Windows XP Question

BolianAdmiral · December 2012

Hey, all...

I'm posting this because I need some help from people who actually know all the "techy" stuff about computers. I am planning to in the near future build my own PC. I am going to run Windows XP on it, because I have had some issues with the way Windows 7 does some things, and after having used both operating systems, I simply feel most comfortable and fluent with XP. Please do not attempt to change my position on this... my next computer WILL run Windows XP, end of story.

My concerns/questions are the following... now that time has marched on to more advanced technologies, what kind of specs would be the most that an XP machine can handle, for instance, HD size, RAM, processor(s), cards, etc. I would like to know what kind of specs and equipment to put on my list.

I would like to build a machine that can handle running both Photoshop and Illustrator CS2 at once very smoothly, with an internet browser and iTunes running at the same time in the background. I had an old Dell Optiplex running XP Pro that did this well, so I know it can be done. I'm not into the whole overclocking or modding thing, so I don't need anything fancy. I'm just looking to build a basic home computer that will serve my graphics needs, and let me surf the web pretty well.

I have a brand-new, still-sealed, LEGAL OEM copy of Windows XP Home Edition with Service Pack 3. This is what I will be running. I am fully aware that Microsoft no longer supports XP, and that's fine, as long as I'll still be able to register/use it. If anyone can give me any guidelines or advice on what kind of components and their specs to get, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks in advance, for any help/insight.

Chris2005 · December 2012

Well, running on the starting point that the computer WILL run XP...

CPU wise you should be fine, for example, Intel says their i7's require at least XP SP2... but you lose quite a bit of power keeping XP as XP cannot use more than 4 CPU's, as you might know, the i7 is a quad core processor. However, it incorporates hyper-threading which mimics an extra CPU (per core) giving you a total of 8 CPU's (4 physical, 4 virtual), since XP in general is not really optimized for multi-core CPU's, another issue you might have is with triple channel RAM... the only other thing is the amount of RAM you can use depending on whether your version of XP is 32 or 64 bit. Also, XP might not be able to take advantage of newer technologies on some hardware which can cause performance issues, even though it supports the use of the hardware, you also might have trouble finding XP compatible drivers for some hardware... my video card, a GTX 550 Ti has XP 32 and 64 bit driver support, but XP can't make full use out of my card in terms of features like DirectX 11...

So, some of your hardware, while being brand new in terms of purchases, might have to be older than current hardware... to make complete and fully compatible use out of the hardware and software...

I'm afraid I can't offer much insight for current hardware that would work the best with XP, because I run Windows 7, so I'm always looking for hardware that's Windows 7 compatible, lol.

evil_genius_180 · December 2012

You really shouldn't have too many problems running XP on a modern system. I'd stick to dual channel memory as Chris suggested and a dual or quad core processor, nothing higher. Also, 32-bit Windows is limited to 4GB RAM, 64-bit XP will run up to 16GB, I think. Just be careful in what you buy to build and you should be fine. I'd suggest buying online and using the advanced search function to narrow down to what exactly you want. Find a motherboard that will run dual channel memory (easy) and find a compatible processor and RAM. If you install a video card, find out what wattage it requires and base the PSU power on that. If not, you shouldn't need higher than 300 watts, but I'd go 350 just to be safe. For a HDD, I'd stick to 2TB or lower, because I don't know if XP can handle higher than that.

Halo Buff · December 2012

Honestly, I think you are better going the Windows 7 or 8 route and running XP via a virtual machine. I have to use the XP Virtual Mode on my 7 machine for older programs that simply don't, or wont, run on 7, from time to time. That will take care of any of the modern hardware issues, and still allow you to run the XP that you are familiar with and have full control of the computer from within the virtual one.

Halo Buff · December 2012

I had 2x1TB and 1x40GB in an XP machine at one point. Storage isn't a problem, Memory and the number of cores are the limiters that I've run into.

