Vista or XP?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Over the last weekend (at the Aerosoft show) I had the opportunity to discuss some nagging Windows Vista issues. This was needed as lately we have been testing FSX software that caused memory errors. The issue is NOT in the add-ons, as we could determine (and proof) quite easy. The issue is in a well described and discussed issue with the Windows Vista memory handling. In rough technical terms, just like your harddisk fragments, your memory does the same and the OS needs to defragment the memory. Vista does not do this very well and when memory gets tight it simply starts to tell the application there is no memory available. You'll start seeing memory errors, FSX will stop working etc. Again, this is not an problem of FSX or the add-on used, It's Vista who drops the ball there. As memory handing is at the core of an OS it is not easy to solve this and as far as we know Vista SP1 will not change this. Moving to the 64 bit version and adding loads of memory also will not help as FSX is a 32 bit application and can not address memory over the 3,5 Gb (or something like that) limit.

So how does this affect you as a FSX user? That depends on how you use FSX. If you load up your sim with add-ons that eat up memory (for example highly complex airliners, think PMDG, MyTrafficX etc) you'could' have problems. If you fly the smaller aircraft in a VFR enviroment you will need to fly for many many hours and be very unlucky to run into problems. But to provide the users with the most stable software, we will from now on change the products requirements for some products. We will write that we strongly advise Windows XP for this product.

You will realize this is not an easy step for us to take. Personally I love Vista for the great user interface, easy of use and smooth operation. The fact it is the default OS if you buy new hardware and that MS pushes it so hard with the DX10 options of Acceleration and SP2 do not make it easier. But we got no other option. In some cases we can proof that Vista causes problems with the software we sell.

[Robert S 75]

Hello Mathijs,

Does this article and Microsoft reference address the Vista "Out Of Memory" problem you speak of:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/76484

and here is the official Microsoft support site article:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

I know this hotfix doesn't exactly address memory defragmentation issues but have you employed this and tested with it?

[Robert S 75]

This is a very interesting article:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044

In summation, tests revealed that:

1. Vista is using more address space than XP in all situations

2. The amount of address space used with Vista seems to be related to the amount of video memory on our video card

3. XP on the other hand does not fluctuate at all, the address space usage is the same no matter what card we use.

Also, the games themselves seemed to either worsen or lessen the extent of the problem. For example, Supreme Commander produced worse results than other games, so we might infer that FSX isn't so efficient either. The developers have promised that for the next release of S.C. they will implement their own code for memory utilization.

The patch that I reference from Micrososft seems to correct this problem so I'm anxious to hear from Mathijs if this specific patch has been tested and what the results were...

[Cartman 0]

KB940105 + current Drivers + little tweak - perhaps not needed for FSX SP2 + proper vista apps.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

This is a very interesting article:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044

In summation, tests revealed that:

1. Vista is using more address space than XP in all situations

2. The amount of address space used with Vista seems to be related to the amount of video memory on our video card

3. XP on the other hand does not fluctuate at all, the address space usage is the same no matter what card we use.

Also, the games themselves seemed to either worsen or lessen the extent of the problem. For example, Supreme Commander produced worse results than other games, so we might infer that FSX isn't so efficient either. The developers have promised that for the next release of S.C. they will implement their own code for memory utilization.

The patch that I reference from Micrososft seems to correct this problem so I'm anxious to hear from Mathijs if this specific patch has been tested and what the results were...

Yes, they have been tested, with moderate success. As the real problem is very deep inside the OS it can be doubted that a hotfix can solve it.

[gwolb 0]

I wish there would be as quick a reply about current problems such as with the Jayhawk X and the DO27. Maybe all the problems are because people are using Vista!

[Finn 873]

Nope gwolb

I´m using Windows XP SP2, and I´m having problems with the Navy Hawks X as mentioned in various threads throughout this forum.

But I also have the DO-27 X which is running fine. So if You have problems with the Do-27 X, it could be Vista.

I have emailed Aerosoft for an update on the Seahawk / Jayhawk patch, but nobuddy seem to be willing to answer. Tommorow it´s almost a week since I heard from aerosoft regarding the patch.

Hope to hear some news soon.

Wothan

[Cartman 0]

The Wilco 777 is a well-known OOM producer.

I had never ever OOM Errors with the Level-D 767.

