good to know thxJul

Hi, Bob and everyone.>That said, 32-bit programs (like FS) are still limited to the 4GB address space. But the OS, drivers, and especially hardware address mapping for things like Video RAM can all be placed outside the all-important lower 4GB, leaving much more room for user programs.<>..But the OS, drivers, and especially hardware address mapping for things like Video RAM can all be placed outside the all-important lower 4GB, leaving much more room for user programs.

>>With the 64 bit OS. 32 bit maps everything / Video RAM within>the 4GB. TV>That's what I was trying to say...maybe not as articulately as I could have.The 64-bit OS puts almost all of the system stuff outside the lower 4GB. The video RAM in particular, is mapped to addresses above 4GB.The 32-bit OS first does the hardware mapping, which gives a sizeable block of address space to the video RAM, blocking these addresses from use to access system RAM. Think of it like a really big cupboard with 4 billion (4GB) cubbyholes. You have a video card with a billion cubbyholes (1GB). The 32-bit OS starts by pushing the video cupboard in front of the memory cupboard, and the billion memory cubbyholes sitting behind the video cupboard are blocked and can't be gotten to.I see a lot of people lately sporting high-end vidcards with lots of RAM. If you have a 1GB video card in a 4GB system and a 32-bit OS, 1GB of your RAM will never, ever be used by the OS or any other program. And if you have two 1GB cards, then 2GB of your expensive RAM is never used. It just sits there blocked behind hardware-mapped video memory.I explained some of this in more detail in this thread:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...52932&mode=fullCheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

No idea why so many, will go to such great lengths to build a dream machine and NOT go dual boot.x32 XP on one drive, x64 Vista Ultimate on the other drive (stay away from partitioning a single hard drive and installing both OS's on a single drive setup to make sure and avoid any possible driver conflicts.A solid E6850 3GHz Core two Duo, 4 Gb of performance RAM, Nvidia 9800GX2-1Gb, 780i motherboard, 850W power supply, Antec 900 air-cooled case (no liquid cooling necessary), dual 150Gb 10,000rpm Raptor hard drives. Each OS installed on it's own drive. No Raid setup necessary. KISS (some of you will know what that acronym stands for). Rock solid/stable pc gaming platform. All on a dual boot machine.What? Your software won't "play nice" on x64 Vista? No problem, install it on/through your x32 XP OS. Need/want to play the "latest and greatest" with DirectX 10 and support for more than 3Gb of RAM? No problem, install it on/through your x64 Vista OS.Haven't run into the software yet that I CAN'T install and run problem free on my machine.You can build it EASILY for less than $2,000 USD, and you have built-in upgradeability for literally years to come.Well, maybe that was more than two words, hehe.Best Regards

>>No idea why so many, will go to such great lengths to build a dream machine and NOT go dual boot.Probably for 4 reasons: 1. Added expense of 2 OS's.2. Most people have their machines built FOR THEM, and dual boot is not particularly well understood (like over clocking).3. XP 64 and 32 do not necessarily dual boot easily.4. Most people aren't as crazy as you and I, and would much rather just PLAY their games rather than TWEAK their games. :-lol >> . . . and you have built-in upgradeability for literally years to come.This one really had me on the floor laughing!!! Not if Microsoft has it's way (which it almost always does). :+

