Who's going to use FSX with XP???

[Dillon 2,197]

I find it odd that some would consider doubling the aggravation of moving over to FSX. FSX and all FSX specific add-ons ultimately will be designed to take advantage of the Vista/FSX environment. Why buy a new computer with WindowsXP preinstalled when you could wait a couple months and get most likely a better PC with Vista preinstalled???Why install all your various add-ons twice (once for your WindowsXP box and then for your Vista box)? Even if you ran the update feature Vista will most likely have, it's never recommended to install a new OS over an old OS. You would have to do a clean install thus blowing away your install of FSX and starting over with everything. Next comes waiting for the FSX Vista Patch (if there is one as Aces may find a way where this is not needed)... I find it odd Aces would release two version of FSX (XP and Vista). For all those nostalgia fans out there you could save your FSX/XP version as that would be a relic indeed after Vista's release. Guys I find myself (believe me, I really hate the longer wait) in a position that's causing me to wait for the OS first. What makes since to me is upon the release of Vista, purchase a new PC with Vista preinstalled, and then move forward with FSX (I may still do a clean install of Vista). That way I only have to install FSX once and therefore all my add-ons once. It's bad enough I'll most likely have to wait for updates for many add-ons much less playing musical computers/OS's and dealing with a dumbed down version of FSX until Vista arrives.I know I'm going to be reading the forums with some of you having fun with FSX/WindowsXP but with a 2.8gig Dell with an ATI 9800 video card, it makes more since to update my whole box in one big swoop. Besides I don't think FSX will run as good as FS9 on my current system (I have enough framerates problems as is)...It's interesting to know why some of you would go through upgrading twice and/or opting to run FSX on WindowsXP with many features missing. Things are never final with Microsoft but from the time of FSX's release to Vista we're only talking about a three month period at most. That's a short time to wait in order to get everything you'll need to get the most out of FSX. FS9 is not that bad until then. It's not like how it was when FS2000 came out and the previous version was FS98... :-)

[W2DR 1,860]

I'm going to run FSX on XP for at least a year. Given the track record with past OS releases, and the inordinate number of problems being encountered with Vista, I won't be changing the OS until after the first service pack is released, if then. Since we really have no idea what the "VistaFSX environment" may, or may not, be it's really much too soon to make any generalizations about hardware. Personally, I'm betting that FSX will run just fine on my existing system and that I'll not be missing much by sticking with XP. We need to remember that it's going to be a long time before the majority of the world's computers will be running Vista (it sure won't happen in 2007) and if FSX won't run just fine on XP then the FS team has made a serious marketing error - and I think they're smarter than that.Doug

[Guest Traffic]

I think I'm in the same boat as you. The biggest draw for vista will come from DX10 and so we all would love to know whether there will be DX10 support for FSX out of the box or will we be waiting for a patch/update if it will come at all.The other question for me is whether MS will do a 180 and provide DX10 for XP. If they do, however doubtful, then what would the point of upgrading to Vista be?Also, I'd like to hear from FSX users when it comes out about things like stutters and general performance issues before I jump in. I'm sure I'll end up getting it anyways, but to hear what hardware is needed would be a big plus.Personally I am waiting for the release of Intel Conroe which is slated for this summer to see if the hype about that chip is validated.So many questions that I'm just going to be on the fence for a while plugging away on my trusty old PC. But I'm very excited about what FSX will bring but somewhat reluctant to believe everything about Vista and DX10 until actual reviews start to appear.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

That is interresting a comment. I guess the biggest assumption in your decision is this:"but with a 2.8gig Dell with an ATI 9800 video card, it makes more since to update my whole box in one big swoop. Besides I don't think FSX will run as good as FS9 on my current system (I have enough framerates problems as is)..."I suspect (strongly) that FSX will run better than FS9 on the same computer. Given the various blogs posts telling how the scenery and aircraft models (3D) are changed to make better use of the hardware GPU pipelines...In fact, reading these blobs, you may even start to consider that although optimized from FS8, FS9 has many "code shortcuts" that makes it not as optimized an application you would first think, and then, some of your existing CPU/GPU power may not be fully utilized with FS9.Think of it this way: say you have a dual core CPU, but the OS and the applications you are running now only use 1 core. What if your new OS and new applications now use the 2 cores? well, you get better performance on your existing system.Transposing this to FS: say FS9 is only using 50% of your ATI9600 potential right now, and FSX will use 100% of its potential (you know, these video cards can do many tasks simulatenously if told to). I bet you will get better performance with FSX on your existing hardware in this case.Besides, if FSX is released by the end of 2006 (holliday 2006 is the official word), and Vista a couple months after, you may well start installing FSX on your existing Windows XP, use it with the few add-on that will be FSX ready by the release of FSX (or just use the stock new features for a little while), and then when you purchase your new Vista system, you will only have few add-ons to reinstall anyhow because it may be that all your FS9 add-ons are not FSX ready yet by the date Vista is released.Hope this helps!

