XP or Vista 64

[happytraveller]

I am getting more and more frustrated with Vista 32. Lots of small niggles with it, and not just for the flight simming either. Saw some screenshots from someone who was using Vista 64 and 8GB of RAM, and it got me thinking about whether a change to Vista 64 bit and even more RAM (currently have 4GB but can only use 3.5 of that due to Vista 32 limits) might be the way to go. I have also looked into re-installing XP again, but apart from re-installing drivers, the only bad thing about that would be that I would have to re-install FSX again, and all the registry keys etc would have to be downloaded again. Seems like many people are going back to XP, but then I read that Vista was designed to optimise the use of multi cores, and that whether we like it or not, that it is going to be the way forward (arn't Microsoft bringing out a new operating system soon????). So that also made me think, does XP fully support multi core processors as well.

So the more that I look into changing away from Vista32, the more confused that I am getting. Have any other NZFFers changed from Vista 32, and if so was it 'up' (not sure if it is an improvement) to Vista 64 bit, or 'down' to XP. XP worked fine for me before, whereas Vista is still frustrating......

advise please!!

smooth landings.

[Adamski]

QUOTE (happytraveller @ Nov 19 2008, 03:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am getting more and more frustrated with Vista 32. Lots of small niggles with it, and not just for the flight simming either. Saw some screenshots from someone who was using Vista 64 and 8GB of RAM, and it got me thinking about whether a change to Vista 64 bit and even more RAM (currently have 4GB but can only use 3.5 of that due to Vista 32 limits) might be the way to go. I have also looked into re-installing XP again, but apart from re-installing drivers, the only bad thing about that would be that I would have to re-install FSX again, and all the registry keys etc would have to be downloaded again. Seems like many people are going back to XP, but then I read that Vista was designed to optimise the use of multi cores, and that whether we like it or not, that it is going to be the way forward (arn't Microsoft bringing out a new operating system soon????). So that also made me think, does XP fully support multi core processors as well.

So the more that I look into changing away from Vista32, the more confused that I am getting. Have any other NZFFers changed from Vista 32, and if so was it 'up' (not sure if it is an improvement) to Vista 64 bit, or 'down' to XP. XP worked fine for me before, whereas Vista is still frustrating......

I'm on record (here in other threads) stating that Vista is the biggest pile of steaming brown stuff since WindowsMe. Apart from the multi-core features (which I think are dubious) I don't see a single thing in all the time I've run Vista that I couldn't already do in XP. Worse - I've had wi-fi problems that just couldn't be solved. The problem is that it came with my upgraded PC, so I've never run FSX on XP. All I can say is that it's *slower* than my old system: XP + FS9 [sigh].

I'd be tempted to "go retro". Reinstall *XP* and leap-frog this Vista crud - spinning it out for as long as you can, till the new MS offering comes along.

[Charl]

Suffice to say, when I last bought a PC, I was asked if games were what it was about.
The answer of course, was "Yes" - do you know anyone who runs a hot 3D card for spreadsheets??
Result was I was Upgraded to XP from the standard-issue Vista. (Their words, not mine)

Vista I suspect had a lot to do with the sad saga that was the launch of FSX.
I don't think they will fix it until SP2...perhaps.

[Adamski]

QUOTE (Charl @ Nov 19 2008, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Result was I was Upgraded to XP from the standard-issue Vista. (Their words, not mine)

Hahaha ... love that one! The problem is, we tend to be such *suckers* for "upgrades".

Looking back though (and I've used Windows machines since Win 3.1) ... XP has settled down to be one of the best. My main (work) PC has hardly missed a beat in *years* ... and has no end of software running happily (usually concurrently) on it.

I'd say .. GO FOR IT ... UPGRADE TO XP!!!!

[brownbox]

its funny, all this talk on vista being cr@p, and i dont have any problems at all....
IMO, dont bother with 64 bit. It seems to be more trouble than its worth.

[dbcunnz]

I have got two HDDs set up one running win XP Home for my everyday CP use and one setup with Win XP Pro x64 edition with just my FSX installed on it and nothing else.
I have 4GB DDR 400 the Win XP Home will only pick up 3GB but the Win XP Pro x64 will use the full 4GB.
I found that when I changed from FS9 to FSX the FSX runs far better on the Win XP Pro x64 than on the 32bit system.
It is just a matter of on the boot up to go into the bios to change to the HDD I want to use.

