Hmmm seems like XP is working fine for me. The only way I may go with Vista sooner is if I have to for some software thats it period. MicroSoft has become a paranoid giant trying to control everything we anymore. It seems they are more worried about controling their and other companies software and how we use it that anything they put out will not work because half there time is spent on copy protection control or added blot ware spying on what we have installed on our computers.....:(.I guess we are paying for those counties that let illegal software pirates run rampant you know the guilty parties no use naming them. Like I said Xp works fine for me at least for know.

the only reason for your postings is to create a counter-hype by suppling people with incorrect facts.-------------------------------------------------Truly? Really?Why Pat, I didn't know that you were also a Psychologist that can render judgements on motivation for actions or print.Really?I wonder if I would not be the the definitive statement on why I post, as I am the such author of the post.I offer you this. I abhor dictatorships. I abhor Big Brother, and the advent of truly '1984'...for this, as another poster has so well stated, are the first cannon salvo's over the side of the ship toward fulfillment of 1984.When seeing what VISTA STATES it will NOT allow me, will NOT give me in picture quality--although the technology ITSELF can render it.......I...I..will NOT be one to roll over dead. I will vote with my wallet. I did. I purchased XP Pro yesterday.I will not be an apologist for whatever M.S., Sony, Ford, any of them DECIDES will be 'good for me' or, "you are getting this--regardless!"...as the 'proverbial' needle gets shoved into the arm.I have a comment. I have an opinion. Both on Vista and what it represents in the short and long run. I do not wish to see persons merely take on the 'Big Brother' 'Big Money at stake' O.S. ONLY and innocently because they wished to see better FPS performance than what MS (Aces) gave them with current hardware.If someone who owns FSX and wanting DX10 but HAS to buy another entire O.S. that is wrapped around it...for HUNDREDS of dollars, AND...it now comes with technology-capping coding, as well as a 30 times-a-second (oh..did I get my facts straight?!?) sniffer routine that will tax computing power, I would like to think that they had been INFORMED of it, before ordering that new system, or going out and upgrading.Your opinion is welcome.Allow the opinions of OTHERS with the SAME grace.Cheers!Mitch R.

Hi,I just ordered a copy of Vista Home Premium (I have Vista RC1, which has been off my machine for a while but I went ahead and put it back on last night).You can pretty much customize all of the security options in Vista, so it's no big deal (especially for those of us who like tweaking things). I find the graphics look great and they've introduced a new color management panel.I'm flying FSX right now with a 3rd-party plane (Eaglesoft Liberty) and things look great, frame rates are the same as they were with Win XP Pro SP2.Overall, I really like the new OS and I feel the navigation is much better.My recommendation is that you work to get the best hardware you can. FSX will always have more needs then you have hardware. I just upgraded to a (would we call this middle of the road?) new machine: ASUS P5B Deluxe Motherboard, Intel Core Duo 2 E6600, 2GB OCZ 800Mhz RAM, ATI PCIE X1950 w/256MB RAM, Audigy LS sound card, 650 watt Antec power supply, Antec gaming case, two 7200 RPM SATA drives. I'm now just starting to see what FSX looks like with some extra bells and whistles turned on, ditto for Vista.At first when I read many FSX/Vista reports on a number of forums I thought I was doomed. But, by keeping the system really clean (Vista and FSX are the only two things on my computer right now), and sticking with mainstream vendors (ATI, nVidia, Creative, etc) who actually have Vista drivers, things seem to be working...I'm sure I'll find a few bugs here and there, but with version one of products, that's to be expected.~ Jim