BolianAdmiral · December 2012

^

Thank you... yeah, I would stay below 2TB as well for the HD... I might not even go with 1TB, since I plan to actually use an external HD for most of my file storage. I will have to double-check my XP CD to see if it's the 32 or 64-bit version, but I'm thinking it is the 32, since it's the Home Edition. I'll have a look after work tonight. As Chris2005 said, another issue is drivers.

Does anyone here have a favorite brand of HD they usually stick with? I'm asking because as some of you may know from my Nebula-Class thread, I have had miserable experiences with Western Digital, so I am for the time being seeking a good and solid alternative to WD. Is Seagate a good and reliable brand?

Halo Buff: Thanks, but I'm just going to be running XP alone... I have no desire to have anything to do with 7 anymore... not after the experience I've had after having used both systems.

IRML · December 2012

I thought there were supposed to be ways to get XP to recognise more ram

IRML · December 2012

BolianAdmiral wrote: »

Does anyone here have a favorite brand of HD they usually stick with? I'm asking because as some of you may know from my Nebula-Class thread, I have had miserable experiences with Western Digital, so I am for the time being seeking a good and solid alternative to WD. Is Seagate a good and reliable brand?

I always buy seagate, though you'll get failures with any manufacturer

Chris2005 · December 2012

This may offer some insights about the hard drive space limitations for XP...

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/itproxpsp/thread/8fd33944-0202-4dff-a432-356e2b231f2e/

However, unless you're doing something that requires an extreme amount of space... 2TB seems more than enough, that's 2,048 GB...

As for brands of hard drives my former 240GB HDD was a WD if I remember correctly... I now use a 60 GB Intel SSD for my main drive... my secondary drive is a 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F1.

IRML wrote: »

I thought there were supposed to be ways to get XP to recognise more ram

One would need the 64-bit version of XP. Getting more than 3 gigs of RAM for XP is just ridiculous anyway. However, in 32-bit operating systems, there is absolutely NO way to address more than 4 GBs of RAM... from my understanding.

evil_genius_180 · December 2012

Halo Buff wrote: »

Honestly, I think you are better going the Windows 7 or 8 route and running XP via a virtual machine. I have to use the XP Virtual Mode on my 7 machine for older programs that simply don't, or wont, run on 7, from time to time. That will take care of any of the modern hardware issues, and still allow you to run the XP that you are familiar with and have full control of the computer from within the virtual one.

Or you can run XP on a virtual system in Linux. Lots of Linux users who still need to run Windows programs do that.

(not a suggestion, Bolian Admiral, I'm just saying

)

BolianAdmiral wrote: »

Does anyone here have a favorite brand of HD they usually stick with? I'm asking because as some of you may know from my Nebula-Class thread, I have had miserable experiences with Western Digital, so I am for the time being seeking a good and solid alternative to WD. Is Seagate a good and reliable brand?

Personally, I don't shop by brand, I shop by product reviews. Like IRML said, there are always bad ones from any brand. I have a Samsung 1TB HDD that's been going strong for over 2 years now, but not all Samsung drives are that good. My first computer had a Seagate 4GB HD and it technically still works. Though, they've had more quality control issues of late. However, they're still one of the top names in drives. Just find one with lots of positive reviews and an average of at least 4/5 stars.

IRML wrote: »

I thought there were supposed to be ways to get XP to recognise more ram

Yeah, but you're probably talking about some PITA hacking crap.

MadKoiFish · December 2012

XP home is 32bit only it wont see anything above 4gigs ram.

XP 64 pro is hackable to see more but it cannot allocate it properly. So it really is just a waste of time unless you do mega texture rendering. Typical program use will not change to make use of that extra ram.

With the limits existing in XP and with the HOME edition I wouldn't bother spending anything on new hdw. You wont see the improvement because of the OS limitations. Id find a used core2 machine somewhere and pay no more than 300USD for it.

