jgruschow Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Is anyone running fsx and orbx in win xp 64 bit? Can it be done? Any problems? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Jack, As far as I know it's not the way to go, XP 64bit is know as a real DOG, even bloody Vista 64 is better, best is to stick with XP pro SP3, that wil safe you a lot of headaicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Paul Mes Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I used to have XP Pro 32 and recently upgraded to XP64 which runs very well as long you use the appropriate and now widely available 64 bit drivers. Noticed NO performance decrease whatsoever compared to the usual flavour of XP using FSX and AU Blue & Gold. For some more information, you could have a look at these charts concerning XP64 vs Vista 64 gaming performance : http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=632190. Unfortunately, they did not test FSX. Jean-Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Hi J-P, That is a surprise to me, as drivers for XP64 are a proverbial pain in the you know where, but we all learn something every day don't we What made you to go to XP 64bit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Paul Mes Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I did not have any trouble finding drivers for my rather common setup : Q6600, P5W DH Deluxe, 9800 GTX. Even Track-IR Pro and my Saitek X52 run fine. I switched for the fun of it and because I have 4 Gb of RAM and wanted to give a 64 bit OS a try. I usually re-format every 6 months so next time, it might be Vista 64 (who knows what SP2 may bring ?) or I might even go back to XP Pro 32 as XP64 runs neither better nor worse on my PC. Jean-Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I've been using XP64 for ages and I have had nothing but solid performance. The only time I will move to Vista is when I have no choice and even then it will be the 64bit version. Hope this helps. Cheers, Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainey Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Vista 64bit for me, and very happy with the performance. In my opinion I would not even consider doing a fresh install of an OS which is no longer supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bosch Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Vista 64 for me too and I've never had an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auzy Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Never tried XP 64bit, but using Vista 64bit. Found it is a bit slower then 32bit. And the VERY occasional FSX plugin wont work. I tried a voice recognition one a while back, where there was no official 64bit support, and the only way to get it running at the end was using the beta version, which worked ok for me anyway. The only real benefits of 64bit is more RAM availability at the moment. But who are honestly using 4GB now anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Guys, I hope no one takes my comments about not wanting to move to Vista as an indication its a bad OS. My only concern with Vista (based on reviews) is that it is a bit heavier as an OS compared to XP and so you take a 2~5% hit on performance. That said, I guess when Nahelem is out and whatever replaces Nahelem that 2~5% performance delta will be irrelevant. This is exactly the same scenario when we moved from Win95/Me to WinXP. Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 HHhhhmmmnnnn there are a few diverse opinions here. I recently had the opportunity to see 3 relatively high end PC's side by side doing exactly the same thing. All Core Duo 3.2 Ghz with 8800 GTX Graphics and Geil 3 Gb DDR II 1033 RAM etc obviously the mainboards were slightly different All ASUS 1 64 2 X 32 Bit XP Pro SP2 32 Bit XP Pro 64 Bit and Vista 64 Bit. Now it it a little difficult to be totally objective but in seing 3 PC's side by side with the same identical software installed, Time to boot Vista 64 significantly faster followed by Win XP 32 and then XP 64 but in all honesty I thought running general applications like Word and Photoshop they were comparable . Switching between applications I think the 64 bit might have been a touch faster but like I said earlier it is difficult to say definitively. Speed and stability in this regard is probably as has been said driver and hardware driven,get this wrong and you have a slug - get it right and your driving a Lamborgini. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgruschow Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 My only real experience with Vista was a download of the Beta. Even then I had no genuine complaint with it an OS. It worked without glitches. My complaints (illogical) were with it's appearance and changes from XP. Could never find what I wanted. Anyway I whent back to XP and am very happy with it. I don't want to change. My original question was inspired by 32 bit ram limitations. I have four gigs of DDR3 1600 installed. It is recognised as being there.BUT, my "system Properties" describes my computer as, "Intel® core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3GHz 3.33GHz. 2.75GB of ram Physical Address Extension" I questioned a professional serviceman about this and his explanation was that 32bit only recognises 3.7 gigs total. And as I have 1 gig of video memory the figure is correct. Nobody I have spoken to about this believes it. If it is correct it means that if I decide to go to SLI my system memory will reduce to 1.7 gigs! This is the reason I am considering a change to 64bit XP. Then I can stuff 4 x 2gig sticks in and get the benefit of them. AS long as FSX and Orbx runs flawlessly on it, I will be satisfied. Any driver changes can be sorted out. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Paul Mes Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 This is the reason I am considering a change to 64bit XP. Then I can stuff 4 x 2gig sticks in and get the benefit of them. Jack, frankly, having tried both, unless you already have OOM errors or use other memory intensive applications , moving to X64 only for that is not worth the hassle. Jean-Paul Edit : Oops, next time , I'll read twice. The point you raised about your GPU memory reducing your available RAM is valid. But I am not sure that SLI will double that reduction But if you use FSX only, I see no point in using SLI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bosch Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 My only real experience with Vista was a download of the Beta. Even then I had no genuine complaint with it an OS. It worked without glitches. My complaints (illogical) were with it's appearance and changes from XP. Could never find what I wanted. Anyway I whent back to XP and am very happy with it. I don't want to change. Just goes to show people really are different I actually very much like the new Vista interface. It was a bit confusing at first but now that I'm used to it I realise it is a very good design! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 I re-read a review at Anandtech, which is one of favorite tech sites and.... they say Vista is faster for CPU intensive and slower than XP on video intensive games! You can read it here: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=13 http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3233&p=7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.