It is definitely more than driver quality they are trying to control. They have built in (with Vista) the ability to disable the drivers if someone cracks the protection code for that companys device.Cost for video and audio cards and peripherals will increase because of encryption circuitry being forced by MS on the hardware manufacturers.Drivers will no longer be produced for a family of video cards, but a driver will need to be produced for each device so as not to produce a mass denial of service if a drivers certificate gets revoked by Hollywood. This will also increase consumer costs.The worst part of this whole thing, is that the computer which until now has always been and open architecture electronic device (since IBM released the specs) which anyone could produce hardware and software for, is being turned into (by Microsoft) a consumer electronic device like a DVD player. Much of the architecture of the hardware and software will be made secret to protect the encryption hardware and software contained within.Ron

Hi to All :-)Just an user question:- I've seen here some time ago, that DX10 can only be used with Vista. That Vista and DX10 will have no support to DX9 based programs, like FS9. So, as I use both FS9 and FSX on my computer and intend to keep using them for a long time, I would like to know what would happen to my FS9 if I decide to have Vista/DX10 on my computer instead of DX9/XP. May I be able to keep using FS9 or it will be unusable for ever?If this is true, it would be a death sentence to further usage of FS9, as everybody who wants to have a better performance on FSX with Vista/DX10 would run to get it, no matter if still using FS9, that would have to be left apart forever (in a forced way, of course).The only solution would be having two machines? One with XP/DX9/FS9 and another one with Vista/DX10/FSX?Thanks for any light on this.My best regards,Carlos Pereira.

Vista maintains compatibility with DX9 and previous versions just fine. Dont listen to the FUD.It is true that DX10 is only available on Vista. There is a lot to the DX10 update and it would not be easy to make it available on XP.

>Vista maintains compatibility with DX9 and previous versions>just fine. Dont listen to the FUD.>>It is true that DX10 is only available on Vista. There is a>lot to the DX10 update and it would not be easy to make it>available on XP.>Thanks a lot for the response Phil.So, I can get Vista and keep flying my FS9 nicely...And the "FS9/DX10" marriage? Will it be a happy one? My best regards,Carlos Pereira.

There was a huge compatibility effort to get pre-DX10 games to work on Vista so there should be no problem but I havent tried this so as always ymmv.Just as an aside, the fact that Vista works without a DX10 card should be enough of an existence proof to validate what I am saying. Otherwise Vista could not have shipped without DX10 hw.

"Sorry, but all those conspiracy theories are getting really old." Pat, This statement you made. I work in a field that directly deals with these theoires. It's not a myth my friend, it cold hard fact, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it. It goes far deeper then you could ever imagine. Dan

Since DX10 was developed using WinXP many of us find these comments that DX10 cannot be made XP-compatible a bit disingenuious. Many things are not easy, but the abandonment of the XP-users with DX10 is, indeed, the final straw for this user. I've been looking for a laptop for a while now. And I've decided to go with Apple. That's probably the way the next desktop will go also. Enough is enough.Doug

> Since DX10 was developed using WinXP many of us find>these comments that DX10 cannot be made XP-compatible a bit>disingenuious. Many things are not easy, but the abandonment>of the XP-users with DX10 is, indeed, the final straw for this>user. I've been looking for a laptop for a while now. And I've>decided to go with Apple. That's probably the way the next>desktop will go also. Enough is enough.>>Doug So well said, Doug. At the moment I know very little about Apple products, but that is about to change.

I have never seen a build of DX10 that wasn't on Vista. Have you? I posted about the effort required to put DX10 on XP before. It is a lot of work. My comment is, people radically underestimate the amount of work. It is not trivial.Here is a link to my previous post which discusses at a high level the 3 layers that would all have to be ported to XP:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=383521&page=The point about the kernel changes required is salient. There are actually 4 layers, the above 3 and the OS, that would be required. The OS wouldnt be XP anymore after the set of kernel changes required.

The only thing not to like about an Apple is the price.Ron

Thank you for some fact Phil. Most of us get tired of these usual idiots ranting about this and that. Now if they go to Apple, good for them. Apple loves those who can't deal with computers.

Thanks, Phil, Nice to see a note with experience behind it. I have had Vista installed for two months now and am glad I did. Ken