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,I will be running FSX and XP on the day FSX is released. I will also continue to use FS9 for as long as necessary.To me, reinstalling add-ons is easy, if you properly save your purchase information.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development TeamActive Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter

[tgibson 11]

Hi,I think most people are overestimating what the DX10 patch will have in it. The MS bloggers have already said that everything they have shown so far is being done with DX9, and we know the feature set is now fixed. I don't think that anything they are including in the sim will not run on DX9, and so the DX10 patch will be for performance, nothing else (unless they also need to fix something, like the FS2004 9.1 patch). I predict that those that wait for the patch for something new and exciting will be quite disappointed.Of course, I would love to be proved wrong... :)Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[scott967 62]

If you believe the Vista PR (dangerous, I know) DX9 on Vista will be some amount better than DX9 on XP, esp in a dual core/SLi/crossfire environment. The trade is you're probably going to need 2 gig of DDR with vista running.Hard disks are cheap. You could dual boot XP and Vista both and try FSX in both environments to see what happens. I assume Vista Home Basic is not going to cut it, so cost for the "better" Vista versions may be an issue.One question for any insiders, will Vista still support windowed mode/ full screen mode for FSX, or is that obsolete?scott s..

[Dillon 2,197]

Great analogy JeanLuc... :-beerchug Although this would be a first in the history of the franchise where a newer version of the sim runs better than the older version using older hardware. There is no way FSX is going to run better than FS9 on my existing system. Remember Dell and Microsoft are in bed together which means one hand washes the other. Not only is software trying to be moved and sold but so is hardware... Dell makes no money if the guys are Redmond made new software that runs better than older software on existing machines. That would be a first in Microsoft's history of business practices let alone the FS franchise.JeanLuc you

[1mikel151 71]

Sometimes your logic escapes me Dillon :-roll Many were able to run FS9 just fine on the same machine as FS2002, myself included and with all the posts from the ACES guys, I see FSX being no different if not better. Everything you have seen so far has been done on an XP DX9c machine, so if FS9 runs ok for you, then just go get FSX when released and enjoy, if it doesn't run well, then you can upgrade then or stay with FS9 till you get the upgrade. From everything I have seen and heard, it WILL be an improvement over FS9 in many areas, so why wait for no reason?Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

[Guest andyjohnston]

>>One question for any insiders, will Vista still support>windowed mode/ full screen mode for FSX, or is that obsolete?>>scott s.>.>Probably. I've been running flight sim full screen since FS-2000, but I know that a lot of people still run in windowed mode. Especially those with dual-monitor set ups.

[n4gix 4,947]

"Next comes waiting for the FSX Vista Patch (if there is one as Aces may find a way where this is not needed)... I find it odd Aces would release two version of FSX (XP and Vista). For all those nostalgia fans out there you could save your FSX/XP version as that would be a relic indeed after Vista's release."++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You are operating under a false premise. The so-called "patch" for Vista will only consist of the abstraction layer for DX10, and some other mods to take advantage of Vista's unique gaming features.Even after applying the "patch," FSX will continue to run under WinXP and DX9c, as that is the "fall-back" scheme... ;)Also, DX10 is part of Vista and not some dangly-bit hooked into the OS. ;)

[Guest PC509]

I'm switching to Vista as soon as it's released. I'm running a beta version right now and really love it. I'll use FSX with XP until Vista comes out. I have FS2004 on a separate partition anyway, so it won't be too hard to upgrade and keep any updates or addon's. I'm usually one of the first to buy a new OS. It's more of the computer nerd in me than it is I "need" it. Although, if you really look at the OS, it has a lot of things that are just plain awesome. After playing with it for a while, going back to the WinXP OS is like going from XP to Windows 95. It's hard! :) I'd like to see FSX and Vista together, but I'll take FSX without it for now. :D

[Tabs 2,790]

Don't tell me you're really willing to sit there for months on end while everyone else has fun with the new sim on XP. Vista is pretty much vaporware at this point and who knows if it'll get delayed again etc. You could be waiting for years! ;)Also I wouldn't underestimate what the performance effect of shifting things to the GPU is going to have - you may very well see better performance in FSX than FS9 (maybe not will all the sliders up) but if what the developers have said is true, it should be less CPU and more GPU limited than FS9 is.My 7800GTX is capable of far higher FPS that what I actually get in FS, and I gather this is because the CPU is doing a lot of the work. FSX is shifting to a rendering scheme more similar to what goes on in other modern games like Far Cry, HL2 etc. If it performs worse on my system I'll be shocked.

[Guest]

I will install Vista as soon as its released too. I don't understand why anyone would wait. The patches will be available using the live update thingy. It will be interesting to see how it runs on Vista using DX9. According to MS it will be faster, but how much? And then plug in a DX10 card to compare that too :)

[W2DR 1,860]

..."Remember Dell and Microsoft are in bed together which means one hand washes the other."... Where do the conspiracy theorists come up with this stuff? Do you have any factual information which would support such an assertion? Or, is this just another bash at Microsoft?Doug