Hi gang,While not entirely MSFS related, here is a review about Vista, with FS9 as a component.http://www.ascendant-online.net/en/reviews...ta_beta2-00.phpCheersShad

Good spot! Interesting that at this relatively late stage there are still major compatibility issues with FS9 and Vista. Hopefully they're just driver-led rather than some deeper issue. I simply won't install Vista if it means poorer performance for FS, whether it be FSX or FS9.Like may of us, I anticipate wanting to run FS9 alongside the new FSX for some time while the aftermarket gets up to speed, so MS could be heading for trouble if you need to have Vista to get FSX working at its best, only to have FS9 suffer as a result.And dual boot of the OS also seems to cause some issues at this point. Not good.Allcott

I feel a bit more apprehensive concerning the new Vista/FSX offerings than I have on past developments for some reason. I know there will be growing pains but I am not sure but what it may be advisable to wait until a few remedies are available before diving in.Sure sounds like a wait and see operational system to me, unless it is delayed even longer than expected and a few bugs are removed.Of course if the new FSX requires Vista to run well as has been implied, this will make issues even more complex.We shall see what we shall see.RTH

Last I heard it will require DX10, not Vista. I am hoping I will not ned to fully commit to Vista until at least the first year of it. I am interested to see how much improvement there will be in system performance over the next 6 months. I guess we shall see with RC1.CheersThank for readingShad

No, MS have already confimed that FSX is fully DX9 compatible, so will NOT `require` Vista/DX10. So you will be able to run FSX with your existing hardware while Vista sorts itself out. It almost certainly will be the technology demonstrator for DX10 though, so FSX will probably not come alive until Vista is utilised - along with the hardware upgrades that will require. In that sense, FSX is no different from FS2004, which was also to some extent `future-proofed` whihcis why its still giving ghood service 3 years later.Should make for a good upgrade path for a simmer, but I agree Vista looks decidedly shaky at this point, and I certainly wouldn't want to be queuing at nmidnight for the release copy.Allcott

But, unfortunately, one cannot have DX10 without also having Vista. There will be no DX10 available for WinXP.Doug

Yes, which is why the issue is complicated. To see all the benefits of FSX, apparently we will need Vista/DX10. But if that means that FS9 running under some pseudo-DX9 mimicry within Vista actually runs slower, then the only other option is a dual boot system, and that makes things very complicated indeed, especially if Vista makes us nervous as an O/S!I think MS have a lot of convincing to do before I run FSX on anythnig other than XP!Allcott

Allcott opined: "I think MS have a lot of convincing to do before I run FSX on anythnig (sic) other than XP!"I couldn't agree more. Consider also someone, like myself, who has a somewhat aging, but still very well-performing, WinXP system (specs below). As it appears there will be no high-end DX10 video card (or maybe no DX10 video cards at all) for an AGP slot, I'll need to buy not only FSX and Vista, but also a motherboard, additional RAM, a new much-higher-wattage power supply, a DX10 video card, and, possibly, a CPU.Combine all that that with the Vista situation and I think I'll be using FSX with WinXP for quite some time. Doug P4 3.2E @ 3.680 (1.385 vCore - 230 FSB)Asus P4C800-E Deluxe (BIOS 1019)2 x 512MB Corsair TWINX CXM3700 (3-4-4-8)5 x 300GB WD HDD'sHercules 9800 Pro (128MB @ 410/360)A-Open 1648 AAP RipperPlextor 708A WriterEnermax 431W PSUInwin Case

Yes that is kind of a bummer.I think it will be kind of be the same situation we had when XP first came out. Remember that? Most gaming-community people still used Win98SE for quite some time, because it was superior to Win Millenium/2000/early XP for gaming-type uses.But then, gradually, XP matured, and the hardware and DX to match. And then, by 2002-03, most of us were switched over to XP/DX8 or 9.Maybe Vista will be the same. At first, XP will be best...but as things mature and devlop there will be a transition to Vista/DX10. Maybe a year or two after Vista's launch, most of us will be using it.Rhett

