Vista 32 or 64

[Guest coairiah]

I have a Dell XPS 410 E6700 4G ram and the 24In wide screen.Monday I will have a new 550w Power Supply, a Nvidia 8800 GTX and Vista Utlimate installed. Should I go with the 32bit or the 64bit forFSX.

[Guest 2002cbr600f4i]

Wow, you're BRAVE! Going for Vista on the first day it's available. I won't touch that POS for at LEAST 6 months if not longer....I'd say the most important factor in your decision should be driver support. From what I've read, the 64 bit version still doesn't have much for driver support, and Vista 64 will have the same incompatibility issues with software that XP x64 Edition had (IE, many things just didn't work and it had lowsy driver support.)Honestly, I hate to say it, but you're probably better off with the 32 bit version right now. I had really hoped MS was going to give Vista 64 top billing and priority and force everythign to go 64 and only have the 32 bit version around for older machines, but all the Tier-1's are delivering the 32 bit version with their systems (even though nearly every PC sold in the last year is 64 bit capable!)Go with the 32 bit... Or better yet, stick with XP for the next 6 months... There's ZERO reason to go to Vista right now....--Mike

[hals1010 0]

Well said!Joern

[Mike T 208]

32-bit, end of story...unless of course you are a masochist, then by all means go with 64-bit. The pain you will experience will be exquisite and the suffering monumental. (he says as he dons his leather mask)

[W2DR 1,859]

If you're really determined to install Vista go with the 32-bit version.Doug

[Guest enigmamcmxc3]

hmm, well given the way Operate, I will at least give the 64 bit a try, I had no problems with it before with xp64, If you have a 64 bit processor, then your motherboard should have all the 64 bit drivers. And windows 64 will fill in the rest of your system drivers much like it does now. The only problem I ever had was finding a version of java that would run. Its pretty stupid to offer 2 versions of vista they should have just had them together, 32bit and 64bit that way people can make the crossover easily. But i'll find a hacked version and try it out. Im anxious to see its functionality with fsx. I'll report my findings.

[beatle 0]

Well, I've been using the 64-bit versions of both Win XP and Windows Server 2003 on 2 of my machines (both used for FSX development) and FS runs on em just fine (haven't tried 64-bit Vista on either of them yet though, gotta check and see if we released the Service Pack for Visual Studio yet so it will be supported on Vista :-> ). As has been said, check to make sure you can find 64-bit drivers for the hardware you plan to use (most on motherboard stuff is generally covered fairly well at this point, but some USB/Firewire based devices that don't use OS provided class drivers might be a little behind the curve still :-> )

[Mike T 208]

"I'll try a hacked version and try it out".I would advise you to keep that kind of information to yourself. Piracy doesn't go over well here at Avsim. Being this is your first post, you've been warned.

[GHD 21]

FSX Beta ran just fine on 64 bit Vista beta, No reason to assume the retail version would be any worse.George

[Mike T 208]

its not about running FSX (which does run more slowly than Win32), its about its need for Microsoft certified drivers only. There are a LOT of interim drivers for Vista that have yet to be Microsoft certifed and they won't run. Also there are quite a few drivers for FS hardware that are not WHQL certified and therefore WON'T run on x64.Anyway... of course, don't say that you haven't been warned.

[Guest tascaso]

Give it 24 months just to be safe!T. Ascaso

[FTD1949 0]

Personaly I wouldn't touch Vista with a 10 foot pole until after the first service pack which will no doubt happen. I recently read and article re: Vista and gaming and not only did it not perform well but there still are issues with obtaining correct drivers for many different hardware devices. As an example XP will let you use any driver you care to use whereas Vista will only allow you to use Windows or WHQL certified drivers. Thats my opinion at any rate. I don't care to be a Beta Tester for Vista. You may want to read this article before jumping on the Vista bandwagon. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/17/gam...rse-with-vista/This is a quote from the article you might find interesting since you said you had an 8800 series graphics card:"you will notice from the test setup chart below that I used the Nvidia GeForce 7900GTX and not the GeForce 8800GTX. This is due to the driver situation. There currently isn't a public driver for the 8000 series cards and I used what the rest of the world can download today. This is a comparison of Vista to XP. The cards tested are irrelevant as they stay the same between the tests." Craig

[Guest]

I would go 64 bit, even though there won't be a 64 bit FSX. I tested fs9 on 64 bit XP and it seemed to run alot smoother.

[aerdt 0]

32bit. Hands down. A lot of 64bit drivers are not available and there is no benefit/performance increase whatsoever in going to 64bit unless the application is highly optimized. Maybe in 1-2 years, but certainly not now.Good luck!

[Mace 1,896]

> I recently read and article re: Vista and gaming and not>only did it not perform well but there still are issues with>obtaining correct drivers for many different hardware devices.>That's par for the course for OS releases going back years though.> As an example XP will let you use any driver you care to use>whereas Vista will only allow you to use Windows or WHQL certified>drivers.>Wow, is that so? Man that is not good, hopefully that will change. So, you are saying that I could not use, for example, a tweaked vid driver that's not WHQL cert'ed?If so, that is no good at all.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case