Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

acmech

which version of windows to use with fs2004?

Recommended Posts

Oh, Old Bill, now you've done it! Now I have to skulk back in just to reiterate what I said before. I was originally just kidding with whats his name, who then chose to go off on a tangent to write 8 or 9 paragraphs about things I mostly agree with him on, but are really only opinion which can be gleaned from any where in the popular press. His response to me actually surprised me because I never said anything personal about him -- but he seemed to find it important to let us all know just how smart he is and just how "wrong" I was. You know the type, "Old Bill". ;) However, unlike my counterpart, I DO build my own computers, I DO install all my OWN software, I DO all my OWN tweaking, hardware tests, etc., etc., and do not believe everything I read, especially that which I read on the Internet. Further, and as I posted before I DO know why someone wouldn't want to dual boot a flight sim computer and don't assume they're wrong because they don't -- in fact, it's terribly obvious to me. What's not obvious to me is a know it all attitude from a member of AVSIM who runs his shop one way and thinks that the only way to do it.Now for a little bit of my resume, just just to qualify myself so Junior up there in the posts doesn't think I'm too "immature" for him: I've been using computers since the late 70s, having earned my first of 4 degrees in Computer Science in 1979. (It was more "Computer Guessing" than "Computer Science" back then!) There are people in these forums who are a tremendous asset and more than happy to help, being very careful to never cross the line beyond personal EXPERIENCE, and then there are those who will simply waste your time with what they think they know, and peddle it as "hard fact". "Every one's entitled to my opinion" types. Again, you know the type, "Old Bill". In any event, and more on topic to this thread (if the OP is still around) my experience is that I just finished my triple boot with XP 64 thanks to some very nice people here at AVSIM who helped me with what some would think was some very basic questions, but who also chose to never try and make me feel stupid in any way. For that and the hundreds of others here who have helped all along the way in this hobby I am very grateful. I've now got all 6 gigs of high performance RAM being seen by both FS9 AND the OS and my system now ROCKS. I chose to go with XP over VISTA for many very practical reasons, none of which either of the last two posters would be interested in hearing about since they both already seem to know everything. However, I will say this: even the CEO of Microsoft has said he 'understands' if you take a pass on VISTA, to wait for "Windows 7". (Now that's a statement that made me think!)But I'm SURE I'll "have built-in upgradeability for literally years to come." NOT!!! :-xxrotflmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Just in case you don't read the rest of this post "Trelane":Time to update your signature again isn't it?Your computer knowledge/credentials are IMPRESSIVE, and your choice to go with a "triple-boot" setup certainly adds credibility to everything you said to refute my original post (sarcasm intended). Or do you just live by the adage "Do as I say, not as I do."? We truly have no idea at this point.Of course you did agree with what I originally posted and was just shooting down the idea of a dual-boot system for the fun of it. Exactly why I went to lengths to show the flaw of your numbered and deliberate points against it. If I had let it go would you have come back to say you were just kidding about what you said? I don't think so. You should probably just let this one go before you embarrass yourself further.Thanks for making me smile yet again today! :)Best Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay! Sorry for the Skulking Crack. I should have stayed on the sidelines as an interested Observer. You Guy's obviously know a lot more about the Subject than I do. Can't We just get along together?Old Bill (alias Rodney Kng)*:-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just chime in here from a developer point of view. As many of you know, I develop FDE, scenery, gauge, and AFCAD files for FS2004. In terms of programming ease and SDK tools available, Windows XP is hands down the more robust platform. I know the original post was asking about playing FS2004 rather than developing for it, but I thought my comments might add something to the discussion.A lot of the programming tools that are available for FS2004 can only be run in a 32 bit environment. Many of you might not know that even FSX was developed and compiled almost entirely on Windows XP 32-bit. Of course the fully compiled files can be run on Vista or 64-bit machines, but let me just re-iterate this... FS2004 is not designed to take advantage of a 64-bit architechture. If your machine is memory starved, or processor starved to begin with, then making the whole OS more efficient