Windows Vista 64bit and FU3

[Christopher Low 5,335]

Can anyone confirm that Fu3 runs ok with the 64bit version of Windows Vista? I will be buying a new PC shortly, and I need to know!

[Christopher Low 5,335]

Does anyone here run FU3 with Windows Vista64? I'm pretty sure that's the case, but I would like confirmation!

[juvat 0]

Chris,I don't have Vista, but JonP had previously posted how he had installed Flt3 on Vista. It was a 32bit I think.Sorry I couldn't help you,JimBhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...16687&mode=full

[Guest CaptRolo]

I have vista 64 bit on laptop ,although not FU3 installed but I have other 32 bit programs installed and no problem.CaptRolo

[Christopher Low 5,335]

Well, I haven't installed FU3 yet on my new Vista64 PC, but I am very pleased indeed so far with my new super computer (Core 2 Quad Q9550, 512MB GeForce 9800GT, 4GB PC2-8500 RAM). The only annoying aspect of Vista concerns those popup windows that keep asking for confirmation that I really want to do what I have told it to do!

[Hans_Petter 1]

Vista is bent on security. Nothing is allowed to run unless you really really insist. I wonder who benefits from this? A tip, many applications won't do a thing unless you run them "as administrator". Lots of our FU III tools come in that category (GenQuadrant etc). Whenever you try to launch an application and nothing happens, please check whether it helps to run it as administrator. You may right-click the shortcut or the *.exe itself, select "properties" and choose administrator or (previous OS) compatibility mode.I skipped XP (went from Win2000 to Vista) but I'm using XP a lot at work. It seems to do everything as intended and it's rock stable. I installed Vista since it came pre-installed on my new PC. I still consider it to be akin to XP except that it's bogged down by warnings and confirmation requests that nobody feels happy about. Everybody I know "learns to live with Vista" but they see nothing that it does better than XP did. What was the incentive to create a next OS that implements no new features but lotsa new warnings? We all have firewalls and anti-virus already. What's the concern based upon?

[agtim 0]

A member of my family has a vista notebook. I have stopped this annoying questions and checks by disabling the User security check function. I don't know the exact path, it was a German version of vista. now it's a bit less secure but don't asking anymore and you must not be administrator :-):-wave Andre

[Guest R_Driscoll]

I use FU3 extensively on Vista. It runs with no problems.Its much more difficult to do build/design work though:1) Notepad on my computer won't load what you point it at - you have to load your textfile through the FILES menu.2) My graphics program won't install (I think the problem here was not enough disk space! - i.e. misreporting)3) I had to 'teach' it each program one by one, solving different problems each time. For example, MODELVIEW wouldn't work until I'd run it first in a DOS command prompt (and Vista hates DOS command boxes) - now it runs OK. Many times I've had to edit the properties box.4) BAT files are peculiar (batch files: allowing you to do muliple jobs at once, the original reason for multi-task computing) - I had to change the assignment keys for this several times so that you could both run and edit them, eventually it seemed to work.The lesson here is very little works as it did, is called what it used to be called, is located where it used to be, or runs as it did before. Its a major leap forward. Well maybe not forward, more sideways. It looks beautiful, but its had me swearing at it many times. But you can get it to work with persistence, and then its adequate.My biggest gripe with all the windows operating systems is the loss of "context", the ability to move into a folder and just work there. For example, let's say I move to FU3storetextures. I double click on a texture, and it loads in the default graphisc application, all fine so far.But now I want the next texture, so I open up the FILE/OPEN menu, and its pointing me off to some distant folder (like 'my documents') and I have to navigate again back to my texture folder. And every new application I start has to be taught where I'm working. Loss of context. This to me is the greatest frustration with Windows. It wastes times, but more importantly breaks your task thinking. Its become worse with Vista because of the number of strange off-disk directories each program wants to point you to. And if I save without thinking, it will put the saved file in some far off unknown land, called maybe new documents8c3025~htempmyobscurefiles1. Then I have to search for it.Probably its easier for newbies, but it does make it difficult for sorting and categorising using the folders.Cheers all,Robert.

[agtim 0]

Hi Robert,yes it's exactly like that and this is why I will stay with WinXP for the next years :-), but nice to hear that FU3 still works.:-wave Andre

[Guest Robert_S]

I'm avoiding Windows Vista like the plague, Andre.[table][tr][td valign=top]http://www.avsim.com/other/usaribbon.gif[/td][td valign=center]Bob "FlyBert" StilesAVSIM Moderator[/b][/td][/tr][/table]"Don't stall on me, I have to soar!"~Richard Harvey, 1/21/2003

[Guest fu3]

