I just read this article over at Tom's, and now I am completely confused on what I should do:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vista-workshop,1775.htmlTo summarize, here is what the article is basically saying. Vista 64 bit has a larger memory footprint than the 32 bit version. So, if you only have 4GB of memory installed on a 64 bit version of Vista, you will gain anywhere from .5 - 1 GB of memory over the 32 bit version because it is limited to using only 3-3.5 GB's of memory. This .5-1 GB of memory that you gained from going to Vista 64 is then immediately lost to Vista 64 because it has a much larger memory footprint than Vista 32 bit. In the end, I guess the only reason you would fool with Vista 64 bit is if you have a large amount of memory, which would mean 8 GB's.So, for you Vista 64 bit users out there, did you really notice a difference in FSX performance when you installed Vista 64 bit with only 4GB of memory? Or, was the performance just about the same? How about you people who have 8 GB of memory installed? Any comments would greatly be appreciated. I am uncertain on which way to go as I build my new PC over the next few days.

You do not need 8gb.I run FSX+V64 with 4gb ram and it is just fine on my hardware (specs below). In fact I'd go so far as to say FSX is amazing on my new machine; I see smoothness all around, and I'm not even overclocking it yet.RhettE8500, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64

Hey Rhett-Does V64 have any special hardware requirements for installation? I'm currently running V32 with a ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wireless Edition MB and AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor 3.2GHzThanks,Mark

One thing you're not considering is that FSX is a 32bit program. so the program itself is limited to 2GB of memory, as all 32 bit programs are.One thing that may hurt your performance is the fact that 64 bit drivers still are not quite as good as their 32 bit counterparts.I have tried FSX on the same system as both a V32 and V64, and while the V32 was more stable in the beginning, I needed V64 for other apps, luckily the drivers have gotten more stable and faster as time goes on, so my performance now is better with V64 than it was with V32 just a few months ago.

I'm currently in the process of doing a benchmark of a couple of graphics cards, 800 vs 1000 memory, and vista 64 vs 32. So far it looks like there is very little difference between the two operating systems. Hopefully I'll finish benchmarking this week.

You only need to have a 64 bit compatible motherboard and CPU, and make sure you can find compatible drivers for all your devices and components.As for me, I noticed that I use about 70-80% of RAM while flying in FSX. If I had 32-bit Vista, then since the RAM is limited, I would get more stutters, etc. I noticed it on a friend's computer.

I guess I should point out that the improved performance I mentioned is due to better drivers and not the OS. FSX runs as a 32bit program even when run in a 64bit OS. I believe the only advantage V64 has for FSX is the fact that it won't run out of memory registers for people who are running multiple video cards, and people who have tons of background programs running while they fly.

>Hey Rhett->>Does V64 have any special hardware requirements for>installation? I'm currently running V32 with a ASUS M2N32-SLI>Deluxe Wireless Edition MB and AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor>3.2GHz>>Thanks,>MarkBoeingGuy is "spot on" as the British say--all you need is a 64-bit cpu, and you have that already--the key thing is to make sure all of your peripherals have Vista64 drivers available for them.That's been the caveat with Vista 64--to make sure drivers are available. If you do your homework ahead of time you won't have any unpleasant surprises.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

>This .5-1 GB of memory that you>gained from going to Vista 64 is then immediately lost to>Vista 64 because it has a much larger memory footprint than>Vista 32 bit. the end, I guess the only reason you would fool with Vista>64 bit is if you have a large amount of memory, which would>mean 8 GB's.You should also consider that with Win 32 (XP or Vista running GDI+ under DX9) video RAM is mapped into the app RAM address space, so if your video card has 1 GBy (not unusal these days) your Windows + App combo can only use 4 - 1 = 3 GBy!With Vista-64 and DX10 the GDI+ is history, video RAM is fully virtualized and your Video RAM no longer subtracts from your App's address space, so if you have 8 GBy your App can use 8 GBy plus the 1 GBy for video RAM.This of course is only true for 64-bit apps.For 32-bit Apps such as FSX running under Vista-64, the 2^32 bit = 4 GByte limit still exists, so your 1 GBy video RAM will mean your Windows + App combo will again be limited to 3 GBy.There is a catch, though: Whereas with Vista-64 *all* of Vista sits in the 4 GBy address space shared with your App and Video card, with Vista-64 the operating system footprint is reduced to the 32-bit emulation code actually needed by your App, while all the other parts of Vista-64 not needed by your app are left out so your App can have the most RAM available within the 4 GBy limit.So although FSX (a 32-bit App) will not be able to use more than 4 GBy of RAM, you might benefit from 8 GBy for other Apps you run concurrently with FSX.Anyone else with info to add or corrections to make, please feel free to add your thoughts, for example regarding the Vista-64 and DX9 combo.Cheers,-jahman.