Vista or XP

[Guest stuarta]

Not sure if anyone can help here. I'm about to build my new system, Q6600/2gb DDR2 6400/8800GTS 640mb.The system is mainly used to FSX and not sure whether to load on Vista to make use of the DX10 or XP.Can anyone advise?

[scott967 62]

I have about the same system and bought vista biz oem for it. The package is still sitting on my shelf. Someday I will probably install vista in dual-boot, but I don't think I am missing anything so far without it. Knowing what I know now, I would probably have bought the x64 version which might be more worthwhile.scott s..

[Guest JimC1702]

I just bought a new computer and debated operating systems. While XP is very robust and allegedly faster than Vista, I figure that Vista is the future. Rather that have to upgrade down the road, I thought that it was best to bite the bullet and go with Vista now. So far there have been no real show-stoppers. I'm looking forward to SP1 for Vista which is due next month. Hopefully that will provide the same performance that XP currently does.JimDell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0 ghz3 gb dual channel 800 mhz DDR2 RAM512 mb nvidia 8800GT500 gb SATA drive 7200 rpmSoundblaster X-Fi Xtreme Music22" Acer widescreen LCDWindows Vista Home Premium

[Guest stuarta]

Yep I'm running Vista Ultimate on my Dual Core 2.3ghz/2gb ram/7950GTS Dell laptop in my office and it runs like a bag of pants. I'm also currently running the RC version of SP1 and it makes no difference whatsoever, but I think a lot of it is the fact that it's on a big domain.Being the IT manager I took the decision to configure my laptop and a couple of others to run Vista in order to test it and I'm so glad I haven't run it out on many others yet.Homewise, I'm hoping it will be ok and guess it makes sense to prepare for DX10 and that my frame rates in FSX will be good.

[Tabs 2,790]

I'd go XP, the DX10 mode doesn't add much aside from the real time VC shadows (which don't work in the 400 anyway) and it's very noticeably slower than the DX9 version.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

I'm currently building a new system - E8400, ATI 3870X2, 2Gb PC8500, 2 500Gb Samsung Spinpoint to drive a Dell 24" @ 1920*1200.I'm sticking with XP. XP SP3 is currently in beta and reports suggest it gives a 10% improvement (doubt this would port through to FS but you never know). I would prefer the higher frame rates with XP/DX9 to the fancy but slower performance of DX10 with its limited features.Having looked at Vista on a friend's laptop I'm very unimpressed. I think Vista will have a comparatively short life and will be viewed in much the same way as Windows Me. A bit of a turkey!

[Guest]

no contest. For any new built or purchased machine, Vista.Only exception may be if it's to replace an existing machine (so you're going to scrap it) for which you have a retail version of XP Pro and you want to save a bit of money (not even that much, as the OEM versions of Vista aren't expensive and you'd qualify for buying it if you buy it from the same place you buy the components).Vista Home Premium should suffice.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons (other than monetary) why Vista should be chosen ahead of XP especially when others have reported worse FS performance with it.

[Geofa 108]

I traded up to Vista on my old machine-a p3.4.If there was a performance difference in fsx it must be minimal-I could not notice much of a difference -either improved or unimproved between the two. There is some learning to do on Vista though on how it works and how you want to customize it-it isn't just another xp with more features. I think that is what puts many off-one expects to just jump in and go (I know I did and was frustrated the first week). Kinda reminds me of a certain sim....If you read up on the tweakguides.com about vista there are I think some very good reasons to move up-and he very clearly states the changes/improvements, and common misinformation. (The guy is an expert on both xp and vista-there are good guides for both systems).Since it is free, I would suggest a good glance for a good overview.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Valcor 9]

I have seen ZERO difference in performance between Vista and XP on a GOOD machine.Yes, a slow CPU and low RAM would make for a slow Vista I'm sure. However, with a dual core and 2-4 gigs of RAM, you will not notice a difference in performance as far as FSX (or FS9) is concerned.User Access Control is the worst idea ever in Vista, but it is easily disabled. I keep my computer on auto-update and have the latest drivers for my peripherals, and I haven't had any problems.

[jkeye 150]

I have BOTH Vista and XP on the same Q6600 on different hard drives and an 8800GT card.On this high end system (IMHO),XP runs FSX much better.I use Vista for proper DX10 games-crysis,bioshock and World in conflict cos these are limited in XP.FSX IS NOT A DX10 GAME in it's current form and will never be either as no patches are planned-I only use the DX9 settings in FSX so that's not a consideration.Depends on what you need-if it's only for FSX,install XP.If you'll play DX10 games too,install both on a dual boot setup(time consuming,but I can help if you are thinking this way).RegardsJay

[bobbyjack 61]

My 2 centsEarly last year I bought a second computer.Computer 1 specs: P4,HT,2.4gh,800fsb,Audigy sound blaster,ati9550 agp,XPsp2,1.5gb ramComp 2 specs; Vista home basic,celeron D,3.4gh,533fsb,nvidia7300gs pcie,onboard sound,2 gb ramI know that there are alot of things to consider tweak-wise on both systems, and that I am just an average user. But this average user could not get comp 1 to out perform comp 2 using FS9. With those specs I did not even try FSX.It just seems to me that users need to get the most out of what they have. But they need to be foward thinking. I am not interested in a debate about weather or not vista is forward thinking. It is here and it is the future(which may be sad to some). I have upgraded the vista machine 3 times and now run FSX. Not really interested in looking back.Bob

[Guest]

I don't go about measuring performance differences in cases like this, especially as that difference on a decent system would be counted in parts of a percent most likely.Vista is the future, in many places XP is no longer on sale (hardly surprising as its replacement is Vista), it's more secure, easier overall to configure and use, stable (but then, so is XP).But most importantly, it's ready for the future. Don't expect your future hardware upgrades to come with XP in mind much longer, and software will require Vista even sooner (in fact the first Vista only packages are already here).The kids who scream you should stick with XP because "Vista zuxz" are the same who said the same thing about sticking with Win98 because "XP zuxz".

[Guest]

You can't turn a DX9 product into a DX10 product with a "patch", Jay.It would require a total rewrite.Which brings us right back to the age old misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "patch" among flightsim users, who are overall under the mistaken impression that anything is a "patch" that's a modification to or improvement of an existing product.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

Geof,The reason most FS users may upgrade to Vista is to take advantage of DX10 as this is not available to XP.However, DX10 in FSX is very limited. So even if you can tweak performance via one of those guides the general concensus (both here and in the professional IT world) is that something running on Vista is slower than on XP.If Vista and FSX really was that good then why have they not been more widely embraced? DX10 take up has been slow despite the hardware being reasonable priced and available.Your upgrade appears to have resulted in zero improvement. You must be disappointed in having spent all that money and not had any improvement. If a new OS is not going to make things faster then what exactly is its purpose?