I picked up a pentium-d 3ghz dual core 8gigs ram 1tb hdd and a so so pcie card in it for 300USD some 4 yrs ago. Any 150usd pci-e card would do since I do not think the low ram and limits on cpu will make anything higher worth the effort or cost.

If you insist on XP at least get XP pro 64bit, it is the only version worth using and only version hackable to work or at least show some improvement in hdw. Keep in mind newer software might not run or work well. With the overuse of runtimes these days having high amounts of FAST multi channel ram is quickly becoming a requirement.

Virtual machines are just as bad with core and ram limits. Free soft is usually limited to 512~1g ram and 1 core. Pay for allows more but I think is still limited.

I do not want to sound like an ass but if you really do not know the limits of XP home 32bit and the whole XP os limits I wouldn't recommend using it at all. The os has fallen into the expert field since you really have to know the ins and outs of the OS to be secure and know how to get things fixed and or to run on the older code base. I left XP behind a few years ago because it was becoming too much of a pain in the ass to maintain and secure. The last 2 machines I moved from XP to win7 were due to Firefox exploits and a security hole in netframework.

Yaric · December 2012

Why not just do a dual boot system? Basically, set your self up two main OS partitions of whatever size, then install XP as normal. When you done, install windows 7, windows comes with it's own boot loader to choose which OS you want to boot. That's what I did, in fact what I've pretty much always done when I've upgraded OS's. I myself don't mind 7 so use it predominantly but on occasion need to boot up into XP to do something. Also, comes in handy if you happen to get a virus, you can boot up into other OS and fix your problems.

Are you against windows X64 or do you just simply want to use that XP version you already have? If you use XP X64 then i think you'll get around all of those ram issues and what not.

For the hard drives. I think it's kinda luck of the drawl. I've had one Western digital fail and one Seagate barracuda fail. However, I have several others of the same makes that haven't failed even after 5+ years. I think one key to make them last is to limit the thermal cycling. Leave your computer on ALL the time and the hard drives won't ever cool down and flex the internal/external parts. Kinda like how a Semi truck engine can run for a million miles because it never gets shut down.

If you really want to be secure set up a raid 1 array. Most mother boards support it natively now. Chances of two independent hard drives failing at the same time are doubly as slim as one failing.

evil_genius_180 · December 2012

MadKoiFish wrote: »

Virtual machines are just as bad with core and ram limits. Free soft is usually limited to 512~1g ram and 1 core. Pay for allows more but I think is still limited.

VirtualBox is free and has no such limits. Though, it does get whiny if you use more than 50% of your RAM, even if the host OS isn't using that much in idle mode. However, I personally don't care for Virtual Machines. I've set them up in the past, but there's no substitute for real hardware. Plus, some software won't run well or at all on virtual "hardware."

Chris2005 · December 2012

I use VMware Player which is also free, last I checked.

VirtualBox doesn't have Guest Additions for some OS's that VMware has support for... I've ran Windows 98 (for nostalgia purposes) in VMware with great performance with VMware Tools... same with Windows 95... I don't think VirtualBox has Guest Addition support for Windows 95 or 98...

MadKoiFish · December 2012

vmrware player is limited to 4 virtual cores sans hyperthreading. Vbox now supports I think up to 12max. All suck at anything gfx accelerated latter is more beta.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/pdf_archives/july_2012_operation_upgrade_we_overhaul_three_aging_pcs

pdf there with an article covering the 2 software. I still cannot find the larger online article I read recently it had major breakdowns of the apps and costs vs features and what not.

There is a lot of conflicting information regarding cores supported in XP
Some say home only supports 1proc 2cores others say just home =1cpu pro=2cpu. Regardless of these I have seen some caps of task manager in XP running a quad with hyperthreading.

With that said I would look at say a amd hex since PS and ILL in CS2 flavor should access at least 4 threads.

