Windows XP

R

runswithscissors

Charter Member
Hi all after a short break from flyin I have returned and am wondering what the consensus is on the use of XP with FSX is. I am not setting the stage here for a Vista vs XP debate. Also wondering if the DX-10 issues been improved in Vista.

Doug
 
Well I went back from Vista 64 to XP Pro and find it a little quicker and more responsive...



But I had no real issues with Vista eighter once I got used to it....


DX10 never worked good for me, but I was having issues with my rig at the time too....
 
I truly believe vista is 'less stable' for handling FS9 and FSX. WinXP seemed to hanle them both quite well. With WinXP, I never had so many CTD's and issues with files disappearing. Also, vista seems to increase the 'stutter', (wierd jumps and things in FSX). vista seems to take 'moments' booting something up. It will appear to be frozen for 1 to 3 seconds. By that time, I have reclicked a program 2 more times, only to find it boots up 3 of the same programs. (Seconds counted as 'one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand). FS Bootup time seems slower as well, waiting for a screen to popup, etc.

By the way. You cant run DX10 with WinXP, as you probably know. DX10 is designed for vista only. Thus DX9 is the last version of Direct X for WinXP. (I am sure you already knew that. Just wanted to add that for others that may not know).



Bill
 
I purged Vista from my rig about a month or so ago.
Was running a duel boot setup thank glod.

I was never happy with the Nvidea drivers for vista with FSX, AA didnt work properly and VSync didnt work at all under DX10, both worked under DX9. Lots of driver crashes under both.

Only advantage for me in FSX with vista was the loading times were better than XP but I can live with the longer loading times for a more stable, less jaggie experience.

I like the desktop envierement in vista though but that wasnt what I bought it for.
 
I participated with a survey MS was doing about a year ago. Received VISTA Ultimate from them, as "compensation" for that, and it is still on my shelf. I have never installed it.

I might not. XP pro, media edition 2005 has served me just fine.

NC
 
YUP...Lionheart....Thats true of Vista...I call it the Vista lag....Its slower to respond and can be annoying to open things.....


It is said that XP is 10% faster than Vista and that means about 2-4 frames faster in FSX...
 
Well I have never run FsX/Acceleration with anything but Vista Home premium (32 bit). I have used nothing but Dx10.1 preview mode since July, when I discovered how well the Nvidia drivers (177 onwards) could display FsX in Dx10.1. I never go back to Dx9c these days as it makes my Fsx look like a crisp Fs9 rather than the new sim it truely is.
To tame Vista I turned UAC off and removed most of the frame eating animations that are unnecessary for a gamers pc.

My PC...

Asus Maximus mobo,
Q6600 quad core (SLACR) processor over-clocked to 3.3 gigaHz,
4 gig DDR3 1.6 gigaHz ram,
Zalman cpu fan,
GF8800GTX vid card,
 
I like Vista 64 for surfing and Vista 32 for flying...no problems...I still boot into XP Pro once in a while...Mike
 
I thought someone once did some testing and found that the ideal circomstances for FSX is a highly overclocked Quad core on Vista 64-bit.
 
Fact is that FsX is a step towards FsXI and that will not by all accounts be anything other than Dx10+. So I'm hoping to get a foot-hold on the future of FsXI.
 
I failed to bring up one major thing. When I first installed Vista, it burnt up my new video and also smoked my high dollar processor, then it started sparking and caught my desk on fire,then the curtains, when the house finally burnt down a few pieces of burnt lumber fell on the cars and total them too....just goes to show ya how powerful Vista really is:costumes:
 
hey_moe said:
I failed to bring up one major thing. When I first installed Vista, it burnt up my new video and also smoked my high dollar processor, then it started sparking and caught my desk on fire,then the curtains, when the house finally burnt down a few pieces of burnt lumber fell on the cars and total them too....just goes to show ya how powerful Vista really is:costumes:
Click to expand...



:jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop:
 
I was originally gonna set up a dual boot system with XP Pro 32 bit and Vista 64 bit, but decided against it. My rig runs cool and stable on XP with very few OS issues. What issues I have are minor. I'll worry about FS11 when the time comes. If I was into other games like COD4 or Crysis I'd reconsider, but I really have no interest in anything but FS, and DX10 just does not impress me. As far as using as much RAM as possible, I tweaked my FSX.exe file to use >2.0Gb and it seems to work fine. FSX is more CPU dependent anyway. That being said, I'll stick with XP at least for the forseeable future... :wiggle:
 
Far Cry 2 under DX10 isn't that impressive. Well, could be because the game itself blows...


I'm new to Vista 64 and at the moment it's a relationship based on sheer hate. F:censored: OS makes me scream every once in a while, yet I know I would be worse off with XP64.
I'll just sit the crisis out.

After all, performance isn't that bad, slightly better than XP32.
 
kilo delta said:
You need to try Far Cry2 under DX10..............WOW!!
Click to expand...

I got to play some demos from Orange Box. DANG!!!! Light Blume, water effects, the sky, visual distances from afar off, bump mapping on the old brick/mortar buildings exteriors, light shining through windows... Amazing!




Bill
 
I have a dual boot system with Vista Ultimate 32bit on one drive and XP Pro on another. For my work in FSX, I find that XP runs overall better with a higher FPS of 3-5 FPS. I can't fight the numbers. I do my work in XP.

For gaming though, I use Vista... games like Crysis, Far Cry 2, etc etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top