Classic British Flight Sim

Don't know if it has been posted before, but here it is

http://support.microsoft.com/ph/11941

Still showing this nonsense I see.

Minimum system requirements for Flight Simulator X
Component Minimum system requirement
Operating system Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) or Windows Vista
Computer processor 1.0 gigahertz (GHz)
Memory 256 megabytes (MB) of RAM for Window XP SP2 512 MB RAM for Windows Vista
Hard disk space 14 gigabytes (GB) available hard disk space
Video card 32 MB DirectX 9-compatible video card
DVD drive 32x speed or faster
Sound Sound card, speakers, or a headset required for audio
Pointing device Microsoft mouse or compatible pointing device
Internet connection for online play 56.6 kilobytes per second (Kbps) or faster modem
Broadband connection for real-time voice communication

Interesting John. Can you imagine trying to run either WinXP or Vista on a pc of that spec let alone run FSX as well!! :brick: The mind boggles :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

DaveB wrote:

Interesting John. Can you imagine trying to run either WinXP or Vista on a pc of that spec let alone run FSX as well!! :brick: The mind boggles :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

XP would run quite well on it if you tinkered with it a bit and removed all of the unnecessary crap Microsoft insist be activated by default. However VISTA on the other hand.... I was having a look at my brothers spangly new PC a few weeks ago and even after I tweaked it to buggery the memory footprint was still over 500megs, and that's on a PC with a gig of RAM. Why manufacturers are selling an OS that will eat half of a systems RAM on said system befuddles me. My XP installations memory footprint never goes over 100meg, and that's with what I consider to be a lot of crap installed.

They don't state how well it runs, only that it runs. Lesser than that it won't run at all.

Regarding Vista eating RAM... well that is not entirely correct. although it LOOKS like it eat it all, as a matter of fact the new Vista has a whole new memory handling engine, and thus using the available memory at every given time more efficiently.

Any ones interested can scan Microsoft's site for deeper info on Vista issues, and from there on tell facts. Just watching on a Vista system based on ones experience with XP doesn't tell the correct story. And thereby rumours are spread.... Please read about Vista and especially on the deeper technical side of it before stating that it is crap, unless of course you are talking on a pure personal view. Anyone is entitled to have that. Like Vista or Not. But stating technical issues that are not correct is .... well not correct.


My tuppence worth....

Yup.. wild isn't it Chris :roll:

My daughter was bought a new laptop (one of those PC World Advent jobbies with an intel Celeron, 1gig ram, 120gb hd, dvd and.. Vista). She took it on holiday with us which gave me an opportunity to have a delve. It comes out with a M$ rating of 3 (perhaps 2.. can't remember now) and while M$ state that the numbers don't actually mean anything, bottom line appears to be that it's fit for wordprocessing and little else. Clock speed on the Celeron isn't helping (1.6 I think) but if the OS is taking up half her memory.. that would further explain why it's not exactly spritely. Brand spanking new systems traditionally run like something off a shovel.. even on what could be considered average pc's but Vista puts paid to that :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

DanKH wrote:They don't state how well it runs, only that it runs. Lesser than that it won't run at all.

Regarding Vista eating RAM... well that is not entirely correct. although it LOOKS like it eat it all, as a matter of fact the new Vista has a whole new memory handling engine, and thus using the available memory at every given time more efficiently.

Any ones interested can scan Microsoft's site for deeper info on Vista issues, and from there on tell facts. Just watching on a Vista system based on ones experience with XP doesn't tell the correct story. And thereby rumours are spread.... Please read about Vista and especially on the deeper technical side of it before stating that it is crap, unless of course you are talking on a pure personal view. Anyone is entitled to have that. Like Vista or Not. But stating technical issues that are not correct is .... well not correct.


My tuppence worth....

Don't get me wrong, XP was crap as well. ME was crap (actually, ME remained crap throughout it's lifetime), in fact all MS operating systems were crap when they were first released. It's just part of the natural order of things, ironically XP is a damn fine OS now from my own point of view but it took them until SP2 to get there. In fact I was so impressed with SP2 I finally stopped dual booting Linux.

Incidentally I have to admit I don't know anything about how fantastically incredible it's memory management is, I haven't done much reading around the subject. The fact of the matter is that it's using over five times as much memory just to tick over quietly to itself than my XP installation is. Of course it's using more memory, that's progress. FS2004 used more than FS2002, and FSX uses more still. And the fact of the matter is is that XP SP2 will do everything your average punter needs, there is simply no need for computer manufacturers to be flogging VISTA pre-installed, especially when they seem to think 1 gig is a lot of RAM. I don't care how well it manages that memory; it's still excessive for low end PC's.

This is just the way of things, and in the future we'll all be running VISTA. I'll purchase when they've cleared out a few of the kinks in the same way I picked up XP once SP1 was rolled out.

Hi Chaps,

Vista will use about 600MB of RAm if your using all of the fancy functions within the OS, tuned down to its very basic, it will still use about 480 MB. My work laptop (HP6400) runs vista well, and has a score of 3.4. This is fine for the stuff I do in work, i.e. email, word, excel, powerpoint, internet, but I wouldn't even try and run FS on it.

As a general rule (sorry DB) Celerons should be avoided other than for basic internet access as they have significantly reduced cache and fewer instructions. But this has been the way with celeron since their introduction.

The reason the computer sellers push them is margin. Most punters just thing... "its got an Intel Chip = it must be good) but the cellerons cost a fraction of what a Core Duo would cost to produce. The retail price of a celeron based system, although slightly less expensive than the full spec chip, is still much greater than it should be, thus pound for pound the retailer makes more cash on celeron based systems.

Hi Ben,

No need to apologise Ben.. I didn't buy Helen the laptop. She was promised one by an uncle who then decided he didn't want to get rid of the one he had so rather than tell Helen the deal was off.. he went out and bought her a new one. A Celeron would not have been on my shopping list no matter what the price. I know I'm soft with money (especially money I don't have) but there are limits It was rather extravagant of him (and foolish in my opinion) but you know kid's and gadgets so she's happy ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

I think us grown men are often worse than kids...did I actually admit to that?