Hello...I was wondering in approximate terms what kind of performance hit you are getting with FSX on Vista compared to XP? I know Vista is not as good. After all, the game was only optimized for Vista, wasn't it? ;^)I found this link while searching the forum. It includes the performance of FSX on a 7600GT and an 8800GTS on both Vista and XP. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==I have also searched the forum for posts by people who had dual boot and had nightmares trying to install and activate FSX on both systems.My system is being built by a private builder. It will be an oc'd E6700 with liquid cooling. I feel confident that the frame rates will be acceptable under either OS. Just wondering what kind of a hit, percentage wise, I can expect with Vista. I am tempted to go the Vista only route for simplicity. I really don't want to mess with the potential trouble of two OS's and I can be ready for DX-10 while waiting for SP-1 on Vista. ... unless, of course, Vista is a horrendous drag on FSX in its (Vista's) present state.Thank you for your experience and thoughts.Steve

All of my games run the same speed in vista as they do in xp. I have xp on my other raid array that I can boot to and I haven't booted into xp in well over a month now. Call of duty 2 runs a bit slower for me but everything else runs as smoothly as it does in xp. I don't see myself ever going back to xp.________________________________________________________________________________________________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 have a dual boot XP/64bit Vista and I would say that FSX runs better in Vista. I also have 4Gb RAM which is used to good effect in Vista but not so in XP.

>I have a dual boot XP/64bit Vista and I would say that FSX>runs better in Vista. I also have 4Gb RAM which is used to>good effect in Vista but not so in XP.Thank you both!That is encouraging. I notice Astrodave had 2 gigs of Ram and GHD has 4. I've obtained Corsair 800mhz/6400 (or whatever it is, I'm not too geeky ;^). I think I'll see how 2 gigs runs and then if I need 2 gigs more, I can order it. Sounds like Vista will work okay in its early state.Have a great day,Steve

>I found this link while searching the forum. It includes the>performance of FSX on a 7600GT and an 8800GTS on both Vista>and XP. >>http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==FPS Tests from Hardocp:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171590.gifFrom my experience, FSX runs much much better on XP.I installed FSX on Vista only to suffer a hit on frame rate. I uninstalled it after a couple of weeks of disappointing performance, and installed it back on XP. My frame rate is much higher on XP and delivers a far more enjoyable experience.As from the link you posted, it confirms FSX runs smoother and with higher performance on XP systems. With FSX demanding so much from your system, it seems counterintuitive to use Vista as your primary OS to run FSX (if you have the choice for dual-boot).I have read about number of benchmark tests performed, including the one on Hardocp which definitively show gamers suffer a hit in performance when running their games on Vista, and FSX shows this drop in FPS on Vista as well.It is no surprise why game performance is lower on Vista compared to XP. Vista demands more resources from your system than XP ever did, with many more background services running and more demands on your graphics subsystem with higher overhead. Maybe DX10 and release of better drivers may eventually help improve this, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In order to squeeze as much performance and enjoyment out of FSX, I will to stick to XP.

"...and more demands on your graphics subsystem with higher overhead."Remember though, FSX forces AERO off when you start it. That alone reduces graphic load considerably.While I agree with much has been said in the thread already, I feel I should add that every system is different. Some people do okay with Vista, some people can't even get it running, and some make do with limited drivers etc etc etc. My room mate had nothing but problems with his PC after buying Vista and installing it. After two months, he bought a new PC altogether. I have his old one here as a workhorse, and is running Vista just fine for me.... so I'm chalking a lot of the complaints down to user inexperience. (I am in no way saying that ALL complaints are, but for sure, a decent fraction of them are)For me personally, I lucked out. All my hardware seemed to work fine, 99% of my software worked without any hitches too. I do know that some (a lot) of people have issues with compatible drivers and software that they require.One of the largest factors to take into consideration, is the graphics driver. I don't know why, but every driver release seems to have wild results depending on the system used to test it. Some systems show better frame rates, some slow, and some just plain crash.... rarely reflecting the quality of the equipment being used to test it. A slightly faster video card should yield better results than a slower model, yet doesn't always work out that way.I believe you will do very well with your system as long as the drivers have matured enough to really make benchmarking worthwhile. You can't knock an OS when its running crippled drivers. Over time, performance on your system will definitely make your investment worthwhile. I think that staying with XP is a valid choice too, but it is just delaying the inevitable really.... one day you would have to upgrade in order to keep a system that is maintained by the developer, in terms of security patches etc.

