Has anyone found an official recommendation from MS as to whether Vista 64-bit would run FSX better than Vista 32-bit.Assuming that one has sufficient hardware, now that Vista is about to be released to the public next month, which Vista should one buy?The simplistic knee-jerk answer is that if you have a 64-bit CPU and enough RAM, the 64-bit Vista is the way to go. But is this in fact so? and will FSX in fact benefit at all from a 64-bit OS?For the purposes of this question, let us assume that we are talking about a dedicated FSX machine running nothing else.Perhaps Bill Leaming or another developer boffin might care to comment, or perhaps even ACES' Phil Taylor might whisper a word in our ears.Since this is not a Hardware question, but a software one, I presume this is the correct forum, Mr Moderator ? ...

Vista 32-bit, end of story. Vista 64-bit is more trouble than its worth and provided absolutely no advantage for FSX since FSX is not a 64-bit program and there are no 64-bit programs for the consumer that I am aware of.Unfortunately 64-bit computing hasn't caught onto the promise of 64-bit CPUs as many had hoped. XP 64 has been available for 2 years and the migration path has existed since before that point, but it seems that not to many developers are interested.Right now Microsoft is taking advantage of 64-bit computing since Exchange 2007 will require a 64-bit CPU and Longhorn Server will be a 64-bit OS. Microsoft is moving toward 64-bit architecture for its server products, and rightly so as it allows more performance and features.In a perfect world, the consumer industry would have embraced 64 bit computing and the consumer would migrate to 64-bit OSs with 64-bit programs blazing away on them. But that never happened so there was no reason to make FSX a 64-bit application since I doubt if 1% of home users are using a 64-bit OS although all AMD users have had the capacity for 4 years and Intel for 2. At the end of the day 64-bit Vista or Windows is geared toward corporate computing and right now has nothing but frustration for the home user since many drivers don't work with 64-bit XP or Vista and having tested FS on XP 64-bit, there is absolutely no performance advantage for 32-bit programs since it must utilize WoW-64 which is 32-bit emulation under a 64-bit environment.32-bit OS with DX-10 is the future. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Thank you, Mike, for your well thought-out reply.So is my understanding correct that from a flight-simmer's point of view Vista-64 will suffer the same fate as XP-64 and won't be supported with proper drivers by add-on software developers?I agree that the situation with drivers could become an unacceptable problem if the state of affairs remains similar to what happened with XP-64.However, there was a noticeable IMPROVEMENT in FS-9 smoothness on my system when I upgraded from XP-32 to XP-64 a while ago. And this, despite WOW.Anyone else care to comment?

The only thing I can say is, back when 32-bit apps first came out, then, like now, it took a while for software and hardware to fully realize this.And 32-bit apps were S-L-O-W as molasses at first. I suppose, it was the hardware required to run them that was the problem. Just like the Athlon 64 can handle 64-bit in 2004, the 386 could run 32-bit in 1991. But it wasn't until 95-96 that any mainstream 32-bit apps started to appear in any great numbers, and what I saw then did not impress me. I liked my good old 16-bit apps for their speed.Given time, we should see a gradual shift to 64-bit. Remember, it took us 12 years for 32-bit to fully mature. I'd expect a similar timeframe with 64, unless things in the scene really get turned around by something.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I beg to differ. If you are competent with hardware, drivers and such, and don't have any really odd-ball devices, then 64-bit is the way to go. I've been running WinXP x64 for almost two years now and fully intend to upgrade to Vista x64. Granted, you won't have an increase in FPS, but FS9 & FSX on a x64 machine improves file-access. No stutters or spurts waiting for the textures to load and the overall feel of the sim is noticably smoother. I wen't back to 32-bit one time during troubleshooting of a seperate issue, and will never do it again. All ther other applications, both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, are faster too. When you click on something, it pops right-up. The only software/driver issue I have left to find a 64-bit version of is, Macromedia's Flash-player for IE. But they recently announced they will shortley. Most hardware, including the CH FS accessories have 64-bit versions as well. Drivers have come a long way in two years and are now easily accessable for the most recent hardwware (2 - 3 years and newer). I don't recommend x64 for the CPU faint-of-heart, but you will get out of it, what you put into it.

