I have 4GB of RAM in a Mac Pro and my version of windows will only see 2 at the moment. Just have a niggling feeling that perhaps I should upgrade to Vista Pro 64.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will Vista 64 run FSX better than XP32?
- Thread starter Thunderbird8
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure since you have more RAM than XP can handle, that Vista 64-bit will perform better. In addition, 64-bit OSes are generally faster than their 32-bit counterparts. FSX over here on Vista 32-bit doesn't run well 
. I'm running a 2 x 2GHz Mac Pro, 3GB RAM, ATI X1900 XT.
. I'm running a 2 x 2GHz Mac Pro, 3GB RAM, ATI X1900 XT.
win xp pro see only 2.5gig max
Vista sees 4 gig max
These are dependent on the windows install and hardware it is being run from. If it is via an emulator then those amounts will be lower.
Vista sees 4 gig max
These are dependent on the windows install and hardware it is being run from. If it is via an emulator then those amounts will be lower.
Get Vista x64. It's worth it. I've been running it (Ultimate Edition) on my MBP for a while now and several other friends have it installed as well (they are gamers) and none of us have had any problems.
There is so much FUD about Vista it's not even funny. People whine and b!tch about it being slower/not working, but that was only the case when it was first released. Since SP1 came out and developers have released numerous drivers, Vista is like smooth butter. If you need a 64-bit Windows OS, it's the best.
XP 64-bit is a joke, even the biggest Microsoft lover will admit that.
There is so much FUD about Vista it's not even funny. People whine and b!tch about it being slower/not working, but that was only the case when it was first released. Since SP1 came out and developers have released numerous drivers, Vista is like smooth butter. If you need a 64-bit Windows OS, it's the best.
XP 64-bit is a joke, even the biggest Microsoft lover will admit that.
I fully agree with Stridder44. I ran XP Pro 32 for a while because of all the negative posts but when games started coming out for Vista I went with Vista Business 64 and I'll tell you that it rocks Crysis. DirectX10 is much more efficient in the use of the GPU and CPU. I can run the game on higher settings (and it looks better).
Alan
I ran the Half Life 2 Counter Strike Source video stress test on my machine:
Mac Pro '08
4 GB RAM
GeForce 8800 GT
Ran the stress test on both Win XP Pro 32 bits SP 2 with all updates, and latest nVidia drivers, versus Vista Ultimate 64 bits SP 1 with all updates and latest nVidia drivers...
Both tests done on the same fysical HD, 1st 160 GB NTFS partition for XP, 2nd 160 GB NTFS partition for Vista.
Vista is 5 fps faster, on this DirectX 9 game (265 fps vs. 270 fps).
Not a lot, but it is a difference which I could regenerate every time.
But... I do use XP for playing older games like DTM racer 2, Richard Burns Rally, etc. because those games have issues on Vista. (bad force feedback support, or random crashes etc.)
If you have a DirectX 10 compatible grfx card, I wouldn't dream of running Crysis on XP!! Must-see-grfx-on-DirectX10-on-Vista! Runs gr8 on Vista Ultimate 64 bits!
Mac Pro '08
4 GB RAM
GeForce 8800 GT
Ran the stress test on both Win XP Pro 32 bits SP 2 with all updates, and latest nVidia drivers, versus Vista Ultimate 64 bits SP 1 with all updates and latest nVidia drivers...
Both tests done on the same fysical HD, 1st 160 GB NTFS partition for XP, 2nd 160 GB NTFS partition for Vista.
Vista is 5 fps faster, on this DirectX 9 game (265 fps vs. 270 fps).
Not a lot, but it is a difference which I could regenerate every time.
But... I do use XP for playing older games like DTM racer 2, Richard Burns Rally, etc. because those games have issues on Vista. (bad force feedback support, or random crashes etc.)
If you have a DirectX 10 compatible grfx card, I wouldn't dream of running Crysis on XP!! Must-see-grfx-on-DirectX10-on-Vista! Runs gr8 on Vista Ultimate 64 bits!