To those who have quietly made the switch over to Vista from XP ... are there any regrets? I'm right on the edge of purchasing Vista Home Premium 64 in hopes of getting a more fluid feel for FS9 and more importantly FSX. I'm seeing more positive comments about Vista in various forums, so I'm tempted to make the jump. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.Thanks

Honestly, I made the switch to Vista x64, and I'm not really sure if it made any difference. The main motivator was the RAM. I upgraded to 4GB and wanted the OS to see it all. I've actually had BSOD's with Vista and there are still a few programs that don't work well with the x64 OS. It is also a pain because you have to disable all the UAC crap and pretty much disable all the graphics of vista to work with FSX. Then again I turned all the stuff off because I wanted the fastest performance. I might almost go back to XP if it werent for the fact that I have all the RAM now, plus it took a while to reinstall all my hardware/software...I doubt you'll get better performance out of FS9, if you have a good system with 4GB or more of RAM x64 should be better for FSX though

Reinstall software? Yikes! That's something I wasn't aware of. I'm starting to think twice about Vista. Now I wonder if XP 64 might be a better choice.

>Reinstall software? Yikes! That's something I wasn't aware>of. I'm starting to think twice about Vista. Now I wonder if>XP 64 might be a better choice.Upgrade installations are never a good idea, where performance is a concern. In other words: you should be reinstalling all your software anyway. If you have another hard drive available (or can justify purchasing one), why not dual-boot and have the best of both worlds? That's what I do. XP Pro on one 250GB HD, Vista Ultimate x64 on the other. I find myself using Vista far more than XP now. I only go back to XP for transcoding purposes (converting video files from one format to another) as I have numerous applications for this rather involved procedure and not all of their features work properly in Vista.

HiIf anything you are likely to see a slight decrease in average FPS with a 64bit OS. FSX is a 32bit app and it is not able to benefit from operating in a 64bit environment in any significant way. Remember that just because a 64bit OS may see more than 3GB of installed RAM does not mean that FSX will be able to actually use it. It will not. My prediction if you move to 64bit is that you are going to be disappointed, at least with FSX performance. The vast majority of software will work on 64bit, much more so with Vista than XP so XP 64bit is not generally recommended.Also bear in mind that you cannot use any non-whql drivers with a 64bit OS. This can be more of an issue than it sounds, especially if you like to play other AAA games...Having said all that if you are using your machine for desktop publishing, video editting, music creation etc then a 64bit OS starts to make a lot more sense.If not, stay with XP XP3, don't add to MS's Vista coffers lest they get the wrong idea, and wait it out until Windows 7 retails in approx. 12 months.Hope this helps some.Konrad

>Hi>>If anything you are likely to see a slight decrease in average>FPS with a 64bit OS. FSX is a 32bit app and it is not able to>benefit from operating in a 64bit environment in any>significant way. Remember that just because a 64bit OS may see>more than 3GB of installed RAM does not mean that FSX will be>able to actually use it. It will not. >>My prediction if you move to 64bit is that you are going to be>disappointed, at least with FSX performance. The vast majority>of software will work on 64bit, much more so with Vista than>XP so XP 64bit is not generally recommended.>>Also bear in mind that you cannot use any non-whql drivers>with a 64bit OS. This can be more of an issue than it sounds,>especially if you like to play other AAA games...>>Having said all that if you are using your machine for desktop>publishing, video editting, music creation etc then a 64bit OS>starts to make a lot more sense.>>If not, stay with XP XP3, don't add to MS's Vista coffers lest>they get the wrong idea, and wait it out until Windows 7>retails in approx. 12 months.>>Hope this helps some.>>KonradNot to be rude but your post isn't entirely accurate, in my experience. There are plenty of 32-bit applications that benefit from the use of a 64-bit OS'es superior memory management. I'll give you an example. I play the strategy game "Supreme Commander" and its expansion "Forged Alliance". This game is known to be a huge memory hog. I run the game in both XP Pro and Vista x64 and the game is noticeably faster in Vista x64 due to the fact that I have 4GB system RAM. In XP the game's frame rate visibly degrades over time as more AI units appear in the game world, causing occasionally stuttering/hiccups due to paging to disk. This simply doesn't occur in Vista x64. Also, I find FSX runs smoother under Vista x64 for the same reasons (not having to page to disk by working around the 2GB memory allocation limitation of previous 32-bit OSes).Other 32-bit applications which benefit from running in a 64-bit environment are professional applications, mostly those dealing with photo/video editing and CAD.

