too6) The main problem with a 64bit OS is the compatibility and drivers for the hardware. You will be restricted to particularjoy sticks / peddles and such like due to the driver support.For FS9/X this is a serious problem, cos we all like the newhardware that goes with this:-)

Thank TomOOO,But your answer didn't enlighten me that much regarding Vista and FSX specifically. Some follow up questions below for you or anybody else to answer. Any answer is very much appreciated :-)>1) If the program has LARGEADDRESS enabled then you can use a>cludge>within the 32 bit compiled programs on 64bit OS. Ie the>single >application can address 4Gb memory rather than the 2Gb on a>32bit>OS. Since FS9/X sails>close to the 2Gbyte app limit then this can be useful if you>have a lot of modules addon Does this apply to FSX? Does FSX use upt to 4GB of memory on Vista 64?>2) Maybe only due to the extra memory loading within vista>that>effects this - maybe other stuff too - the aero interface put>a lot of load on the GPU tooDoes WinXP in general run programs, like FSX, faster than Vista even if all fancy stuff and unneeded services are turned off?>6) The main problem with a 64bit OS is the compatibility and >drivers for the hardware. You will be restricted to>particular>joy sticks / peddles and such like due to the driver support.>For FS9/X this is a serious problem, cos we all like the new>hardware that goes with thisI consider this to be a temporary issue and it seems that we still have compatibility issues with new sound and graphic cards even in WinXP ;-)Edited: MS Extends sales of WinXP. http://www.informationweek.com/windows/sho...cleID=202102847Must be some reason for this. When I left Win98 for WinXP, I felt very happy and it was definitely a much better OS. With Vista I'm not that sure. I still wish that MS will release a Gamers Edition with all resource consuming services and eyecandy turned of on initial install. And the user account created on initial install should have administrator authority by default.Ulf B

Ulf B1) Most programs, and I think all MS programs after about 2002 canuse the LARGEADRESS cludge. So FS2004 and FSX can both use 4Gbon XP 64bit or Vista 64bit2)Speed of Vista cf. XP. : As a general rule XP does tend to runfaster than Vista; I have no direct experience of FS but it doesappear to be the case from other posts here that this is the case.A Vista computer has to have a higher specification to do standardoffice things. (word, access, excel, powerpoint).Another big problem is the "footprint" of Vista is much bigger. Thefootprint of a program is what is uses while sitting doing not much -Vista has big feet. As a general rule you would need a computer withat least 256Mbyte of RAM and preferable 512Mb of RAM to use XP with ordinary office programs. With Vista you need at least 1Gbyte torun the same ordinary office program. Of course we know that thefootprint of FS2004 is about 800Mbyte, though this can rise to 1.2Mbwith several modules and complex scenery. FSX has a slightly largerfootprint, though not much. Given this memory problem of Vistait is much more likely to hit swapping problems with Vista - wherethe total amount of memory required is larger than the physical memoryof the computer - so data is pushed to disk (page file). You get abig hit on performance when this happens. So again, you must specifya bigger computer to work with Vista.1Gbyte is OK with FS2004 on XP, 2Gbyte is perfect - though probably overkill2Gbyte is just about OK with FSX on Vista, though 3Gbyte is preferableand you should never bother with more than 3Gbyte with a 32bit OS.6) yes - but still a problem now. My guess would be that FS11 willbe 64bit - ie compiled as a 64bit application, same as other problemprograms will also have to become 64bit such as photoshop. Somecommercial software is already 64bit - Oracle or MS Server DB. At some point all the hardware venders will be forced to support64bit "native". But not yet, and not for a couple of years. So fornow you should read the compatibility threads before commiting yourself. Tom

Tom,Thanks a lot for your explanation :-)Have a nice weekend!Ulf B