"But you can do the same in the XP home edition...."What 'HOME' version have you been using???

At least for me in default format FSX looks leaps and bounds ahead of FS9, I too have many add-ons, and I'll still keep FS9 on my system for that reason, at least until certain ones get updated to FSX. I will fly FSX however, and enjoy it, I already know of at least one plane slated for release near enough the same time as FSX, and some others that already work in it. Going by the 'very' buggy demo alone the air feels much more alive and fluid than before.I'm no MS a really excited user, but I do work in the PC industry, and have been around computers since the Commodore Plus4 days, so I think I'm pretty clued up on what has gone by. Just look at what Mr. Gates has done for us really, he gave us Windows, until then the PC was run on DOS, which let's face it was not user friendly in the way Workbench on the Amiga was. Then came Windows, suddenly many more people could use PC's, he brought home computing into more homes than anybody else ever did, until Windows the nearest most homes came to computers was a Games Console. And blow me if he hasn't cornered that now by bringing out a console that slaughters the opposition at every level.Then to cap it all he gives a huge chunk of the profit to charity, way more than he gets tax relief on so good luck to him I say. I just wish I could be like that.Fact is if others couldn't do it as well as him then that's their fault surely?

Well, to use a cricketing analogy, I will let that particular delivery go through to the keeper, except to say that as far as I am aware Samba is not directly involved in the anti-trust case apart from one Samba team member being called upon to provide expert testimony.Bruceb

And you be sure to never critcize a car before you have built one.Geez, you folks are f****d up.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

It seems you're trying to be sensible. I suggest you just grab a bag of popcorn and watch the show. ;)Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

>By ranting about Microsoft stifiling creativity, ranting about>Windows security, "to rant:1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner2 : to scold vehemently"(Merriam Webster)Is it just me or are some people extremely quick with labeling everything they see different as "ranting"?>admitting to being a Linux guy, andYou make it sound like using the eeeevil "L" OS is a criminal offense. I mean, it's not like this is a forum of unreflecting fanbois, is it? Oh, wait...Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

>Ivan, I hope you don't mind if I question that bit? >>Many of us have hi-end DX9 display adapters and FS9>nevertheless puts a lot of strain on the CPU because it>doesn't make much use of our GPU's features... I'm looking>forward to an app which does! ;-) >>Kind regards >>Jaap Jaap,My meaning in that particular statement is that a significant number of people are pretty happy with how FS9 is running for them. I've heard a lot of comments about how FSX looks "worse" than FS9 for them. Many people have photo-real scenery, or modified textures, or updated weather engines, and they aren't really willing to give all these addons up. Heck, a lot of the people who want to wait on FSX want to do so simply because a lot of the 3rd party add-ons they are comfortable with will not be ready for FSX for a while. People seem to want to wait until PMDG, Level D, ActiveSky, Radar Contact, Ground environment, and others are modified for FSX...they probably will delay purchasing FSX until then.I'm still a bit uncomfortable with FSX's performance to be perfectly honest. I know it's still early to judge it, and I'm really waiting to hear what people think at the AVSIM conference, but the FSX that I've seen so far has some strange performance issues. Sometimes the graphics look fantastic, and other times they look blurry and slow. Sometimes you get choppy performance with almost the same hardware that will give you great framerates. I'm still curious as to whether this is due to some early bugs, or if there's just some sort of issue that we just don't fully understand yet. FSX has a lot left for us to get used to before we answer all the questions that Flight Simulator enthusiasts are asking.-Ivan

I know the Linda and Bill Gates Foundation has given billions to worthy projects but I do believe your a bit off when you say it's 95%. Craig

They do indeed plan to give them all of 95% ..just like Warren Buffet did.Manny

>I agree, he's not the typical billionaire flaunting his money>with jets and cars and boats. A very well grounded man who>gives billions back to those in need.>Windows lack of>security? Yes, but since nearly the whole world uses Windows,>why would anyone waste time hacking Macintosh systems or>Linux, though I heard Apple had to release a security update>recently. The one drawback to being number one is that>everyone wants to bring you down, if Apple ever achieves that>status watch the hacking flood gates open.>>Ian.An extremely salient point and one which the MS bashers conveniently choose to ignore. Nobody really knows how bulletproof the other OS's are until every hacker on the planet has them in their sites...

Hi Ivan, although I didn't try the demo too extensively, I was pretty impressed with its performance. FYI, the system I tested it on is an AMD64-3700 (single-core), Radeon X800XL (@ 1280x) plus 2GBs of RAM. Pretty nice but definitely not the highest of hi-end... :-) Since there were some mentions about buggy autogen and AI, I disabled those 2 categories and pushed ALL the other sliders to the right. With those settings performance was excellent and I always had 20+ fps. Best of all IMHO, a totally smooth feel. Maybe FSX appeals less to heavy metal people in its initial stages? I'm 'lowly and slowly' and am thrilled about certain improvements like the higher ground resolution and 'aquatic action.' :-) Those 'dead water' surfaces were one of most unrealistic 'features' in previous FS versions and it made FS9 addons like Misty Fjords so unique. AIM, I'm mostly looking forward to an app which makes use of my hardware. I have no doubt that despite more features, FSX will level FS9's performance on my FlyTendos. I see no need to upgrade my current rigs. Case I go Vista/DX10 - I haven't decided yet - I might have to reconsider that position but for the DX9-FSX my rigs seem fine. I don't know which FSX flavour you have, but have you tried it with AI and autogen disabled? If you have adequate hardware, there are good chances you'll be as amazed as I was. :-) Kind regards Jaap

The standard legal officially bought Home edition together with this free utility http://www.fajo.de/portal/index.php?option...ew&id=6&Itemid= and a little knowledge about NTFS

>2. Even with this 'DX9' version the overal outside>environment is 10X better. Even with the blurries, if you>can't see that versus FS9 (with UT/GE pro or whatever), then>you definately have a screw loose. I suggest you load up at>SITKA Alaska to get a better feel for the new environmentHi Jeff, First of all thanks for pointing out a great starting location in FS. I realy like the enviroment around SITKA.I'd like to put your statement about FS-X looking 10X better to the test. I put up a FS9 + UT Alaska + Genesis 76m Mesh screeny of SITKA in the Screenshot forum. I hope that somebody can give us a FS-X screenshot that proves your point.You can find the screenshot here http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=241703&page=In the mean time I will be tightening all my screws...

Jaap,I've played around a lot with the demo, and especially with different settings and different saved profiles. I have to admit, having multiple profiles saved does save a lot of time and confusion...it's a nice change from FS9. What bothered me about the demo (and I'm not sure this is not just missing textures and bugs) is that I seemed to get inconsistant results between sessions and in different settings. Sometimes turning a slider down would result in greater graphical glitches than turning it up would. Sometimes changing the date would result in poorer performance. Sometimes I would even see large changes in performance between sessions with no change in the graphical settings, on in the tasks running on my computer. I'm not too concerned yet, with all of the textures that were removed from the demo due to space concerns, since some bad textures may be hanging things up. But I'm hoping that the performance issues settle out in the release version...I'd hate to have to spend time every session hunting down performance issues and changing between saved setting schemes.Also, I've been running the demo on a AMD64 3500+ with an ATI X1900XTX and 2 GB of Corsair XMS RAM. Yes, I know I need a new CPU...waiting to see what happens around December on that. I do have some sessions that run exceptionally well with the demo, and I have already preordered FSX, knowing I'll be well set for the release. I'm just wondering why it seems to be a graphical crapshoot sometimes.-Ivan

I'll take the stock FSX one for ya :-)