>Hi>>If anything you are likely to see a slight decrease in average>FPS with a 64bit OS. FSX is a 32bit app and it is not able to>benefit from operating in a 64bit environment in any>significant way. Remember that just because a 64bit OS may see>more than 3GB of installed RAM does not mean that FSX will be>able to actually use it. It will not. >>My prediction if you move to 64bit is that you are going to be>disappointed, at least with FSX performance. The vast majority>of software will work on 64bit, much more so with Vista than>XP so XP 64bit is not generally recommended.>>Also bear in mind that you cannot use any non-whql drivers>with a 64bit OS. This can be more of an issue than it sounds,>especially if you like to play other AAA games...>>Having said all that if you are using your machine for desktop>publishing, video editting, music creation etc then a 64bit OS>starts to make a lot more sense.>>If not, stay with XP XP3, don't add to MS's Vista coffers lest>they get the wrong idea, and wait it out until Windows 7>retails in approx. 12 months.>>Hope this helps some.>>KonradKonrad,It appears that you have spoken as a misinformed non user of Vista X64 especially for FSX. I have used Windows XP X32, Vista X32, and Vista X64 for FSX. FSX runs best on Vista X64 and I get better performance in Vista X64. FSX as of SP2 is marked as greater than 2GB aware and depending on how hard I push FSX it can use above 3GB of system memory contrary to what you stated above.I have absolutely no regrets about going to Vista X64 for FSX. It works like a charm.Regards,Bob

I don't have any regrets about switching to Vista64...it is NOTHING like WinME which someone in this very forum compared it to not long ago.One thing about it, I still have my WindowsXP computer side-by-side with the Vista64 box so, it doesn't really matter to me. I keep the XP machine around for scenery designing--some of my design tools work on XP.But for flying, the Vista64 box rules.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

>Konrad,>>It appears that you have spoken as a misinformed non user of>Vista X64 especially for FSX. I have used Windows XP X32,>Vista X32, and Vista X64 for FSX. FSX runs best on Vista X64>and I get better performance in Vista X64. FSX as of SP2 is>marked as greater than 2GB aware and depending on how hard I>push FSX it can use above 3GB of system memory contrary to>what you stated above.Hi BobReally pushing FSX (with sliders mostly to the right and complex or high definition add-ons) to the absolute limits is not what we are talking about here. Yes, you can get FSX to use 3GB+ of RAM but this is not what one can consider as normal everyday operations and it is not enough reason in and of itself to move to a 64bit OS.Of course there are no definite benchmarks so it is always going to be a matter of opinion whether FSX on a 32bit /3GB switched OS with 4GB RAM is going to be any slower or otherwise when compared to a 64bit OS with 4GB RAM or more. When REALLY pushing FSX there may be some benefits to using a 64bit OS, but for everyday usage these benefits tend to disappear fairly quickly and one is still stuck with all the potential issues that running a 64bit OS on a daily basis may have.Furthermore, it's easy to say that 64bit is great for FSX and you should go for it. That is simply not the reality for most people. My aim is to provide, hopefully, useable and real-world advice as opposed to a simple yay or nay.Konrad

>Really pushing FSX (with sliders mostly to the right and>complex or high definition add-ons) to the absolute limits is>not what we are talking about here. Yes, you can get FSX to>use 3GB+ of RAM but this is not what one can consider as>normal everyday operations and it is not enough reason in and>of itself to move to a 64bit OS.Konrad, everyone has to define their own meaning for "normal every day operation". There are many FSX simmers here that do exactly as you describe, every day in fact. I don't think it's fair for you to dismiss this usage model because it is not your own. >Of course there are no definite benchmarks so it is always>going to be a matter of opinion whether FSX on a 32bit /3GB>switched OS with 4GB RAM is going to be any slower or>otherwise when compared to a 64bit OS with 4GB RAM or more.>When REALLY pushing FSX there may be some benefits to using a>64bit OSNot many people run both 32 and 64-bit versions of the same OS with the same software configuration on each, so that is why there are no benchmarks in this case. I can offer XP 32 and Vista x64 FSX benchmarks, but that's hardly an apples to apples comparison given the fact that XP doesn't support DX10 so I'll abstain. >but for everyday usage these benefits tend to>disappear fairly quickly and one is still stuck with all the>potential issues that running a 64bit OS on a daily basis may>have.Potential issues do not equal actual issues. Every time you get in a car you have the potential to get in a wreck. This is not the same as actually getting in a wreck.>Furthermore, it's easy to say that 64bit is great for FSX and>you should go for it. That is simply not the reality for most>people. My aim is to provide, hopefully, useable and>real-world advice as opposed to a simple yay or nay.>>KonradKonrad, how can you say "it's not the reality for most people"? Every Vista x64 user that has posted in this thread so far says the opposite. At this point I have to ask what is *your* experience with Vista x64 because since Service Pack 1 came out (and actually even a bit before) it has been nothing but pleasant to work with. Most of the early bugs have been worked out, and drivers have matured to the point where there is little to no performance difference between the two OSes in most cases, and in some cases Vista is actually FASTER. Take a look at this article's conclusion, written in September of last year:http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page9.aspA snippet from the conclusion:"If you were debating between the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors of Windows Vista, fortunately it looks like performance is similar with either version. Both AMD and NVIDIA

