Abysmal Perfomance of FSX in Vista

[Guest]

Ok guys so he doesn't like vista. That doesn't give everybody the right to jump on him like a pack of wolves. I hate that type of mentality. From what I can tell so far he has composed himself very well and expressed his reasons for disliking it. He obviously knows what he is talking about and works in the field of software. I think that makes him more qualified than any of us imo. Although I don't share his dislike of vista or fsx as a whole, I definitely see where he is coming from. Can we not play schoolyard bullies please, thanks.

[Kabs 0]

Hi Robains,I am not entirely sure of whether this is true or not, so please educate me if I am wrong.You are right that 64-bit computing will allow you to address more memory, but is there not also a speed gain from having more bits available at the registers to perform a greater number of calculations without accessing memory in the first place. So for example, with 32-bit systems if I wanted to do a complex operation, I would have to have to do it small parts (since the registers cannot store all the values) then store my partial results in main memory in order to use them later to complete the operation whereas with a 64-bit system more operations can be performed with less use of the main memory. Should we not expect to see a speed boost from this.kabs

[Guest iwantmydc3]

>>I hate to say I told you so, but>>>>>>I TOLD YOU SO>>Again with the Svengali I told you so post...Nobody knows what>you are going on about and nobody remembers what someone with>100 posts was making premonitions over the failure of vista>months in the past.>>Vista actually runs pretty good for me and so far I am>pleasantly surprised. I was very apprehensive to run it on>this machine due to all the trouble with the nvidia drivers I>have experienced on my other box. The 8800 drivers have been>rock solid for me and the x-fi drivers are only marginally>annoying with some squeeks and crackles here and there. The>only slight annoyances I have so far are with fsx and its>random CTD's and the fact that my cpu runs 10C hotter which>for me puts it right on the edge for max temps that I want to>run. I am confident that fsx can be fixed and I will be no>doubt upgrading to a new cpu within the year anyway so no>worries. Vista is good as long as your hardware is supported.>I can say without a doubt that anyone with nvidia based>motherboards and video cards will most likely have issues with>vista though. Bill Gates needs to be on the horn with those>goons every day until it is fixed because they are making>vista look bad when in fact from what I can tell it is pretty>decent.>1. Come one everyone knows exactly what I meant. That the UPGRADE path would cause problems for SOME people. I have been advising since I joined here to not go that route. Vista isn't a "failure" and I'm not "anti-vista" I just don't think its the right time for it, for MOST users. If things are going well for you, and others, that's great. 2. With all due respect, what you say there in your second paragraph is exactly my point, vis. "anyone with nvidia based motherboards and video cards will likely have some issues..." Well nvidia is a major hardware supplier. Why would I want to change my OS to one that I know would give me problems? They wont release OFfice, or Exchange, until they're tested and compatible, why should we have to be the "charlie testers?" This is the same thing the computer magazines have been saying for months "Vista has smoe problems. Bur run right out and get it!" ugh.3. What else? I guess there isn't anything else. I will stay in my world, where FSX works OK, and fly single and twin engine pistion powered aircraft in my local area. Don't care about airliners, or nonoe of that stuff. If I offended anybody I apologize.

[beatle 0]

Hi kabsFor the most part, not really. If a chunk of code needed to do a multiply, then an add, and then a divide to compute some value, it would still have to do those same 3 operations even when using 64-bit registers. The only place you would see a speedup would be where 32-bit code was doing 64-bit operations using paired registers, carry bit based arithmetic, etc; these operations could now be performed using single 64-bit registers and arithmetic operations.I said for the most part because there are a couple of extra registers available in 64-bit mode, plus there are some 128-bit MultiMedia registers (3DNow/MMC/etc type registers). With compiler support, these extra registers would allow certain operations to be done completely in registers without saving any intermediate results in system memory.It's not quite like the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit, in that case, for 16-bit code, we had to do 64KB bank switching using the segment registers, and switching those could be somewhat costly in some cases; whereas going to 32-bit code, we had a flat memory model and didn't have to futz with segment registers anymore. Going to 64-bit code doesn't really change that, we still have a flat memory model (albeit quite a lot larger :-> ).

