Vista 64 bit set up

[hawkhero 11]

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.

[Kosta 122]

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 :)

[Mace 1,926]

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

[tfm 169]

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

[jackcnd 0]

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.

[Guest D17S]

"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.

[jfri 42]

>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?

[Guest harleyman52]

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...

[jfri 42]

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

[Mace 1,926]

>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

[jfri 42]

>>>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?

[Guest D17S]

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.

[Mace 1,926]

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

[jfri 42]

>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.

[jfri 42]

>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