Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hawkhero

Vista 64 bit set up

Recommended Posts

Hi, I am getting a new system in a few weeks. It will be running Vista 64 bit. It will have 4mb of ram. Any hints on setting up Vista to run FSX smooth? I haven't used Vista before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

As far as I can see, you can keep on reading and reading, and basically, it all comes down to DIY. Try and you shall see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, read lots of threads as was said. Also go to tweakguides.com and find K. Ghazi's Windows Vista optimization guide for another useful read.On my Vista64 I have disabled DEP and User Accounts Control. I have not disabled the driver signing thing yet (you'll need to if you plan to use RivaTuner, for example...). The key point: You should not just start disabling services haphazardly. You need to RESEARCH and KNOW what each service does, and what other services depend on that service. If you do not, you can end up with a worse performing sim than you should.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestions are:1. Install FSX and all add-ons somewhere elsewhere than the default "Program Files (x86)" or "Program Files" folders, preferably onto a separate hard drive. The reason is that Vista 64 locks down the default application directories and makes it difficult to write to them. This is a problem for FSX and add-ons because they need to write to these directories as well as read from them.2. Once you've installed everything and made sure you're completely up-to-date (Vista 64 SP1 and everything since, latest drivers, as well as FSX SP2/Acceleration), check that you still have ownership of your FSX directories (Properties > Security > Advanced > Owner). I found that Vista 64 has (or had) a tendency to put directories under System ownership arbitrarily: this, again, tends to lock down the ability to write to them.3. Check that your installation of FSX is "large address aware" to make best use of your RAM. I believe that SP2/Acceleration turn this switch on by default. But you can check and, if need be, alter the setting using an application called CFF Explorer. There are some instructions here: http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82278.4. Always run FSX and any add-ons as Administrator.5. I have found no advantage in turning off User Account Control. In fact, some applications (including Photoshop) positively need UAC turned on in order to work properly. Also, bluntly, why bother with Vista at all, if you're going to turn off its most important improvement on XP? Surely it's better in the long run just to get used to the niggles of living with a more security-aware OS.Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I did for Vista 64 :)1) Install Vista 64 and updates2) Install any missing drivers, including video3) Install FSX, then Acceleration, other add ons.Works great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Here's what I did for Vista 641) Install Vista 64 and updates2) Install any missing drivers, including video3) Install FSX, then Acceleration, other add ons.Works great."Me too. Perfect advice. Vista's plug and play. 1) Let it install to the default directory on your boot drive and go fly. I've had no problem sharing the FS directory (in its default location) over a network. FSEarth runs fine on a networked machine. 2) Leave the page file Alone. Vista knows how to handle that. 3) Shut off UAC just cuz it's such an annoyance. 4) Don't mess with services. You'll just get yourself into trouble. That was the old days when every K-o-ram and P4 (single core) CPU cycle mattered. The resources freed by these outdated drills will be entirely irrelevant. FS CannoT come close to using resources that are available. If only it could! Sadly, there's plenty to spare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>3) Shut off UAC just cuz it's such an annoyance. >What is UAC?>4) Don't mess with services. You'll just get yourself into>trouble. That was the old days when every K-o-ram and P4>(single core) CPU cycle mattered. >>The resources freed by these outdated drills will be entirely>irrelevant. FS CannoT come close to using resources that are>available. If only it could! Sadly, there's plenty to spare.Would this also apply regarding FSAutostart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a user account control..Its anoying if left on...Every time you try to do something a box will pop up asking for permission to continue.....It sucks and when you get your rig go into control panel and just disable it is all...All the advice above is stellar....If your rig is strong all you really need to do is install and fly...But if you do a lot of config