have a look herethe requirements to run vista!http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/07/vista_requirements/

Thanks for the link Clayton! Those specs are almost dead-on with what I was personally speculating. Definately do-able.http://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gif-Jeremy BurchSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifHappy Flying!

yep no problemit gives us a good idea for the minimum requirements for FSX i suppose,so now i know AMD 3000 + and 2 gig of ram!:(

Actually I think you'll want one of these: http://www.gameshout.com/news/012006/article2369.htm.

I agree Mike!Now, if I build a small, inexpensive yet well-executed shrine to you on my desk will you give me one? :-lolhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gif-Jeremy BurchSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifHappy Flying!

well in 12 months time AMD 4500 and quad GPUs will be quite affordable i would think!

Yes, it's time for a new XPS...LOL.

Looks to me like it's just more MS Corporate Speak. Doesn't mean a thing unless they also define, exactly, the meaning of "PCs that meet or exceed these specifications will provide the most responsive Windows Vista operating system demo experience." I can tell you that 90+% of the machines in the world don't meet those specs just on the RAM requirement alone. Who comes up with this stuff?Doug

Oh darn!I guess that means my little P4 2.8 GHz, 1GB DDR, ATI X700 Pro just just a bit too weak to run Vista... ;(

:-)

I guess I know what I'll be doing with my tax refund. :D

Keep in mind Vista has lots of "eye candy" which I personally don't care for. I'll bet that Vista will run on much lower spec machines once those "eye candy" features are turned off.Even in XP, I turn off useless things such as minimize/maximize and menu animations. When I click to minimize a window, I want it gone, I don't care to see it slide down to the taskbar. Same for when I click the start button, I want access to my programs, not to have to wait for it to slide up or fade in.

I totaly agree with you, someone.I dont need those slides when i go over my task bar. I know wich programs i run and how they look like. 3D view? come on what is that good for? boosting up requirements?

Of course, I'll only need to upgrade because I do work with photo files, and the more powerful the computer the smoother the experience.The fact that it makes various flight sims perform better is PURELY a coincidence.(That's the cover story, at least).

What concerns me is that with those absolutely insane systtem requirements for *JUST* the core OS, is ...will there be ANY computing power left at all for games or other CPU/memory intensive tasks?I mean, XP runs fine on a sub-1GHz machine as long as you have enough RAM. On a high-end machine, there's plenty of RAM and CPU cycles left to run something like FS without hickups. After a clean boot, memory usage is only a fraction of the total RAM, and CPU usage stays at 0-3% if you're not doing anything.But if Vista itself requires 1 GB of RAM, we'd need more like 2 or even 3 GB's of RAM to run a resource hungry app like FSX on top of all that. And what if that shiny new DX10 videocard is so busy rendering all that eye candy for the OS (especially when running FSX windowed)? There'd only be enough oomph left in the card for FS98 style graphics in the sim.Imagine booting up your PC clean, bringing up the task manager and finding that the OS is using 900 MB of RAM and the CPU usage indicator is pegged at 95%..with just the desktop visible. If you have a 3 GHz machine with 1 GB of RAM, it has now been transformed into a 150 MHz machine with 100MB of RAM. That's how much power is left for FSX.