How's the liver Jack -- I guess it is acting up.Rob.

If I told you it was, would I need to post a battery of medical records to prove it?:-beerchug

I have created a benchmark over in the Hardware subforum here and my setup has better results in Vista compared to WinXP (23, compared to 20).I guess that says it all. We can all discuss the Vista performance in theory. If you want to find out what your FSX/Vista performance is, I invite you to download the FSX Benchmark and see for yourself. I am not saying it's perfect, but it's a start.The benchmark and instructions can be found here.http://www.ioxo.net/fsx_benchmark_2007.zipPat

>I'm "idling" at 0-1% processor usage at the moment, nothing>drastic going on in the way of tweaks, with just Firefox 2.0>and the task manager open, in XP Home. I'm looking at 350MB>page file usage, but I haven't restarted recently, so I may>have some leftover nonsense. Out of the 2GB of RAM, 1,509,000>(approx.) available and 1,732,000 system cache. >>I have a few absolutely un-needed services turned off, but>nothing drastic. In an hour or two, I'll be putting Vista>Home Premium on here, so we'll see how things look from>there.Ok, I've got Vista up and running. Fairly painless, just tell it to go and I got back to work on other stuff.Anyways, still idling at 0-1% in Vista, so there doesn't seem to be some big CPU drain going on there. Where I do see the difference is (with nothing else going on) I'm up to a 490MB page file (I do have some Gadgets or whatever they are called running) and out of 2GB of RAM, it's suggesting 1037MB "cached" and 659MB free. Of course, down at the bottom of the task manager, it's reporting 24% memory usage.So, those are Microsoft's built in performance tools, but it gives me the indication that there's not much more in the way of cpu usage for me, but some additional RAM usage at idle.

Did you install 32 bit or 64 bit Vista?It's working set when you first boot is a little bigger than XP's. You can turn off some services if you need more memory to play FSX. And Superfetch will cache using all available memory. So a minute or two after booting, if you look, your free memory will be like 10 and your cache will be around 1500. The cache is given up when memory is required.

>Did you install 32 bit or 64 bit Vista?>>It's working set when you first boot is a little bigger than>XP's. You can turn off some services if you need more memory>to play FSX. >>And Superfetch will cache using all available memory. So a>minute or two after booting, if you look, your free memory>will be like 10 and your cache will be around 1500. >>The cache is given up when memory is required.32-bit Home Premium.As soon as I get UAC under control, everything else seems to be doing fine, Aero and all.

OK. If you install 64 bit, you'll get some code bloat due to the 64 bit code.I disabled UAC...it is annoying.

>OK. If you install 64 bit, you'll get some code bloat due to>the 64 bit code.>>I disabled UAC...it is annoying.I didn't realize that secpol wasn't in home premium (or not that I can find). I didn't really notice all the details in the presentation, but it looks great.So far, I'm happy with it, but we'll have to see how everything runs.

Rob> My point is... as time goes by, drivers get refined. This is a process every other OS goes through when released.As for being some 'a really excited user'.... no. Get off it. I merely stated my Vista experience and why it is currently not as good as it gets just yet.... based on fact. If this makes me a a really excited user then so be it, but no one here has to satisfy you my friend. I did not say that drivers would be a magic bullet.... but as of right now, my current sound and video drivers are barely acceptable in terms of what we are used to (performance wise). Until the developers release proper drivers, you can't say that the OS just plain sucks.. and you can't really compare it to a veteran OS like XP whom has had a few years of refinements already.No one here put a penny in the insult machine, so please, lay off and take a break dude... I'm not trying to make you unwelcome, just that I think that you took a very simple and to the point post and made it your absolute duty to bring Balmer, WPG and all that crap into it. All were interested in is performance, not whether you like it or not... plenty other threads for that. Oh wait, those got locked because of posts like yours...Anyways, no disrespect intended... merely pointing out how I feel 'jumped' for absolutely no reason... hopefully someone out there actually cares to agree.

I agree. But you know you're guilty of using Vista and not bagging on it. And also for not presenting reams of evidence to back up your "claims".;-)

I am fairly happy with Vista-my fsx performance with the new nvidia drivers 100.65 is as good as xp if not a little better.However I am getting sometimes out of memory errors, driver errors, and every once in a while the blue screen of death (not necessarily fsx-just in general).It will probably all sort out eventually......http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I still get out of memory CTD's in fsx. All of my other games run 90% as good as they do in xp which is fine for me since I have plenty of power to spare on all games BUT fsx. It is almost a guarantee that if I load up the justflight schweizer chopper in fsx/vista that it will CTD within 5-10 minutes. I love that chopper but it is absurd the frame rate and memory that that thing consumes not to mention its somewhat simplistic flight model >:| It simply won't work in vista with the OS as hungry as it is. Another thing I have noticed is that my cpu temps in vista at idle and under load are almost 10C higher than in xp. I idle at 35C in xp at 3.2ghz and in vista I idle at 44C or higher in some cases. That is the difference in cpu processing between xp and vista. Pretty scary.I purchased two new 320GB drives and created another RAID0 array for my vista install. If i want to boot from xp i just reboot into the BIOS, change the boot order to the other array that has xp on it and then boot to xp. This prevents me from having to do a dual boot installation on the same set of drives and messing with the boot sector. At least now I can get a reliable fsx platform. These CTD's in vista with fsx are a big concern and hopefully will be fixed in SP1 with some serious memory management efficiency changes.________________________________________________________________________________________________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

I'm not sure about the CTD...I have experienced one of those since December. When it happens, note the trap code (0x0000....) and the error message at the top. Look them up on support.microsoft.com. I have sometimes found solutions in the past for XP CTDs this way.Regarding running out of memory. When you run FSX, try turning off SuperFetch (it is a service). It aggresively fills the cache...it may not be handing back memory from the cache when FSX needs it. Also, you'll want to turn off other non-essential services when running FSX (I did this in XP with games, too). I posted two batch files earlier in this thread that do this (I think it was this thread).

Nicely done. I'll check into those and see what impact they have. :)________________________________________________________________________________________________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

I'm most interested in getting my development environment set back up, but after that, I'll get to testing FSX.