Hey Astro, have you run a burn in program (like Orthos) to see what your max temp is with your CPU at 100%?That would give you an idea of how much Vista is heating your CPU compared to the CPU at a full load.

good news for you : the Geforce 8800 is working perfectly. The OS don't install the proper drivers on it's own, you need to download them from the NVidia website.However, for the Creative labs sound card, that is a different story.You did not say which card you are using.First off all, stay away from the XFI Extreme Audio. It is not a real XFI and does not support OpenAL (yet).Secondly, beta drivers are available for all Audigy and XFI cards (including my X-FI Extreme Audio) and certified drivers are announced for the 7th or 8th of March for the X-FI brand(but of course, can be pushed further out in the future). All cards are reported working, but not at their full potential (e.g. you need OpenAL to get HW acceleration and full surround in some games).Jan

You can use Creative Alchemy to get HW acceleration in DirectSound3D games. I did this with FSX. I didn't notice an FPS increase, but at least my X-fi card is doing the work.

yes, except for X-FI Xtreme Audiofrom their home page :Requirements:Windows VistaSB X-Fi* series of soundcard with native OpenAL 1.1 Supportand a bit lower :* Excludes SB X-Fi Xtreme AudioShame on me, I picked a X-FI card because it is supposedly superior quality, but did not read all the creative support forums before.the X-FI Xtreme Audio is not the same as the other X-FI cards.I blame Creative for wrong publicity, not Microsoft.There are working beta drivers, but no surround and no HW acceleration as of yet.Jan

Oh yeah...I got an X-fi XtremeMusic...I probably spent 4 hours in forums (cause Creative's product pages suck) figuring out which X-fi to get...I wanted one that had the real X-fi guts, but not stuff like XRam that I didn't need.That blows you got stuck with the wrong one.

I've installed and uninstalled and tested my software (and FSX) on many versions of Vista - and so have my QA folks. As with most folks, I've had to do the driver hunt, some found, some not. 64 bit versions of any software will run a little slower for the simple reason there is more data to process (a 64bit memory address). Just as 32bit runs slower than 16bit. Where you'll gain performance from a 64bit address space is the ability to retain more data in memory vs. using a pagefile (which could be cached in memory or on the hard drive). 64bit is beneficial when you have more than 4GB RAM installed -- if you don't then you're just incurring a performance penalty with no real gain. 64bit also assumes the applicaiton is code to use the additional memory.FSX however, is a big candidate for using more than 4GB too bad it current does NOT since it is a 32bit app/game.Glad you enjoy it, but your same logic applies to those fanatic about using anything Microsoft. And those that are "pro" Microsoft are saying it's great, then posting their list of problems with it and or the lack of drivers (as in your case), etc. etc. Drivers aren't "saving the day" -- they may get you back to WinXP peformance but they don't improve the performance over XP.If you keep this in perspective, Vista 5 years FSX 3 years in the making and this is the best they can do?I don't think it is worthless to post, it informs people that might be thinking about buying Vista for FSX. Do you have or plan to have more than 4GB RAM installed? Do you have any applications what will use it? Do you have a motherboard and BIOS that supports more than 4GB? Are you installing 64bit just because you think it must be better/faster cause it is 64bit? It's a common mis-understanding with many of my non-technical friends that 64bit = faster/better. The answer is, it is faster if you have the RAM installed and applications that can use it, otherwise it's a waste of money and driver support for 64bit is even harder to find.Rob.

Thanks Jan thats what has scared me away from Vista. If The drivers are coming along and that was it then I see no problems with Vista now. I just thought it was not seeing the hardware period that was the scary factor. Drivers will always improve with time. I just might give it a try now.:)

