Vista Home Basic and FSX

Vista basic will handle FSX as well as any other Vista because FSX is a DX9 program. Vista runs DX9 programs with DX9L.

XP(SP2) runs FSX using DX9c while using about 1/2 as much "resource" (mainboard RAM) as Vista.

No documentation has stated Vista basic does NOT support DX10 programs. DX10 is "OUT" in so far as Vista will suppport DX10 programs. FSX is not a native DX10 program. A free FSX patch that allows FSX to use some of the features of DX10 will be available in 4th quarter 2007.

OK thanks for the info! But, on a lower spec computer, wouldn't FSX run slower on Ultimate because of the 3D desktop(which I would assume uses up resources which FSX could be using)?

So which would be better for FSX, XP Home or Vista Home Basic, both with DX9 graphics card? And which of these would better and more compatible with Vista, ATI or Nvidia?

Yes, you are correct about "resouce" usage by Vista desktop compared to Xp(Sp2). And yes, on a lower spec system that will slow down FSX.

edit.. I'm happy running FSX on Xp(SP2), but I have core2Duo, 2 gb of 800mhz ram (FSX uses 1.2 gb average) and 768mbGTX8800. I won't consider Vista basic upgrade untill the FSX DX10 patch is available.

I prefer nVida only because AMD owns ATI now and AMDs' website confuses me, also ATI drivers seem to have a mind of their own.

Mavix wrote:

OK thanks for the info! But, on a lower spec computer, wouldn't FSX run slower on Ultimate because of the 3D desktop(which I would assume uses up resources which FSX could be using)?

Windows Vista automsttically turns Aero off when FSX is running just to let you know.