I think you're right Rhett. By the end of next year we'll have a much better idea of where Vista stands with regard to gaming and will have gained a lot of experience with FSX. It will be interesting to watch the posts by folks who have bought new machines with Vista preloaded. To be honest, I'm just as concerned about the performance of FSX as I am about Vista. Somehow I just don't have a good feeling about either. Nothing really I can point to, just a general level of discomfort. If the ACES folks have relied primarily on DX10 for performance enhancements those of us still using XP are in for a rough ride. Particularly guys like me with an older 128MB card (gotta fix that!). Once the full capabilities of DX9 are turned loose with FSX everyone with a less than top-notch DX9-compliant GPU is going to be in a spot of trouble. I just hope it's fixable without having to go the Vista route. Anyone got a recommendation as to the best DX9-compliant AGP card?DougEdited 'cause I can't spel

> I think you're right Rhett. By the end of next year>we'll have a much better idea of where Vista stands with>regard to gaming and will have gained a lot of experience with>FSX. It will be interesting to watch the posts by folks who>have bought new machines with Vista preloaded. To be honest,>I'm just as concerned about the performance of FSX as I am>about Vista. Somehow I just don't have a good feeling about>either. Nothing really I can point to, just a general level of>discomfort. If the ACES folks have relied primarily on DX10>for performance enhancements those of us still using XP are in>for a rough ride. Particularly guys like me with an older>128MB card (gotta fix that!). Once the full capabilities of>DX9 are turned loose with FSX everyone with a less than>top-notch DX9-compliant GPU is going to be in a spot of>trouble. I just hope it's fixable without having to go the>Vista route. Anyone got a recommendation as to the best>DX9-compliant AGP card?>>Doug>>Edited 'cause I can't spelIt took me a while to get the review published as I wanted to add some CSS effects to the review pages. During the time of the writing updates from MS and other vendors have continued to improve the system. The speed of the fixes is somewhat surprising, somethings that were not quite right in the begining are being fixed every other day.Speed is also coming up, as the performance on benchmarks is now much closer the XP's numbers. The review images reflect the smaller change in speed over what I wrote in the text (about a week before rerunning the Bms and takign the numbers shots.I will be adding an update page to the review in a week or so, as so much has happened in the last three weeks, and a lot of what I first wrote is no longer valid (thats the problem with writing about beta software heheh).Active camera is behaving well and addons are not really harming the speed so far in FS9. The eyecandy is not all there, but soon it will be I am sure. So far there are no oddities with FS9 that are not also present in XP and a poorly set up XP will not likely perform much better than Vista is in beta stage.I am rappidly growing addicted to this OS. It has a heck of a lot going for it.EDIT: I am in Vista as I write this and Flash 9 just did a perfect online install in IE 7 - another one (bug) bites the dust...CheersShad

I have been updating the review with a few new apps installed and tested as well as fixing many of the initial hardware problems.Newly tested programs include Daz Studio (like poser) and Blender 2.41 (3D modeling) and Open Office 2.So far most of the things work, but one program that did work is now quite broken, HTML-Kit.I still can not get Gmax to work.CheersShad

I, too, am now using Vista Beta 2 as my primary OS (dual-boot to XP just in case). So far, everything is working. I had to fiddle a little bit to get my sound card working (TB Santa Cruz). Also, I can't seem to get AA 2x to work, only none and 4x (I have a Radeon 9550).At any rate, on my modest system, FS runs almost as well as it did on Vista. In fact, the only difference is that it occasionally (every 3-4 minutes), it will pause for about 1 second as it loads something. For a doggy beta, I think it's very promising.EP4 2.8 GHz (800 MHz FSB)1 GB PC 3200 RAMATi Radeon 955080GB 7200 RPM Maxtor HD

Does the "Aeroglass" 3D-desktop system adversely affect FS performance?Rhett

yah know.... thats a good question. Why did I not think of that? :)I will turn as much of the effects and such off and see what the results are...Stay tuned.CheersShad