The ultimate proof that the Wilco 777 is more complex than the Level-D 767.

I'm also disappointed about UT-USA, FEX, Vancouver+, GLX, MTX 5.1 and VFR Germany 1, because none of them produces OOMs on my System.

Sadly, i wasted a lot of money for non-complex addons

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Nope gwolb

I´m using Windows XP SP2, and I´m having problems with the Navy Hawks X as mentioned in various threads throughout this forum.

But I also have the DO-27 X which is running fine. So if You have problems with the Do-27 X, it could be Vista.

I have emailed Aerosoft for an update on the Seahawk / Jayhawk patch, but nobuddy seem to be willing to answer. Tommorow it´s almost a week since I heard from aerosoft regarding the patch.

Hope to hear some news soon.

Wothan

I posted news on that just yesterday at http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=13671

These issues however have nothing to do with Vista. Nor would any problem with the DO-27 have anything to do with Vista. As I explained it only concerns aircraft/scenery/other add-ons that put a major load on the memory. None of these do.

[Mithrin 0]

Personally I switched to Vista. Felt instantly that there was a huge memory leak somewhere. I have a rocksolid system and it shouldn't be choked by something that is only supposed to be a platform for whatever else I do with my computer. So after changing quite a few things within Vista and still experiencing problems I just said screw it and went back to XP which runs very smooth right now! Too bad I paid a fortune for a piece of crappy software that needs a LOT of finetuning for it to run smooth. And even then I have a feeling it will eat up a lot of memory! Not something you want an operating system to do. Vista in it's current state feels like it is only in Alpha stadium...good decision AS!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Personally I switched to Vista. Felt instantly that there was a huge memory leak somewhere. I have a rocksolid system and it shouldn't be choked by something that is only supposed to be a platform for whatever else I do with my computer. So after changing quite a few things within Vista and still experiencing problems I just said screw it and went back to XP which runs very smooth right now! Too bad I paid a fortune for a piece of crappy software that needs a LOT of finetuning for it to run smooth. And even then I have a feeling it will eat up a lot of memory! Not something you want an operating system to do. Vista in it's current state feels like it is only in Alpha stadium...good decision AS!

Note that we only decided to tell people who use FSX under very severe memory conditions that they might have out of memory issues.

In no way do we say Vista is not a good operating system. In fact FSX using DX10 is really stunning and certainly the way forward. Deciding to stay at XP at this moment is a choice that has some advantages and some disadvantages. Personally I find Vista vastly superior to XP, also for the way I use FSX.

[Robert S 75]

OK, I'll play devil's advocate here...

Note that Phil Taylor is officially calling the DX10 capabilities in FSX & Acceleration pak a "preview" only. Most of the beta team members for Acceleration found only subtle visual differences with DX10 enabled, although some did report a few fps gain

Most however have said over and over that DX10 will not provide a night and day difference with graphics in this sim.

Now, as for Vista vs XP - that is probably opinion based as Vista is certainly a much better looking interface, more secure but its problems offset features like these. However, it should be noted that Microsoft is planning an official SP1 release for Vista and I think that will be the time to officially go with that OS (Remember how buggy XP was until SP1 came out ).

In fact, you can actually download a beta SP1 NOW for Vista:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowse...ack-1-beta.aspx

One last tip to make FSX far better looking in either Vista or XP: get FEX. Flight Environment X (not a competing product for Aerosoft) will greatly enhance your cloud and water textures and when combined with Aerosoft's Airport Enhancement product will really produce an improvement to your simming experience!

[virtualstuff 76]

OK, I'll play devil's advocate here...

You have some good points :wink:

But to get the facts straight AES is only for FS9 and not for FSX...

As for Vista a lot of users don't know how to configure the system as it should be ;-)

This says more about software in general still to difficult and to complex :wink:

In general never go for an "new" OS before the first SP is released besides only for testing purpose...

SP1 will solve a lot of stuff...

If you know what your are doing actually Vista runs faster as XP

We had the same story with 98 > XP

Windows XP without SP was buggy too... Not to mention all the NT versions

Vista will be the future XP doesn't as with Windows 98 and XP or dos > Win3.1 > 3.11 > 95 > 98 to mil...

[limp 29]

I just installed Vista last week on my gaming machine, and honestly had no big issues for the moment...

And I don't think I'll be booting XP again on this machine...

