>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>Sounds like more

Avcomware, you can disagree with Tech without being aggressive.OK?

Hi David.Did you read Tech..'s message? >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.

You can add me to the satisfied Vista x64 users. The only piece of hardware that doesn't work is an older Logitech webcam. Everything else runs just fine. No problems with booting or shutting, or anything else.As for the ZoneAlarm comment, you don't need a third party software firewall in Vista. The built in firewall is much improved over XP's. And if you have a hardware router, you have even less need of one.

Hi, djt01.>Sounds like more

>>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.

>You are not in a position to give me advice,>especially without my asking, or anyone else by what I see>here. TV>And what position are you in to give us

OK people, just chill down, this is like bunch of kids trying to prove whose father is stronger.This is my experience:I had some OOM occurances under XP, so it took me months to test different OSs, with the same flight taking 8 hours on each flight, testing what causes OOMs.After benchmarking in FPS and memory usage all 4 OS's, XP32, XP64, Vista32 and Vista64, with similar drivers, graphical settings, same FS9 and FSX installation and clean OS, I saw:FPS: There is absolutely no difference between all 4 operating systems. All ran with the same speed, with a difference of +/- 1-2fps on 80fps... I can't call that a difference, that might be just a difference in clouds in the scene! (oh yes, there were 4 benchmarking scenes).Memory: There is HUGE difference in usage between XP and Vista, though NO difference in usage between 32bit and 64bit. Except that 64bit allows for more than 2GB usage per application (FS9 or FSX). But in usual usage (and I have MANY addons in my FS9, around 80GB total), a usage almost NEVER crosses 1700mb (FS9).Now, as I stated that here is the difference:8 hour flight from KATL to EGKK:XP 32 and 64: memory usage up to 1700-1800mb at the end of the flight, causing always an OOM (made couple of test flight to confirm).Vista 32 and 64: same flight, memory usage up to 1300mb, never causing an OOM.To summarize, 64bit will NOT bring better memory management, only a possibility to cross the 2GB mark without system OOMing. 32bit will give you the limit of 2GB, but more compatibility with some applications.Vista WILL bring far better memory management over XP, as confirmed through benchmarks.I would run Vista64, if my British Airways Virtual Acars was working in 64bit environment. Since it isn't, I have to use 32bit, and thus using Vista32.I'm sorry to have no screenshots as a proof, but I do not tend to make screenshots just to prove to someone else my experience. I did those benchmarks to make MY flight simming experience more joy and to get rid of OOMs. I would have not switched to Vista if it weren't for the obvious fact of better memory management.Also, what MIGHT be a subjective opinion, it appeared to me that 64bit environment was a tad smoother in FS. And all in all faster environment in Windows.My suggestion is, gather all the information you can concerning drivers, available updates, all that you would need IF you would move into 64bit environment. Also check if all of your programs are working under 64bit (most of 32bit are). After that, decision is easy. Always go 64bit if you can afford, it has less limitations (memory-vise), and at least the same performance (fps-vise).Some user(s) in this forum are pretty new here, I suggest you also act like that. But of course, that is *only* a suggestion...

Sad how people use a thread to make themselves count and be very important... That behaviour does not contribute to the positive demeanor of the forums.As for Rick's question:I've had no regrets. I've been using Vista 64 bit for both FS9 and FSX for about a year and a half now and I am very happy with the performance and stability.Regards,Gerhard

Rick, I can only recommand Vista x64 + SP1.No driver issue at all, very stable with 4 gigs of RAM and very nice results with FSX.Now, sorry but I feel this topic has run its course and will lock it at this time.

>To summarize, 64bit will NOT bring better memory management,>only a possibility to cross the 2GB mark without system>OOMing. 32bit will give you the limit of 2GB, but more>compatibility with some applications.Hi KostaNice post - thanks for the clarity and objectivity! The above limitation applies to non-switched 32bit OS's - with 4GB RAM and the /3GB USERVA=2560 switch in place you can have XP 32bit & FSX use up to 2.5GB (or so) RAM without OOM'ing, almost 1GB more than a non-switched OS. That is more than enough for 95% of FSX users, myself included.Adding in the /3GB USERVA=2560 switch when you have 4GB RAM costs one absolutely nothing and the chances are VERY good that this will be enough for most people. I stand by what I said at the start: when moving to Vista64bit from a switched 32bit XP with 4GB RAM one is likely to end up disappointed with the increase in FPS in FSX. The general trend seems to be that FPS will remain about the same and there is the very real chance that it may even decrease slightly. Given the cost of a new OS (even OEM), the re-install from scratch, new HD if dual-booting, possible hardware and software compatibility issues, driver issues (especially GPU drivers) and a number of other much more subtle issues, the question of is it worth it is a VERY valid one and it deserves to be answered objectively and fully.I was on the verge of going with a dual-boot XP32bit/64bit Vista system after the release of PMDG's MD-11 but when adding all these costs up and the amount of work involved beforehand to ensure that all my software would work it just seemed like SUCH a mission for what would in the end be a very, very similar experience.Konrad