Turnip Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Well, I did it. Reformated a second hard drive. Loaded XP with all the updates, loaded a new install of FSX and FTX. My main problem was the small stutters when I got. They were more noticeable when I looked at the ground closer to the airplane or when I was in a turn. It was just enough to take away the fluidness of the sim. I have the same settings on both systems and have noticed a definate decrease in stutters on the XP system. I transferred my FSX.CFG from the VISTA install over to the XP install so all the settings are the same. Keep in mind also that the VISTA install was a clean one also. So this is definately a XP vs VISTA test. Your thoughts? BTW: Here's a screenie from XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Dog Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Turnip, Yeh, I too get much better results with XP. The friend that built my PC partitioned my drive so XP lives in one and Vista in another, and you select which system when you boot-up. I tried with Vista for a while (including disabling DX10) but I have found XP to provide a much smoother, quicker loading and better looking sim! I guess everyone has a different experience with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 XP pretty much rocks, but I am biased. Vista SP1 goes a long way toward improving performance, but not enough to tempt me to replace XP on my dev machine (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnip Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 I almost said this earlier but I wanted to make sure first. I truly believe that the sim LOOKS better in XP than it does in VISTA. I really do not think this is my imagination as I now have many, many hours in FSX/FTX in VISTA. While I fly now, I find myself saying "Whoah!". Example: A dawn departure from Brisbane in the Maule. Take off towards the sun with the ORBX 2 weather loaded. DUDE! In a nutshell, I am much happier now with the performance so that in itself is worth alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmglads Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Hi Turnip, I did the very same exercise recently & thoroughly agree with your findings. My only concession was to dual boot the PC with Vista & XP Pro & now I also have a dedicated HDD for flightsims. The results are excellent! Glad you're enjoying flying in XP too. Cheers, Malcolm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Archie Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I certainly don't want this to get into the classic 'xp vs vista' debacle that rages across the net, but for my 2 cents worth, my experience is the opposite, went from xp sp2 to vista 32 bit ultimate and have never looked back, runs absolutely brilliantly on my machine and looks and feels twice as good, so there ya go, whatever rocks your boat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petejohno Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I'm with you Archie. My experience with Vista has been good, the main problem being with video drivers keeping up with it. Now with decent Nvidia drivers available at last, there is no way I would return to XP. If you have a relatively new computer with a quick dual/quad core cpu, fast ram and a good graphics card, FSX will run very well with either operating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddyG Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! Of flight Sims, it is purely what hardware you have inside your box. What looks not so good in my computer may look good in yours. I never take any notice of any comments about what is good and what isn't as almost everybody has different ideas about what they see. You only have to read the reviews about the same piece of hardware by different people!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Well not to make this a religious war, but if you want the nicest OS and GUI then MacOSX Leopard eats them all for breakfast, hands down. Pity there is no native FSX port for it though, although with bootcamp and an 8-core Mac Pro, you'd do some serious simming with an XP partition on the box. In fact, we will be replacing Uber (the PC being given away in the screenshot comp) with an 8-core Xeon Mac Pro tower with a few TB of RAID, 8800GTX inside and 8GB of memory. It's mainly for Photoshop CS3 to slice through 2GB TIF source images for airports like YMML, YBBN etc, but as a bonus it can provide 8 cores to WinXP/Vista in native mode which I reckon will rock, big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozzy_06 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 If you have a relatively new computer with a quick dual/quad core cpu, fast ram and a good graphics card, FSX will run very well with either operating system. That's my experience. Vista 64 requires more grunt but runs well given the right system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnip Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Yes, it would all depend on the system you are running. I did this test due to the stutters I was receiving. As most of you know, I have fought this for months and months and all I received for my effort was more frustration. This seems to work out better for me and all my flight sim stuff will reside on that hard drive. NICE, CLEAN, no garbage to wade thru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamnugget Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Well not to make this a religious war, but if you want the nicest OS and GUI then MacOSX Leopard eats them all for breakfast, hands down. Pity there is no native FSX port for it though, although with bootcamp and an 8-core Mac Pro, you'd do some serious simming with an XP partition on the box. I agree. Just bought an imac for the missus for her photography (still learning), but the thing looks awesome...shame that, as you said, theres no port for FSX. The funny thing about leopard (or Apple) is that the learning curve goes backwards in that the hard things to get used to are the simplest (ie delete button) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnip Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 What do you mean by "PORT"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamnugget Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Looking at the specs required on on my FSX box...it'll go only on Windows operating systems. From what John was saying I am guessing he means mac dedicated FSX (for which there isnt one as far as I'm aware), and if theres a windows 'emulator' or the like then you could port FSX (or other windows based programs) through that to get it to work. I'm only really new to Mac (this week) so I dont know what is out there or avaiable I do know it looks really good for Video, Cad, Music, and design in general. I guess if people want more discussion on pro's and cons with Mac, maybe someone can start a new thread, if its worth-it. Back to the original topic Turnip, its good to have a comparisson on the two windows operating systems, I guess it depends on the whole package as far as what Vista can make better use of as far as hardware goes, which would explain why some people are getting improvements on Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumman Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 I've got a friend who has raved about my FSX/FTX setup and wants to go simming, but has a iMac desktop (I'm not sure of exact model). Would an iMac have enough grunt to run FSX with Bootcamp/Windows, or do you have to go to a Mac workstation? Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ White Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 It's mainly for Photoshop CS3 to slice through 2GB TIF source images for airports like YMML, YBBN etc Totally agree, i am currently designing some massive graphics displays for a customers trade show stand and even though i have a chunky system for work stuff, it was brought to it's knees in photoshop while layer compositing and saving images with over 18000 pixels on the X axis! So 2GB tiles must be a nightmare john! Russ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.