S'funny, you know.Vista seems to have caused more problems than its worth for Micro$oft. So much so, it is unlikely that much will be done to it pre-Win7. I mean, there are lots of fixes being released by Redmond but, sadly for most apps-driven users at least none of them 'fix' it.I don't agree that 64-bit is 'the way to go' at all and maybe the backroom boffins should have ignored the marketers. All I know is that I use a lot of software to do my job. Design stuff, build things, test them, do the copy, the manuals, the labels, bills of material, CAD files for manufacturing etc. Most of this software is not available in a true 64-bit version ("Vista 64 compatible" is not true 64-bit necessarily). What we need, ladies and gentlemen, is a platform-independent OS. Strip it to the bare essentials and put the 'meat' into the application software and peripherals. Oh, we already have UNIX? :-lolRegards,Jon Point

[Christopher Low 5,335]

Jon,If we don't switch to 64bit, then we are always going to be stuck with a maximum of 4GB RAM. You can't address any more than that with a 32bit operating system.At the moment, I am not having any problems whatsoever with Windows Vista64. GT Legends required an update of the Starforce drivers, but all of my other software is working perfectly with it. Since I am not intending to run any ancient software (with the possible exception of FU3), I probably don't have much to worry about.

[Guest fu3]

Chris,The 4GB 32-bit limit is OS-forced. It is actually 2GB for the system and 2GB for user processes and stuff. This can be increased to 3GB using the '/3gb' switch in "boot.ini". This method (4GT) allows up to 3GB to be addressed in XP Pro, 2Kserver and 2003server - IF it can be addressed by the software.Also see:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366912.aspxIn any case, 99% of Vista users are using 'old' software, so what's the point? As Microsoft says:"On 64-bit editions of Windows, 32-bit applications marked with the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag have 4 GB of address space available.""Only processes that have the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header have access to memory above 2 gigabytes (GB)."And virtually none does. Development of 32-bit software that can address past 2GB is minimal as it would crash on most PCs :-roll Development of 64-bit software is, well, slow. Multi-processor software is likewise.As usual, Microsoft DO have a way out - it's called "VirtualAlloc" - see:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366887.aspxHowever, it is crippled for Win2K & Vista in that the "MEM_LARGE_PAGES" is disabled (and so is "MEM_WRITE_WATCH" for Win2K). I suppose this means that it may allow 32-bit Vista Home users to utilise more RAM - assuming that they are running software that needs it. Someone said that even Vista64 will only use about 3GB of RAM on Intel machines, I guess this is the fix!Most of the performance improvement with new MBs and processors is due to cache improvements and moving a lot of traffic and crunching back out of the processor core, where it is more easily accessed by peripherals. Using multiple cores, this is a necessity, so even if the software doesn't 'use' the cores properly, the architecture gives most apps a boost. Give it a true Quad-core application and it would probably slow down a lot due to lots of traffic on the busses. Also, in a rare stroke of jealousy, I wouldn't say that your video card isn't making the most of it as well, especially if you are running Aero ;)The problem for us users of dinoware is that it was written to operate on much less memory and, although it can be allowed to 'bloat' by turning all the sliders up and modding the cfg file, it uses that memory in a very inefficient manner, as the core processes are all still stuck 'uptown' with the OS core processes in the top block. By necessity in the Pentium II days, this area was probably no larger than 64MB, and probably 32MB. It can probably cache stuff outside there, but I don't know if it could do much else.This explains the bizarre memory writes and stuff I've noticed when taking memory snapshots. Bad memory clashes (usually 'out-of-range' always crash the main process (flight3.exe) and a CTD results. That is why almost any fault results in a CTD - everything is locked into one process' memory allocation. Now, if we could move some non-core functions out of the main .EXE file, like menu views, sounds, atc etc., and just leave the core 'game' running, those other functions could access their own memory, instead of fighting between the OS and the main .EXE file for it. The more I learn about this, the more interesting it gets, however I'm no closer to being able to do anything about it :-lolHorribly off-topic, chaps - my apologies. Back to bridges :-waveRegards,Jon Point

[Christopher Low 5,335]

Jon,I have absolutely no intention of running Aero :-)As for development of 64bit software, and software that utilises multiple cores, I would say that the latter will almost certainly catch on very quickly. ALL new processors are AT LEAST dual core, so not writing software to take advantage of this would be rather silly. As for the former.....we all know that upcoming software will eventually need more than 4GB RAM to run smoothly. It's inevitable. When that day arrives, exclusively 32bit operating systems will become obsolete. Yes, that might not be the situation just yet, but the day WILL arrive sooner or later.

[Hans_Petter 1]

Since we're drifting off topic anyway here's a question, will Aero slow down the computer when it's running a sim? For those who don't know, "Aero" is responsible for the semi-transparent folder edges in Vista. It's also involved in the 3D folder view effect. It can be turned off. However, when you run a sim / game with no Aero features, will Aero still tax the system in the background? I've been turning it on and off. If it slows down performance even when no Aero effects are being displayed I'll leave it off.