Vista x64 or XP x64?

[BimmerCop 332]

Hello guys,I currently have Vista x64 on my FSX system and seeing how this PC is setup ONLY for FSX, I was wondering... Should I use Vista x64 or XP x64 for running my FSX ONLY PC? Which one will yield the best performance? Keep in mind, this PC is used ONLY for FSX. Thanks in advance!

[Guest ziporama]

Well, I went from XP 32 to Vista 64 and got a whopping 30% (ok, 28% to be exact) increase in performance on the same box except for the fact I added two sticks of memory and went from 2 to 4Gb. Pipe in DirectX 10 (requires dealing with texture and light anomalies because of a bug in the FSX DX10 preview), and my FPS jumps by another 10 or so, which propelled it in the high 20s to mid 30s in KSEA - the ultimate in slide show under XP32 where I usually got single digits. I don't use DX10 normally because of the lighting issues primarily.FSX performance under Vista has in my view a lot to do with the video card drivers and the amount of memory, so comparing operating systems may not necessarily be a good thing. In fact, just updating the video driver has been a rollercoaster ride in FPS for me, on the same operating system. I cannot understand why a new video driver kills off my performance on one release, and increases it the next. Doesn't make sense. I have an older 8800 Ultra now, and I seem to be way ahead FPS wise of much newer cards that are on paper much more powerful than my 8800. I think how the simulator uses the video card has a lot to do with what you end up with. Memory is also a plus, although I've not seen FSX use much more than 1.9Gb for itself using some of my more complex add-ons and scenery.I didn't go the XP 64 route primarily because few vendors seem to have drivers for XP 64 - nearly all of it is for XP 32. The industry seems to have put their bet on Vista 64, especially as I'm reading Windows 7 will be only 64 bit, so it seems logical. There are a few vendors out there that still are trying to figure out Vista 64, and I also know that the tech support community out there seems mostly illiterate with regards to Vista 64 if you call for tech issues - the first thing you will hear is - oh, you should try the 32 bit version, blah blah blah. I'll say this: I'm running my very old (and fantastic) copy of LucasArt's Tie Fighter vs XWing and Rebel Alliance on Vista 64, so don't tell me it doesn't work with old stuff :)Overall, I'm very happy with Vista 64, and as I posted in a thread on this forum, I terminated UAC with extreme prejudice to make life tolerable. It has been very stable and I have had no issues compatibility, security or otherwise with it, and all my add-ons function marvelously on it. I did spend a week configuring it to my liking, and it looks/behaves a lot more like XP on steroids now. If given the choice, I'd definitely use Vista 64 for FSX today.Disclaimer: your gaming experience may vary :)Hope this helps,E.

[Guest Aviator4life]

Here's is one vote for Vista 64bit. I can vouch for it based on my personal experience from running FSX on Vista Ultimate 64bit.Here are my specs which are what most would call "middle of the road":- Antec 900 Full Tower Case w/one extra auxilary case fan on side panel- Antec Truepower Quattro 850W power supply- Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3.0 GHz- EVGA 780i 1066 Mhz FSB Nvidia chipset Mobo- 4 Mb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 RAM (2 x 2048 Mb @ 400 Mhz; 5-5-5-18)- Raptor 10,000rpm 150Gb Harddrives x2, Dual boot (XP Home 32bit on one and Vista Ultimate 64bit on the other)- EVGA Nvidia 9800GX2 (x2 GPU's on one Video Card, total 1Gb Video RAM) Current drivers - Nvidia 182.06- Ch Products USB Flight Sim Yoke and Pro Pedals for fixed wing aircraft- Microsoft FFB Sidewinder 2 for rotary wing aircraft- Samsung 226cw 22" LCD monitor (1680 x 1050 native resolution w/2ms response time- Saitek Eclipse II Keyboard- Logitech G5 gaming mouseCurrently running FSX w/Acceleration Pack and . . .- Ground Environment X (USA/Canada)- Ultimate Terrain X (USA/Canada)- Real Environment XSeveral GA and Bush flying payware aircraft.No overclocking and no "heat" problems whatsover.Am using all of "NickN's" applicable tweaks and the recently discovered FSX framerate limiter optimizer(seems to help with framerate spiking and increase overall smoothness of the sim).I also override nHancer's detection of my 9800GX2 as a SLI setup (As I stated before, it's a single videocard with two GPU's and two sets of video RAM on one card, not a two card SLI setup, for those who maynot understand/know this.).I DO NOT use the DirectX 10 preview option in FSX.1680 x 1050 x 32 resolution with what I consider to be outstanding "eye candy" at 28 - 30 fpsfor the most part. At larger Class 'B' airports framerates drop into the 20 - 24 fps range.Framelock in FSX set to "unlimited" and the framerate set to 30 in the framerate limiter optimizer GUI.I've never been happier with the overall quality of my flight-simming platform. This comes from the perspective of a realworld private pilot who is very familiar with the view over the instrument panel at 2,000' AGL.Hope this helps and best regards. :)

