Any advice appreciated...thank you.RegardsPaul EGCC

Hello,Just make a search with the word VISTA on this particular FS2004 forum .. and you will have your answer ...It's magic Regards.

Yes, it does run on Windows Vista. Also tried it but, because I experienced lower frame rates I returned to Windows XP again...

Tried it. Unexplained occasional crashes. Back to XP64.

Tried it. Unexplained occasional crashes. Back to XP64.

Just wondering...any noticable gain between xp 32 and 64 bit in fs9?

Hello Paul,Well FS2004 runs fine in Vista with a few precautions:1. Disable UAC (if you are planning to add additions)Next change the properties of the shortcut to FS9.exe: 2. Run in XP (Service Pack 2) Compatible mode3. Disable visual themes4. Disable desktop compositionAll the rest are the normal precautions you do in XP too:5. Use the latest graphics drivers6. Use the latest .Net (if you are using third party additions)7. Disable all unnecessary services. ( http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm )8. Disable all unnecessary services and programs for FS9 while you are "flying" (AlacrityPC)Enjoy!Hugo

Hello Paul,Well FS2004 runs fine in Vista with a few precautions:

The number one precaution is:DO NOT INSTALL FS TO THE DEFAULT LOCATION!!!Use something simple, such as C:\FS9 instead.This will place FS completely outside of the overly protective environment of the ..\Program Files folder! :(

The number one precaution is:DO NOT INSTALL FS TO THE DEFAULT LOCATION!!!Use something simple, such as C:\FS9 instead.This will place FS completely outside of the overly protective environment of the ..\Program Files folder! :(

Fr BillDoes that apply to XP as well? Should it be installed on C: root vice C:Programs?R.Perry

The number one precaution is:DO NOT INSTALL FS TO THE DEFAULT LOCATION!!!Use something simple, such as C:\FS9 instead.This will place FS completely outside of the overly protective environment of the ..\Program Files folder! :(

Oh yes, that too. But I never do or did, even with XP (The default installation creates too long file path's which only fit in most installation forms after scrolling and which is an annoying thing). By preference I install FS on a non system hardware disk. IMHO disk access is still the major cause of micro stutters, so avoiding as much as possible access of the "FS" disk by non FS programs will eliminate some stutters and fps dips. Regards,Hugo

Just wondering...any noticable gain between xp 32 and 64 bit in fs9?

Nope. Vista 64 is the slowest OS for FS9.For me it is like XP 32 SP3 > Vista 32 > Vista 64. So XP is the fastest one.The good news: Windows 7 will improve that quite noticable. MS promised performance improvements over Vista and so far, they are right on track. With the current build of Windows 7 x64, FS9 is back to XP performance on my system. My advice: If you could live without Vista until now, wait a few months, skip Vista and go with Windows 7 by the end of 2009.

Fr BillDoes that apply to XP as well? Should it be installed on C: root vice C:Programs?R.Perry

Yes, I use the same scheme irrespective of the OS.As I've said many times, "I like short paths!" :( Like another respondent suggested, I actually prefer to install FS on a non-OS drive...D:\FS2002D:\FS9D:\FS9_VirginD:\FSXD:\FSX_VirginSince I have the space, note that I have "Virgin" copies of my FS9 and FSX installations. This allows me to easily copy/paste any files in the "working" installations quickly and easily. Since I depend on having both FS9 and FSX running for my development work, I simply do not have time to chase down problems, nor resort to "reinstallation" to get running again.I have a backup routine that runs every night to keep complete copies of the two "working" sim installs to a remote server drive on my LAN...