Sign in to follow this  
awf

Vista or XP

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<>Wasn't it Dell who were forced to reintroduce XP to its laptops such was the outcry when they only offered Vista? And if Vista is the future why is Microsoft about to release SP3 for XP? That suggests to me that XP still has plenty of life left in it.I don't doubt that Vista is more secure (do you like DRM?) and prettier with the aero interface but do you honestly believe it's easier to use and run programs when the user is prevented from writing to the Program Files area? And having to right-click an executable to run in Administrator Mode when your account has administrator privileges?There is a case for moving to a 64-bit OS and no doubt the day will come when I will. I see no advantages in a 32-bit Vista. The next version of FS will hopefully require a 64-bit OS and that is when I'll move.I'm certainly no kid and I normally change to the latest OS but the whole timing of FSX, Vista and the required hardware for DX10 has been a nightmare. Hopefully Microsoft will learn from the debacle and things will be better for FSXI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all disappointed.I have 4 computers 3-with xp and one (my flight sim computer with Vista).After using Vista I really don't like going back to the Xp machines-but as they are older and I don't want to pay for 3 new licenses I leave Xp on.Xp really feels dated and I miss all the new options/features of Vista.I didn't upgrade to Vista for Dx10. I would advise anyone that this is not a reason to move to Vista. I also did not expect performance to increase-as more features always means more computational cycles-same as I did not expect fsx to run faster than fs9. However, I was suprised that Vista seems to run fsx about the same-if there is a difference I can't tell. I have a feeling a lot of decisions are made before a user has really tried it out fully, seen what it is capable of, and most importantly realized that it might be different and need a slight learning curve. The first week I owned Vista I ranted on the MS Vista board that this was the worst operating system I have ever used. I now wish I could erase the post. Turning of uac was mostly the source of my rage-and turning it off was one click away (maybe two).As for the general consensus-I usually like to make up my own mind, and find often rumor/consensus is not always right. Again-I'd advise anyone to read the free guides listed above so one can be informed as to what Vista will and will not do. http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.Take a look at RESETMCP's Benchmark thread in the Hardware forum, and you'll see the difference, even on my machine, and it is very noticeable. I have both XP and Vista and can see the difference. FSX SP2 does make up for some of it, but I only use that on my Vista boot disk, and very rarely, due to it's other design problems! Word is Vista SP1 should been Vista performance to XP levels. We'll see!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XP...DX 10 is a "non event" in FSX, in terms of REAL mesurable improvement in both apearance and performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stupid. Vista isn't just about DX10.And you're thinking short term, and in typical narrowminded fashion too. There's more to life than FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed. Vista is no problem at all. I like it better than XP and I've only been using it about 2 months. Turn off UAC and make sure you're running with admin privileges and you won't have any problems at all. I'm running all sorts of software - some quite old (NR2003 with a ton of mods, MAME, FS9) it all runs just as well as it did under XP. No draconian privacy intrusions on the part of MS either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a terrible idea to run most of your program in Administrative mode. If you get hacked then they will have access to everything and every password in your system. This indeed why its done that way in Vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>stupid. Vista isn't just about DX10.>And you're thinking short term, and in typical narrowminded>fashion too. >There's more to life than FSX.Looks to me you are the kid here, calling kids and saying other people are stupid just because they prefer XP to Vista. Get your act together. For what it's worth, i also prefer XP and i have both installed. Vista is problems after problems. My opinion is also to stay with XP until FS11.You can call me a 44 year old kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have run FSX on both operating systems, but with different computers, so I can't really make a comparison.However, i am currently running Vista/Q6600/8500GT, and I am well satisfied with the FSX/SP2 performance. I have air traffic set at 65%, with most of the other settings midrange, and everything is quite smooth. Things get too crowded for my tastes if I step the traffic up further. I am hoping for more improvement with Vista SP1, but if not the system is fine as is.I have become accustomed to Vista after a 4 month learning transition that included a lot of four letter words, but would not now go back to XP.I am also one of those that think future hardware/software will be Vista oriented. Having said that though, I definitely would not base a decision on OS's on the ability to use FSX with DX10 Preview. I have just recently (and briefly) run FSX with DX10 Preview active, and my personal opinion is that it was vastly over-rated.Also be aware that Vista introduces some new problems in transitioning old (including FS-2004) add-on aircraft and other associated software, but I think it is worth the effort.Regards,Thrakete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this