And my FSX runs better (guess it's the reinstallation and new drivers etc...)

[ChrisB 11]

I did have a few OOMs quite regularly at first. Since then I found that you can defrag your ram quite easily (look for FSAutostart) and with that on my PC, I have far fewer OOMs - but still have them.

I do think Vista is probably not quite as good as it should be and I am seriously thinking XP again - except for the fact that DX10 is the way forward. I guess MS need to to SP Vista a bit more... sigh...

Generally I find Vista an improvement though. Takes some getting used to, but it does seem to load and start the PC a lot faster. I am not too sure, though, if MS and ACES were singing from the same Hymn sheets... But all in all I am on a plus over XP. A DX10 graphics card is in the wings, but I would wait for second generation cards. The 8800 and 2900 series from NVidia and ATI are apparently not truly DX10 yet - close, but not quite from what I have read. I wonder though...

I guess we need three or four Terabyte HDs running at 20000 RPM and about 16 GB of 2048 GHz RAM and... loads of wishful thinking

[skydvdan 2]

The 8800 and 2900 series from NVidia and ATI are apparently not truly DX10 yet - close, but not quite from what I have read. I wonder though...

What do you mean? They either are or aren't, right? And all my DX10 programs right now say that they are. And you can definitely see the difference. Since I have run the same programs on a 7900GTO and an 8800GTX. There is definitely a difference. Can you explain what you mean?

[virtualstuff 76]

What do you mean? They either are or aren't, right? And all my DX10 programs right now say that they are.

Maybe he means DX10.1 which your 8800GTX isn't capable to run :wink:

With the new shaders and other features

So you have to wait for NVIDIA for the 9XXX series or this month the ATI HD3xxxx series ;-) second genration which is always better then the 8xxx series with maybe the 8800GT the exception ;-)

But then again FSX will probably never be DX10.1 lol maybe FS11

If you run other stuff then it's wise to wait ;-)

[skydvdan 2]

Maybe he means DX10.1 which your 8800GTX isn't capable to run :wink:

With the new shaders and other features

So you have to wait for NVIDIA for the 9XXX series or this month the ATI HD3xxxx series ;-) second genration which is always better then the 8xxx series with maybe the 8800GT the exception ;-)

But then again FSX will probably never be DX10.1 lol maybe FS11

If you run other stuff then it's wise to wait ;-)

My point is that a videocard either is or isn't DX10 compliant. The only thing that the 8800GTX won't be able to do is render the newest features of DX10.1. But who cares since it will be quite awhile until it's even implemented into software (games) anyway. :roll:

[ChrisB 11]

What do you mean? They either are or aren't, right? And all my DX10 programs right now say that they are. And you can definitely see the difference. Since I have run the same programs on a 7900GTO and an 8800GTX. There is definitely a difference. Can you explain what you mean?

"Read my lips" Dan :wink:

The 8800 and 2900 series from NVidia and ATI are apparently not truly DX10 yet - close, but not quite from what I have read. I wonder though...

I have also read that a lot of users are happy with these cards too... (you too now) I do not have personal expert experience of these cards as I am not a hardware pundit nor do I have the luxury of being one of the Guru3D team. But when the specialist shop owners even advise me off buying an 8800 or a 29xx series card yet, well, what am I to say? I do not know why, just that the experts aren't even sure for themselves yet. And when an expert shies off from letting someone spend 600 Euros...

Besides, even I cannot afford a 600 Euro family graphics card every few months either. And if even the shops aren't stocking the card because of their uncertainty, then I feel my thoughts justified.

Incidentally, my local specialist stocked the X1900xtx Radeons almost as soon as they hit the market, but he's still not stocking the high end NVidias or Radeons. I guess he thinks they aren't as ripe as they could be - yet. There was more positive press for the X1900 series at the time than there currently is for X2900s now - another factor. (Not that there is negative press either. Just - apparently - more caution)

Apropos Guru3D - even they are commenting that DX10 is still on the evolutionary upswing while "game" developers learn the new techniques. Of course all current DX10 programs say the current cards are OK. So as long as my X1900xtx still lets me play, I shall have to be sensible and wait

...besides, my piggy bank isn't full yet

[skydvdan 2]

"Read my lips" Dan :wink:

[ChrisB 11]

Thanks Dan. I take the hint. Thanks especially for the links. They include exactly that kind of statement I refer to:

Here's the thing. DX10 hardware - such as the GeForce 8800 or the Radeon 2900 - won't work with the new 10.1 features. The 0.1 revision requires completely new hardware for support, thus royally cheesing off many gamers who paid top whack for their new hardware over the last few months on the basis of future game compatibility.