[gokanru]

Well I have used both Vista with SP1 and XP with SP3.No matter which way you look at it Vista is definately a downgrade.Vista came out with bugs which microsoft knew about,and it still can't run many of the programs that XP can,that's a downgrade straight away.Vista,as an operating system reminds me of ME when it came out,there were those that hated it and those that reckoned that it was ok.For my money,Vista was a complete waste of money,XP with SP3 is a far more stable system,and it can run more programs than Vista with SP1.FSX runs on XP with no problems,On vista,well I'm not even going there.I personally wouldn't touch Vista with a barge pole,even with a health inspector on the end of it.

[Peppermint]

QUOTE (brownbox @ Nov 19 2008, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

its funny, all this talk on vista being cr@p, and i dont have any problems at all....
IMO, dont bother with 64 bit. It seems to be more trouble than its worth.

Well I guess I'll be finding out the hard way then. Been skeptical about going to vista let alone going to a 64bit system. Going into town tomorrow to order a new computer.

The new windows is supposed to be out next year. I haven't tried all the OS out there, only 98 and XP. But from what I've SEEN and HEARD is that MS always comes out with a 'temporary' new OS in between the good ones. Windows 95 and 2000/me come to mind. Honestly I don't think it's right for MS to put out an OS and charge everyone bucket loads for it if it's not ready and there will be a new version in the next 2 years.

[happytraveller]

Many thanks for the replies, just what I wanted!! Looking like the opinion is to change back to XP and perhaps XP Pro64 as well. It is not only for FSX that Vista is annoying me, many other things as well, like photos and music that Vista seems to handle in odd ways. Also the number of times that things have stopped responding, plus all the other messages from Vista, things like not being able to delete things despite having administrator powers. So I will now look at XP64.

Thanks for the helpful comments and advice,

smooth landings.

[ronindanbo]

I find Vista 64 to be a very good stable system, I run a quad and it seems to handle the architecture very efficiently. With Vista everyone needs to be aware it is extremely locked down and my biggest advice is to disable UAC (User Account Control) and never install anything into the default Programs folders (programs(x846) ) directorys as they are defaulted down to read only.

[cowpatz]

I have a friend who has SP2 for Vista. He was ready to go back to XP until the BETA came out. In his words (and on his system) he said it speed it up by around 60% and it was stable as.
I am running Vista 64 with no probs at all. Is it worth the upgrade from XP ?...debatable but then SP2 might just make the difference. It is almost worth it for the sleep function alone.

[markll]

It's amazing the cr@p you see around about MS operating systems....Vista sux go back to XP, go to x64 cos its faster, etc etc etc.

I've been using Vista for YEARS and YEARS (I was on the early beta test programmes, and I've even used the original preview release back in 2003).

You know what? Vista isn't a bad OS, quite the opposite in fact. They actually pulled out a whole bunch of stuff that was in the original release, to make it more like XP. It's really not that much different to XP from a kernel point of view - whats changed is the security model, and the "user experience" features. You go to Vista and start using the new Explorer address bar, and I guarantee you will like it. How about the start menu search option? The start menu itself is now a list box rather than a menu, makes a huge difference. It's not slower in my experience, and nor is x64 faster than x32.

Oh, and one more thing - you know Windows 7, which is due out next year? It's just a tweak on Vista itself. They haven't even changed the major version number!!! It's actually still Windows 6!

The problem with Vista was the fact that the hardware vendors got sick of MS promising a new OS, and were universally half arsed about getting drivers out for it when it came out. Hell, it's been available for 2 years now, and I've still got (recent) hardware that doesn't have drivers available. It's only been in the last 6-8 months or so that Saitek have had Vista drivers for the X52 for example...

So, in my opinion, stop bleating about the Microsoft and have a go at the hardware vendors instead!!

[victor_alpha_charlie]

What we need to remember is that Vista and XP are like FS9 and FSX in a way- they both work differently on different computers. You hear nightmare tales of people trying to use Vista/FSX, but just as many of them working perfectly on other systems that aren't necessarily any higher specced. It just comes down to whatever works for you.