[David Vega 348]

I've been thinking about upgrading from XP32 to Vista64. Thank you for the information in this thread so far. Was wondering if there's an upgrade path or does it require a complete reinstall of all applications. R/dv

[BartEnder 2]

I've been thinking about upgrading from XP32 to Vista64. Thank you for the information in this thread so far. Was wondering if there's an upgrade path or does it require a complete reinstall of all applications. R/dv

Reinstall for sure.And go for a Vista, do not bother yourself with XP

[Gumps 0]

Hello guys,I currently have Vista x64 on my FSX system and seeing how this PC is setup ONLY for FSX, I was wondering... Should I use Vista x64 or XP x64 for running my FSX ONLY PC? Which one will yield the best performance? Keep in mind, this PC is used ONLY for FSX. Thanks in advance!

I suppose "YMMV" is never more true...I switched from XP 32 to Vista 64...and had worse performance. I had 4Gb of ram and XP 32 Home, and wanted, among other things, to take advantage of the extra memory. As you're probably aware, XP Home can't use the /3Gb switch.I considered XP64 as NickN has spoken highly of that OS. But, I figured I'd future proof a little, and go to Vista 64, being that Win7 Final Release was probably still some time away. This computer is used for FSX only as well. I initially had a battle trying to get two graphics cards to work, but got past that. I run multiple monitors, and must say that although Vista will comply with 'full screen' multiple monitors, it seems to do it almost reluctantly...lots of screen flashing and blanking. Whatever, it does settle down.So I shutdown indexing, UAC and so on in Vista. I loaded FSX and tweaked it per NickN's guide. I set up a comparison flight with the PMDG MD-11X...and was disappointed to find it was not as smooth. I messed with it for a while, but didn't get anywhere. I yanked that HDD out and stuck the XP HDD back in. That's where I'm sitting at the moment.I am considering buying XP64 before it gets to where you can't find it. But, I'm not currently in the mood to load an OS, find all the drivers, configure, tweak, etc. That is such a time killer. That's one reason why I keep a clone of my working FSX system!I see others have reported performance increases. I guess it just underscores the different, and sometimes contradictory, experiences we all have with similar equipment.Noel WBrisbaneC2D E6850 @ 3.88800GTX (stock)9600 GT (stock)4 Gb DDR2 ramMSI P35 Platinum MB

[irocx 292]

I see others have reported performance increases. I guess it just underscores the different, and sometimes contradictory, experiences we all have with similar equipment.Noel WBrisbaneC2D E6850 @ 3.88800GTX (stock)9600 GT (stock)4 Gb DDR2 ramMSI P35 Platinum MB

Interesting reading your experiences Noel as they almost mirror mine since going to V64. The common point between us is my use of multi-monitors and your thoughts have me wondering if I would be having the same flashing and poor quality graphics upon returning to XP. Ironically, I switched to Nvidia because of their support of "span" view only to find it broken in Vista. I do have a copy of XP64 but, like you, don't relish the thought of another OS install (I really wish I hadn't so quickly abandoned my dual boot.) My performance isn't necessarily poor in V64, but I have not received the perfomance increases as reported by others, even with DX10, and I often wonder if things might be somehow be better by going back. Your last statement kind of sums things up.

