Doesn't really do squat for me really.... I know why DX10 won't run on XP already.The last link didn't do much for me either. I know that those sites Phil mentions are high-end tech sites that are well known in the industry for making sense of numbers and allowing Joe and Melina understand where technology is going.... however, Joe's brother, Hugh is a developer, and he goes by the numbers, educated predictions, and other developers for their info.What I'm saying is... I highly doubt that ACES development teams depend solely on those websites when deciding what goals to set. A good software developer has leads and connections to hardware developers... it wouldn't be so hard for ACES to have known that both AMD and Intel were planning on moving over to Dual Core substantially. In fact, even ASUS knew... because they have been planning and announcing AMD X2 support a long time back.. and have had them in production for a while now. In fact, I'm sure Microsoft knew as well... Vista has MANY DC utilizations, heck... even some freeware that I use has taken advantage of the threading capabilities of multi-cores.With Vista shipping later and later, why wouldn't ACES just release FSXP, a nice light version of FSX that people can run on XP without having to really scrap all the good settings, and save all the hoopla next-gen stuff for when the market actually has next-gen hardware? It would have been in their best interest... most people out there wouldn't have waited for the Vista version to come out this summer, and woulda bought FSXP. Then, in the summer, once Vista has proven itself a little more and less people are whining and complaining about the OS without having seen it... they may very well have upgraded their machine and also paid for a copy of FSX on top of having previously bought FSXP.I know... I know.... I am 'out there' arn't I? Yes. Probably...

Wouldn't fsxp light be....fs9?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

"Wouldn't fsxp light be....fs9?"That was my point... well.. my other point. FSX, for me at least, is no better looking than FS9 when I get the fluidity I expect from a recent release.And no, I am running on a decent machine.

Just a friendly reminder that the P-51 featured in the upcoming add-on is obviously a de-militarized, restored, and largely harmless...dedicated race plane.Need a new hobby much?Nick

I'm not into it just for looks so I am very happy with all the other additions/improvements of fsx.Enjoy Fs9 and hopefully the patch will meet your expectations.

"CPEPE" got it right. How delightful Mr. Gates takes our purchase money and zooms off to AFRICA to distribute it to people who haven't earned it, and don't have a clue what to do with the funds they might receive. Maybe spread more disease? How many billions has already ben dished out this way? And what has it accomplished? Couldn't Mr Gates use our purchase dollars to HIRE MORE PROGRAMMERS so Windows XP, Windows Vista and Flight Sim could be refined into something respectable? I haven't done all those installs of FSX like poster "CPEPE", but I've sure done it with FS4, FS5, FS9, and just as "CPEPE" says-- until not just the screen turns blue, buy my facial features as well............I'd say this was a fantastic joke except it's not funny-- the joke, unfortunately, is on us. But it's always been this way, no? Amazing, not a thing has been done to fix the awful disfunctionality of FS9's ATC and AI problems, which would have been fantastic if these issues had been addressed in FSX. But no, all we get is MORE EYE CANDY? What the hey? Does microsoft think we're just a bunch of nutcases? I guess so, and if not that, then dumb-nut suckers. Is there anybody out there, is there anybody in there, just nod if you can hear me, is there anybody home? (pf)

Brian, I'd say your posts to larry are pretty self-centric. Larry never posts his views until the opposing views are posted. If you wish Larry to stop posting his views, work on the opposers to stop posting theirs.B

Future proof is a funny term don't u think?Whenever I see it I wonder, who coined such absurdity. No matter who uses it, and in what context, its complete non-sense. Future Proof, by logic, suggests the future cannot disturb the quality or functionality of the object in consideration.How silly in a world in which we've seen the entire on line public universe emerge in a short 12 years to what it is now.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?boondo02.wav=boondoggleLee

ASSUMING the service pack will improve performance under XP even with single-core systems, then the promised addons would be a nice addition. But if the SP1 doesn't improve performance then the addon pack will be seen to be a major waste of time and resources.

Len, the performance increase target for FSX SP1 is 20%, +/- a bit depending on configuration.http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?boondo02.wav=boondoggleLee

>Future proof is a funny term don't u think?>>Whenever I see it I wonder, who coined such absurdity. No>matter who uses it, and in what context, its complete>non-sense. Future Proof, by logic, suggests the future cannot>disturb the quality or functionality of the object in>consideration.>>How silly in a world in which we've seen the entire on line>public universe emerge in a short 12 years to what it is now.>>ROFL, great points.Are you working on any scenery ?

>>It

I disagree...Larry's posts are no different then if I were to pick at anyone that posted how satisfied they were, just for the sake of argument. They do nothing but fan the fire.Larry's snide little comments put towards frustrated posters/consumers are in no way equal to said consumers posting their frustrations/concerns about a product they have purchased. Not to mention, it would be an entirely different situation if it wasn't constant. Look, I'm glad he's satisfied, I really am, for whatever that's worth, but the fact that he feels the need to throw that in the face of people who genuinely aren't satisfied, on an almost daily basis, borders on trollish, IMHO.

>>>It