Time for Vista 64?

[GeorgeT93 1]

Greetings all. I'm in the middle of an upgrade right now, and am trying to make an informed decision on the choice of OS. I've got a couple of questions I'd like to ask that I feel would help me decide if going Vista64 is worth it (in my case) or if just staying on XP32 would be the wiser choice.My situation is as follows:I've been putting together a new machine for FSX, and am trying to decide what would be the best decision for an OS. I got my new parts a little over a week ago, and put it all together and installed XP Pro 32 (SP3), and thought the results were pretty good, however I was having some texture issues that turned out to be a problem with the GPU (it couldn't run at it's rated 'stock' clock speed.) Needless to say, I RMA'd the card for a replacement, and while waiting for the replacement to show up, I went ahead and ordered a new hdd and case, thereby making this a completely new machine instead of just an upgrade. Anyhow, I'm trying to decide if it would be worth it to go with Vista Home Premium 64 in order to take full advantage of my RAM, or if the upgrade wouldn't be worth it (from XP Pro 32). I am well aware of the memory addressing limitations of 32-bit OS's, but have no idea how much memory FSX will actually use while running (at a maximum). I know I can increase the memory available to applications under XP32 (using the /3GB and /USERVA switches), but how much will FSX actually use?The hardware setup I'm using is as follows:ASUS P5KPL-AM/PS Socket 775 Mainboard (onboard video is disabled in the BIOS)Intel Core2Quad Q95504 GB (2 x 2GB) OCZ DDR2-800 RAMEVGA 9800 GT 1GB Video Card2 LG LCD's (1440x900 each) running in Span mode (for a final resolution of 2880x900).I know that at least 1GB of system RAM is unavailable under XP32, as those addresses are reserved for addressing the video card (which is 1GB). I also know that around another 500MB is used for other system devices, which ultimately leaves XP32 reporting a little over 2.5GB of available system RAM. I realize that under a 64-bit OS, there would be plenty of addresses so that segments of system RAM don't have to be 'ignored' to free up those addresses for other hardware. I'm just unaware that, if Windows allowed the full 4GB (or close to it) to be available to applications, if FSX would actually use more than the 2.1 GB or so of system RAM I've seen it use (for the brief period my machine was running before I RMA'd the video card.)So here's what I don't know. I don't know if there's any noticable performance increase going from 32-bit to 64-bit in FSX (due to more memory being available to the application). I don't know if FSX would ever utilize more than the 2.1 or so GB of RAM that I've seen it using under XP32, or if it's just stopping itself at that point to leave the remainder of the 2.5GB or so that the system reported it had available, for other tasks. I don't know if there's any benefit to upgrading to a 64-bit OS, and thereby making additional RAM available, if the application wouldn't/couldn't/doesn't utilize more RAM than is available to it while it's running under XP32.So, to sum up my two main questions (and obviously, these questions are meant to be asked of other folks who have upgraded from XP32 to Vista64 in a 4GB or greater system memory configuration):1) Will there be a noticable performance increase in FSX, upgrading from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS on a system with 4GB of system RAM and 1GB of video RAM (meaning Windows needs to be able to address 5GB+ of memory address space)?2) Will FSX ever actually utilize more than around 2.1GB of system RAM if the system allows for a larger application space in RAM (ie: will FSX ever utilize 3GB+ of system RAM while it is running, or is pretty much everything it needs loaded for any scene able to fit in the 2.1GB I've seen it actually using?)Thanks in advance for any advice on this. I feel I need to make a decision on this today, so if I decide to go Vista, I can order it before my replacement video card gets here. That way I can get both at around the same time meaning that many fewer days my new machine sits on the floor waiting for me to do something with it. lol. :)-George

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Greetings all. I'm in the middle of an upgrade right now, and am trying to make an informed decision on the choice of OS. I've got a couple of questions I'd like to ask that I feel would help me decide if going Vista64 is worth it (in my case) or if just staying on XP32 would be the wiser choice.Thanks in advance for any advice on this. I feel I need to make a decision on this today, so if I decide to go Vista, I can order it before my replacement video card gets here. That way I can get both at around the same time meaning that many fewer days my new machine sits on the floor waiting for me to do something with it. lol. :)-George

The consensus seems to be that a 64bit OS is worth it for FSX, especially with a 1GB video card, with XP fans holding that XP64 is still better than Vista64, and Vista fans claiming that Vista64 is just as good as long as you know what to turn off in Vista to make it perform.

[Guest tcable]

The consensus seems to be that a 64bit OS is worth it for FSX, especially with a 1GB video card, with XP fans holding that XP64 is still better than Vista64, and Vista fans claiming that Vista64 is just as good as long as you know what to turn off in Vista to make it perform.

