macroth72 38 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hello together,I took the chance and got myself a free Beta version of Windows 7 64 bit to try the FSX performance compared to Vista 64 bit. I just installed FSX + Acceleration + PMDG MD11 + Aerosoft London Heathrow without any traffic on another HDD. In direct comparison I got doubled frames (Vista 8 FPS and WIndows 7 16-18 FPS). I used the same FSX settings. In my Vista installation I also have much more addons installed besides the few I have in the windows 7 config, but I don't know if they affect my fps. Maybe I should use a fresh Vista FSX installation for better comparison but there are so many adons installed... Can someone confirm my experience??? At this point this version seems very fast to me. I will try some more addons (MyTraffic etc.) to test... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSXaddict 18 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 The way I understood it was that if you installed the Windows 7 beta, you'd pretty much be stuck because when the actual software comes out, there won't be an upgrade from the beta to the finished version, and that you couldn't downgrade from it. Basically you'd have to repartition your hd, and they recommended using a computer that you'd basically just use as a test computer for Windows 7. Now, this was an article from Microsoft so I've never tried the beta since reading this. Has things changed since then, which was several months back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 15, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted January 15, 2009 Hello together,I took the chance and got myself a free Beta version of Windows 7 64 bit to try the FSX performance compared to Vista 64 bit. I just installed FSX + Acceleration + PMDG MD11 + Aerosoft London Heathrow without any traffic on another HDD. In direct comparison I got doubled frames (Vista 8 FPS and WIndows 7 16-18 FPS). I used the same FSX settings. In my Vista installation I also have much more addons installed besides the few I have in the windows 7 config, but I don't know if they affect my fps. Maybe I should use a fresh Vista FSX installation for better comparison but there are so many adons installed... Can someone confirm my experience??? At this point this version seems very fast to me. I will try some more addons (MyTraffic etc.) to test...Is that under DX9 or DX10? I seem to find DX10 to be way faster here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macroth72 38 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 I think you're right FSXaddict. I used another HD (200GB SATA drive) to install it on just for testing. I've read somewhere that Windows 7 should be much faster than Vista so I'm very interested in comparing FSX in both. I don't want to use it as my primary OS at this point. Just a little testing how FSX behaves on it. As far as I can see now, it run's very well on it, but I don't seem to be compatible with all adons. I tried to install FEX yesterday, but I can't get it to work right now. I will try again on this. I think I will also install MyTraffic and FTX Au on this. I know that I can't upgrade this installation to the final version at the end, I think this is the same thing with evey Beta OS. It's just a sandbox for me to compare how it behaves compared to Vista and so I can see if it's worth to change my OS after only one year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macroth72 38 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Is that under DX9 or DX10? I seem to find DX10 to be way faster here. I just tried DX9 at this point but I will check tonight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSXaddict 18 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I just tried DX9 at this point but I will check tonight...I'm still very anxious to try it (Windows 7) and have thought about doing exactly that, installing it on my second or third hd. I guess it couldn't hurt just to "see". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warbird861 0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Too bad I can't install it. No matter how many times and ways I download and burn it, I always get a stupid error with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 16, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted January 16, 2009 and the error is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 16, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted January 16, 2009 I did the same thing as the guy in this article: http://i.gizmodo.com/5133092/windows-7-run...ta-on-a-netbookAnd it is indeed amazing. The old laptop I hardly used at all because even XP was slow on it, seems to run smooth and easy with Windows 7 beta. Of course not for FSX, but we now keep it on hand for television stuff, managing the MS home server. I started with MSDOS 3 but I can honestly say I have never been so exited about a new OS. Sure there will be problems, but in a years time my new cellphone can run this. This is the first time I see a new OS makes an existing system faster. Seriously.Don't let people tell you it is just Vista (boring) with some fixes. People who say that have not really looked. The new error reporting system alone will reduce support costs for the whole Windows platform tremendously. The new taskbar is so smooth and logical it is near magical how it seems to show what you need at any given moment. Attach a beamer and you'll see how easy it is to get that one to run fine (try THAT on XP). And the whole time is feels smooth and slick. Exactly why most people like the iPhone the moment the have one in their hands. Sure their could be phones that are faster, more capable, but it is interaction that makes something work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 This all sounds very promising I must say! An interesting aspect to all this is that it may well negate the need, at least for me, to purchase an i7 system to get FSX to run reliably well under a mountain of addons - with most sliders far to the right obviously. I am on a non-oc'd 790i 4GBDDR3 Q9450 9800GTX system and the 20%+ improvement an i7 rig promises sounds very tempting for obvious reasons. However, if Windows7 indeed delivers that extra 20%+ improvement on the same hardware over my current XP system then how totally cool would that be?! Wow, who would have thought... It may even be enough to keep me, and many others, going until FSNext comes out... Konrad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 17, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted January 17, 2009 This all sounds very promising I must say! An interesting aspect to all this is that it may well negate the need, at least for me, to purchase an i7 system to get FSX to run reliably well under a mountain of addons - with most sliders far to the right obviously. I am on a non-oc'd 790i 4GBDDR3 Q9450 9800GTX system and the 20%+ improvement an i7 rig promises sounds very tempting for obvious reasons. However, if Windows7 indeed delivers that extra 20%+ improvement on the same hardware over my current XP system then how totally cool would that be?! Wow, who would have thought... It may even be enough to keep me, and many others, going until FSNext comes out... KonradI would always select the i7 over Windows7. Nothing beats raw horsepower and the i7 has plenty to offer. As I said before 2009 is a great year for personal computers (anybody still uses that term?), the new AMD also promises good value for money (yet will never catch up with a i7 under Windows), the i7 is the new standard and Windows 7 promises to unleash all that power with a great OS. Early last year I did not believe we would be where we are right now, I am compiling the same things in half the time, I got double the FPS in FSX compared with early 2008 and all on hardware that's the same price. For people who know the 'tick/tock' idea, it's clear that this 'tock' is a large 'tock'. Clearly the new CPU has room to grow as it is so stable under overclocking so the ticks will come as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warbird861 0 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 and the error is? