I'm trying to decide between operating systems for my new flight sim computer. I hear good and bad about Vista, but mostly bad. I hear only good things about XP. The system I'm going for is a quad 6600, 3 gigs of ram, nvidia 8800GT card. Any opinions you would like to share are very much appreciated. Thanks!Curt

CurtI have only ever run FSX in Vista, so I can't tell you if it is better than XP. I have not had the problems with Vista you have heard about.Bob

If you are not at all interested into DX10, then I recommend XP. I tried Vista - beside all the bells and whistles, XP still is better.

>If you are not at all interested into DX10, then I recommend>XP. I tried Vista - beside all the bells and whistles, XP>still is better.--------------------------------------------------I am in the same quandary as the O.P. I truly have no reason to go beyond XPSP2+Nick's Tune-Up for performance's sake. But...if FSXI (FS11) is going to finally get its act together with the release of a fully working DX10 suite, then it would be crazy for me to order a new computer with XP, as I already have it in a retail purchase.I don't want to run Vista with all its DRM overhead and bloat, but we are sort of held hostage as regards DX10, or possibly DX11, etc.The only choice I have, is to put off my computer purchase until FSXI comes out, and to see what it requires to drive it. If I were to purchase my system now...and then find out that they (M.S.) released FSXI with ***DX9c***... I'd be kicking myself that I had set it up with VISA!Bummer...until the release....

altough i thought that xp was better vista can run in both DX9 and DX10 so it is probably better because you will also be able to run future games and games like Crysis etc which look ALOT better in DX10 so probably go with vista

>altough i thought that xp was better vista can run in both>DX9 and DX10 so it is probably better because you will also be>able to run future games and games like Crysis etc which look>ALOT better in DX10 so probably go with vista>Just to add, this post comes from a guy running extreme 5,7Ghz $1000 CPU (massive overclocking which requires 4-numbered cooling), DDR3 and $600 graphic cards. Try running Vista+FSX with something more average, like E6600 or E8500 (newer), DDR2 and 8800GT. Without $3000 cooling system, none of these CPUs will clock higher than 4.0Ghz stable.I suggest not to listen to much babble about Vista and DX10. Recently I was at the Microsoft's Vista training in our company, a guy had to reboot his computer because it didn't want to open a document. Tells you enough about Vista...And what was so interesting, he said, even with 4GB of RAM, Vista will use all of available memory to cache the programs.Meaning:XP - there is a free memory, you start FS, and FS starts loading into the memoryVista - it either preloads FS into memory (which I really wouldn't want to, and according to my test, it doesn't start any faster than in XP), or if it doesn't, then it first has to clear ALL other precached programs from the memory, which of course takes some time, and THEN loading FSNow, you can turn it off, but then it would be same like in XP. So, why not use XP if it uses less memory?And DX10 quality? Well, it's only important for Crysis. There are no other games really using the potential of DX10. FSX is only DX10 preview, and even a buggy one. So if you are really so eager to play Crysis, install Vista as a 2nd System, and play Crysis in it. And for FS, use XP.Anyone name any other REAL advantages Vista has?

I would say go ahead and buy Vista now if you prefer it over XP. As for myself, even though not a vista a really excited user, i have been running it since the beta 2 (7 months prior to it's official release) and it has gotten a lot more stable now, with all the updates since release including recently SP1. Also consider trying out both, perhaps set up a dual-boot, to see what YOU prefer. I have been running FSX on both Vista and XP and cannot say the performance is very different on either system, although in general vista is quite a memory+system hog, so unless you have 2GB and a dual/quad-core CPU, it's probably better to aim for XP.

XP is far more stable than Vista ever will be. Stick with XP while you can still get it. By the time MS gets Vista working as advertised many moons ago, there will be a new OS in the wings and you'll have to start over again anyhow. Program incompatability, driver issues, resource allocation, and system instability are just a few of the issues plaguing Vista. You can always pick up Vista down the road if you find a genuine need for it but, short of running Crysis in DX10, there really is no need. I have yet to see anything Vista does better than XP except, maybe, looking prettier.For FS, there is little question that XP provides more headroom and better stability.Just my opinion.Regards,Jeff

Just as I think it's a waste of money to buy and install a new operating system in an old computer, I think it's a waste of money to buy an old operating system for a new computer (unless the old OS is a lot cheaper or you plan to use old applications that need the old OS). Vista is over it's growing pains. ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX (SP1-SP2), Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

I thank everyone for their opinion and response, but things remain unclear as the results seem to be 50/50. If I knew that FS11 would require Vista to shine, then I would opt for that. Otherwise, XP would be my choice. I don't suppose Phil Taylor would like to divulge his thoughts on this, would you Phil? Pretty please?Curt

