Hey Roger

[hey_moe]

I went ahead and installed FSX and everything I have on Vista on the XP hard drive. Both a on a seperate drive with the same set up. I noticed that my FPS are near the 50's in XP and on Vista in the high 20's. It's about the same using DX10....have you noticed this on you set up...Mike:isadizzy:

[Lionheart]

Dang.....

:faint:




Bill

[Roger]

Moe,
I've never run FsX on XP so I've never been able to compare. I've locked FsX to 20fps and I rarely see it drop below 20. Frame rates in Dx10 are a little better for me and I don't get those little "jumps" in Dx10 that I got in Dx9c. However after the thread about "Deleting the page file" and deleting mine I don't get those jumps in Dx9c anymore.
You will know, I'm sure, about disabling UAC and Indexing in Vista both make quite a difference! I can get 50 or 60 fps in sparse areas but 20 does me fine.
I noticed the otherday that I have far too many processes running (60+) so I'm trying to get to grips with "Alacrity".

[hey_moe]

I have experimented with both of the OS. Both Vista and XP have a boatload of stuff for remote acc. that is really not need for 75% of the public. Vista being the worse but I like Vista64. XP has the same problem but it is more stable. I feel DX10 was a wash out for MS because it really did nothing with it. It looks ok in Vista but money wize I feel DX10 wasn't worth the trouble...Mike

[Daube]

I went ahead and installed FSX and everything I have on Vista on the XP hard drive. Both a on a seperate drive with the same set up. I noticed that my FPS are near the 50's in XP and on Vista in the high 20's. It's about the same using DX10....have you noticed this on you set up...Mike:isadizzy:

From what I could read here and there concerning the performance of FSX in Vista, there are always two main points to watch closely:
- the useless services must be deactivated from Vista
- the correct hardware drivers (not only the video card) must be installed.
Sorry I can't give more details than that, since I do not have Vista, but I have seen several users (here or Simviation or FlightsimWorld or forums from my country) reporting that DX10 brings additionnal performance. Some users even refuse to go back to DX9, despite the textures issues, due to the big performance loss.

[Nick C]

Guys, Black Viper has a website up and running again which lists all the services in Vista SP1, what they do and which you can get away with disabling.

http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

Read the instructions and then scroll down to the table.

Edit: You may be better visiting here http://www.blackviper.com/ to make sure you are looking at the correct version of windows.

[Lionheart]

I have experimented with both of the OS. Both Vista and XP have a boatload of stuff for remote acc. that is really not need for 75% of the public. Vista being the worse but I like Vista64. XP has the same problem but it is more stable. I feel DX10 was a wash out for MS because it really did nothing with it. It looks ok in Vista but money wize I feel DX10 wasn't worth the trouble...Mike

I agree..

For a bit of 'haze' I think it was a far distance for people to travel (purchasing GC's, entire computers, new quad cores, new OS) just for that.

Having been running vista 32 for the past 6 months, and never seeing some real smoothness in FSX and always with sliders near the far left (off or almost off), and now in XP on a Mac, I can see alot of FSX now with 1/3rd sliders and some cool effects going, really has me happy now on being able to fly in FSX. Awesome.. I think XP has a bit of 'help' on this, higher frame rates.. I would think v64 would also though. (Isnt 64 bit designed to be a overall faster performance OS system base? I do not know alot about computers... arrghh.. ).

I hope they make the next FS with a version available for Mac. With Mac, you can run 32 gigs of RAM and a dual quad core Mobo.


Bill