FS Autostart or Cacheman in FSX???

[Dougal]

Hi Guys

Apologies if i've missed it, but this thread was hard work .......  

In Vista, is it still ok to use 'exctrlst_setup' to stop all those darned performance counters?

.... and Nick..... you Sir, are a star - quite an incredible example true humanity at work.  I thank you!

[Dougal]

Also, just an aside.... v8 & v8.5 of O&O appear NOT to be Vista compatible.

[Deviant]

I'm using version 10 w/ Vista.  Before I did the defrags, I had 14% fragmentation.  After the defrags I now have 34% fragmentaton.  I love this program! :-/

[NickN]

Ok, before everyone goes ape on me here let

[NickN]

[quote]Hi Guys

Apologies if i've missed it, but this thread was hard work .......

[Deviant]

[quote]

Ok, before everyone goes ape on me here let

[NickN]

I did not think that at all but there has been a large number of people asking about Vista and how to get it to run like XP, and, more and more asking about this thread and Vista

The deal is.. you will never get Vista to run as efficient as XP and that is the bottom line.

Vista sucks the life out your CPU and memory and although it does handle threads and memory better, they pretty much took all the advantages and used them up in creating the bloated parts of the OS.


When I finally move to the next hardware platform which will be better be better suited to Vista needs I will start looking into Vista more. Right now your best bet with that OS is to leave it alone for the most part... shut down the indexing and defender systems and keep the disk optimized, thats about it. Hardware wise you are better of on the 64bit version and have 4 gigs installed on the fastest quad core you can get.

[flyinjoe]

Psovod,

Exactly what problems are you having running FSX on Vista?  

I dual boot Vista Home Premium and XP Pro SP/2 on seperate hard drives and have FSX installed on both drives.  I do a lot of benchmarking on both OS's using identical graphical settings in FSX (and some other games as well) and to be honest, the Vista install of FSX runs identical to the XP install.  I'll admit that it did take some Vista tweaking (like turning of a few services you don't really need) to get it to that point, but it is possible.  In fact, I use Vista for FSX exclusively (other than testing), because the Nvidia XP drivers cause FSX to crash when pulling up the menu bar while in flight every so often, thus corrupting my pilot log.  So I just decided to use Vista only for all my real flights.  I should mention though that I do not use DX10 preview mode.  Not that it doesn't work, but the flashing ground textures are more than I can stomach so I stick with DX9 only.

flyinjoe

[SubZer0]

Psovod, I'm thinking of upgrading to a system similar to yours in a few months when the prices drop. My other option is to save up a bit more and wait for the next generation hardware.

I am very interested, however, to see what your system runs like in XP, as that is what I use-- I have Vista, but when I tried FSX on it, I got literally less than half my FPS that I get with XP. If you decide to upgrade, as Nick says

[Deviant]

[quote]Psovod,

Exactly what problems are you having running FSX on Vista?

[Deviant]

[quote]Psovod, I'm thinking of upgrading to a system similar to yours in a few months when the prices drop. My other option is to save up a bit more and wait for the next generation hardware.

I am very interested, however, to see what your system runs like in XP, as that is what I use-- I have Vista, but when I tried FSX on it, I got literally less than half my FPS that I get with XP. If you decide to upgrade, as Nick says

[flyinjoe]

Psovod,

I understand what you are saying.

[macca22au]

Good post Flyinjoe.   I also use Vista, and like others I can't afford and don't want the bother of going back to XP.   I am one of those when confronted with a list of startup services I don't know what to disable - remember they have some names, titles, designation that would require a fair knowledge of computing to risk turning off.

I for one would like a list of what you disabled, or what you have left running, and if possible using the way they are designated in Task  Manager.

You would be doing a great service to mankind if you were able to do this.

I use NOD 32 AV, and it seems to be so undemanding on resources I frequently can't be bothered to turn it off.   But avoid Norton in particular, I wasted good money on it, not because it isn't good at its job, but its a real resource hog.

[FC5452]

[quote]
As for O&O... the first person who posted the GUI.. much of what I see not moving is part of the system restore partition and other areas that are not moveable in Vista. Those areas do not have anything to do worth performance. Also, it would appear the page file may be in the data zone. Assuming you have a least a gig or more in memory, turn the page file off, (set it to NO PAGE FILE) reboot, run O&O name defrag and offline defrag, then turn the page file back on. That should move the reserved area out of the data zone.

As for why O&O reports a fragmented %, that

[NickN]

[quote][quote]
As for O&O... the first person who posted the GUI.. much of what I see not moving is part of the system restore partition and other areas that are not moveable in Vista. Those areas do not have anything to do worth performance. Also, it would appear the page file may be in the data zone. Assuming you have a least a gig or more in memory, turn the page file off, (set it to NO PAGE FILE) reboot, run O&O name defrag and offline defrag, then turn the page file back on. That should move the reserved area out of the data zone.

As for why O&O reports a fragmented %, that