For the record, FS9 is a happy camper on and with my XP x32 drive and FSX is a happy camper on and with my Vista Ultimate x64 drive.Now for the peanut gallery / computer guru wannabes ROFL!! (Thanks indeed for making me smile today! :) ):"1. Added expense of 2 OS's."I don't know about you but for the rest of the world the OS is a one time expense. It is NOT exhorbitantly expensive as you would make it out to be. Not by a long shot. Go buy a new "state of the art" graphics card and see how much money a second operating system is in relative terms."2. Most people have their machines built FOR THEM, and dual boot is not particularly well understood (like overclocking)."Not nearly as complicated or risky as overclocking can be/is. What's to understand? You install the OS's normally, XP then Vista, and select DIFFERENT drives when you do so. When you boot up your machine, a prompt asks you if you want to boot to VISTA or an earlier version of windows, you select one or the other.The proverbial "piece of cake". It couldn't be easier. Doesn't even come close to the complexities involved that are part and parcel of overclocking."3. XP 64 and 32 do not necessarily dual boot easily." WELL . . .I never said anything about doing a dual boot with XP x32 and XP x64. I specifically stated XP x32 and Vista x64. Wasn't posting about a double XP boot at all. Read my post again."4. Most people aren't as crazy as you and I, and would much rather ust PLAY their games rather than TWEAK their games."Hey rocket scientist. That is specifically the reason why I had this machine built! So I could spend more time gaming and less time tweaking. In this statement you show that you completely missed the point of my post in the first place. You didn't "get it", not even a little bit.">> . . .and you have built-in upgradeability for literally years to come.This one really had me on the floor laughing!!! Not if Microsoft has it's way (which it almost always does). :+ "You don't say?Well how about when I add a second or third graphics card, go to 16Gig of RAM, or upgrade to a quad core processor? My machine is already almost a year old and I can run virtually anything on it with absolutely ZERO, count 'em ZERO, that's zip, nada, none, problems.I am absolutely certain that in another 6 months to a year when I do some of the hardware upgrades in my long term "game plan", this machine will still be providing outstanding performance and be more than adequate to run what the software developers are putting on the market. At that point, my pc will be approximately 2.5 to 3 years old, hence the "built in upgradeability for literally years to come."As a matter of fact, there is currently only one pc gaming software product out there that was designed to take advantage of a quad-core processor. I suppose that upgrading to a quad-core processor down the road is laughable too in your book. Okey Dokey!Will there be a new OS out by MS by then? Well, you know all about that so I won't try to "enlighten" you. We all know what is around the corner as far as MS goes. Does that mean everyone, not to mention me, is going to throw out their machine when it is released. Nope, sorry bucko, not this guy. Talk about added expense! And btw, since the early 1980's when I became a pc consumer, I have never needed, relied upon, or consulted with MS to determine my hardware configurations or pc purchases. I can think for myself. MS dictate my pc purchases/hardware gameplan? Now it's my turn to roll on the floor laughing at someone who implies that letting MS dictate their pc purchases is NECESSARY and/or wise consumerism.The trouble with your point of view (and I mean no disrespect), is that while you SEEM to make some good points when your words are taken at a glance and in ignorance, the fact of the matter is that nothing you said in your reply makes any sense in regards to my post. Not even a little bit.Take some pot shots at something else. I love my machine, it is one of the smartest pc purchases I have ever made. Bang for the buck, INCLUDING the price of two OS's, you can't beat it. Yup, getting 3 years of stable, completely acceptable performance out of a pc these days is hilarious and an impossible thing to do. Keep on telling yourself that as you are ordering yet machine #4 or #5 (the first three or four which you post so proudly in your signature, I can't recall atm).I am not talking about staying on the bleeding edge every time a new product cycle is begun (a fool and his money . . .), I am talking about a rig that will keep you a happy gamer for the long haul. Yes, a dual boot system like I specify, VISTA x64 and XP x32 (NOT AS YOU DESCRIBE - a dual XP system, which is definitely laughable) is still a good choice. Especially since hardware prices have DROPPED on the components in my machine since it was built (by a local "boutique" pc business btw). It took them waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less time to explain how they did it and for me to understand, than it did to write this post.I quit ALL serious "tweaking" the day I put this cpu on my desktop. With all due respect to your reply, you really don't have a clue. Assume less, learn more.Best Regards

Hi,Approved :)Very nice approach of PC usageI work myself with caddies .. for the same purpose as your.Cheers.

Wow, you really told me! Dude, you need to take a chill pill and quit thinking arguing on the internet is a life. I was just trying to kid around with you.Considering I don't have a clue, and how much you can "educate" lil ol me, I won't waste any time at all with you. Didn't even finish reading your post because it's all opinion. And opinions are like a__holes. Everybody's got one. Not as big as yours, but everybody does.Adios, bud and

>Wow, you really told me! Dude, you need to take a chill pill>and quit thinking arguing on the internet is a life. I was>just trying to kid around with you.>>Considering I don't have a clue, and how much you can>"educate" lil ol me, I won't waste any time at all with you. >Didn't even finish reading your post because it's all opinion.> And opinions are like a__holes. Everybody's got one. Not as>big as yours, but everybody does.>>Adios, bud and Thank you for demonstrating your intelligence to everyone who reads this. The fact that YOU came back with only immature personal attacks and a ridiculous euphemism (look it up) while saying nothing to refute the points I made only serves to prove yet again that you said nothing of substance.I stated a point of view. You took some potshots at it based on misinterpretation or just a plain lack of willingness to listen to what someone else had to say. So I'd say that you are the one, who at least in this case, chose to make a "life" out of arguing with someone for that sake of arguing.Please do us all a favor and point out the myriad topics that show how I think arguing with others on the internet is a life.I'll say it again.Assume less, learn more.Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. Everyone else knows who the one playing "keyboard karate" is.YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that addresses the FACTS, and rationalizations for them, I have posted.Thanks for making me laugh again today. :)Now it's time for me to move on as I have wasted enough time on you, that IS for certain. Why? Because you have made it abundantly clear that there is nothing you can gain from meaningful communication with others as far as the topic of this thread is concerned. Have a nice day! :)

Just lurking but, looks like Aviator4life has has made His Point and Trelane skulks away with tail between legs. Only my opinion, but thats what makes a Horserace.Bill

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

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

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)*:-*

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

"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") :)