[Guest Aviator4life]

No doubt it does seem that there is a wide spectrum of results as regards FSX, Vista 64bit, and specific hardware configurations.Forgot to mention in my previous post that I have left UAC and default permissions alone in Vista. I created a directory called C:\MyVistaGames\ and all of my software, FSX, addons, and other programs get installed there. Have had absolutely no problems with the installation of program patches/upgrades or running my virus protection software (Avast being my weapon of choice. I do monthly scans with several programs though but use Avast for realtime protection.) Just have to remember to point the installer applications to the right directory (which is different usually than the default directory suggested by the installation programs in the case of auto-installers). Best of both worlds imho, afterall, the wife and my oldest son - a software engineer, do ask me to log them onto my machine on rare occasions, and we all know about wives and engineers, lol! B) :( :(Whatever you do decide though, be sure to reboot and defrag after each installation. This is especially important after installations like FSX, GEX, UTX, REX. A fragmented mess doesn't make things run faster, guaranteed. :( Best regards. :(

[greggerm 312]

Adding to the frey...Unless you already own Vista or are purchasing a brand new computer with Vista onboard, I would probably recommend saving your money at this point. Not for any failures or shortcomings with Vista itself, but simply because its successor is very close to fruition. Windows 7 is on the doorstep for what many are hoping is an early summer release, and the word from those using and testing it is that it is a marked improvement over Vista in many ways - performance included. I find Vista to be a great OS for my home computer, and for me it represented a significant improvement over Windows XP in many ways. Windows 7 is expected to improve on that platform. (*Some like to joke and say that Windows 7 is the real "Vista SP2") I'd hate to see someone purchase a Vista update today, only to want to pick up Windows 7 over the summer. If you can get by without an operating system update for a little while, I'd just sit tight for a bit until the W7 release comes along. Again - not for anything lacking in Vista, but simply to prevent any unneeded spending with the new version coming very soon!-GregPS:I too would recommend the 64-bit path if you can. I've experienced little to no headaches with it, and any small inconveniences I have seen were VERY easily fixed. The drivers for Vista64 are a VAST improvement over XP64, and as such I wouldn't recommend ANY flavor of XP for people operating a modern-class computer.Edit to add PS #2:Just to quickly correct something that Ziporama mentioned above - Windows 7 will be available for both platforms (32 & 64), and will not be a 64-bit exclusive system.

[frakius 2]

One thing to bear in mind is that Vista does not support Spanning so you cant get a wide veiw aspect over two monitors (bascially fools your PC into thinking it has one giant montior attached rather than two so you get huge resolutions basically a software implentation of the matrox tripple head to go hardware) This got me. Though I don't know if XP 64 supports it but i would assume so as Xp 32 bit does. If you don't use multiple monitors then Vista for the driver reasons.Paul

[Guest ziporama]

Yes, it appears that because of video driver architecture changes, spanning is not enabled on current drivers, and the architecture is the same on Windows 7. While spanning doesn't seem to work in current driver implementations, multiple monitors are supported, and I am using two monitors on Vista 64 with no issues.Etienne

[Guest Se7en]

I've tried FSX with XP64 and am currently using FSX with Vista 64, its much better IMHO.Vista really is prime time now, no reason not to use it.

[Guest delsimflyer]

I observe incorrect doppler effects in fsx on xp x64. asked about it here and was surprised, someone replied he had simillar problem on his xp which disappeared when he moved on to vista. I havent tried fsx on vista myself so am not sure. but if it is true, then another good reason to go for fsx on vista.

[FTD1949 0]

And go for a Vista, do not bother yourself with XPI certainly wouldn't bother with Vista at this point in time unless you already own a copy and unless it's 64 bit I wouldn't bother at all. I would suggest you wait for the release of Win7 later this year. I have Win7 Beta and FSX runs great on it. I say that having used the Level D 767 on it.I recently blew away Vista Ultimate 32 bit and put XP 64 bit back on my machine and there is a huge difference in FSX perfomance.Again I would not purchase Vista but wait for Win 7.Craig

[Guest Nick_N]

I upgraded from Vista to XP x64 I tested them all, extensively, including W7 and although W7 is better than Vista in terms of fixes from the duck-ups Vista made and annoyances it still presents, .. XP x64 still wins for MSFS