might be a reasonable strategy. However, if you're running 2-3GB RAM, a 512MB video card, and a 2GHz Dual Core or better, then your hardware is already optimized for FS2004.As a developer, I have found that FS2004 runs with greater cross-compatibility of third-party software on Windows XP 32-bit. Isn't that what FS2004 is all about? Surely we're not going to be happy if we can run FS2004 at maximum levels with the default scenery and aircraft!I'll be really excited when the Flight Simulator SDK is updated and the development tools allow me to interface with the OS. Until then, what OS you choose to run your games on is PURELY A MATTER OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE.There, I said it. :)-- Outer Marker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'll be really excited when the Flight Simulator SDK is updated and the development tools allow me to interface with the OS. Until then, what OS you choose to run your games on is PURELY A MATTER OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE."Unless of course DirectX 10 support is a factor, "Outer Marker". Otherwise I have to agree with everything you said in your response.DirectX 10 support is ONE of the reasons I think the dual-boot (at this time) is such a viable and practical option (another important factor is hardware support, e.g. RAM - specifically the ability to have more of it utilized by the "average - less tech savvy - user").Of course the more time that goes by, and the longer the SD's and MS have to standardize the pc gaming platform via OS's, firmware/driver support, and hardware, the less viable an option the XP x32 and Vista x64 dual-boot system will be.In short, I completely agree with "Outer Marker" that for FS9, XP x32 is the way to go, especially so from the perspective that he/she describes (to wit, the "developer's" point of view). To the average end-user, this of course means more FS9 products available and more support for those FS9 products.Well, said "OM". @ "Old Bill": Be assured, regarding myself, that nothing you posted influenced what I chose to post or the manner in which I did so.I don't see any need or reason for you to apologize. I do not make a habit of arguing with others, not even on the internet. What I do dislike very much though, is when a person shoots down a communicated idea or thought for no other reason than to be condescending to that idea or thought and/or to make fun of the person who posted it.A person takes the time to express an idea in a clear manner with sound reasoning. Another person comes along and shoots down that idea in 1/10th the time with no factual basis or even sound logic. That doesn't fly in my book, and I won't have it when it is directed at me personally."Trelane's" "Do as I say, not as I do." mentality betrays the level of his education (if that is in fact true, I'm not assuming anything here).For the record, I am "getting along" with him just fine, I just won't tolerate someone who speaks simply to hear the sound of their own voice while communicating nothing of value (except to maybe bolster their own ego).@ "Trelane":Never said I couldn't build my own pc, simply said I had mine built. Why? For a number of reasons, the two most important of which are: 1) I like to support local businesses in my hometown. 2) I like the added convenience of having the ability (well within an hour in most cases), of having a replacement for a defective component without having to go through the whole time consuming RMA process, especially so in the case of OM warranteed components.Believe it or not I have credentials too, but I would rather let what I say and do speak for me rather than the impressiveness of those credentials. Much the same as I rely on my level of airmanship proficiency to make decisions in the cockpit, rather than the currency requirements for a given flight operation. Just carries more "weight" and makes more sense in the grand scheme of things, if you catch my drift. Best Regards to All (including "Trelane") :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a one year old PC. I only upgraded my graphic card to nvidia 8800 GT 512MB and more ram 4 GB DDR2. Installed FS9 on Vista 64bit and fps is solidly locked at 25 with all slides to max.Cheers,Fido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a Dell box about 10 months ago (AMD X2 5600+ @ 2.8ghz/3 gigs ram/ ATI 4850 gpu) that came with Vista Home Premium on it. After the usual week long process of acclimitization with the new OS which involved figuring out how to shut off the bloat (a process almost identical to what I've experienced with every new version of windows since Win98), FS2004 runs like a dream. 40-60fps everywhere (vsync on) with all sliders basically maxed @ 1680x1050x32 with 4x fsaa and 8x aniso. Since that first week, I've had virtually no issues with Vista at all. I run a lot of different stuff and everything I've tried has worked fine. Frankly, I like it better than XP...it's a bit more stable and looks nicer. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites