Hi therei am considering getting vista here pretty soon and am doing my research on it and figured this would be a great place to get feedback from people with FSX and vista.So if you have both VISTA and FSX plz tell me if: Vista slows down fsx in performace, or there is no difference between XP and Vista, or it imporoves performancethankssystem specs if you want to post would be nice as well

According to MS, at least a 15% slowdown.Those folks that I have talked to, that have tried Vista with FSx/9, have gone back to XP Pro. Not only does it slowdown, but is more stutter -prone.* Orest

Isn't that because the present day FSX was designed to run on XP, not Vista? From what I've heard and read is that there is no real advantage to running FSX on Vista....not yet anyway.John M

My experience with Vista (retail Ultimate) was that the FS9 frame rate was 4-5% lower and the FSX framerate was 10-12% lower. I didn't have a stutter problem with either sim. But, like many, I've abandoned Vista and gone back to WinXP Pro. Not because of FSX, as the performance difference is not all that big a deal, but because of Vista itself.DougP4 3.2E @ 3.680 (1.385 vCore - 230 FSB)Asus P4C800-E Deluxe (BIOS 1019)3GB Corsair DDR PC4400 (3-4-4-8)1.5 TB of WD HDDATI X850XT PEA-Open 1648 AAP RipperPlextor 708A WriterEnermax 431W PSUInwin Case

Doug, you're a funny character to observe. Some months ago you swore you would NOT be going to Vista any time in the near future! YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO YOURSELF!

I always listen to myself. It's my wife that doesn't listen. Actually, I never did "go to Vista". I had the chance to dualboot a retail copy of Ultimate and I did so just to see what the FSX situation was. And it did reconfirm my decision about Vista for all the other reasons. Had I actually purchased it I can assure you that I would have taken advantage of the MS 45-day refund policy and sent it back. Nothing inconsistent about that. As I've said many times before, there are numerous reasons why I can't use Vista as my day-to-day OS and FSX isn't one of them. (But, I have to admit, I do like the look of the Vista desktop :-) ).Doug

Hi dougI have just read this,It may not have much effect on FSX but it could with addons we will have to wait and see.www.thestar.com/Business/article/175801This could be a problem in the futureRex

>Isn't that because the present day FSX was designed to run on>XP, not Vista? From what I've heard and read is that there is>no real advantage to running FSX on Vista....not yet anyway.>>John MReally? So the statement in the FSX readme.rtf file which reads as follows is a lie?"Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the completion of Windows Vista."What we have here is forced compatibility, brought about by circumstances - the monumentally late release of Vista.Based on that statement, directly from the developers who work within the MS company, there should be a huge advantage to running FSX under Vista.Anyone seen it?Anyone?Allcott

Well, that statement means we did test it under pre-release copies of Vista, and that we designed the app to work with the new Game Explorer feature in Vista and to work with the Limited User Access mode that is now the default mode in Vista. Nothing in that statement claims that FSX would run better under Vista, just that it would run (which some apps currently wont without some rewritting :-> ).

>Well, that statement means we did test it under pre-release>copies of Vista, and that we designed the app to work with the>new Game Explorer feature in Vista and to work with the>Limited User Access mode that is now the default mode in>Vista. Nothing in that statement claims that FSX would run>better under Vista, just that it would run (which some apps>currently wont without some rewritting :-> ).>>Well, at least MS got something right: "Nothing in that statment claims that FSX would run better under Vista".Thanks, we may as well all stick with XP then. Allcott

My opinion is you should wait. The upgrade is too expensive. Everyone is all excited about DX10 and 8800 cards, but 8800 cards are $600. Can you afford about $800 in upgrades, just to see whether or not FSX runs better? I can't.

The problem is drivers right now... sound is actually the biggest one right now, they totally gutted the way it works vs. in XP - the new way is much better but the drivers have to be radically different to take advantage of it.World of Warcraft for instance is running horribly under Vista for me, but if I disable the sound it goes right back up to XP type performance.I think once the driver situation is rectified within the next few months it's gonna be just fine as a gaming OS.

I'm running FSX on 64 bit Vista (the horror!!!). It runs fine. Yes. I said it. It runs fine. And that's in 64 bit Vista (THE HORROR!!!!!!). Maybe I'd get an extra FPS or two running on XP...maybe not...I have no idea. You will want a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM though. And you'll want to turn off non-essential services while you run FSX to get more RAM (I posted batch files to do this in the Vista memory thread). I did the same thing in XP. Also, the video drivers are in an early state. So I would expect to pick up a few FPS as they are further developed. Go read the readme for your card's current Vista video drivers to make sure you're OK with any limitations.There is nothing in Vista that is going to cause stuttering per se. If you install Vista on a machine that can't handle it, then you might get some stuttering.When the DirectX 10 patch comes out, I won't have to rebuild my machine. That is the main advantage of Vista for me vis-a-vis FSX.Tabs, you should look into Alchemy from Creative if you have a Creative sound card...could solve your problem. Vista does not hardware accelerate DirectSound anymore...it uses OpenAL. If a game uses DirectSound, Alchemy will translate the DirectSound calls to OpenAL, so the sound will be hardware accelerated.