>It's the "upgrade" versions that need to be installed over a>previous windows install.>>The OEM and Retail versions don't require a previous install.>Gary said it was OEM though.So I assume it's standalone??If so, that's very inexpensive for a standalone ver.I figured it would run about $250-$300 like in the stores...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

There are other products on Amazon's site that are specifically UPGRADE versions (ie. from Win 2K/XP), so it had better be standalone. The only note that comes with the version I purchased says: NOTE: This OEM software is intended for system builders only and cannot be transferred to another PC once it is installed. The purchaser of this software is required to comply with the terms of the System Builder license, including the responsibility of providing all end-user support for the software. As previously stated, all will be revealed in a week's time when I do the upgrade surgery. I will report back whether I get good or bad results. Gary

There have been some important Vista hotfixes pertaining to 3d applications. They are listed at nVidia, http://www.nvidia.com/object/windows_vista_hotfixes.htmlSome of them might be installed by windows updates by now. I recommend running windows updates before installing vid drivers and checking whether they are installed or not before proceeding.

Thanks for that. I'll check that out when I do my install.Gary

Hey let us know when it's all setup and happy as a hippo!Should be fun with those dual GT's!

Lith1um,Thanks for your explanation :-)Ulf B

Your welcome, glad to be of assistance. The only other Vista comment I have is concerning User Account Control.When UAC is on the "program files" folder is set so permissions only allow a trusted installer to write to that folder, even if you are using an admin account. After you install something the folder is made "read only". The easiest way to avoid some hassle is to install your games to a different folder, I use one called c:Games. I also use a folder called "C:Apps" that I install applications to.Here are some good links regarding vista. They should make transitioning to Vista a bit easier.http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=937835

Without professing to be an expert, I did a little research on this in the summer. It is easy to be confused - and I may still be confused myself - but here goes:Q1: I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that FSX can USE more than 2GB, EVEN when the "3GB" and "large address aware" switches are enabled. Enabling the 3GB switch affects the proportion of available RAM made available to applications as distinct from being reserved for the operating system. It works on an o/s-wide basis in 32-bit o/ses. Enabling the "large address aware" switch works on an application-by-application basis. It allows the application to ADDRESS more than 2GB of RAM space, but that is not the same as USING more than 2GB of RAM. It simply means that FSX doesn't have to compete with other applications for the FIRST addressable 2GB-space on the system. This improves stability, partly because it gives FSX access to larger stretches of contiguous (ie, unfragmented) RAM. But it is not the same as FSX USING more than 2GB.Q2: The 64Bit operating system does not ITSELF confer any speed advantage on a 32Bit application; but you might find the system as a whole a little more responsive because some of the 64Bit applications (eg, 64Bit Explorer) do seem to work a little faster, in my experience anyway; and typically you will have more RAM with a 64Bit system, than a 32Bit one, thus reducing dependency on the hard disk for virtual RAM.Q3: 32Bit XP cannot use more than about 3GB of RAM because it can only ADDRESS a maximum of 4GB: not just motherboard RAM, but other kinds of memory too. Your video card has RAM on it, so this eats up memory address space which would otherwise be available for addressing your motherboard RAM. The same is true of Vista 32. Vista 64 and indeed XP 64 completely break through this barrier. On your numbers, XP will reserve (as I recall) about 1.5GB for the operating system and make the remainder available for applications. If you apply the "3GB" switch, it will try to release a higher proportion of RAM to applications. Thus on any view, XP will be able to use the 3GB of memory, but it may not be as efficient as you would like.RgdsTim Morshead

I guess Phil would be a good person to ask for clarification.In one of his SP2 blogs Phil lists new features and he lists,"3G enabling FSX and Autogen memory use optimization "I was under the impression that this enabled FSX to use up to 3 gig for itself. I could be wrong and I'll love to hear some official clarification as to exactly what it does mean.Source -> http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...on-and-sp2.aspx

>Hi Tom,>the real benefit of Vista 64 is to use more than 2 GB.OK, but tell me, what other benefits might 64 bit have from a user point of view? Is there faster boot times? Faster file transfers? Move overall throughput? Can a user easily spot they're on a 64bit platform from overall performance enhancement? Noel