The Hardcop results were with 2GB RAM, were they to use 4GB and switch off Aero Glass the results would be reversed.AMD 64 X2 4800+, 4GB RAM, 2x 512 Mb FS7800 GTX

It would make no difference at all. Adding physical system memory has never increased the absolute framerate in any version of MSFS running under any OS. The situation is no different with FSX and Vista. The framerate with 4GB and Vista will be no different than with 2GB.Doug

Thank you all again!GHD,I asked my computer builder to add another two gigs of ram. So I will start with 4. He indicated that because of heavy resource demands of Vista... that some games on 2 gigs under Vista, such as Oblivion, will ask for a "virtual" memory swap access on the hard drive which would slow things considerably. Was unable to determine if this happens in FSX.I'm hoping to shut down some background services with one of the Gaming programs I found linked to a post on this forum.What is Aero Glass? ... Is that one of the options on the graphics control panel in FSX... like shadows from buildings, etc.? I don't have FSX installed on this machine (too slow!) I'm supposed to pick up the new machine on Tuesday. Then many questions will be answered.Thanks,Steve

Steve - Vista, like XP will also, utilize the pagefile (virtual memory) to a large extent. Adding physical system memory (RAM) will, indeed, minimize, and possibly eliminate altogether, pagefile accesses. But..adding memory will not increase the absolute framerate with FSX (or FS9). The average rate may be improved due to improved texture loading times but the maximum framerate will not change. How valuable is this decrease in load times?...It varies with the system. The faster overall the system is the less the load times matter. But, all that being said, more memory is always better. Just don't look for a miracle cure by adding the additional 2GB.Doug

Although upping your RAM to 4GB from 2GB in Vista is a good thing, you probably won't see a dramatic difference in the frame rate in FSX as a result, as Doug has correctly pointed out.Also, manually disabling Aero Glass won't do much either, as FSX always automatically disables Aero Glass anyway whenever it's running. So doing it manually is essentially just a needless extra step, and a waste of time. Aero Glass is part of the new Vista user interface, which includes all the glitzy transparency and neat animation effects. ACES obviously knew this would slice away a large amount of performance from FSX, and therefore instructed FSX to turn off Aero prior to loading.As previously mentioned, eventually Vista will become the prevalent OS, this is inevitable, so we can only hope that updates and patches in software and hardware will help improve the performance issue in Vista.

Aero Glass is that feature in Vista that allows you to see transparent windows, use the windows+tab keys for the flip-through old school alt+tab version and keeps the sidebar transparent etc, or partially transparent windows I mean....Aero Glass it is aesthetically pleasing in other words

Doug...I tried to e-mail you, but I found your "info file" was disabled in AVSIM. I am also an amateur radio operator, N4PP is my callsign. I have a modest working station on 160 through 10 minus the WARC bands. I've noticed your call sign in various posts.I didn't read your comment in re: to increasded RAM not affecting absolute frame rates. As you said in your last comment: "The average rate may be improved due to improved texture loading times but the maximum framerate will not change. How valuable is this decrease in load times?...It varies with the system. The faster overall the system is the less the load times matter." ...This is why I decided to go ahead with the additional RAM at this time while the system is nearing completion. It makes sense that the loading lag would decrease with overall system efficiency (speed). I don't know if FSX would have this problem, especially with more complex third party textures, etc... or this Tile Proxy business that I am reading about, but I thought it wise to simply go ahead now, since there are/will be other apps that will avoid swaps with the extra RAM.I used to build ham equipment years ago, but I am not very computer savvy. Thanks for taking time to respond. If you want to e-mail or even QSO sometime, be sure to write me. My e-mail is [email protected]. 73, Steve

Thank you all for the explanations in to Aero Glass in Vista. Frankly, I haven't even operated Vista at all... I should learn about this first hand starting this Wednesday. I just wish that someone would come along and create a Vista specific program, like Ken Salter's FSAutostart which disabled so many services and programs under Vista and restarted them at the conclusion of an FSX session. Someone on this forum mentioned a program called Vista Smoker Pro 1.1, but I haven't researched it yet. It is supposed to have a game mode that disables everything unnecessary, but it is payware, I understand.Steve

Aero Glass is a complete waste of resources. My requirement of an operating system is a filing system and a means to run applications. I currently run Vista with "Classic" settings and it looks exactly the same as Windows 2000 did on my old systems. Perhaps this is why I get better performance in FSX.