tweaking-rewrittingfiles/commands and such it is advisable to install FSX into a new folder you create and place into your C/ Drive anywhere but Program Files X86...If you let it install to that folder (default) you will have trouble rewritting anything as Vista does not want that to happen in Program Files X86....You will see the file when you get your system.....BTW...For the best install...DefraggInstall FSX...register it...load a flight and let it build scenery...then close and defragg again....Do it that way for every addon...Defrag-Install/ build scenery/plane whatever-close-defrag....Havefun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If your rig is strong all you really need to do is install and>fly...>And what is strong enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And what is strong enough?4 gigs memory + modern chipset + later-gen Core2 + 8800GT/GTX or higher.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>And what is strong enough?>>4 gigs memory + modern chipset + later-gen Core2 + 8800GT/GTX>or higher.>What about 2 gigs memory + NVIDIA nForce 650i SLI / NVIDIA nForce 430 MCP + E8400 + 8800GT ? My planned upgrade system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Those 6x0 chipsets have the rep as being the "rebels choice" and are equally flaky. P35s are not a nickle more expensive, but a whole lot more stable. Go with the P35. BTW, Intel is refusing to allow Nvidia a license to make Nehalem chipsets.2) Splurge an extra $35 and get that 3rd and 4th gig-o-ram. 3) The e8400 is $190. The Q6600 is $200. While you are in a splurging mood, get the quad.FSAutostart is for those old P4 / 512M-o-ram systems. With our modern systems, it's unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Sam, I would want 4 gigs mem with Vista, and also I would do a P35 chipset over an nForce 650i any day. You'll be happier with the P35, giving you a more stable rig that will o/c stably, higher.The thing about Q6600 over E8400, well, that's up to you to decide. The E will give you more raw framerate; the Q might set you up better for 2 years from now. IMO it depends on how long you plan to keep the machine.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>1) Those 6x0 chipsets have the rep as being the "rebels>choice" and are equally flaky. P35s are not a nickle more>expensive, but a whole lot more stable. Go with the P35. BTW,>Intel is refusing to allow Nvidia a license to make Nehalem>chipsets.>For me it's a little bit more complicated. I have choosen a motherboard (MSI SLI V2) because it got two IDE ports. And I already have two IDE drives. A P35 mb would as I see it create the need for a extra SATA HD so it still will be more expensive.>2) Splurge an extra $35 and get that 3rd and 4th gig-o-ram. >Where I live the 2 Gb Kingston I had choosen cost about $70.Also I think it was at Corsair website there was link to a test comparing performence with 2 Gb and 4 Gb. In other games and most while switching task there was a difference. Big exception was FSX here the testresult showed little difference.>3) The e8400 is $190. The Q6600 is $200. While you are in a>splurging mood, get the quad.>But the E8400 is 3 GHz and Q6600 2.4 GHz and in PC Pilot they wrote that FSX is optimised for two cores and four cores wouldn't make much extra benefit.>FSAutostart is for those old P4 / 512M-o-ram systems. With our>modern systems, it's unnecessary. In addition to that going Vista means I will be able to set up a second computer and wide-fs.Final note I have already been in splurging mode adding a little bit there and there. I started with AMD 64 X2 and 9600 videocard. Then added a little to get Intel E7200 and a 8800GT then a little bit more to get E8400. As I see my situation now I can't continue like this.My current system is very unteliable and broken someway. Both PSU and videocard can be faulty. In order to keep a second computer new parts might be needed for itwhich will further increase cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Agreed with Sam, I would want 4 gigs mem with Vista, and also>I would do a P35 chipset over an nForce 650i any day. You'll>be happier with the P35, giving you a more stable rig that>will o/c stably, higher.>To have stable system is top priority so I will look into this option.>The thing about Q6600 over E8400, well, that's up to you to>decide. The E will give you more raw framerate; the Q might>set you up better for 2 years from now. IMO it depends on how>long you plan to keep the machine.>I think that in two years and with FS11 no system I get now will suffice.When it comes to FSX my impression is that E8400 8800GT 2 Gb RAM and vista 64 is rather optimal. I mean for example people report no difference between 8800 and 9800.And of course there is an option to buy a new quad core in two years at a significantly lower price.My plan for how long to keep my system depends entirely on my future economical situation. I might be stuck with the system I get now. Had my

