I am not sure if I should get 32-bit or 64-bit Windows Vista. I want all 4 GB of my RAM to be recognized and used, not just 3 GB. However, I have heard that 64-bit Vista is very unstable and most applications crash within it. Suggestions?Thanks,BoeingGuy

>I want all 4 GB of my RAM to be recognized and used, not just 3 GB.64-bit will give you that, *BUT* (and this is a big but) you need 64-bit applications that can ALSO see the larger memory to make it worthwhile. 4GB in Vista 64 will NOT all be used by 32-bit programs like FSX. >However, I have heard that 64-bit Vista is very unstable and most applications crash within it.Allow me to make a point of clarification - Vista 64 itself is *EXTREMELY* stable... far more stable than Vista32 or XP. It was engineered that way and really reflects that. The problem rests with 32-bit programs, and the programs not being fully compatible with Vista64. I've played around with V64 and found it to be very VERY nice, but some of the scenery design tools I'd like to use didn't work in the V64 environment. Vista64 is a complex beast - not for the faint of heart. I would probably recommend you stick with the 32-bit flavor for now. A lot of thought has to go into the Vista64 decision. Thoughts like - what apps do you use, are they tested? What devices do you have, do they have 64 drivers? What devices do you PLAN on getting, and are they supported...It is almost like the "if you have to ask..." scenario. Perhaps down the road when device drivers mature and more support is afforded to V64 will it be a good choice for the power- or mainstream-computer user. For now, though, it's for the tinkerer OR the mission-critical serious (with 64bit apps). -Greg

I have Vista 64 here as well, it runs all my 32 bit programs just fine. I run FS9 and FSX and all other games just fine on Vista 64, I actually do not have any 64 bit native application to run as a matter of fact. The only 64 bit items are the operating system, drivers, and AV software.There are issues with Vista depending on configuration - I can't let my PC go to sleep or I loose my USB devices, my firewire devices go bunkers after a while and disconnect on their own. No biggie for me right now as I just have workarounds. Also, make sure that your devices have 64 bit drivers for the devices you have. The CH control applet doesn't work on Vista 64 and you have to download profiles every time you boot from the control manager window. Vista SP1 is around the corner and addresses my issues from what I read on the release notes and forums.If you want Vista, I'd definitely get the 64 bit version and 4 Gb of memory.Hope this helps,Etienne

Another vote here in favour of Vista 64. I've tried FSX on all the available flavours: XP, Vista 32 and Vista 64. Each has its own particular drawbacks and overall, Vista 64's aren't really any worse than those of the others. The OS itself is extremely stable. And in my experience, it gives FSX a slight advantage, for a reason which I'll try to explain:FSX cannot FULLY make use of more than 2Gb RAM. So you might think that it isn't affected by the 3Gb ceiling imposed by Vista 32. But in fact, it can benefit from having more than 3Gb available. This is because - under Vista 64 - FSX is capable of ADDRESSING memory beyond the first 3Gb of space. This gives it greater choice about where to put its 2Gb of data. This matters because it gives FSX a better chance of finding nice unbroken stretches of unfragmented memory space. This reduces the likelihood of "out of memory errors" which - I understand (and my own experience under 32 bit operating systems suggests) - are sometimes triggered just because the application cannot write data to RAM in a big enough single "chunk".The main problems with Vista 64 are (i) ensuring that there are drivers for all your devices and (ii) working around the extra security. The first is down to your choice of equipment. The second is actually pretty easy to deal with. Most file access problems (all of them, in my case at least) are solved by making sure you install FSX to a folder well away from the default "Program files" directory - preferably on a separate drive or partition - and making sure that your account is the "Owner" of it and that "Everyone" has the fullest possible access permissions to it. You can also make life easier for yourself by running FSX (and related applications, such as Activesky and FSBuild) as an "Administrator". Tim

the config posted above got me curious: I thought that you need a 64bit processor for 64bit Windows, and I thought that only AMD64 is a 64bit CPU (like its name implies).How come the I86 Core 2 is 64bit and supports 64bit OS??

all latest processors from both INTEL and AMD are 64 bit, with INTEL having at the moment the performance crown.The core2 is definitively 64 bit.About the decision of going 32 or 64 bit, as written above : - pro : there is more room for all running programs in the addressable memory space.- contra : not all programs are 64 bit compatible (but I found only a very few).The drivers for Vista 32 and 64 are equal stable and functional IMO. Jan

hello some specshttp://www.intel.com/products/processor/co...re2duo+tab_spec

ok I see, it is EMT64. However, I was under the impression EMT64 is not a complete 64bit option, unlike Itanium or AMD64?

HelloThis from the Core2 site>Intel

Actualy it's kinda hard to believe, but Intel and AMD have had a cross licensing agreement since 1976 which allows each to use the others technologies without cost after a set period of time has passed.It's why AMD cpu's have SSE instructions. It's how AMD obtained license to use the 800fsb bus.In fact Intel and AMD have never had a patent dispute because due to the agreement, they don't have to design around each others patents.Edit:I should mention that the retail version of Vista Ultimate includes both the 32bit and 64bit dvd's.I've been running VU64 for around 6+ months and all my gear has drivers. It's been the most stable o.s. I'v ever used and I've used all of the Microsoft os.

I'm in the same boat, deciding which bit OS to use for a new rebuild. How safe is setting up a dual boot for XP32 and Vista64? I have done a dual boot set up with XP and Win2K and have ended up with something happening that would not allow me to boot to either OS, but I forget why! I had to use the emergency repair console to make the thing bootable, at which point I had to delete the XP installation. I am using Win2K still. So, how stable n safe is dual boot with Vista/XP?Noel

Absolutely fine, BUT make sure you install XP first. Installing Vista as the second (or later) OS besides an existing XP installation is absolutely easy-peasy. Adding XP to an existing Vista installation can be done, but it is MUCH more difficult.Tim

>Absolutely fine, BUT make sure you install XP first.>Installing Vista as the second (or later) OS besides an>existing XP installation is absolutely easy-peasy. Adding XP>to an existing Vista installation can be done, but it is MUCH>more difficult.>>TimGreat Tim, thanks, this is what I will do.