I am not just a "gamer" either and I admit I don't understand the need for the 10.1 changes.

Seems to me DX10.x is a SNAFU

Does leave other questions open - such as: "Who needs the 10.1 upgraded hardware?" and "what for?" and will NVidia and ATI (catalyst) be uploading a chaos of drivers? - especially the Catalyst 7.10 software problem recently, for instance, has gotten up a lot of folks noses - especially those like me who don't have a clue, but rightly expect a "click and go" Catalyst and not one that does not install... (But that is a different story) - imagine the fun when checking your DX10 drivers...

Ah well. Thanks for the interesting comments. OK, I am no wiser yet, but I'll learn.

[EDOT-TH 0]

Well, of course the sold DirectX10 graphic cards can handle the DirectX10 effects but with the new version of 10.1 they will not show the 10.1 effects but that is not a real problem. Same thing happened before. DirectX9 was released around 2002 and DirectX9.0c was released in 2004 and so the market offered cards which were DirectX9.0c compatible and of course some not but since we pc-gamers change hardware often you will not have any problems.

[skydvdan 2]

Thanks Dan. I take the hint. Thanks especially for the links. They include exactly that kind of statement I refer to:

I am not just a "gamer" either and I admit I don't understand the need for the 10.1 changes.

Seems to me DX10.x is a SNAFU

Does leave other questions open - such as: "Who needs the 10.1 upgraded hardware?" and "what for?" and will NVidia and ATI (catalyst) be uploading a chaos of drivers? - especially the Catalyst 7.10 software problem recently, for instance, has gotten up a lot of folks noses - especially those like me who don't have a clue, but rightly expect a "click and go" Catalyst and not one that does not install... (But that is a different story) - imagine the fun when checking your DX10 drivers...

Ah well. Thanks for the interesting comments. OK, I am no wiser yet, but I'll learn.

They are messing with all of our minds these days my friend. When you posted your comments I had to start investigating. I figure that you did the same based on what you posted. And now we're all a bit smarter on the subject. Thanks again Chris.

[virtualstuff 76]

So you can wait for that but who knows if the DX10.2 or DX11 cards won't be on the horizon by then. Some people spend there whole lives always waiting for the next best thing and in the mean time miss out on things because of the wait. :wink:

Agreed but it's not wise also based on a large real world experience (hehehe I do have a life outside FS ) to be the first in line and end up with bugs in hardware or software...

Hence regarding graphics it's wise to wait for the second generation and then invest in a bug less product :wink:

For example you have now 2x 8800GT in sli below the price of an 8800GTX first generation lol

Some interesting read too:-)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-hd-3800-...view-29720.html

FSX isn't even the investment word for DX10 only :shock: since it's a preview

Hence the developers have to discover all the DX10 possibilities to and then implement them just as with the previous version of DX...

History repeats itself here...

[EDOT-TH 0]

For example you have now 2x 8800GT in sli below the price of an 8800GTX first generation lol

Well, I thin this is the way it goes since the very first days of pc

It is a curse and it is great in the same way. People who bought these days a 8800GTS might feel bad if they have a look on the 8800GT, its performance and price. But I think when buying pc stuff it is much better to enjoy the hardware than to look what could be better. I know we all do this. The Core2Duo E6300 I bought a year ago had the price for what I today would get a E6750. It may not be wise to buy the most expensive hardware. It is the same with cars. They loose in a very short period of time most of its worth but in the end I think the fun/€ counts. The 8800GTX is much longer on the market than the 8800GT. So the GTX owners should not be disappointed that the 8800GT has a better value per € but they should think how long they have their GTX and the should remind on the good performance.

The 8xxxer series in my eyes might be a DirectX10-Generation series but due to the lack of software for it, it became the fastest DirectX9 series we ever had. Til many DX10 Games hit the market we surely will have the 9xxxer series and also die 3xxxer of AMD. So I think no problem if you buy a DX10 card today. Even if tomorrow DX10.1 will be the standard.