XP Pro 32 vs 64 bit for FSX

[Guest DonMR]

I just realized that the system I want to upgrade (motherboard, cpu, ram, video card) has Win98SE on it, so I will need an OS upgrade.I gather from what I have been reading that XP Pro is preferrable to Vista for FSX. I also am under the impression that XP 32 bit is preferrable to the 64 bit version. Is this true?Thanks,Don

[vgbaron 3,505]

Negative. XP64 hands down. The basic reason is the ability to access more ram which results in a smoother operation. Just be sure you have drivers for all your hardware. I just switched my system from 32 to 64 and had no issues with drivers. Only problem I had at all was one old program that I like to use which runs in 16 bit DOS - not possible in XP64. I find the framerates about the same, I lock at 30 and it pretty well stays therte - what I notice that's diferent is the sharpness and the smoothness of FSX.SInce you're installing from scratch - istringly recommend using NickN's guide to installing FSX and setting up your system for best operation.Have fun!

[ryanbatc 12,816]

Out of curiosity, what is the system you will run FSX on? If it's running Win98 I would get it would be pretty outdated....

[Alvega 2,119]

Out of curiosity, what is the system you will run FSX on? If it's running Win98 I would get it would be pretty outdated....

If i'm not mistaken, FSX does not run on Windows 98.

[Guest Nick_N]

I just realized that the system I want to upgrade (motherboard, cpu, ram, video card) has Win98SE on it, so I will need an OS upgrade.I gather from what I have been reading that XP Pro is preferrable to Vista for FSX. I also am under the impression that XP 32 bit is preferrable to the 64 bit version. Is this true?Thanks,Don

Don.. Xp is being phased out and although I prefer to remain on XP x64 till Windows7 x64 is released, Vista x64 is an option for you. Since I remained on XP x64 and skipped the Vista parade (and I am glad I did to tell you the truth) I probably wont make the move to the next gen OS till W7 is released. None the less you are better off on a 64bit OS with FSX SP2 and larger amounts of memory (above 2GB) with modern video adapters.

[jwenham 1]

I am running 32bit on my new rig as I was too chicken to go 64bit in fear of my other apps I run to have issues. I have no issues at all with it and have never had a OOM as of yet even while flying my Level D 767 (which BTW was grounded on my old box) but now she flys again and is a site to behold ... she flys again I say Mu ha ha ha ha! (Sorry about that ... I am in i7 nervana still) I like Nick never wanted Vista but when Window 7 hits will switch then to 64bit (maybe). I know the advantages to 64 vrs 32 but I just wanted to let you know my experience with 32 bit.

[Kosta 122]

I can guarantee you that if you use two heavy addon airports (eg. Heathrow, Frankfurt..., big airports) from and to which you fly, PMDG MD-11, mesh addon and Ultimate Terrain series, you are 100% sure to get an OOM on the 32bit system. Reason enough for me to use XP64. Check for drivers as mentioned earlier. Usually everyone already has XP64 drivers available.

[Guest DonMR]

If i'm not mistaken, FSX does not run on Windows 98.

Hi Guys,The old system I'm planning on upgrading is a box I threw together a few years ago. I'm basically going to replace everything except the drives and the case! It has Win98SE on it, and that needs to change, most certainly.I have been scoping out parts on Newegg and can get something that should work for FSX for under $300... but I'll have to pitch in more to get a new OS for it.With the possibility of Win 7 coming (soon??) I think I'll just try to get something fairly inexpensive until it comes out.How would Vista Home handle FSX I wonder... and which flavor of Vista Home.... then again, it may just be simpler for me to go with XP Pro (32bit) because I can get that for about $130... and I'm much more familiar with it.My FSX performance goal is to be able to taxi fairly smoothly.... I don't have much addon scenery... just some MegasceneryX packages (Las Vegas, Hawaii, and Tahoe).Thanks,Don

[jwenham 1]

You can get XP Home for 89.00 from newegg

[krishcanag 0]

I have tried FSX on XP Home, Vista 64 and windows7 64, XP home (32) wins, even though it can access only 3.25GB of RAM.XP is the lightest OS of the 3, that's why it wins I think.

[Mace 1,902]

The old system I'm planning on upgrading is a box I threw together a few years ago. I'm basically going to replace everything except the drives and the case!

So you are keeping the hard drives? They are not SATA are they? Be careful which motherboard you buy.What kind of hardware are you going to put in there? If you are going to run 2 gb system memory, and a 512mb vid card, then if it were me I would install WinXP 32 on the machine, and be done with it.

[Drumcode 1,892]

Any advantage running FS9 on XP64? Can you assign affirmity in XP64 to FS9.exe? I have an option of installing either 32 or 64XP.

[Kosta 122]

Any advantage running FS9 on XP64? Can you assign affirmity in XP64 to FS9.exe? I have an option of installing either 32 or 64XP.

I highly advise to go XP64, IF installing XP. 32bit is the thing of the past, especially because of the memory and dreaded OOMs. XP64 is as light as XP32, there is no difference there.You can assign affinity is XP64 the same way as in XP32.Don't forget to make FS9.exe hi-mem. You can use CFF Explorer for that.

[scott967 62]

I've seen nothing to suggest that x86 (32bit) vs x64 makes any difference for OOM. If someone has a link otherwise, I would appreciated seeing it. After all, FSX and AFAIK Dx10 are 32 bit apps and have to play in a 32 bit sandbox (wow64).scott s..

[Kosta 122]

I've seen nothing to suggest that x86 (32bit) vs x64 makes any difference for OOM. If someone has a link otherwise, I would appreciated seeing it. After all, FSX and AFAIK Dx10 are 32 bit apps and have to play in a 32 bit sandbox (wow64).scott s..

Scott, what you just said is SO wrong. I suggest you check your informations.As for a link, here you go:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=237882&st=0Scroll to the middle, where FS9 shows 2,9GB usage.I have done since then around 10 flights, where every flight has shown usage between 2 and 2,9GB, depending where I flew. 32bit operating systems allow for max. 2GB (3GB with the switch) of virtual space per application. I have many heavy addons and this is only to prove that 2GB virtual size is NOT enough for FS9. Each time FS9 tries to allocate more than 2GB und 32bit OS, its going to OOM. You can use the /3GB switch, but with 2,9GB VS, I would rather notm because if it requests more, its going to OOM again. 64bit allows you to enable fs9.exe for hi mem (via CFF Explorer), and so it can use up to 4GB VS, which should definitely be enough for now.True what you say, they have to play in the 32bit space, but 64bit system allows them to use more virtual space, thus not limiting the applications natively to 2GB.