I have run the upgrade advisor and it says everything on my computer
checks perfect to go from my XP Pro to Vista. The catch is, I found in
reading material, it requires a min. of 800Mhz. My system is 533Mhz.
Did Microsofts test program screw up?

Here's the thing. I've been trying to get more speed out of my Flight
SimX. Sadly, on the default settings, it will only operate at around 4
to 6 frames/sec. That's even when the hard drives have been completely
formated... at 16 hrs. each, and besides my XP Pro, the only other
program I put on was FSX! I was informed my XP Pro could not read but
two of my four memory cards, but Vista 64 is capable of reading all 4.
That's why I am wanting to switch to Vista Ultimate 64.

System:
Intel Server Board: SE7505VB2
Two qty. - Intel Xenon 3.2GHz dual processors SL72Y
533 MHz bus
1 MB cache

4 qty. - Kingston 2GB memory sticks
2 qty. - 250 GB Seagate Barracuda hard drives
850 Watt dual rail power supply
X1950 Pro ATI video card - AGP (largest one available for my older
system)
X1550 ATI video card
3 qty. - HP 22" lcd monitors

Now with that, you can basically blink and a program is open and
running. It's far from a slow system. To even try to speed the FSX up,
I have disconnected the second video card I use, and two monitors, just
leaving the X1950 in place, and only one monitor... but still get these
horrible speeds. On the other hand, I can play Combat Flight Simulator
3, spread across all three screens.. LOOKS GREAT! .. and run frames well
above 30 with no problem. I know it's not as graphic intense as FSX,
but I can max CFS completely out and still maintain above 30 fps.

Is there a fix for this? WILL Vista work on my system as Microsofts
"advisor" says, or is giving me completely wrong info?

Any suggestions greatly appreciated.


--
stylz67

"stylz67" wrote in message
...

I have run the upgrade advisor and it says everything on my computer
checks perfect to go from my XP Pro to Vista. The catch is, I found in
reading material, it requires a min. of 800Mhz. My system is 533Mhz.
Did Microsofts test program screw up?

Here's the thing. I've been trying to get more speed out of my Flight
SimX. Sadly, on the default settings, it will only operate at around 4
to 6 frames/sec. That's even when the hard drives have been completely
formated... at 16 hrs. each, and besides my XP Pro, the only other
program I put on was FSX! I was informed my XP Pro could not read but
two of my four memory cards, but Vista 64 is capable of reading all 4.
That's why I am wanting to switch to Vista Ultimate 64.

System:
Intel Server Board: SE7505VB2
Two qty. - Intel Xenon 3.2GHz dual processors SL72Y
533 MHz bus
1 MB cache

4 qty. - Kingston 2GB memory sticks
2 qty. - 250 GB Seagate Barracuda hard drives
850 Watt dual rail power supply
X1950 Pro ATI video card - AGP (largest one available for my older
system)
X1550 ATI video card
3 qty. - HP 22" lcd monitors

Now with that, you can basically blink and a program is open and
running. It's far from a slow system. To even try to speed the FSX up,
I have disconnected the second video card I use, and two monitors, just
leaving the X1950 in place, and only one monitor... but still get these
horrible speeds. On the other hand, I can play Combat Flight Simulator
3, spread across all three screens.. LOOKS GREAT! .. and run frames well
above 30 with no problem. I know it's not as graphic intense as FSX,
but I can max CFS completely out and still maintain above 30 fps.

Is there a fix for this? WILL Vista work on my system as Microsofts
"advisor" says, or is giving me completely wrong info?

Any suggestions greatly appreciated.



The 800mhz minimum requirement for Vista is CPU speed.
Your CPU is 3.2 ghz so I don't know how you could have construed that as a
problem.
CPU speed, after all is NOT FSB speed.


The only problem I've heard with Vista 64 bit is that you should install it
with just 2 gigs of RAM
in the machine, then add the rest once you are up and running.

philo... thanx. You are correct. I was searching on-line to purchase
it, and on the site I was looking at, they apparently did a typo because
it stated 800 front bus, and the line below listed 1GHz processor. You
cleared it up for me.


--
stylz67

"stylz67" wrote in message
...

philo... thanx. You are correct. I was searching on-line to purchase
it, and on the site I was looking at, they apparently did a typo because
it stated 800 front bus, and the line below listed 1GHz processor. You
cleared it up for me.





OK

hope it all works out!