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All P35s can use 2 IDE drives. I have 2 old IDE's plugged in and running on my P35 P5K-e as we speak. That is not an issue. Get cheaper ram. There's absolutely No need for anything other than a lifetime warranty and a DDR2-800 rating. With a 64 bit system 4Gs Will make a performance difference. FSX is optimized for - One - core for FPS performance and "as many cores as you can throw at it" for texture loading workloads. These mags are Not necessarily the last work on this stuff. PC pilot is simply presenting inaccurate information here. The Q6600 will go to 3.6Ghz. That's the whole point. The 8400 has the same multiplier and (therefore) will also go to 3.6Ghz. The E84 might go to 3.8, but you then - Must - ramp the mobo's FSB beyond its rated 400mhz. Consider this equation: (The E84's 200 additional Mhz = ? additional FPS) - (the Q's additional texture loading capability + a less sustainable FSB) = The Q wins. The Q at 3.6 is the smart choice.A P35/Q6600@3.6/4G-ram/8800GT/V64 is IT until Sandy Bridge. With this system you will entirely skip the Nehalem hyperbole and see what the next-next gen has to offer. No more splurging. Do it once and be done with it 'til Sandy Bridge. P35/Q6600@3.6/4G-ram/8800GT/V64.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>All P35s can use 2 IDE drives. I have 2 old IDE's plugged in>and running on my P35 P5K-e as we speak. That is not an issue.>Yes but after connecting my DVD burner and an additional DVD Rom there is no more place for harddrives. Well of course I could use only one optical unit and one HD. But I'm somewhat skeptical to have a DVD and a HD on the same cable. On the other hand I must admit that I have been tempted by the 7200.11 seagate. I wonder if using that instead of a IDE HD would mean any significant difference?>Get cheaper ram. There's absolutely No need for anything otherThere are no I can find. Cheapest 2 * 1 Gb pair is $58. Precisely what difference will I notice in FSX with 4 Gb instead of 2 Gb>The Q6600 will go to 3.6Ghz. That's the whole point. The 8400Can I be certain that this is going to work without problems. For example OC four cores should mean more heat than OC two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I'm running a old IDE 250 and my single optical writer on that single IDE ribbon cable. It works fine. However these modern 7200 RPM drives (Seagate -11, et all) will really make a difference. The Qs overclock just fine on the P35. However O/Cing Qs on the 6x0s are a real problem. If you stay with the P35, there will be no problem O/Cing the Q.Here's a typical PMDG 744X flight in progress. Nothing special here. I'm descending through 12 inbound to the ILS intercept for EDDF's 07R. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/190133.jpgNotice a couple of things. The bottom window is Process Explorer. The Virtual Size column is the OOM stuff. Notice I'm at 3.3Gs, which is above the 32bit op system's maximum capability even with the "3 G Switch." This is Why a 64bit system is more capable. My nice flight would have OOM'd long ago on a 32 bit system, even with the 3G switch. Now look at the WS Private column. This is the physical memory in use by Just FS. It's at 2.5Gs. A system with only 2Gs would have gone to the page file at ~ 1.5Gs. After all, the op system Must keep some ram for its own use. That means a 2G system (32 Or 64 bit) would have approximately 1/3rd of its working data in page file (on a hard drive). Here, I have the entire working data in ram. That's better. Why? Ram data can be accessed faster than HD data. The top window is task manager. Notice the total system ram load is 3.4Gs. I have simply minimized the sim to write this post, plus whatever else is up. The 64bit op system has enabled my Entire 4Gs and the system is still completely responsive. All of these capabilities are available and it's simply smart to use 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The Qs overclock just fine on the P35. However O/Cing Qs on>the 6x0s are a real problem. If you stay with the P35, there>will be no problem O/Cing the Q.>I think I will follow the advice to get a P35 mb. Here is one example that I think looks interestinghttp://www.datorbutiken.com/se/default.asp...uct=GIGEP35-DS3what do you think about it?When it comes to the CPU I'm more uncertain. I have noted that theE8400 is 45 nm 3 GHz stock and the Q6600 is 65 nm 2.5 GHz stock. Shouldn't a 45 nm penryn OC better from it's stock 3 GHz than four core 65 nm from its 2.5 GHz stock? What could this mean for the PSU requirement. I have the corsair HX520W in mind.As for RAM an additional 2 Gb can easy be added later but reinstalling the whole system on a new harddrive would mean a lot of work so I'm more prone to first get a 7200.11 HD and then later extra RAM compared to the opposite order.