Vista?

[Q300]

Just had a quick look around and dident see anything about this,

I was just thinking I have 32 bit Vista installed now and my Ram is only 503 and processor is Intel Celeron D CPU 3.46GHz.
Would that be effecting my FS9 performance? I thought I read somewhere that you have to have at least a Gig of ram to run FS9 on vista?? or something like that anyway, Because right now im only getting like 19fps in default aircraft and sometimes as little as 7-8 in the PMDG 1900D VC Would it be worth going back to XP or upgrading the ram? Keeping in mind ill be getting my FS comp back soon but I will still be using this one 35-40% of the time.

Thanks

[Alex]

You have something like 512Mb of RAM?

It might be worthwhile upgrading, as RAM is very cheap, even just another 512Mb stick would make a noticeable difference (although if you have 256Mb x2 you might not notice as much...).

If it isn't going to be used as your primary Flight Simming PC, it's really up to you to say whether it'd be worthwhile forking out on RAM with money that could otherwise be spent buying petrol, or saving up for something bigger...

I suppose ultimately it's up to you, and where you place your priorities.

Alex

[Q300]

Alright thanks Alex, How much should I expect to pay for a 512 stick at the local comp shop? would thay charge quite a bit to chuck it in for me?

Thanks
Sam

[Kelburn]

Do what I did when I got my laptop. Get a 1GB stick from DSE which s just over $100 or $50 for 512MB (i think)

Stay with Vista as you will get to love it soon

Actually read here:

http://www.dse.co.nz/cgi-bin/dse.filereade...logs/CTG0001158

[Q300]

QUOTE (Kelburn @ Mar 5 2008, 09:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do what I did when I got my laptop. Get a 1GB stick from DSE which s just over $100 or $50 for 512MB (i think)

Stay with Vista as you will get to love it soon

Actually read here:

http://www.dse.co.nz/cgi-bin/dse.filereade...logs/CTG0001158

Ahh sweet dude thanks there actuly realy good prices I was expecting more like $200

[deaneb]

Look at Pricespy for RAM prices

Deane

[s0cks]

I use 4GB of RAM with Vista 64bit. Right now its idling at 44%!! Thats insane. But gives you an idea on how much it "wants" to use. I would recommend going to 2GB if you can afford it. I wouldn't use less with Vista. 1GB is just enough for XP! You won't believe the difference it makes. The upgrade from 512 to 1Gb will be night and day, and from 512MB to 2GB will be venus and mars

[brownbox]

I run 2gig of ram on vista ultimate 32bit, and im idling at just under 150mb used... Im not sure what other programs you have running, but it definately doesnt even use close to 1gig on mine even while under 100% load...

If you want the cheap option, go back to XP. another 512 or 1gig of ram wouldnt hurt though, and would probably yeild better results than going back to xp.

[yak52dude]

it shouldn't do that what vista do you have home basic or premeium. premeium is by far the better 1.

[Anthony]

Vista likes RAM so I would say that the upgrade would be the better option than switching back to XP.
Even if you do switch back to XP, having more RAM wouldn't do any harm.
In my opinion, the more RAM the better. Up to the point of diminishing returns obviously.

Recommendations for Vista I've heard are 1 gig for normal usage (that's reasonable, Vista has a bit of overhead) so I would guess that 1 gig would be best as a lower limit for a gaming/FS com.

Also to the poster with 4 gigs with Vista idling at 44%, what the heck is happening on your computer?
Even Vista does not use close to 2 gigs of RAM on its own.
I would bet that that is not fully idle with just the OS running. I refuse to accept it - Microsoft has a bad reputation for bloatware, but that's just ridiculous.

Cheers
Anthony Harris

[Charl]

QUOTE (brotonee @ Mar 9 2008, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vista likes RAM so I would say that the upgrade would be the better option than switching back to XP.
Even if you do switch back to XP, having more RAM wouldn't do any harm.
In my opinion, the more RAM the better. Up to the point of diminishing returns obviously.

Recommendations for Vista I've heard are 1 gig for normal usage (that's reasonable, Vista has a bit of overhead) so I would guess that 1 gig would be best as a lower limit for a gaming/FS com.

Also to the poster with 4 gigs with Vista idling at 44%, what the heck is happening on your computer?
Even Vista does not use close to 2 gigs of RAM on its own.
I would bet that that is not fully idle with just the OS running. I refuse to accept it - Microsoft has a bad reputation for bloatware, but that's just ridiculous.