So you have a team of QA people working for you to investigate the performance of FSX under Vista ? Now you got me impressed. To answer your question : I am running the 64 bit version because, yes, I do occasionally use programs that benefit of the better memory handling. I use this pc also for some video editing, although only on recreational grounds. I do not need 64 bit professionally. And I sure do not use it solely to play Flight Simulator.I do not feel FSX has slowed down compared to XP 32 bit on this platform (I have dual boot, but my 30 days trial period of XP will run out in a couple of days). Maybe it does marginally (1 frame?) but I do not feel it, as I get over 20 frames/sec when city flying (except New York).And I just said maybe, as it is difficult to measure.I choose this OS (Vista 64 bit) to be able to upgrade later with lesser costs, so I don't have to start all over from scratch in 6 months.I plan to just plug a new, faster, CPU at some time in the next 12 months, and indeed add more memory, but only at the moment it will be usefull (e.g. programs will be sophisticated enough to take advantage of the address space). Did I tell you I am using a brand new rig, that supports all the latest goodies ? Just made one mistake, as written elsewhere, with my sound card. One time, when I was still a student, I made the same mistake as you are making now. I decided to buy the "faster" AMD DX4 100Mhz. Big mistake. Within 6 months my system was useless and could not run any game anymore, because 32bit was introduced and got adopted.As you correctly stated, there is no real advantage over 32 bit today, except for some video editing, so I agree with you there is no reason to upgrade from XP to Vista today (but maybe it will in 6 months when the first DX 10 titles come out).But if you buy a new system today, AND if you plan to upgrade, not replace, then it is in your interest to go immediately for the most robust OS.Most people posting in this thread are nuanced, you are the one making biased statements. "Tho Shall Not Install Vista." Come on, get a life. JanPost Scriptum : you were right about the 32 bit slower then 16 bit. My 100 MHz DX4 ran 16 bit programs faster then on the new INTEL 32 bit CPUs (at that time).But very soon games started to come out, written for this new 32 bit cpu. I really enjoyed the slideshow ;-)The same will happen once DX10 will get hold on the market. You won't be able to play those games under XP anymore. And this will happen sooner then you think. And also there is the possibility that 64 bit will get foot finally (after all this is a new OS and many people are going 64 bit now, so there is a financial interest in writing 64 bit programs).Have fun with XP as long as you can, and see you in 6 months :-)And please don't accuse me of being pro Microsoft, I used to promote OS/2. It took Microsoft until XP to get to the same level, and it took them another 5 years to improve on it. Seeing that it is only 1 month on the market, and it is as stable as XP with SP2 installed, yes Microsoft earned at least some respect. I use all kind of OS's in my job, linux, Unix, AIX, Windows Servers, Solaris, ... . Personnaly I like linux, but it sucks as a gaming platform. And driver support is none existent.

One other thing about 64 bit vs 32 bit. 32 bit Windows can address 4 gigs, but it will only hand out up to 2 gigs to each process. You can use a switch to potentially get that up to 3 gig for a process, but it can be tricky. So you can't just run 32 bit Windows out of the box and expect FSX to be able to use 2+ gigs of RAM.Jan, I'm basically in the same boat as you. I built a new machine in December, and didn't want to play the OS dance 6 months later when I go to 4 gigs of RAM, or want to use DirectX 10.

or you might just wait. I installed Vista because I have a new system. Not because I wanted to upgrade.The question to upgrade or not is more nuanced.I must say, I like the new Vista style and the new search function.The sidebar is a nice gadget, but not necessary.But it is only the OS, and after all, it is expensive. I am not advocating Vista, but I got tired of all the bashing going on in this forum, and wanted to react.Also I am what most people would consider a power user (Hey, in real life I am an IT specialist, and that does not mean I know how to use Excel ;-) ), and it got me two installs to get it correct (and that is again because I am a power user, I can trick any OS in doing things it is not supposed to do, like support unsupported hardware . By doing so, I disabled somehow my USB storage. But that is another story.).JanIf there was a room, and in that room a big red button, labeled : "Do NOT push, will destroy the world", I am the one to try to see what happens :-)

My build in December was a new system...I put Vista RTM on it then. So I was sort of bleeding edge (though I didn't run the betas). I agree. Upgrading is more nuanced (hardware and OS).

"So you have a team of QA people working for you to investigate the performance of FSX under Vista ?" -- wow I said that? Can you quote where I said exactly that? This is how mis-information gets propagated -- then someone else will read what you wrote the snow ball starts rolling -- probably what you wanted anyway. I'm director of developer and also lead programmer on many projects, so yes I do have a team of QA folks working for me -- but I must admit I don't have the assigned to work on FSX performance -- that's a futile project with no revenue possibilities -- I do what everyone else does, shelve FSX and wait or reduce visual quality til it runs well enough.I have QA people that primarily are concerned with bugs/compatibility issues in my software, not so much with performance as I've never hand anyone have issues with the performance of my code/products. But if a performance problem did come up, yes my QA folks would need to bring it to my attention so it can be resolved. Again, nothing to do with FSX.Sure, when FSX is running at 2-8 fps at detailed airports, 1 fps is pretty significant.Mistake - what mistake would that be? I'll have a new system when I see something worth buying, be it in 6 weeks, 6 months or whatever. My upgrade threshold is around 15% real performance gain (measured over a host of applications/games). When hardware comes out on the market that hits my threshold, then I upgrade and go thru the long process of hardware overclocking which usually gains an additional 25-33% performance increase (with the correct components and cooling solutions). "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.So I assume that your motherboard and BIOS do support more than 4GB? If they don't support more than 4GB, getting a 64bit OS now will still mean you'll need to wipe and re-install when you upgrade to a motherboard that can handle more than 4GB. Motherboard swap will require a fresh re-install -- something Vista has not overcome.To address the other issue with WinXP 32bit, the /3GB switch goes in the Boot.ini and will permit software apps to use 3GB over current 2GB limit (Photoshop comes to mind).Rob.