[soaring_penguin 431]

sorry, I stepped in because I felt that he was the one bashing other users on this forum because they happen to like FSX and Vista.Just take a look on how he quoted other people.Also the way he puts together his posts, makes him bragging in my eyes.The QA case was just one example. As always, upgrading from one OS to another is a complicated choice. A "no one should install Vista because I don't like it" attitude is not helping anyone. People read this posts because they want to know how FSX runs on Vista on top of the notch hardware. Users that already made the step, like myself, try to give a complete picture of what works and what not. He is just focusing on what does not work, puts the experience of several posters on one pile, and concludes then that nothing works. This is not a constructive attitude.Just my opinion,And I am going to let the subject rest now, thank you.Have fun flying, Jan

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Astro, I have to agree with Jan. He bags on Phil, tells people to shut up, selectively quotes, and selectively believes what he wants (believes the bad, won't accept the good). Sure the last couple of posts been more measured, but go back to some of the early pages in this thread.

[Guest]

>>1. Come one everyone knows exactly what I meant. That the>UPGRADE path would cause problems for SOME people. I have been>advising since I joined here to not go that route. Vista isn't>a "failure" and I'm not "anti-vista" I just don't think its>the right time for it, for MOST users. If things are going>well for you, and others, that's great. >>2. With all due respect, what you say there in your second>paragraph is exactly my point, vis. "anyone with nvidia based>motherboards and video cards will likely have some issues..." >Well nvidia is a major hardware supplier. Why would I want to>change my OS to one that I know would give me problems? They>wont release OFfice, or Exchange, until they're tested and>compatible, why should we have to be the "charlie testers?">This is the same thing the computer magazines have been saying>for months "Vista has smoe problems. Bur run right out and get>it!" ugh.>>3. What else? I guess there isn't anything else. I will stay>in my world, where FSX works OK, and fly single and twin>engine pistion powered aircraft in my local area. Don't care>about airliners, or nonoe of that stuff. If I offended anybody>I apologize.No, everyone does NOT know what you were talking about which is why I, and a few others were like ##### is this guy talking about. Now that you have adequately explained yourself instead of jumping around screaming I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO! then more people are likely to read what you have to say and respond to it. You have 100 posts and there are dozens of forums here with thousands of active threads so it's not beyond the realm of expectation for none of us to have ever read any of your previous predictions of a horrifying vista failure...________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

>"The same will happen once DX10 will get hold on the market." >Yes, this is Microsoft's hope -- of course DX10 for WinXP>"isn't easy to do" -- I believe that was Ace's Phil Taylors>response, but that should give you a clue as to the direction>the Ace's team is going -- the easy road.Maybe you and your vaunted dev team could rewrite parts of the XP kernel, because that's what required to hoist DirectX 10 on XP. Then you get to ruin your QA team's lives cause they have to make sure that these kernel changes don't break software already running on 100 million computers.

[Guest]

>Astro, I have to agree with Jan. He bags on Phil, tells>people to shut up, selectively quotes, and selectively>believes what he wants (believes the bad, won't accept the>good). >>Sure the last couple of posts been more measured, but go back>to some of the early pages in this thread.I am not here to be his defender or anyone else's, but I went through all of his posts and other than his tone coming through with a tad of arrogance and him sounding condescending, everything he said is pretty much true for the most part. I am having some problems with vista and fsx but they are by no means show stoppers. All of you as well are having problems like me but unlike him they are not affecting our ability to use the software for the most part. Vista will take time to mature. That's just the way it works in IT. I remember when xp was released it was literally 6 months before some devices had drivers and I was furious then. The only difference between then and now is that those devices didn't cost $650 then like they do now. *Cough* Nvidia....________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[nudata 10]

XP, unlike ite predecessors (98 & ME) is quite stable and functional for the vast majority of Microsoft's customers today. The reasons for upgrading to XP simply do not exist when considering Vista. If Microsoft ever comes out with a DX10 patch for FSX I might consider Vista. Today I find no rational/functional reason to change. Same reasoning for dual-core CPUs. They add nothing material to FSX unless Microsoft makes changes to the FSX code. If I am forced to upgradr the CPU it will be a fast single core that is cheaper than the dual-core stuff.Regards,Dick Boley

[soaring_penguin 431]

Exactly my point.Only I decided to upgrade now and not wait another 6 months for the DX10 patch to come out, so I could enjoy FSX today. My old PC just could not pull it anymore.I hesitated between XP and Vista, decided for the latter because it is stable enough for gaming and normal work, and I don't want to pay again in 6 months, when DX10 comes out.Also I did quite a lot of reading ( not research, that would mean I had tested every part of HW myself, I don't have that money ) and from what I understood, the current Intel dualcore are the fastest processors at this moment, even faster then a fastest clocked single core processor, even for FSX. That is because the architecture of the cores have been improved also. This leaves some headroom for Moore's law, luckily.But maybe someone else can prove me wrong here.Jan

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

No, you're right. The Core 2 Duo processors are the best for FSX right now. That may change when Barcelona and Agena show up this summer from AMD. But right now, it's C2D (especially if you overclock them).

