Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest

so what really is the verdict with Vista?

Recommended Posts

I'm debating on getting vista - it seems a here a lot of imcompat. issues with it and yet I hear people with FSX that it is running wellis this true? what really are the issues?thanksciao!Brian S

Share this post


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

I am going through the same review. There are many posts describing issues with Vista and FSX, both good and bad. The incompatibly problems are decreasing as time heals most of them via service packs. :) I do believe that those with the most problems upgraded an XP installation vice a fresh install of Vista.I have been using FS since the first issue of Sublogic's flight simulator on my Apple II. I have never seen such a broad range of unique problems. Is just seems that no one shares the same experience relative to performance and quality. Plus, I'm concerned about Microsoft playing hardball concerning upgrading to Vista. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186357.jpgTherefore I am moving toward a fresh install of Vista. BTW the picture is tongue in cheek humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Brian,Really the only way to see if these similar issues will affect you is to run vista on your machine. There is an option you can try, I did it for 30 days then purchased Vista and entered the Key, it works fine now.Dual-Boot a trial version of Vista on your PC with XP. Installing Vista to a seperate partition can allow you to 'try' before you buy. Vista will allow you to install without a Product Key and run for 30 days. You will need to obtain Vista media, and of course pirating the software is out of the question. Do you have a friend or family member with a Vista DVD? You can use their media ONLY to install without the key and run for 30 days.I would suggest if possible to install SP1 soon after the install. SP1 resolved a number of incompat. issues and performance for me.Feel free to ask more questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year I bought a cheap compaq with vista home basic. and upgraded it to specs below. It may always be better to buy a full install rather than upgrade an OS. Once you learn how to use Vista(what to turn off)it works fine. There are some programs that do not work in Vista. If you can buy upgrades, thats better anyway. No FS issues.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I think I will be sticking with xp, right now I've got other things I would rather spend $240 on...it's just that i just installed a new 250g hd and i was just thinking it would be kind of nice, but.... i will hang off for nowthanks for the info though.ciao!Brian S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good decision. There is nothing wrong with XP, and there is no need to upgrade yet on an existing computer. On a new computer, Vista is fine with FSX.ArtNow flying with: Biostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX (SP1-SP2), Vista Home Premium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What version of Vista?Vista x64 Ultimate did NOT work at all well for me, lots of issues from "Stopped responding", to CTD with no information then after 3 tries it would just work for a while, and numerous other problems. I installed SP1 for Vista x64 and that made matters even worse with NO performance improvement (this is a Quad core extreme X9650 with 4GB RAM and 8800GTX) Vista rating was 5.9 in ALL areas.So I went back to WinXP (32bit) and it's like I'm running a new FSX product, sure I don't have "DX10 Preview" mode, but to be honest it really didn't appear to benefit my system performance wise or visually. But I'm back on WinXP now and the visuals are much better and rarely do I get the blurries as bad as I did under Vista.This is just my experience with Vista x64 Ultimate (there are many flavors of Vista).On WinXP (32bit) now and very pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Jason,I had completely the opposite experience with SP1 for Vista -- SP1 was so bad I removed Vista completely. What version of Vista were you using? I WAS (now back on WinXP) running Vista x64 Ultimate and it was a new install, not an upgrade. Vista score was 5.9.I had regular CTD, about a 10-20% performance reduction. I have not experience a single CTD, BSOD, or Not Responding problem since I moved back to WinXP.Unfortunately I was not able to diagnose why Vista x64 Ultimate was having so many problems as the "problem reporting" would rarely come back with any useful fix or recommendation. Like many others, I was hoping SP1 would fix many issues, but it didn't in my case.I spent many hours R&D looking for solutions and only found that a lot of other folks were having the same type of problems with SP1 and Vista x64. I don't know if this is ONLY specific to the x64 version of Vista and I do know people that aren't having issues but they also don't play games on Vista x64. Many of my older DX9 titles were very flakey, sometimes they would work, sometimes they wouldn't.Anyway, back on WinXP 32bit and all is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im using vista 64 bit, and had msvcr80.dll crashes with fsx sp2, so i got rid of sp2 and I ahvent had these problems. I runa dual boot with xp and vista and my xp sp2 setup doesnt have msvcr80.dll crashes, but I am in the process of solving api.dll crashes. My performance in vista is pertty much the same as xp with fsx, but crysis performs much better in xp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used Vista (HP64) about a year ago and found it terrible. It was slow, nonresponsive, instable and buggy.However, I retried it a month ago on a new computer (iMac) and it works like a charm. It is fast, responsive, stable and mature.This may be due to some patches, that have been made available in the meantime, but I personally think that it is mostly hardware-dependant. Perhaps Win XP was more capable of keeping on going even though the hardware was buggy. Or the drivers for Vista were too buggy a year ago and were not up to snuff compared to their XP-counterparts.While I do not think that Vista can compare to OSX, I really enjoy it as my gaming-system. And honestly, I greatly prefer it over XP with its abundance of inconsistencies and drab looks. However, this is my personal opinion and other people may feel differently.There is a strong tendency in the Microsoft Community to stay with known applications, even