FSX and Vista

[Guest allcott]

The fuss over Vista will only end when the DX10 patch is issued. And that could be a year away. Until then, the light on the horizon is the first patch will give plenty of other things to backbite about.Allcott

[FTD1949 0]

Although I don't plan on purchasing Vista any time soon if would be nice to see "reviews" and comments from people that actually are using it as opposed to the threads I have read that seem to be putting it down from people who have only read about it. Some objective as opposed to subjective comments would be most helpful. Craig

[Guest allcott]

Everything I have read so far suggests FSX runs no better. FS9 runs the same, except on some systems. However, what we have yet to hear from the `reviews` is a full list of the equipment they use - not just computer specs but what simming hardware is in use, and what, if anmy problems have been encountered. I already know some of my non-sim equipment won't work with Vista, because in other special interest forums the reviewers actually provided sufficient information. Here, so far, NOBODY has.If anyone truly wants to convince, then they need to supply full information, not just some a really excited user ranting, which is just as irrelevant as the anti-vista trollbait.As has been so wisely stated in another thread, no OS increases speed of games. If that is the case, and we already seem to be in general agreement that FSX shows no benefits, then what I would like to know is the POINT of changing the OS now? The bets that can be said so far is pretty new graphic interface, and no problems. Hardly recommendations are they?Purely from the sim point of view, I could spend money on a new graphics card that is the same price as the Vista DVD, and get a better experience in both sims, as well as with other games. So why would anyone want to upgrade now, so soon after release? Masochism or egotism perhaps?Allcott

[byork 2,259]

When Vista matures (probably after SP1) and the dust settles with regards to drivers and DX10, etc., then you might want to consider Vista if you're mainly into simming.Right now there is no real pressing need to get Vista. But after a year or so I think that will no longer be the case.-Bryan

[Guest SoarPics]

I already know some of my non-sim equipment won't work with Vista, because in other special interest forums the reviewers actually provided sufficient information. Here, so far, NOBODY has.If anyone truly wants to convince, then they need to supply full information, not just some a really excited user ranting, which is just as irrelevant as the anti-vista trollbait.So true.I'm in the same boat with some of my hardware, so I won't be installing Vista for some time (I agree with the perspective that it's wise to wait until SP1 for any new OS is released).In the meantime we've seen very little objective critique about Vista/FS on these boards. I'd like to know the good and not-so-good, but thus far most of what we've seen is fanboi stuff on either side. A bit disappointing for what is (or was) considered by many to be the premier site for flightsim enthusiasts.

[Mace 1,926]

> fanboiI have seen this spelling in another thread. Is this a misspelling, or is it some new avante-garde netway of spelling "a really excited user"?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

[Guest allcott]

>So true.>>I'm in the same boat with some of my hardware, so I won't be>installing Vista for some time (I agree with the perspective>that it's wise to wait until SP1 for any new OS is released).>>In the meantime we've seen very little objective critique>about Vista/FS on these boards. I'd like to know the good and>not-so-good, but thus far most of what we've seen is fanboi>stuff on either side. A bit disappointing for what is (or>was) considered by many to be the premier site for flightsim>enthusiasts.Well, I'm sure there'll be full-on reviews afore long, but even in this short space of time if there was a "WOW!" factor, I feel positive we would have heard about it. The a really excited user couldn't have stopped twittering on about it. :)Personally, I regard FSX SP1 to be ten - twenty - times more relevant and important than Vista for now. Also, there are certain legally-enforced `promises` that MS had to make to the EU regarding Vista as a result of the recent court case and they haven't delivered on any of those yet - one of which was a requirement to be able to buy a Vista version without Windows Media Player. Something I don't want, need nor wish on my worst enemy, so `Vista N`, might be on my shopping list if:1; The DX10 patch shows promise for FSX, 2: Activation issues have been satisfactorily resolved, and 3: There are solutions to the incompatibility of some older hardware, and 4: The extortionate price comes down.I hope the EU will, when reviewing the speed of MS (non-)compliance, also address the issue of pricing, as we Europeans seems to be getting shafted. As I have said before, I don't have any objection to Vista in principle, but new game on new OS is just asking for trouble, particularly when new game on old OS is working so poorly.Allcott

[W2DR 1,860]

That term's been around a while. Someone even wrote a rap song about fanbois (author unknown - at least to me):fanbois on the run, don't listen to dem fanbois on the run, always plaguerizing Blinded by the heat, casting shadows on streets Mezmersizing gaze, they can't look away thinking for yourself its not part of the plan thats when you are a a really excited user man! fanbois on the run, don't listen to dem fanbois on the run, always plaguerizing Thinking they are right and open minded really they are wrong and just can't stand it Can't see truth when its right there in front of em This is the definition of a fanboi and there be tons of em fanbois on the run, don't listen to dem fanbois on the run, always plaguerizing Doug

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Well, I'm running FSX and Vista x64. I'm not a a really excited user of either, I just don't want to rebuild my computer when the DirectX 10 patch comes.FSX runs fine. It may be running a little slower than if I was using XP. Or a little faster. I have no way of knowing. I use a Saitek Cyborg EVO stick...it works fine. My machine's specs are in my sig.The only issues I have run into are:1. I run out of memory from time to time in FSX. This is usually after loading several flights and/or missions. I'm on the edge with 2 gigs of RAM...will probably upgrade to 4 gigs at some point.2. Old printers may not work. I have an NEC Superscript 870 that Vista x64 doesn't have a driver for...I am using an old HP driver instead, but only getting 300 dpi. 3. All drivers must be digitally signed, so if you are using something that doesn't have a signed driver (like Core Temp for measuring CPU temps), you have to wait for the signed driver.4. UAC sucks. I turned it off.

