What, another Winows OS

[Nigel H-J]

I think the problem is that people don't like change, and Vista is NOT XP, therefore, people who already have XP and are happy with it wouldn't bother changing (and why should they.)

Ben, in my case you have hit the nail on the head, I am not particularly keen on change. I am quite happy with XP but I know that some day in the future I will have no alternative, that is when MS no longer supports XP. :-(

One point that Ian brought up regarding upgrading from XP to Vista, I am not too sure how succesful these upgrades are as apposed to a full clean install but have always thought that an upgraded version may not run as well as a clean install in that there is always a chance that some of the old version may still be left in place and downgrade the performance, but not being a guru on OS I may be totally off the mark.

Think I will wait until 2010 to be on the safe side.

Nigel.

[jonesey2k]

One main reasons why I finally decided to swap over was because I had just built a new machine and wanted to take advantage of the 4gb of ram I had installed. XP X64 would have done but I reckon Vista X64 will get more driver support, being their flagship os and all.
DirectX10 in games is nice with the very high settings being available in Crysis now that I can actually run it!

I've still got XP on my old hard disc and Im going to use that as an "fs9 drive".

[TSR2]

Hi Jonesy,

You can still address 4GB of RAM with the 32bit OS. And most games (or applications) are still 32bit, they will only ever use a maximum of 2GB. I have the same setup as yourself now (4GB and x64 Vista) but it was really so I could get used to an x64 OS, as Vista is the last one that will have a 32bit version. There are some funnies with some programs that were compiled using older techniques, but 90% run fine. ;-)

[ianhind]

You can still address 4GB of RAM with the 32bit OS.

So why does XP tell me it can only see 3Gb even though the BIOS sees 4Gb? I took out the extra 2Gb and used them elsewhere.

I think Jonesy has pointed out the potential advantage of Vista IF you want to use more than 3Gb RAM, ie use the 64bit version. But drivers have been reported to be a problem for older peripherals which could mean buying replacement hardware.

So I'll stick with XP which does what I want.

Ian

[TSR2]

Hi Ian,

I can assure you that any windows OS (since 2000 pro) can address 4GB IF its made available by the system board. Usually the reason for the OS reporting less than is installed (up to 4GB) is a: its being used by an onboard graphics / sound card. b. The bios does not support more memory than is displayed.

I have noticed on some of our AMD processor based servers that they report marginally (a few hundred MB) less memory available to the OS than the intel ones. I've no idea why this is.

[SkippyBing]

Hmm I've noticed that problem, I've got 4GB installed which the BIOS reports but in Windows XP (SP2 etc.) it allow 'sees' 3.25GB. It's certainly not being used by the graphics card and I've never seen that problem with on-board sound before. Is there an easy way to check?
I'm not quite ready to upgrade to Vista yet as I can't face setting things up how I like them, probably next time I decide the hard drive needs reformatting. Out of interest if I copy the Documents and Setting folder across as I normally do when reinstalling XP will things like Firefox, Thunderbird etc. find there settings folder and bring my bookmarks, e-mails etc. across or will I have to juggle things about?

[tonymadge]

Ok I am the guy who pours water on the fire, I am the guy that states all that glitters is not gold.
Why..well I have tried FSX I have had first hand experience of Vista.

FSX I have said my bit on that before and before you FSX lovers start to load the guns, just ask yourself...if MS got it SO right why the big patches?? what did they turn off to get FR up?? what about FS9 that had a patch as wel... yep a farty little one to fix autogen and bridges!

Vista.. my Dad has this on his newish laptop I have had to work on this for him as he knows little, maybe a bit less than me
Anyway I cant "love" a system that has 70 background items running... Ok if it was mine I would kill the clock and sidebar and all the other crap they load on that slows it all down. Then it almost looks like XP!!! hmmm thats athought :think: Yes you can have super strength CPUs' and ram falling out of your rear end, however just pause and think what that lot would do in XP :tonqe:
So I may be a nit picker but at least I have tried it so please when you guys say dont moan about the water if you cant swim.. wake up and smell the coffeee... :nmq:

[TSR2]

Ah but Tony, your still slagging off FSX based on experiences from a year ago. No one is arguing that they shouldn't have had to patch it, but they have, and its a completely different sim. Hence my comment of opinions on things that are current, not 18 moths old. ;-)

A few of the guys who have given it a go recently have specs way below yours and are getting (by their own comments) good performance.

I'm not saying people shouldn't stick with FS9 or XP if they are happy with their lot, but some comments on FSX should have the caveat "18 moths ago before the service packs." so that folk are getting accurate info :kissu:

[tonymadge]

so they stopped stealing Bart Simpsons sky have they

[TSR2]