Hi Word Not Allowed,I was tossing around about getting vista because crysis is now a game i like to play so vista would be better but then FSX wouldnt.I need to know about all of this memory stuff. You can turn that weird memory thing off right? Will that give the same results as XP?Is it possible to run XP when you want FSX, and Vista when you want Crysis? it would be pretty cool.Jourdog

This is my first vista machine..Other than getting used to the difference in OS it screams like a raped ape and I have never had one problem......Digital Storm DesktopWindows OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium (64-Bit Edition) (For Enthusiasts)Case: Digital Storm 850Si Power Supply: 750W Corsair HX (Dual SLI Compatible) (Silent Edition)Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz (1066MHz FSB) (8MB Cache)(overclocked) 3.38GHzMotherboard: nVidia 780i Core 2 Quad (By: eVGA) (nForce 780i SLI)Memory: 4GB DDR2 Corsair at 1066MHz Dominator (Dual Channel) (Extreme-Performance)Hard Drive 1: 150GB Western Digital Raptor (10K RPM) (16MB Cache) (SATA) (Extreme Speed)Hard Drive 2: 250GB Western Digital (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA)Video Card: 2x SLI Dual (nVidia GeForce 8800GTS 512MB (By: eVGA) (PCI-Express)Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi FPS Fatal1ty Champion (Includes Front I/O Unit)Cooling: Air Cooled Stage 3 WindTunnel (Copper Heatpipe Heatsink & Zalman Case Fans)

I aborted plans for FSX (few addons only yet, and potential perf problems on a midrange PC once having some addons that I plan to use).So it's gonna be my FS2004, waiting on the shelf for 4 years. And here's the reasons why I will buy my new PC with WinXP:I know it, I don't waste time to learn the differencesI can network easily with my existing PCFS2004 is designed for XPGameport will work (Yoke and Rudders)My webcam, scanner and printer are supported. With Vista I'm forced to replace at least scanner and webcamSome applicatins I have only work on XPI don't need the Vista features NOW.(There's also Problems: XP is not available anymore soon. New Hardware and Software potentially are designed for Vista only.)I decided to wait for FS11. Once it's out I will check the benefits. If it's good, I will wait another 1 year to let the Hardware catch up and Addons to be released. Then I will replace my 2008 hardware (or parts of it) with a PC that fits exactly. Since my 2008 PC will be a budget one, I will feel good to replace it.I assume FS11 is there Fall 2009. I would plan to get Hardware 2010/11. Let's see if Vista still is a factor by then. That's what I wanna say: To get XP or Vista depends on many factors. I informed myself, checked what's important for me, made my mind up and concluded. Above are MY reasons. I feel like I made the right desicion. Anybody else might have different approaches and will better choose Vista.Inform yourself en detail!Cheers, Bigean

>I'm trying to decide between operating systems for my new>flight sim computer. I hear good and bad about Vista, but>mostly bad. I hear only good things about XP. The system I'm>going for is a quad 6600, 3 gigs of ram, nvidia 8800GT card. >Any opinions you would like to share are very much>appreciated. Thanks!>I havn't used Vista but in addition to the ordinary Win XP Home I also tried out the Win XP 64 bit. And there was some performence advantage over 32 bit Win XP. For example textures loaded instantly when looking left right.That has made me think if the Vista 64 bit edition offers advantages over Win XP because of being a 64 bit OS?

>Hi Word Not Allowed,>I was tossing around about getting vista because crysis is now>a game i like to play so vista would be better but then FSX>wouldnt.>I need to know about all of this memory stuff. You can turn>that weird memory thing off right? Will that give the same>results as XP?>Is it possible to run XP when you want FSX, and Vista when you>want Crysis? it would be pretty cool.>>JourdogHi Jourdog,Yes, you can turn off this memory prefetching, basically telling Vista to load whats needed and give you a peace. Lowest I got Vista to load was around 400mb I think (even with Aero enabled), I went, for the sake of the test, disabling various services, which I would never need (networking), according to the Vipers website.That it gives the same result in XP, not. My initial load of XP is around 200mb. That is something Vista cannot achieve. Why, I don't really get it. All I know, more things you have loaded, more stutters you might have in your FS. That is why I tend to have my XP clean as a whistle.It is though possible to install both. You just have to make separate partitions, install first XP, and then Vista as a 2nd OS. And just choose which one to boot at the beginning.And not to mention DRM. Would I ever want to have running it behind my FS? Shortly, never. Using CPU cycles for something else (if I don't want it to) than FS is absolutely hilarious to me. It's solely my choice.