[Guest robains]

Jack/Jan so I assume by your posts that you know there will be an FSX for Vista that supports DX10 (other than what you've been told)? And apparently you have also confirmed that it will be a better experience? I have access to A LOT of Alpha software and I must admit I clearly don't seem to have the confirmed knowledge that you folks do -- could you fill me in on your first hand experience? I'd love to hear the details of your experience with the 64bit version of FSX, but I guess you have an NDA so that you can't inform me?Or are you really just saying you got Vista 64bit hoping the software will come to you and hoping developers code 64bit versions? Either way, do you really think making a purchase decision now on something that "might" happen in the future where any number of other variables could change that really -- is a good decision even when buying a new PC?As others have pointed out, there is absolutely NO reason to get Vista now. "Wait and see" is a very valid and good conclusion that some folks have come. And please, stop mis-quoting me.BTW, no need to change the Kernel for DX10 unless you plan to provide aeroglass interface in WinXP. You release DX10 for WinXP just like they have done with all prior versions of DirectX. This is very doable and like I've said before...what OS do you think they used to create Vista and DX10? I can assure you, their development cycle isn't code DX10 features, make a build, install that build on a unknown state of a Vista build, and then test -- that is not efficient. They test on the same OS you and I have with some minor modifications. And like I said before, DX10 would be on WinXP a long time ago if serious OS competition existed -- no need for everyone to take the Vista hit just to get DX10.I'm all for companies making profit, when it is earned NOT "leveraged" ala Microsoft. Sorry, no bleeding heart for Microsoft's profits over here -- they've enjoyed many years of profits and what they currently provide to those that let them enjoy those years is NOT up to par.The rational decision for anyone that is thinking about Vista for FSX is to wait and see. Show folks those screenshots of fantasic realism at 40 fps with FSX DX10 version under Vista (the real WOW) and it will sell itself and I'll be sold too. But until I see it or see someone demonstrate it in a methodical manner, I'll wait -- too many other variables can and will change between Now and the mythical then (for the FSX DX10).And the posts about "vaunted dev team" and "ruin your QA team's live" -- liver still acting up?Rob.

[Kabs 0]

>BTW, no need to change the Kernel for DX10 unless you plan to provide aeroglass interface in WinXP. You release DX10 for WinXP just like they have done with all prior versions of DirectX. This is very doable and like I've said before...what OS do you think they used to create Vista and DX10? I can assure you, their development cycle isn't code DX10 features, make a build, install that build on a unknown state of a Vista build, and then test -- that is not efficient. They test on the same OS you and I have with some minor modifications. Good point, on which os does Windows test DX10? If DX10 is tested on Windows XP do the modifications that are necessary to run DX10 on XP require that other windows xp functions are sacrificed?Finally was the modification "minor" or was it essentially rewriting the OS

[Guest robains]

Hi Kabs,Tim's post was very good, he's covered most of it.There are many issues around 64 bit performance that affect how well any particular program will run. What 64bit computing buys you with a 64bit compiled application/game:Lets assume (this is a big assumption) FSX 64bit will become a reality in the distant future, some of the Pros and Cons you might see:Pros1. Thread memory limits greatly increased (reduces disk i/o) which could remove scenery load time stutters completely2. Computational accuracy improvements - objects will move/scale more precisely in a 3D matrix/space3. More information can be stored in a single address so fewer cycles are required to get that 64bit chunk Cons1. Increase in memory errors at the hardware level, typically you want "server" quality memory to reduce those errors ECC FB-DIMMs comes to mind - ala MacPro and some high end serversKeep in mind that you can have memory errors and never know it, but as the data bus size increases so do the errors -- hence the need for better memory and hence increased cost.Also keep in mind that just because an app is 64bit, doesn't necessarily mean it has been optimized to take advantage of 64bit computing.There are many ways to improve performance on 64bit platforms espeically when it comes to Integer math vs. floating point. Integer computing is considerably faster and if done well one can minimize the floating point operations. It really is ALL in the code and just how much time and energy one wants to dedeciate to making a process as fast as possible.Rob.