For me it's even more simple. Driver support for XP64 is lacking, where Vista 64 drivers are common. I've been running Vista 64 for over a year (read since SP1 released- RTM was a beta OS at best)I recommend Vista 64 or if you can wait, Windows 7.Tim

[GeorgeT93 1]

The consensus seems to be that a 64bit OS is worth it for FSX, especially with a 1GB video card, with XP fans holding that XP64 is still better than Vista64, and Vista fans claiming that Vista64 is just as good as long as you know what to turn off in Vista to make it perform.

Thanks for the info, Bert. I use Vista32 on my laptop (came preinstalled), so I know my experiences with it have not been nearly as bad as what others seem to have experienced. But I've never even attempted to install FSX on my laptop as I know that hardware-wise, this laptop would give me a less-than-enjoyable experience. That said, my question was more 64-bit vs 32-bit focused than OS vs OS, and even on that subject, my focus was on the memory management side of things. (Just wanted to clarify that for any readers.) Your answer was mostly what I was looking for, since I figured a 64-bit OS would allow for better memory utilization since it can access more address space. That said, is there any noticible difference in performance going from 32-bit to 64-bit, and do you have any idea how much RAM FSX would approximately use at a maximum? Will it ever actually utilize the additional RAM if it is made addressable is what I'm actually trying to determine. If I do upgrade to Vista64, I want to be confident that doing so will benefit FSX by allowing it to use more RAM, and that FSX will actually make use of the additional freed-up RAM addresses.Thanks again, I really appreciate the input. :)-George

[GeorgeT93 1]

Tim,I've heard lots of good things about Windows 7, however I'd like to get my FSX machine back up and running by (hopefully) this weekend. Whatever OS gets installed on it is probably going to remain there until my next hardware upgrade (or system crash), so it may be a good year and a half to two years before I'll be looking at upgrading again. I'd probably convince myself buy an upgrade version of Windows 7 later in the year, however, if it does show itself to be a better performer than Vista64 on the same hardware (at least as far as FSX is concerned, I know it seems to be performing better for at least regular OS tasks.) Obviously, Win7 would be a real upgrade consideration even if I choose to go XP32 now, since again, if it proves to be a good, solid performer once it actually hits the streets it could be a worthwhile upgrade. Honestly, XP64 isn't even being considered by me at the moment, as I've limited my choices to either sticking with XP32 or going to Vista64.Of course, driver support is *huge*, and both you and Bert seem to agree that Vista64 would probably be of benefit to me with my FSX box's hardware configuration. I have a feeling I'll be hitting newegg before the end of the day. :(Thanks for the info,-George

[Guest pete1_leeds]

the beta version of win7 is more than stable enough for fsx/fs9 why wait?i have been running it for approx 2 months with no issues...

[GeorgeT93 1]

the beta version of win7 is more than stable enough for fsx/fs9 why wait?i have been running it for approx 2 months with no issues...

Unfortunately, I found out about the Win7 Beta a bit too late, and MS no longer offers the download to folks who haven't already signed up for the beta (if it's available for download at all anymore). From http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/

We're sorry, Windows 7 Beta downloads are no longer available. If you've got a copy of the Beta and need a key, here's where to look.

This can be found under the "Need Your Key?" section towards the bottom of the Windows 7 page, on the right hand side. :\If I had managed to pay more attention, I may noticed the beta earlier, and I probably wouldn't have even needed to make this post. But with Windows 7 beta no longer being available, I've got to either stay on XP32 until Win7 hits the street, or go Vista64 now and wait for the reviews of the RTM version of Win7 to surface before deciding to make the switch at that point.Thanks for the info. Win7 beta would be a *very* viable option for me right now if it were still available, but since it's not, and I want to get my machine back up and running ASAP, I'll either need to install XP32, or will have to upgrade to something else (at least in the interim) until the final version and reviews of Win7 have been released.Thanks again. :)-George

[GeorgeT93 1]

Thanks for the input folks. I've decided I'm going to take the plunge and give Vista64 a shot. I wanted to come to a decision early enough today that the disc could be shipped out to me quicker. I've placed my order on Newegg, so hopefully it'll be here by the end of the week. Now to start tracking down 64-bit drivers for everything. :)Thanks again!-George

[spilok 1,133]

BIG QUESTION! I just re-formatted my computer and I bought Vista Full version ...ULTIMATE. Of course, I installed the Vista 64 Version. Prior to this, I did a Vista Ultimate Upgrade to XP. It was the 32 (86) version. I wasn't happy with it. OK. Now, Vista Ultimate Full Version is installed, and for the last 5 days I've been installing my files. I've re-installed FSX, GEX, REX, FS Genesis, and all updates. I've noticed that there are 2 Program files listed on my C Drive. One is for 64, and the other is for 86 (which as you know is Vista 32). FSX automatically installs to the 86 Program File Folder. Does 64 then still HELP me? That's my question! FSX seems to run much, much smoother and at higher frames (avg 45) with everything pretty much maxed. How does it all work? Please let me know.