My experience: went from 12 FPS on XP 32 in KSEA to 18 FPS on Vista 64 on the identical box previously running XP (8800 Ultra), same settings.Your mileage may vary. I did find that switching from Nvidia 169 to the 174+ series boosted FSX by several FPS as well, so it's not just the O/S.No issues with Vista, except that older 16 bit applications will not run. Some annoyances, such as UAC that I have turned off, and also the requirement that all drivers and most software must be signed digitally. That was a major problem early on with Vista 64, as very little signing happened. A year later, a bit more mainstream.Also, remove the bloatware using Alacrity PC by Ken Salter, a fantastic little utility that will turn off or terminate processes you don't need while you run FSX. You cannot believe how many things run all the time, and as FSX is heavily CPU based, every bit seems to help.Cheers,Etienne

Hi Rick.It is not worth the effort of getting Vista 64. The problems go well beyond just your Drivers, which is / should be a deterrent for most people. Many Utilities, like Zone Alarm have no 64 compatibility with Vista 64. Drivers Have to be for 64 you cannot use the 32 bit version in most cases. While some people claim increased performance I have yet to see a Benchmark that supports that. It will only boot up, on the first try, half the time, if you are lucky, after Power down. It seems that the people that got it want everyone to be in the same boat, just so they don't feel bad about doing it, I guess.There are thousands of reasons that I can name why you should not get it. If you Must spend your Money then get A vista 64, Not an XP 64, otherwise use what you have. I think your system will not get a boost in performance in MSFS by just getting a 64 bit OS. TV

First let me preface my comments:I dislike misinformation. I dislike uninformed opinions based on misinformation. I especially dislike when people spread blatant lies as gospel. That being said, please pardon the tone of the following response:>Hi Rick.>It is not worth the effort of getting Vista 64. >The problems go well beyond just your DriversWhat driver problems can the original poster expect to encounter, specifically? The only driver problem I've experienced with Vista x64 on my personal machine is that of my ancient Sound Blaster Live card which is unsupported in any version of Vista. This is to be expected, however, since the card's support was ended years ago.>Many Utilities, like>Zone Alarm have no 64 compatibility with Vista 64.Software firewalls are for large multi-user (generally corporate) environments that need to have extremely tight controls. Home use doesn't exactly fit into this scenario... Besides, if you have a router, you already have a hardware firewall. >Drivers Have to be for 64 you cannot use the 32 bit version in most>cases.And vice versa. This argument is as useful as saying you can't run Linux drivers on a Mac. >While some people claim increased performance I have>yet to see a Benchmark that supports that.I suggest you (and others) read the last post I made in this thread. >It will only boot>up, on the first try, half the time, if you are lucky, after>Power down. It seems that the people that got it want everyone>to be in the same boat, just so they don't feel bad about>doing it, I guess.And you just lost all credibility. Folks, these are scare tactics. Don't believe them. >There are thousands of reasons that I can name why you should>not get it.And everyone of them is either a lie, or just plain irrelevant. >If you Must spend your Money then get A vista 64,>Not an XP 64, otherwise use what you have.This is the only part of your post that is accurate.>I think your system will not get a boost in performance in MSFS by >just getting a 64 bit OS. You *think* there will be no performance boost? I *think* it's wiser to trust people that actually have hands-on experience with something, rather than listen to the opinion of someone that is spreading false information.

Hi Tech...I only read your first few lines. Go take a cold shower, wake up and start over. There is NO miss information in my post, there is only miss knowledge on your part.I did not reply to you, don't try to educate me, stick to the thread / OP. When and if I need your help you will be the second to know. Do you see anywhere where I asked you for your opinion? TV

>Also bear in mind that you cannot use any non-whql drivers>with a 64bit OS. Since when? I