>Hey Astro, have you run a burn in program (like Orthos) to>see what your max temp is with your CPU at 100%?>>That would give you an idea of how much Vista is heating your>CPU compared to the CPU at a full load.Yep, of course. I used it to arrive at my stable o/c of 3.2ghz. I am at 59C at full orthos load in xp, low 50's while gaming and I idle at 35-40C depending on ambient. I haven't run it in vista as I'm sure it would be in the high 60's or even into the low 70s under load and i don't want to go there. I'm already hitting low 60's when gaming which is 10C higher than in XP. I am using TAT to monitor temps but coretemp gives me about 5C lower readings. When in doubt go with the higher number. It's just odd that I get such disparity between xp and vista on my temps. I'm also not even o/cng my 8800 in vista. I might even run hotter than 10C once nvidia fixes ntune to allow o/cng.The higher temps started after I added these other 2 drives last week. I find this weird because on my case the drive cage is isolated from the component area and should not affect the ambient temps of the case. It's a mystery what is causing these higher temps...unless maybe the psu is running hotter due to the higher loads? But if that was the case then why don't I see the higher temps in xp? Only vista temps have increased. *shrug*

"I've installed and uninstalled and tested my software (and FSX) on many versions of Vista - and so have my QA folks."You can read it like you want, to me it sounds just as I wrote it down. If it is not true, why did you mention it in the first place ? Because you wanted people to understand it that way ? I just pulled it out of context and exaggerated. Just as you have been quoting other people out of context.Apparently you have more money then I have, my "upgrade threshold" until now was minimal 50% improvement. Prove, my previous pc is 5 years old, and only got memory and video upgraded.If you get between 2 and 8 fps, then 1 fps is not going to make a difference : FSX is and stays unplayable (any 3D game for that matter).You develop software ? Then you should know how software evolves during development. In this case, DirectX 10 and Vista evolved together out of DX 9 and XP. I do believe Phil Taylor in this regard, he did not need to explain this in detail to understand this basic fact. Do not forget Microsoft owns the windows kernel, they can change it how they want to support new stuff. Maybe they could have developed a DirectX 10 for XP. But where would be the profit for them ? Also they would have been stuck to the 5 year old APIs of XP. Fact is, DirectX 10 does not work on XP, and I am sure many hackers have tried (RTM is out for several months now, so they had access).DX 10 and therefore Vista will succeed because it will make profit for Nvidea and ATI (now AMD) alike. Also game houses are getting their DX 10 hocus pocus ready. Do not make mistakes. There is a lot of money involved here.I think that Microsoft CEO Balmer made a mistake saying that pirates are the cause of the slow Vista sales. I think it is much more realistic to say that it is the lack of DX 10 hardware and games. The WOW! is just not there yet, I am waiting for Crysis, Alan Wake and, hopefully, FSX, for that.I do agree with you that it does make little sense to upgrade from XP right now. However for new systems, we do not agree.My motherboard supports up to 16 GB, more then I will ever need in this life cycle. Currently I am using 3 GB, what is sufficient for now. Also for the moment my overclocked E6700 is doing very well, thank you. Biggest concern for upgrading for me has never been the memory, but the processor slot (currently 775) and the video card slot (PCI-E). It seems to me Intel likes to change the pins layout just for the sake of it :-(.So maybe you are right and it does not make much sense to use the 64 bit version, but then again, who knows how it will evolve the next 2-3 years ? My processor is 64 bit capable, so I prepare for the worst case scenario, that is that the majority of programs within 1 - 2 years will be written for 64 bit. In that case, I will maybe just have to change the bios and the CPU. I count ohanging the video card around that time frame anyway.I do not want to pay for my OS twice (upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit) if it is not necessary. And from my personal experience, except for TrackIR, everything is working equally well (or you would say equally bad ?) under 32 bit as under 64 bit.And as I said, congratulations to Microsoft for releasing a stable OS. At least for me it is just as stable as XP SP2.Coming from me, that is a big compliment.Jan

"I've installed and uninstalled and tested my software (and FSX) on many versions of Vista - and so have my QA folks."I read this the same that you did, that robains was stating that he has a team of testers testing (among other things) FSX perf on Vista.