[Guest allcott]

>Well, I'm running FSX and Vista x64. I'm not a a really excited user of>either, I just don't want to rebuild my computer when the>DirectX 10 patch comes.>>FSX runs fine. It may be running a little slower than if I>was using XP. Or a little faster. I have no way of knowing. >>>I use a Saitek Cyborg EVO stick...it works fine. My machine's>specs are in my sig.>>The only issues I have run into are:>>1. I run out of memory from time to time in FSX. This is>usually after loading several flights and/or missions. I'm on>the edge with 2 gigs of RAM...will probably upgrade to 4 gigs>at some point.>>2. Old printers may not work. I have an NEC Superscript 870>that Vista x64 doesn't have a driver for...I am using an old>HP driver instead, but only getting 300 dpi. >>3. All drivers must be digitally signed, so if you are using>something that doesn't have a signed driver (like Core Temp>for measuring CPU temps), you have to wait for the signed>driver.>>4. UAC sucks. I turned it off.>>I think you are actually talking off the same page, except where you don't want to have to rebuild your computer for DX10, I think it will be the ideal time to do so - the dust will have settled, prices on hardware will have dropped from the early-adopter premium, and the benefits will be known, not just speculated on. And with a bit of luck, some of the hardware issues that are peculiar to my home music studio will also have been resolved - And the `luck` will be MS's, not mine, because if I don't get `lucky`, I'll buy an Apple and they lose me as a customer. Same with FSX. If they don't fix it, they lose me as a customer. It's no big deal, commerce means if MS drop the simulation ball, there will be a new provider to steal the market from them. After all, even some of the open-source sims are actually better than FS in their specific areas of interest. I can still upgrade and enjoy the extra overheads of FS9, which is clearly going to have a longer shelf life than MS expected (or probably hoped). We are all quick to complain when Flight Sim Developers shove a product into the market that has clearly been insufficiently tested, so what's MS's excuse? I made the mistake of buying FSX on pre-order, and no way am I going to repeat that error with Vista, not at that price, and risk. WHEN MS deliver a product that actually enhances FSX, THEN is the time to buy. Not before. And that's without considering any other issues for the new OS. In the meantime, may I suggest you Vista owners re-read the FSX readme now, as clearly something isn't right. The promises for Vista have not been met - in fact there is breach of contract written all over it. I suggest we give ACES the time they need to produce the first patch, then if you Vista-users don't get a massive performance hike, you ask MS for your money back - you can always buy FSX again if and when an MS promise finally matures into something tangible. That would send a clear message that hits them right in the wallet, the only place MS feels pain.So far? No sign. Allcott

[Guest wyoming]

that I ran MFS and Fly! on Win 95, Me, 98, 2000 and XP and that we almost never debated OSs aside from a few tweaks and stability issues...

[Guest Charlie]

"As I have said before, I don't have any objection to Vista in principle"You don't? That's not what you said here:"Well said Charlie. Sufficient concern over the invasion aspect - and how that door it opens when it feels like might be misappropriated - to force my employer to enforce a `no Vista` rule for any computer running any company software. Not even under dual boot. Technically, the instruction is a `wait and see` policy, but the result is the same - I couldn't put Vista on even if I wanted to.My employer has a very special interest in security. And they have access to specialists who are real security experts, not merely IT support. Those who don't understand the underlying problems of the activation policy, not least the potential impact on productivity should a faulty Activation check show an erroneous software reading and restrict access to the computer by retarding the OS should excuse themselves from the discussion. FWIW Vista has already revealed several security flaws, which will not be addressed until Service Pack 1."And here:It's YOU that doesn't understand the activation policy, not us.The principle of restricting useage of the OS unless/until verification from the vendor is intrusive on personal privacy. Using telephone acvtivation the user is required to provide a valid reason for a new code. That is basic invasion at its most fundamental and completely unnecessary for MS protection of its commercial position.It has nothing to do with the nature of the lines of code, EVERYTHING to do with the degree of control MS can now impose on the users of its OS. Any `voluntary` system provides the option to opt out or, better still, never opt-in. The Vista activation system, and its intrusive `checking`, does not. It is spyware, it is invasive, it is insidious. It is just plain wrong - and indeed it may be the subject of a challenge in the European Courts, if recent developments are pursued to their logical conclusion, Also your impression of the benevolence of MS is legally wrong: They are guilty of protectionism, anti-trust activities and commercial practices designed expressly to give Windows and its other proprietary software a Genuine Monopoly, not merely `Advantage`. And here:"I remember the days when `anti-piracy` meant going after the pirates, you know, the ones sailing under a skull & crossbones? These days `anti-piracy` means going after everybody, to ensure you get the pirates in the trawl. FSX activation is already like that. Shame it doesn't catch any pirates either.I seem to recall a World War being fought against that kind of genocidal thinking. "These people are no good. Let's get rid of them all..."Corporations are using `piracy` as their mantra to justify profit-based anti-trust activities in the same way that governments are increasingly telling us what to think under the guise of `security`. And although this isn't the place to discuss it, understand this: Latest UK government proposals in a country already recognised as the most heavily security-camera populated on earth, is to introduce X-ray cameras in public places: "To help spot concealed weapons and bombs". Now our government doesn't just want to spy on our every move on every street, it feels justified in getting UNDER our clothing? Thought Police can't be far away."You made sense there for a while, Allcott, but now you are all over the map again. Care to clarify your position?