>Here's a typical PMDG 744X flight in progress. Nothing specialBut wasn't that PMDG 744 extremely hard on performence compared to other planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mobo looks fine. It only has one PCI-e Vcard slot, so you will be limited to only 2 monitors. If that's OK, go for it. The E8400's "45nm-ness" doesn't help. These (real world) CPU's O/Cing capabilities are All about their multipliers. In this case, the E84 and the Q66 both have a 9 multiplier. One of tricks to a stable O/C is to NoT Uber-stress the FSB. The P35 was designed to run at a 400MHz FSB. Anything above that and you are building in a shaky timber to your O/Cing structure. The Geeks (and I) run above 400Mhz all the time, but this is for the Hobby of playing-with-computers. For 100% stable, untweaked system, 400 is it. Both the E84 and the Q66 will run at 400 x 9 = 3.6Ghz. This is also the CPU's limit for the Q. But the E8400 Will go some more . . . IF you are willing to go above a 400Mhz FSB. For a non-hobbiest's 24/7 system, I'd strongly advise against it.The flight was the PMDG 744X with sliders at 100%. However I've seen > 3G ram loads and with VS closing on 4. Really though, an old P4 will run FSX with default airplanes and sliders off. Beyond that it's about: "Speed costs. How fast do you want to go." So far the bill is $10 for the Q, $50 for the ram and $X for the ops system . . . but remember NoNe of this is necessary, At All. More to your comment's point, an AMD 6400 / 2Gs / 8800GT will run FSX adequately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The E8400's "45nm-ness" doesn't help. These (real world) CPU's>O/Cing capabilities are All about their multipliers. In thisSure it's also about heat and here 45nm should be an advantage.And also isn't a pentyn more powerful clock for clock compared to the previous C2D?>the ram and $X for the ops system . . . but remember NoNe of>this is necessary, At All. More to your comment's point, an>AMD 6400 / 2Gs / 8800GT will run FSX adequately. Then I suppose I will be fine with a E7200? Maybe I should point out that my intention was to use FSX with addon planes and products like UTX GEX Active Sky FSGenesis mesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of these CPU's will need a good aftermarket CPU cooler to O/C. With the necessary cooler, heat is not an issue with Any of these Core2 CPUs. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835109125However if a user can only afford raw (but blurry) frames per second, an E4300 is a better buy. FPS is based on a - single - core's speed. Visual quality is based on the Number Of Cores operating at that speed.If a user wants all that pretty GEX/UT/AS eye candy, the quad is the answer. Texture loading capability helps the blurries and that's what the quad does. It does Nothing to help FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Any of these CPU's will need a good aftermarket CPU cooler to>O/C. With the necessary cooler, heat is not an issue with Any>of these Core2 CPUs. >But I have the intention to use the stock cooler. I also think it must depend on how much you OC.>If a user wants all that pretty GEX/UT/AS eye candy, the quad>is the answer. Texture loading capability helps the blurries>and that's what the quad does. It does Nothing to help FPS. Right now it seems that I don't need to get it right away (I don't think my current video card is failing). So I will propably waiy until after summer. Maybe the quas penryn is more addordable then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have the wisdom now, goldfish. Go forth and build. May the force be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to interject, but I have been running an E8400 on air, rock solid for almost 2 months now, at 4Ghz (500 x 8). Of course, it's not using the stock heatsink/fan, but the Scythe Ninja. I of course use FSX extensively but I also play COD4 and Crysis, and have not had stability issues whatsoever.Just wanted to throw that out there. ;-)______________Efrain RuizLiveDISPATCHhttp://www.livedispatch.orgCooler Master cosmos SDFI LP UT P35 T2R (3-17-2008 BIOS) | E8400 @ 4GHz (500MHz x 8) | 2 x 2GB OCZ Flex II PC9200EVGA GeForce 9800 GX2 @ 738|1845|1150Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Operating System RAID-0) | Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Flight Simulator RAID-0)Corsair CM PSU-750TX | Asus 20X DVD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites