Who are they kidding?

[calypso 32]

You would have to power up on Friday and hope to have FSX loaded by Monday morning!This is pure misrepresentation as far as I'm concerned.FSX System Requirements(from the Microsoft site)* Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista* Processor: 1.0 Ghz* RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista

[Guest Len]

The system requirements put on the box of FSX are the poorest representation of a game/program requirements I've ever seen.

[bkeske 0]

Typical Microsoft.

[JSkorna 137]

So some of you should write the MARKETING Department at MS and give them heck!! And don't even think out loud that the MARKETING Department should communicate with the Divisions, because they don't!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[Guest gmark]

Your point is well taken. The "fine print" on my purchased Flight Sim X box is:* Windows XP SP2 - 256 MB / Windows Vista - Box is the same. 512 MB for Vista tells ya something right there though(?)* Processor: 1.0 Ghz - Box is the same.* RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista

[Guest Stoopy]

Sorry, this has what to do with FS9????????You got the wrong set of requirements listed I think - according to the MS info at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823627/Flight Simulator 2004: Minimum system requirements

[JSkorna 137]

"Sorry, this has what to do with FS9????????"Nothing!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[vollmey 0]

>"Sorry, this has what to do with FS9????????">Actually it has alot to do with FS9 Jim!!!!!!Edit: Since I'm in a good mood Jim I'll explain. We are all forced back to FS9 due to horrible performance with FSX. I personally can't see how FSX would even start up with the Minimum Specs. on the box.See the end user is back to FS9, thus it's in this forum.

[JSkorna 137]

So why would a FS9 user care about what the specs on the FSX box are?Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[LAdamson 240]

>Edit: Since I'm in a good mood Jim I'll explain. We are all>forced back to FS9 due to horrible performance with FSX. I>personally can't see how FSX would even start up with the>Minimum Specs. on the box.>Hmmmm...Last year I picked up a new (high) mid grade computer to run FSX. It does quite well! The side benefit, is that it runs FS9 much better than the old one. Since this is the case, I've now picked up several new payware sceneries and few new airplanes for FS9, as well as both for FSX. This way, everyone wins!But, I'm not forced back by any means, and am free to run either sim at will! Looking foward to that new high res FSX MegaScenery! :-hah L.AdamsonAthlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res.

[vollmey 0]

Jim, We all want to move to FSX. In fact I somewhat have, I got it run it pretty well. But, the box specs are just plain stupid. You would agree with that I'm sure. That's all the orginal poster is stating.L. Adamson I'm not get into a pissing match with you. We all know your postion, it is well stated. Why you keep adding to discussions is almost comical at this point. Let me ask both of you this. I got FSX locked at 24, sliders all at half. Taxi out I stay between 17-20fps, takeoff maybe 15-18fps, climb out between 5,000 and 15,000 Frames drop to 5-7. I can't figure it out. I first I thought it was clouds, but that's not it. I can cruise over overcast sky's even with the draw distance at 80-100nm and stay strong @ 24fps. And this can be at JFK or Fairbanks Alaska, it does not matter. And, the more tweaking I do the worse it is. I'm back to a clean FSX config now, and somewhat happy with it.Any ideas??? L. Adamson do you see this? or any type of FPS reduction on climb out?

[zfehr 1]

I have a similar system to Larry's and can relate the same. BTW the minimum specs Microsoft lists are minimum for the program to RUN and that has nothing to do with running well or even near acceptable. Yes, it may seem ridiculous but it is how it has been being done and until some kind of standard for the industry is created that is what is going to be used. Forums such as this one have always been the place to search for any new software release to see what others are saying. I recall previous FS releases and the attempts to create a standardized startup situation that could be used to compare framerates with different hardware and drivers which was a good start. I feel pretty confident saying it will be late 2007 when affordable hardware starts to catch up with FSX and by that time ACES should have released at least one patch. At present my FS9 looks better than FSX because of all the numerous addons and enhancements. I think when we start to see the Vista/DX10 patched version of FSX on the right equipment there will be no looking back.

[LAdamson 240]

>L. Adamson >>I'm not get into a pissing match with you. We all know your>postion, it is well stated. Why you keep adding to>discussions is almost comical at this point. I've done it for 15 years. Why stop now...

[Chaos81 110]

>Typical Microsoft.It's not just Microsoft. Almost every company out there does the same thing.

[Mike... 7]

> We all want to move to FSX.Speak for yourself. And lock this thread already. :D