Cheers
Anthony Harris

After reading your post I did some investigation. With everything turned off and just nHancer and the sidebar I got down to 34% usage or 1.41GB of RAM. So i did some research and found this:

QUOTE

Vista SuperFetch understands which applications you use most, and preloads these applications into memory, so your system is more responsive. SuperFetch uses an intelligent prioritization scheme that understands which applications you use most often, and can even differentiate which applications you are likely to use at different times (for example, on the weekend versus during the week), so that your computer is ready to do what you want it to do. Windows Vista can also prioritize your applications over background tasks, so that when you return to your machine after leaving it idle, it's still responsive.[/quote]

Basically the more RAM you have the more Vista will use to cache common applications/procedures and thus speed up your Vista experience. So, yes, Vista "wants" to use 1.41GB of my memory to give me the fastest possible experience. If I only had 1GB I would be loosing out, and even with 2GB I would imagine I'd still have to sacrifice some speed. I know a number of people who run 2GB and complain it is too slow. Anyway, I've never had 2GB so I can't comment, but I can be sure that 1GB is simply not enough.

QUOTE (brownbox @ Mar 8 2008, 11:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I run 2gig of ram on vista ultimate 32bit, and im idling at just under 150mb used... Im not sure what other programs you have running, but it definately doesnt even use close to 1gig on mine even while under 100% load...

If you want the cheap option, go back to XP. another 512 or 1gig of ram wouldnt hurt though, and would probably yeild better results than going back to xp.

I would be more worried about your system:

QUOTE

In Microsoft Windows Vista it is called SuperFetch, and it reserves about 33-50% of system memory for this purpose.[/quote]

Last edited by s0cks on Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

s0cks

 

Top

[brownbox]

When it comes to my operating systems, I like my GUI pretty, my programs not "managed" in any way, and my resource usage low. Its personal preference really. Im more of a squeeze every last bit of performance out of it kind of guy, so anything resource hungry would be no use to me, which is why I turn it all off.

[s0cks]

QUOTE (brownbox @ Mar 13 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When it comes to my operating systems, I like my GUI pretty, my programs not "managed" in any way, and my resource usage low. Its personal preference really. Im more of a squeeze every last bit of performance out of it kind of guy, so anything resource hungry would be no use to me, which is why I turn it all off.

Yes, but it is proven to increase the speed and responsiveness of Vista. It remembers what programs you use most, and even on what days. It then loads it into RAM so it is a whole lot faster to load then from the HDD. Therefore, to me it seems pointless to turn it off unless you really need that ram for something else? It will even remove stuff from memory if you are running low. Its a win win situation really. But its up to you.

[Anthony]

I really think that would annoy the hell out of me.
I can see that it has its uses and its positives, but for me, that's a big negative.

There are things that stop me from upgrading to Vista, and this is now one of them.

Cheers
Anthony Harris

[tdale]

I used Vista and I like it, although I have now removed it.
It is only the OS, it is not a program, and the focus for me is that I want my programs to run well. Moving to Vista, and retaining your PC will cause the response to drop as Vista is more intensive in CPU, services, and RAM usage. If you upgraded the PC when you go to Vista, it should operate similarly.

What promoted my return to XP, was my recent return to FS. I have a seperate OS for Sims, and it is just fast and snappy. Moving from Vista to XP is a speed upgrade, and I have to keep XP anyway as I need the gameport for my Virtual Pilot Pro. Now, everything is just fast and snappy, and FSX runs sweet. Evern the small things such as starting IE, starting Windows Explorer just occur instantly, whereas Vista is slower.

FWIW, going to XP will improve FSX as there is now less CPU and RAM usage, before you actually fire up FSX. If you have an older PC, there is a gain, but if you have a more modern one as I have, I prefer for my CPU to RAM to be used for FSX than running Windows

AMD 6400 Dual Core 3,2Ghz
2Gb DDR800
Nvidia 7900GTX 512Mb

Cheers All

[Charl]

QUOTE (tdale @ Mar 21 2008, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...I have to keep XP anyway as I need the gameport for my Virtual Pilot Pro...

I believe in serendipity, there is another discussionabout gameports.
What do you have which provides said gameport?

[tdale]

QUOTE (Charl @ Mar 21 2008, 03:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe in serendipity, there is another discussionabout gameports.
What do you have which provides said gameport?

HI Charl

As per my thread, CH Virtual Pilot Pro. It won't work with a Gameport to USB adaptor, although my Logitech Wheel and Pedals do