In terms of XP 64 vs. Vista 64, you forget to mention DX10.DX10 does not just add additional visual goodies: DX10 virtualizes video RAM via the WDDM - Windows Display Driver Model.See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_ModelYour arguments generally speaking are a repeat of the arguments heard for *every* PC computing paradigm shift: To some the new paradigm always and only brought disadvantages (more cost, less speed). If it were for the naysayers we would still be stuck with DOS in "Real Mode" and never mind FSX, we wouldn't even be able to run FS95!!!Me, I built my new PC, loaded Vista 64 and off to the races with FSX in DX10 Preview Mode: Never looked back!Cheers,jahman.

Hi jahman, and everyone.>DX10 virtualizes video RAM via the WDDM - Windows Display Driver Model....Me, I built my new PC, loaded Vista 64 and off to the races with FSX in DX10 Preview Mode: Never looked back!.."One of the way to really tell if the people that write the code know what they are doing, is to see what they do to get their code to keep running. When they don't clean up after themselves, they start adding Virtual crap, Cache User's Memory etc. Vista 64 SP1 will Cache / Cash you out of 6 GB, and a bunch of $$$, by just running Diagnostic Tools, will not run FS9 in Window mode, 80 % chance with just a standard install, not report back the right information to the Apps, because it does not know it. Try it and observe your Memory Cache.They just added layers of crap on top of crap, dressed it up differently and try to force everyone to use it. I hope Europe knows better, and not follow this same path. As far as "Never looked back!.."" is what really worries me about the now days crowd. By covering up / not reporting problems, no one, including MS, will benefit from it. If you know of a problem, and preferably a fix, post it. We will all be better off. Why is it that it's OK for someone that charges you hundreds of Dollars for a product, by the name MS, can put out crap, and hope to fix it later, but if you go and buy a Toaster for $10.00 and does not operate correctly everyone screams like a Jackal? Maybe we need a Consumer board to overlook these guys and get some of the monies back that we spend on fixing their problems? No, it's not that "Nobody forces you to buy it", go and try to get a system and see what OSs they come with, there is more forcing done by MS than any other Co in the world. Nobody forces you to buy a car, toaster etc., but if got and parts are missing, unsafe etc., guess what happens? Why is this different, still my time and my well being, myself. Who tested this bunch of Goop? TV

Avcomware,Sorry to hear you have a different view.I stand by my previous post and have many pleasurable flying hourswith FSX under Vista 64 SP1 with long flights and no OOMs.I have been a PC user since they first appeared and every time Microsoft made a significant improvement the whining was pretty loud,as when going from CPU real mode to protected mode, text to GUI, apps directly writing to graphics CPU registers to direct draw (now called DXn), etc. etc. etc.And every time the OS just got better and the user experience got better.Heck, without all these improvements we wouldn't even be able to run FS95 :-)Got to get back to flying!cheers,jahman.

>Vista 64 SP1 will Cache / Cash you out of 6 GB, and a bunch of>$$$, by just running Diagnostic Tools, will not run FS9 in>Window mode, 80 % chance with just a standard install, not>report back the right information to the Apps, because it does>not know it. Avcomware,Alright, first of all we are talking about using Vista X64 for FSX not FS9.Secondly, I'll ask you once again have you ever or are you using Vista x64 for FSX??

I'll ask Sargeski's question too - Have you actually used Vista x64 with FSX? And I mean 'used', not just given up after 1 hour or 1 day. Don't call something goop or crap unless you've spent a decent amount of time with it yourself, rather than relying on other peoples reported experiences - there's no substitute for seeing how something operates other than getting your hands dirty. I thought Vista was goop too from hearing other people having some issues with it (mostly Pre-SP1). Having actually installed and spent time with Vista x64 SP1 (almost a month now), turned off UAC and made sure I have full admin rights to the PC (the only two real issues IMHO), I find it's a very stable OS, and superior performance to XP x64 - not by much granted, but enought to notice. For me FSX runs alot smoother, and I can run slightly higher settings on Vista x64 than with XP x64. I'm not running the latest and greatest hardware either (AMD Dual-Core 6000 @ 3.0GHz, 4Gb DDR2, Nvidia 8800GT).As for Vista using or caching alot of memory - its true, but it does so to speed up the PC. It caches the last files/applications used, so the next time they opened, they open almost instantly, that way your most frequently used programs and files run faster - whats the problem with that? If you need to open an file or app that Vista doesn't currently have cached, it will open slower, sure, but Vista will free up cached memory for the app or file in question, and once done so the app won't run any slower.People said XP was a memory hog when it first came out, I remember someone saying to me "it's just Windows 2000 with Tomy toy-town colours painted over it that require more memory". Now for most, XP is the OS of choice, again, since it has been Service Packed.By the way - with regards to MS 'forcing' you to use their OS on new systems, if you've been in Computer Tech for as long as you say, you'll know that in most cases you can send MS the unopened OS CD back and get a refund, or specify a system with a blank hard drive with no OS at all - you're not forced to use anything you don't want to.As for Europe knowing better - I'm from the U.K. :)Take care and good night.