I think you'll find that Vista will have much better driver support in its 64-bit version. We're in a classic Catch-22 situation at the moment (at least where XP64 is concerned), there aren't many well done 64-bit drivers, so not very many folks run the 64-bit version, so software devs haven't had much incentive to work on a 64-bit native version, which also means not very many folks have a reason to run the 64-bit version, and therefor the hardware vendors have had no reason to spend time developing 64-bit drivers.Where Vista will hopefully improve things is the 64-bit version of Vista won't be some special version, there will be 64-bit variants of most/all the Vista versions (Home, Pro, Enterprise, Ultimate, etc). This means the hardware OEMs are more likely to use this for pre-installed OSs on new boxes going out next year (or at least to offer it as an option) since most hardware is 64-bit capable.And, as long as you have the drivers for your hardware, 32-bit apps run just fine on the 64-bit OS, the WOW3264 layer is no where near as invasive as the WOW1632 layer of old (switching between 16 and 32 bit modes required some nasty CPU state changes which 32 and 64 bit modes don't have - or at least not as nasty :-> ).As to 64-bit native software, that's already starting to come out in niche markets (where this sort of thing usually starts) - I know Cakewalk's Sonar software comes in a 64-bit version and even one of the shareware MIDI/Audio production software packages - NTrack - comes in a 64-bit version. As more 64-bit capable OS seats are installed, more software will be released as 64-bit native.I'm using XP 64 (well, one XP64 and one Server 2003 R2 64 :-> ) on my dev machines and FSX runs just fine on them. I also haven't had all that much trouble finding drivers for these machines lately (I even found a 64-bit driver for my external Edirol UA-20 USB Audio Device, although Music Production being one of those niches I mentioned above, maybe that's not that unusual :-> ).Except for specific instances of hardware with no 64-bit driver support, if you have a machine able to run the 64-bit version of the OS, I don't see any reason not to :->Tim

Always keep in mind that Vista will ship with BOTH the 32-bit AND 64-bit versions in the box. Which one you install is totally up to you...This means that if you have the time and knowledge, you can very easily install the 64 bit version, put in drivers, and drop FSX on board. (Then benchmark your performance)Now, clear it all out and install the 32-bit version, install drivers, and load FSX again.(Benchmark things once more)Given that Vista and FSX will operate for a period of time without registation/activation, you will have the ability to test drive both, only limited by your computer skills and free time. :) Personally, I've tried 64-bit stuff on my PC, but for me it was more trouble than it was worth. Driver problems and other things of that ilk kept me from enjoying the experience... but when Vista rolls out, I'll be trying BOTH versions - just in case. -Greg

Greg,Do I understand you correctly that if you put your money down for, say, Vista Ultimate, you will get BOTH 32 and 64-bit versions ?

How can you "beg to differ"? I don't see anything to agree or disagree with. All I did was give a little history of 16-32-64 bit. I didn't recommend he do one or the other. Myself, I will probably go 64, but I'm not 100% sure yet. This time around I do think the hardware scene is more ready for 64-bit than it was when 32-bit grew to mainstream. So we're ahead of the game this time I think.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I think he was begging with Mike...Which reply someone hits might depend on whether they are looking at the thread in linear mode or in threaded mode.

Yes, I was refering to Mike. Appologies, I was in a hurry (at work) and hit the wrong reply.Al

Correct, it comes together, you can decide which to install. I've got my release version of Vista from MSDN so they are seperate downloads but the consumer version next month will come with both.You can try either for 30 days without registering but be forewarned, once you register 32 or 64 that's what your license key will be slaved to and that's what you will be stuck with.

Hmmm, pity...You really had me going there for a while :( But I suspected that that was just too good to be true.

>>Personally, I've tried 64-bit stuff on my PC, but for me it>was more trouble than it was worth. Driver problems and other>things of that ilk kept me from enjoying the experience... but>when Vista rolls out, I'll be trying BOTH versions - just in>case. >Hopefully, we'll start seeing better and more complete sets of 64-bit drivers pretty quickly once Vista is out.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Hi guys,this is most interesting as I like many more are awaiting VISTA & more especially DX10!!.Just wonder if I chose to go 64bit will 32bit apps still run as good???.Oh, & would Vista 32 bit see all my ram, as XP can only see 3 gig of my present 4.?Thanks & CheersSteve EGCCAsus MB, P4 3.8Gig, 7900GT (256), 4 Gig ddr2 ram, XP