if there are superiour alternatives. Many users use their applications like magic charms: If cast exactly right, some arcane gestures will produce the desired effect. While this is an efficient way to deal with matters that one does not understand, it will prohibit any cross-application knowledge of the underlying usage princibles and thus make the user reluctant to changes to say the least.In other communities it is normal to try many an application until the right one is found that suits ones needs. On the process of doing so, the user will get to know the ideas that lurk behind the interfaces and thus, he will be able to switch applications effortlessly and even welcome changes.In my understanding, this is the reason, why so many people still cling to Windows XP like their life-raft and diffame anything that is merely *different* as being automatically *evil*.Of course this may or may not apply to you, but it is a concept worth thinking of. Why not try something new, and try to do things *the new way* instead of just registering every incompatibility with the old beliefs as bad without trying?After all, this is the only way that works if you switch over to Linux or OSX -- and I use all four of them on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista is much better than most of the negative hype would have you believe.But, I would NEVER recommend upgrading an XP machine to Vista unless you had a critical application which absolutley required Vista.On any given machine - games are going to run faster/ smoother on XP than on Vista on the same machine.XP simply takes less of the machine resources - leaving more for the game.Personally, I like the rock solid operation of Vista. I've never had a blue screen or had FS crash my Vista computer. And I've tried FS2004 and FSX things which will blue screen or cause a reboot every time on XP.Now Vista does have a new security model and many people run into issues with how that works. I strongly recommend that FS2004 or FSX not be installed in the Program Files folder. Being an administrator on a Vista computer does not give you the same rights in systems folders as being an administrator on an XP computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Vista is much better than most of the negative hype would>have you believe.>Correct.>But, I would NEVER recommend upgrading an XP machine to Vista>unless you had a critical application which absolutley>required Vista.>Also correct. It's not better by a large enough margin to warrant the upgrade, but is so better to warrant buying it with new hardware.>On any given machine - games are going to run faster/ smoother>on XP than on Vista on the same machine.>Possibly, but not necessarilly. Depends on the game and the hardware.>XP simply takes less of the machine resources - leaving more>for the game.>Which is only a factor if your hardware (mainly RAM) is a limiting factor.>Personally, I like the rock solid operation of Vista. I've>never had a blue screen or had FS crash my Vista computer. AndSame here (mind I don't run it on gaming systems, I run it on 2 development machines, both laptops).I've seen people having bluescreens with Vista, but the rate is no higher (and probably lower) than with XP and was caused by faulty 3rd party software (a quick system update a few days after the machines were rolled out and no more bluescreens).>Now Vista does have a new security model and many people run>into issues with how that works. I strongly recommend thatCorrect. New ways of doing things always seem to set people off.Yet when things stay the same those same people are angry that things don't seem to change. Go figure...>FS2004 or FSX not be installed in the Program Files folder.>Being an administrator on a Vista computer does not give you>the same rights in systems folders as being an administrator>on an XP computer.Though you can give yourself those privileges quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PaperFlyer,When you started mentioning "evil" I pretty much tuned out as you contribution isn't terribly helpful.I have Vista x64 on my MacPro along with OS X 10.5.2. OS X is rock solid and very usable. Vista works great so long as I don't play games on it. Hence why I have a dedicated PC for gaming that is now running WinXP 32bit.Every single article I've read AND my own testing shows Vista as being about 10-20% slower across the board.BUT, rumor is that Microsoft are pushing the OS development group to get the next OS out in 2009 rather than 2010. It should be obvious why this is significant, but Vista is NOT doing so well on a consumer front and a business front.New eye candy on a OS doesn't make it better. Eye candy is reserved for gaming, like FSX for example. Currently WinXP IS the best choice for anyone that wants to run FSX or any game. Have you run Crysis DX10 under Vista? OMG is it slow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of that improvement is deep down under the hood, far away from the user interface.It's the same as the difference between FS2002 and FS2004.When FS2004 was introduced there was a flood of complaints that it was "just a patch to FS2002", "FS2002 with some fancy graphics", etc. etc.It isn't, it's a major upgrade, but most of that's invisible to the naked eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>PaperFlyer,>>When you started mentioning "evil" I pretty much tuned out as>you contribution isn't terribly helpful.Considering that he didn't use the word "evil" until the next to last paragraph, you obviously "tuned out" far before that point......especially since what he wrote was mostly positive experience with Vista... :-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until someone can show me where FXS runs, smoother, faster, or looks much better running on Vista vs. XP, why should I bother to upgrade? Will, Vista make FSX look better than with GEX & UTX added and running on XP? If not, I will save my money.Will Vista run FSX so much faster on my CoreDuo, 8800GT, 2 gig unit than XP that my jaw drops and I wet my pants in glee? If not, I will save my money.Nothing against Vista. Unlike FS9 to FSX, I just don't see a reason to upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right for upgrades, but there's no reason to not go Vista with new machines by now unless you're bound to some software for which there's no Vista version you can use (or no viable Vista compatible alternative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites