Hello everyone I am dave and I am about to install windows on my computer in a couple of days(still have to put the parts together tough)so i can install either OS. no problems; my decision will be based on which one will give me better frames per second. my choices are vista ultimate 32bit or vista ultimate 64bit Im not considering any version of xp due to that I'll like to flight fsx with DX10.plus I actually dont mind vista(personal preference)If it matters my hardware specs are: Quad series,gtx200 series,p45 mobo series,2gb ddr2 800mhz,sata hhd 500gb and I'll use a 1920x1200 resolution on my screen.so if anyone has some light as to what should be better like a review or benchmarks or facts or something like that i thank you in advance.as most of you can imagine it doesnt have to be a specific number of frames as to with each computer the specs can vary infinately but i think the increase or decrease of performance should be somewhat a consistent percentageps:I did read the post on where someone published xp64bit or 32bit vs vista 64bit and it was very usefull but I m pretty sure it wasnt a vista 32 vs vista 64bit comparison wich will ultimately be my case and would be nice to know of before hand.Best regards everyone happy flights:Dave

If you make sure it's absolutely up-to-date before you install FSX, I think the consensus is swinging in favour of Vista 64 because of the better use it makes of 4Gb of RAM: this is important for some of the add-on aircraft. At first, some people reported problems, but these have dissipated with time and service packs etc. I use Vista 64 without problems.One tip: install FSX into a directory OUTSIDE the progam files folder: this way you avoid some of Vista's more irritating quirks with locking files etc.Tim

tim thank you for your reply

just curious...if fsx is installed in program files...can it be moved or does it have to be reinstalled.....?

Vista 64 is a better bet to prevent OOMs, especially if the system has 4Gs o ram. If you turn off Vista's UAC, there are no issues with allowing FS to install in its default directory. Once it's installed, moving it around is (reasonable) impossible.

sam thank you for ur reply

Dave, are you indicating that you intend to install 64 bit Vista with only 2GB ram? If so, stick with the 32 bit Vista. A better choice is to install more ram and go with 64 bit.This is without considering any other software or peripherals to be used with this computer.ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX(SP1-SP2), Audigy SE sound, Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

I switched from 32bit ista to 64bit Vista, at the same time upgraded to 4GB RAM. So far, no problems from the OS - it is smoother for me thatnks to the increased RAM size.

IMHO, there's no sense in a home user installing a 32 bit version of Vista. Virtually all mainstream 32-bit apps run without a problem and memory issues are a thing of the past. 64-bit drivers are available for just about any piece of hardware made in the past 5 years, save someone's cheapo multi-function printer. In short, for the home user, transitioning to a 64-bit OS is a painless experience.

It seems vista-64 is the rec. by the many these days, but would they say the same thing if its FS2004 that you or anyone that does not want to invest in FSX. I think yes for FSX, but not sure what if its FS2004krishan

hi artI would like to find out if fsx will give me more fps on a 32bit or a 64bit I ordered 2gb ddr2800cas4 but i can always send it back and get a 4gb kit or just match my 2gb with 2gb more for a total of 4gb for 64bit if that is the best way to go. so basically looking for the best setup to build my pc i havent really seen a benchmark or anything like it to use as a referenceDave

>It seems vista-64 is the rec. by the many these days, but>would they say the same thing if its FS2004 that you or anyone>that does not want to invest in FSX. >I think yes for FSX, but not sure what if its FS2004>>krishanI would tell someone the same thing if they're buying a new computer or considering an OS upgrade. The version of Flight Sim you own is irrelevant. However, if FS2004 is capable of addressing more than 2GB of RAM, there would be a benefit of running it in a 64-bit environment as well.

Dave, I'm not aware that FSX gains anything from a 64 bit operating system other than the ability to utilize more memory, which does benefit FSX. If you have four memory slots, you can just get another matched pair of 1GB modules (I assume your first 2GB is a matched pair of 1GB modules).Based on the comments I'm seeing, I guess we've gotten past the growing pains with 64 bit as has occurred with Vista, and I'm ready to include it in my next computer.ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX(SP1-SP2), Audigy SE sound, Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

The 64bit ops system won't affect FPS at all. Its purpose is to 1) Prevent OOM crashes and 2) Allow FS to use greater than 2Gs of physical ram if it's available. That will help with scenery loading. It's always better to have the scenery cached on physical ram than in that hard drive virtual memory "page file." Vista 64 and 4Gs-O-Ram is best opsys/ram combo.

In my own tests on equivalent hardware (intel quad) Vista 64 seems to do much better in terms of I/O and other common tasks than Vista 32.Highly recommend Vista 64, even on a 2Gb machine - and memory is very cheap these days, about the cost of one FSX add-on for 2Gbs (smile). Just about the only thing I found it will not run (at all) are very old 16 bit games for my young son. Yes, you should probably turn off UAC as on today's apps, it creates more problems than it solves.Cheers,Etienne