Additional hdd get a 1tb or larger I found the 500gigs are often SLOW compared to the higher end 1tb units. Good example are the collections of hdds I have on my network. Within one machine I have a 500gig 750gig 2 1tb 2 2tb and a 3tb unit. All 7200rpm units. the 2 2tb units are on the sata3 ports rest are sata2
500gig 130mbps
750gig 150mbps
1tb 190~200mbps
2tb 200~250mbps
3tb 200~250mbps
SSD (sata2) 200~280mbps Older unit as well. (g2)

BolianAdmiral · December 2012

MadKoiFish wrote: »

XP home is 32bit only it wont see anything above 4gigs ram.

XP 64 pro is hackable to see more but it cannot allocate it properly. So it really is just a waste of time unless you do mega texture rendering. Typical program use will not change to make use of that extra ram.

With the limits existing in XP and with the HOME edition I wouldn't bother spending anything on new hdw. You wont see the improvement because of the OS limitations. Id find a used core2 machine somewhere and pay no more than 300USD for it.

I picked up a pentium-d 3ghz dual core 8gigs ram 1tb hdd and a so so pcie card in it for 300USD some 4 yrs ago. Any 150usd pci-e card would do since I do not think the low ram and limits on cpu will make anything higher worth the effort or cost.

If you insist on XP at least get XP pro 64bit, it is the only version worth using and only version hackable to work or at least show some improvement in hdw. Keep in mind newer software might not run or work well. With the overuse of runtimes these days having high amounts of FAST multi channel ram is quickly becoming a requirement.

Virtual machines are just as bad with core and ram limits. Free soft is usually limited to 512~1g ram and 1 core. Pay for allows more but I think is still limited.

I do not want to sound like an ass but if you really do not know the limits of XP home 32bit and the whole XP os limits I wouldn't recommend using it at all. The os has fallen into the expert field since you really have to know the ins and outs of the OS to be secure and know how to get things fixed and or to run on the older code base. I left XP behind a few years ago because it was becoming too much of a pain in the ass to maintain and secure. The last 2 machines I moved from XP to win7 were due to Firefox exploits and a security hole in netframework.

Hey, thanks, MKF... don't worry about sounding like an ass, lol... I appreciate your reply! Yeah, XP Home is 32-bit, as I found out last night. I'm not so much asking all this because I want to hack XP or do some fancy stuff with it, since I simply can't and don't know how. The reason for my questions is that I just want to make sure whatever I buy will be able to work on XP, since as I indicated, I am aware that hardware (and software) has advanced beyond the limits of what XP could handle. I've never built my own PC before, so this will be my first time. All the computers I've owned thus far have been store-bought ones, so I want to have something that is free of all the pre-bundled stuff that I never really use.

I'm not against going Pro, but since I already own XP Home, I might as well use it, since it's there, and I've had it a while. I'll be honest, I do like Windows 7... it is what Vista should have been from the get-go. But I do have a few issues with the way 7 does things... preferring the way XP did them. Yes, they are very minor and admittedly mostly cosmetic, but to me as the user they matter. I have used every Windows system from 3.1 to 7, and every Apple OS from System 7.0 to OSX, so I do have some experience with various systems. I just don't know too much about the "guts" of computers... I'm not mechanically inclined in that sense. Of all the Windows versions I've used, XP is what I am familiar with most, and what I feel most comfortable using... that's why I'll be using it. It's just that simple.

I have actually been reading a lot about Ubuntu and Linux, but my primary concern with those are the software... can I run Photoshop and Illustrator CS2 on them? Can I run iTunes on them? Can I run Blender on them? What about the few games I play now and then, like ST Bridge Commander or Homeworld? I want to be sure I can use almost all of what I already have, so I don't have to buy a bunch of expensive new software.

I will continue to read up on the things posted here so I can better understand about how VM works and hyperthreading, and so on... I do (and should) want to know what all these things mean.

Greetings!

Windows XP Question

Posts

Greetings!

Quick Links

Windows XP Question

Posts