I'm using Vista64 with 4Gb because I can't use XP or Vista32 when flying the Level-D 767 most of the time with VATSIM, Flightdeck Companion etc. A lot of OOM's even with the 3Gb switch.My regular work is still under XP because I am to leazy to install all the apps again but I have a special dual boot to Vista64 for FS9 and FSX only. There are no arguments anymore with Vista SP1 not to use it in my opinion.Happy landings...

Just to chime in, the combination of FSX SP2 and Vista 64 is running well here - 4Gb memory you will need, although in my case, FSX has never passed 1.8Gb or so, and the O/S will easily use 512Mb to 1Gb for itself if it can, including cached items. I've been running it since September 2007 and quite pleased with it. I had waited before making the move for the video card drivers by Nvidia to get stable. That was a major source of issues, especially as it relates to video games.Things I had to be concerned about: - Make sure that you have the chipset drivers you need handy, as the install disc may not contain the support you need for the motherboard, therefore not recognizing your hard disks. This is true if you have a very recent motherboard.- UAC - user access control - is a source of grief for many, I have turned it off on my system, and turned off the "nag" screen that goes along with it. That has made life very tolerable not being prompted every two minutes if I want to run a program or not. - It took a bit to find where everything was. I've configured my UI very much the way it was under XP, and it wasn't very difficult to do.Things I like:- My boot time is very quick. If I use the hibernate feature of my hardware combined with Vista, it takes a hair under 5 seconds from the time I double click my mouse to turn my PC on, to the time I can login all powered up. It does this by keeping the memory alive while the rest of the hardware is off (Gigabyte DQ6, Intel x38 chipset).- Updates are much simpler, and do not seem to require as many reboots as under XP.- The ability to preview a window by hovering the mouse in the task bar is very nice, especially to check on the status of a download.- Rock stable.- nice graphical effects with the "glass" borders.It seems to me that many of the issues around Vista are linked to early hardware support, heftier hardware needs, and the change in Vista 64 that requires hardware manufacturers to sign their drivers. No signing, no loading under Vista 64. I tried to overclock my video card using my usual third party freeware, and it would not install at all because the driver wasn't signed - note that all of this has been fixed since late last year. Also, the certification process is a bit more involved, and from what I have read, this caught many by surprise, including many anti-virus software manufacturers. In fact, you may recall that Microsoft initially did not allow any non-certified software to run in kernel mode as a measure to prevent security issues.Everything is locked down pretty tight in Vista out of the box, a likely response to a slew of criticism for insecure operating systems full of loopholes. You only have to relax things a little, and balance risk to convenience to your taste.All in all, I have no issues with Vista 64, minding the notes above.Hope this helps,Etienne

As the original poster I have read with interest what people have to say.As far as I can see of definitely expressed, interpretable opinions its 11 to 1 in favour of Vista 64.Thats the way I'll go,Thanks everyone, I am very appreciative of people's opinions, for or against,John M.

I've been lurking and, after reading all this, I think I'll go with Vista64 too. I plan to load FSX and FS9 on separate partitions on one HDD. On a second drive I will load Vista64 and XP Pro also on separate partitions. I want to stay with XP for non-FS tasks. I plan a new build based on Giga GA-X48T-DQ6 mobo; Q9650 (socket 775); Corsair 4GB DDR3 (2GB x2); HD4870 with 1GB DDR5. I hope at some stage to use multi-monitors but I am not sure how this will work with FSX (widescreen) and FS9 (4x3 mode).Is there anything else I should be aware of before I take the plunge?John