After all the debate on this, including some posts by me, I'm still not going to get Vista right now--because I have a new XP Pro system that works fine, I don't feel like spending $200 for an "upgrade," and I'm sort of unesay about what would seem to be escalated intrusiveness, including the 'volume validation' business, that sound ominous--so, until they stop supporting XP-or until I get a new machine, I'm not going to mess with the 'upgrade."

I just have to say I'm having great luck with Vista Ultimate 64bit so far, and my FSX fps have been anywhere from the mid 30's to mid 50's, with a few times jumping into the 70's and once it hit 80... The mid 30fps has been mainly due to heavy real weather running

>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.Speaking of the usual idiots....I knew I could count on you for some in-depth Apple commentary. But you don't mind if I get another opinion, do you?

42 FPS at 30.000 ft and clear weather? Wow...Marco

We might run out and get another copy of WXP but that doesn't mean it will activate at MS's end. MS could really screw the whole planet. lol

thanks Bnick for your very positive and interesting feedbackbest wishesdavid

Come on Phil - so what magical OS did Microsoft use to build DX10 and test out it's components? Would that be dev tools used on Win2K3 or WinXP?Rob.

Yes.Again, what OS did you use to build Vista? Did Vista somehow code itself?So the huge work (your statement not mine) to make it Vista DX9 compatible was more important that producing DX10 for WinXP? I think you would have a very large majority of people that would disagree with the value of that work.It's business leverage, nothing more, nothing less.But why not provide the choice to your "many loyal" customers? If you feel the effort is so large and not easy (seems to your moto lately), then sell DX10 for WinXP as an add-on so folks don't have to downgrade to Vista or spend the $100-$400.You would NOT do this simply because it is NOT in Microsoft's best interest to do so because it would reduce Vista sales.I'm sorry Phil, but you have lost so much credibility due to some of your statements -- any programmer knows they can code anything given the time and resources (and Microsoft has the resources, just look at the wasted Zune efforts).It does boggle my mind that you have followers that will believe anything you say and not even question anything.Rob.

Having got all the 64bit drivers I need now, I'm just about to upgrade to Vista Ultimate 64.Could you clarify - did you simply upgrade or was it a clean install?And have you run FS9 on the new OS and if so how did it perform?Martin Plain

Very, very nice!It just makes my heart bleed to see the other 3 cores doing nothing. Just imagine, if if only 1 or 2 additional ones would be fully utilized. Pat

Hi Martin...Certain XP packages required a clean install rather than just an upgrade... Because I had been using Win XP Pro 64, Vista Ultimate 64 required a clean install, but it has to verify that the OS it's going to overwrite is actually loaded on the drive you are upgrading to Vista...Vista will not accept just putting the previous version's CD of XP in a CDDVD to prove you have one, it must be loaded on the drive before it will upgrade with a clean install...Vista takes your old OS and renames it, Windows.old, Then installs itself in it's own new Windows directory... Vista gives you 3 days only to validate it, not the 30 days like XP did...I also read that once it is validated by Microsoft your old XP seat becomes dead and it's product key numbers can never be used again or so they say... I validated mine one the 2nd day just to see how she runs and after 48 hours of pretty heavy use I knew at least for me it was running very good... Hope this helps a bit...Also for Marco a few threads up, Yes it was fair weather at 30k' and yes it was depressing to descend into Seattle's KSEA at 24fps but it was a super smooth landing none the less, and just a tad bit nicer than XP Pro 32 was landing at 6fps in KSEA...Have a great week everyone...

The first step taken is to create a code branch for the new OS.As changes go in, it no longer resembles the thing that it was before.DX10 negotiations with the IHVs didnt conclude until late in 2003. This resulted in simplifications to the original MS Input Assembler design request. I worked at ATI in this timeframe as Director of Strategic Relationships and owned the ATI-MS relationship so I have 1st hand knowledge. I was in the meetings.Given XP shipped in 2001 and it was late 2003 when the DX10 design solidified - it should be obvious that "what the OS was" was well beyond XP before serious DX10 work commenced. Heck, the Longhorn reset was in 2004 so DX10 wasnt done until almost that point. The build that was demo'ed at WinHEC 2004 with the texture memory management was a very fresh build and that was April or May 2004.After the reset, a new code branch based on W2K3 was started. Again that wasnt XP. And again kernel changes, which had to go in before the driver layer and the API, made it even more not XP.DX9 went into the original code branch, and was in W2K3 - so maintaining compat is of course an order of magnitude easier then new implementation.Given the new features in the driver model and hardware ( with GPU task switching, GPU memory management and more ) all of which require kernel support - hoisting a driver layer like that on XP is rewriting it to be Vista. FWIW, the MS hw developer page has the graphics logo requirements and it explicitly mentions these GPU features as being required. They are essentially hidden features that API programmers and end-users never see.At some point, the question "to serve existing customers" or "to get new customers" is a question every business has to ask itself. Given XP has had a 5+ year run it is hard to see how XP customers have a strong case they were not given good value for the money. Especially when the features in question are ones that are a rewrite of the kernel and the driver layer, and require such a hw leap. Really.I hope you can appreciate my points about how the branch and life-cycle work to make your assumption that we developed DX10 on XP not really true. I also hope you can appreciate the level of the change, so you understand what you ask is a non-trivial investment of engineering resources. We can politely disagree about whether or not MS should provide this functionality to XP users. And whether or not the investment makes sense.I appreciate the strong feelings people have over this, but the ad-hominems dont help advance the discussion. Could we keep them out of this, please?

"...and the problem is? I would be more than happy to have only certified drivers on my system. It is a simple way for MS to control the quality of the drivers. It is usually not the out-of-the-box OS that creates instability,.......... "but poorly written and implemented "drivers........ Ya like microslop never was guilty of poorly written or implemented drivers! Thanks for the laughs:-lol I blew my Dunkin Donuts all over the keyboard on that one:-lol

MS doesn't code or provide 3rd party drivers, unless they're generic or low-level.Why do you think the Soundblaster drivers are still in "beta" and not released? Because MS rejected them. Big surprise here, because drivers from Creative have been traditionally one of the worst in the industry. This can only benefit the community and will ultimately lead to more system stability.Pat

I am blown away by the patience that Phil has shown with you guys.No wonder it took decades before they started to talk to us here.