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 A 0x8 error is ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY / Not enough storage is available to process this command.You can type in the whole error code here to get an exact reason and perhaps some possible solutions.Hope this helpsKonrad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warbird861 0 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Oh well, maybe I should buy new memory then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James A 39 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Too bad I can't install it. No matter how many times and ways I download and burn it, I always get a stupid error with it. Depends on how you class downloading it and burning it!! If you download Windows 7 then burn the file straight to DVD then YES you will get errors as you have not created the ISO file it tells you to create! You need an ISO Burner (google for one) then use the ISO Burner to Burn the DVD. I had no problems.If you don't have a test machine and do not want to mess up your operating system XP/Vista then google for a programme like Partition Magic. Install it and create a partition of around 16 to 20GB THEN install Windows 7 into that partition, works a treat. You now have a dual boot pc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warbird861 0 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Depends on how you class downloading it and burning it!! If you download Windows 7 then burn the file straight to DVD then YES you will get errors as you have not created the ISO file it tells you to create! You need an ISO Burner (google for one) then use the ISO Burner to Burn the DVD. I had no problems.If you don't have a test machine and do not want to mess up your operating system XP/Vista then google for a programme like ISOBurner. Install it and create a partition of around 16 to 20GB THEN install Windows 7 into that partition, works a treat. You now have a dual boot pc.I have program called magicISO, which I use to burn iso files into dvd. I also have another empty HD, where I wanted to install win7. I'm pretty sure I'm doing everything properly, but if I have missed something please do tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James A 39 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have program called magicISO, which I use to burn iso files into dvd. I also have another empty HD, where I wanted to install win7. I'm pretty sure I'm doing everything properly, but if I have missed something please do tell me.After burning the DVD then your DVD name should be something like GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD and should contain 5 folders and 3 files (boot, efi,sources, support, upgrade and autorun.inf, bootmgr, setup.exe)Also just noticed that you have an error msg relating to memory, therefore, that could also create problems. Found that out installing it onto a fairly old test machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warbird861 0 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 After burning the DVD then your DVD name should be something like GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD and should contain 5 folders and 3 files (boot, efi,sources, support, upgrade and autorun.inf, bootmgr, setup.exe)Also just noticed that you have an error msg relating to memory, therefore, that could also create problems. Found that out installing it onto a fairly old test machine.Yup, I've got those files and folders and dvd's name is GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD.Also my computer is fairly old so I believe my memory needs to be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I would always select the i7 over Windows7. Nothing beats raw horsepower and the i7 has plenty to offer. As I said before 2009 is a great year for personal computers (anybody still uses that term?), the new AMD also promises good value for money (yet will never catch up with a i7 under Windows), the i7 is the new standard and Windows 7 promises to unleash all that power with a great OS. Early last year I did not believe we would be where we are right now, I am compiling the same things in half the time, I got double the FPS in FSX compared with early 2008 and all on hardware that's the same price. For people who know the 'tick/tock' idea, it's clear that this 'tock' is a large 'tock'. Clearly the new CPU has room to grow as it is so stable under overclocking so the ticks will come as well.Agreed in principle Mathijs, but it is the extra cost involved for a whole new i7 system that is the tough part to swallow - especially so when considering I spent a fair whack for a decent C2Q system less that a year ago (don't dare ask how much 4GB of OZC Reaper DDR3 cost me a couple of months back!). The other thing is that my current system is just barely acceptable under XP in FSX - a 20% improvement would be really appreciated and if I can get it just by moving from XP to Windows7 (whilst keeping the same hardware) then that will surely be good news.Having said all that I am well aware that I am just blowing in the wind here and delaying the inevitable. Chances are I will be on i7 within 6 months anyway - will just eat less or something.Konrad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James A 39 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well, after messing with Windows 7 for a day or two I bit the bullet and installed FSX. Have the settings fairly high and it runs about 10-15fps faster than XP without any add ons. The first thing though is that Win 7 reduces it's colour display to Basic as soon as you fire it up. I then installed the Seahawk & Jayhawk X and it reduces fps by about 6/7 fps. Handles quite well and the only annoying thing is the Collective is bouncing up and down like I don't know what but, can live with that.Will try VFR London later to see what that gives.What I've seen of Win 7 is quite good and hope it isn't messed up when they come to release it. IE 8 is a bit naff though, slow. Hope they spruce that up. Will try it with Firefox in a day or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon66 0 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I thought Windows 7 was slower for me in FSX. I am using a q6600/8800GT/4GB ram. it was slower because the overall FPS would drop down lower in Windows 7 at times then in VISTA. But I can say it OS is damn stable for a Beta version. I even removed the watermark so its pretty nice. Vista drivers work also which I though was great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The first thing though is that Win 7 reduces it's colour display to Basic as soon as you fire it up.Not sure I understand what you mean by the above?Could you also just let us know what your hardware is for purposes of comparison. Looking forward to hearing how it goes.Thanks!Konrad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emacs 0 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Not sure I understand what you mean by the above?Could you also just let us know what your hardware is for purposes of comparison. Looking forward to hearing how it goes.I guess James is referring to the AeroGlass feature of Windows.And yeah - FSX does that for me too (and that is under Vista).Cheers,Emacs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts