Without going into any details or starting a small war - Since Vista has been out for a while and given the best of equipment such as 4 core CPU's and 8800GTX cards, directX10 & etc., is there at this time a substantial improvement in FSX as oppose to using XP? I've been using XP and as you can see by my system specs below, my system is rather robust, and I do have Vista Home Premium. Without going into details and keeping this short, could you pls respond by giving a "Yes" or "No" answer.WilbertAbit AW9D-MaxThermaltake W0106 700W PSUIntel QX6700 Quadcore4x1G Crucial Ballistix DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000)2x150GB SATA WD Raptor - Non Raid2x320GB SATA WD SE16 - Non Raid2x IDE Light-On DVDRW 165H65BFG 8800GTX OC2 768MB 626MHz Core Clock3x SILENX 120X25MM FANS + 2x 10in XCLIO Wind Tunnel Case FansDanger Den Water CoolingEnermax temp/fan controllerCreative SB Extigy USB SoundGateway Diamondtron VX1120 20in Monitor

As of yet none at all.When/if DX10 version of FSX comes out then you might want to consider Vista if Microsoft don't provide DX10 for WinXP. Vista sales are "below expectations" as of right now and based on current insider info, it appears they have NO desire at all to provide DX10 for WinXP (rumor mill has it that a DX10 variant is compiled for WinXP but unlikely to see light of day).Microsoft are planning to force everyone on Vista eventually -- in the near future as they will stop selling WinXP come Jan 2008.If you do go with Vista, suggest you install the 64 bit version, the 32 bit version is for the most part a dead end.I'm sure this will cause endless debates about 64bit vs. 32bit -- but the reality is you WILL eventually need the benefit of the 64bit memory address space even if we never see a 64bit version of FSX (other games/apps can use the extra memory). Also toss in that Microsoft do NOT plan to do any more 32bit OS, everything in the future will be 64bit.As pointed out in Maximum PC -- Vista isn't for the Power User, it's for those that always want the latest and greatest without really understanding what they're getting.Also suggest you wait for Microsoft Special Hack 1 before jumping on the wagon. The code bloat is mind boggling considering the first version of windows would fit on <1MB -- Vista requires GB hard drive space and mine takes 900MB of RAM at startup.Based on your specs your weakest link is your monitor -- go with a Westinghouse 42" LCD/1080p HD monitor (make sure you get the 1080p version). 1920 x 1080 on 42" is really an experience.But having just flown from Oakland to Salt Lake, FSX still leaves very much to be desired over the real thing. I would look into addon like ActiveSky and X graphics -- I'm a big fan of realistic weather.Robin.

noAllcott

YesKenny G

NoDoug

depends.Ian.

It seems that using FSX with Vista appears to give you the benefit of finding a deeper understanding of how your OS works. :-lol

No.I chose Vista because I bought a complete new computer and I wanted to be ready for DX10 (not just for FSX). But if you have to choice I would advice to stay with XP for a better FSX-experience.

Yes.

until the DirectX 10 patch comes out : there is no benefit for FSX.and for your information : the DirectX 10 rumor for XP is exactly that : a rumor. DX 10 needs the new APIs in VISTA, and that means it is incompatible with XP, unless you compile the XP kernel with the new functions, what makes it Vista, not XP anymore. See one of the posts on Phils blog about this subject.But I agree that 32 bit will disappear eventually, only not in this windows version, maybe the next. Personally I did not see a difference yet between the 32 and 64 bit versions, with the exception of some drivers for some obscure hardware that are sometimes difficult to find, or not existing.Jan

Hi Wilbert.I know you are looking for a short and sweet "yes/no", but there have been long drawn out discussions on the topic since long before the Vista launch. At the top of the forum pages, there is a search function that should give you a good start in learning more information on the topic if you want more than just a check box answer.

Not sure what Phil is on about, but Microsoft have already admitted that DX10 is doable and very possible for WinXP, for business reasons they have elected to not make it available for WinXP and that's the only reason. This is not some huge technical barrier -- anyone into software development would know that also. It's purely a leveraged business decision -- and lets be realistic, Vista sales are not good and DX10 is really their only card to "try" and get people motivated to use Vista.Very few applications are being coded to use 64bit address space, no games (other than on the MacPro line) I know of are 64bit. I believe the entire "Blurries" issue could be resolved in a 64bit address space provided the end user actually install 4GB of RAM or more.Where Microsoft seriously failed is getting hardware vendors, game developers, and apps developers INVOLVED with 64bit computing. They made the assumption that everyone (end user and developers and vendors) will just do whatever Microsoft say -- but they haven't. It's fine for them to blame the vendors or blame the developers, but at the end of the dbottom line is still, Microsoft's OS. Microsoft need to be considerably more active with vendors, developers, end users -- this does NOT mean "force by using leverage". I'm sure they still honestly believe they have the leverage to dictate their terms and they certainly have enough cash in the bank to ride out this failure to sell an OS.

Brian, thanks for your suggestion but I think I've read just about every post concerning FS using XP/Vista. I've been flightsimming before Microsoft took over - way back with Bruce Artwick and before AVSIM came online. The views concerning XP/Vista are varied and I realize that eventually it will be only Vista. Thanks to the flightsim community, and dedicated sites like AVSIM and others, the many programmers and developers, FS is what it is today. I don't believe Microsoft would have continued with FS if they relied totally on the product straight out of the box only. I just wanted to get a concensus on the general advantage of switching over to Vista (at this time).Now if I could only get XP to run under Vista, FSX should be fantastic......Wilbert

Where did we say that DX10 on XP is doable but we arent doing it for business reasons? I'd counter that with the same argument I made on my blog, its a lot of dev work, and a lot of test work. Even MS cannot support 2 Vista-sized dev projects ( and beta ) simultaneously, The Windows division would need to be, well, twice its current size. And by the time you are done, the kernel resembles Vista anyways.Blurries seem to be related to how certain 3rd party photo-scenery is authored, I doubt 64-bit address space is going to fix that.I see a lot of support in the OS, in Visual Studio, in the SDK/DDKs, and on MSDN for 64-bit. At PDC and other developer events there is lots of info. So considerable effort has been spent. The real issue is developers are just starting to run out of address space and need the benefits of 64-bit ( outside of the enterprise space ) so thats been a "lack of will" inhibitor. The lack of installed base is a "business" inhibitor. The lack of drivers is an additional "technology" inhibitor. Its not about dictating terms or leverage. Its about the community has not seen a reason to move, and that is something MS doesnt control.

hi Robin :-)