Assuming FSX will be based on 32-bit architecture and we have a 64-bit processor, would we be better off with the 64-bit or 32-bit version of Vista?My dilemma and reasoning for asking is as follows: The 64-bit version of Vista is, obviously, better suited to the 64-bit processor architecture but if FSX is 32-bit it will have to run in a 32-bit emulation layer (Windows-on-Windows (wow.exe)), right? I wonder how much, if any, performance degradation would be incurred by running in this emulation layer. Also, would there be any other technical/compatibility issues by running under this emulation layer? Maybe things have changed since the transition from 16 to 32 bit and an emulation layer is no longer needed. Anyway, I'm just wondering how all these emerging technology pieces best fit into the FSX puzzle? I

Hopping and stumbling - that can't be easy :-) I think you meant hoping.No offence intended - I'm just in a silly, pre-pub mood.http://online.vatsimindicators.net/916312/3.png

Don't have any info on your quesiton, but IIRC when PCs went from 16bit to 32 bit it was a big deal, because the 16 bit architecture was based on a segmented memory model, while 32 bit went to the flat model. I remember the Win32s API which wasn't so good. It could be that running 32 bit apps won't really impose a perfromance penalty on a 64 bit OS.scott s..

>Don't have any info on your quesiton, but IIRC when PCs went>from 16bit to 32 bit it was a big deal, because the 16 bit>architecture was based on a segmented memory model, while 32>bit went to the flat model. I remember the Win32s API which>wasn't so good. It could be that running 32 bit apps won't>really impose a perfromance penalty on a 64 bit OS.>You're probably right, Scott. I asked a couple of our developers who know systems really well and here's what they said (edited):"I don

Thanks for the info tdragger it