Windows XP compatability with newer MoBos and multi-core CPUs?

[rickscript]

Hi,
My computer is really starting to show it's age and needs to be replaced with something more up to modern specs. I have done this a few times before so I know my way around the process. I have identified a few good choices of mainboard/CPU combos and I was all set to start ordering parts when I saw a few comments in a forum. A few others were saying that certain models of MoBo and CPU wouldn't work with Windows XP. I have a full install disk of both Windows XP Pro and 64-bit XP and I am perfectly happy not joining the herd towards Win 7 (for both $ and user reasons). I've heard of hardware not having the horsepower to run a system, but I've never heard of the opposite, so I checked the manufacturer's site (Asus, in this case) and they have a well-hidden link that opens a page showing which models are "compatible" with XP, Vista and 7. I'm not sure what that means and I could not get a clear, unequivocal answer on their site as to what this means (does it mean if you put in the install disk after assembly, that everything grinds to a halt? does it mean some devices may not have drivers? who knows?) If you want to ask them a direct question like this, you have to provide details like serial numbers (since I haven't purchased yet, I can't really do this) so I am trying to get an answer elsewhere. The essential issue is this: I want to use a current model multi-core CPU from AMD, with probably an Asus board and I want to install Win XP Pro on it; that's it. Seems pretty simple but I haven't yet found someone who can definitely answer this. A few years back, when building a computer for my girlfriend we ran into the unforeseen AGP-extinction and she was left with a pricey video card that became a paperweight. I wasn't sure if this should be in the hardware section, or the XP section, so please excuse my error- I have been away from here for a few years. Anyway, if anyone can reveal the mysteries of this issue I'd really appreciate it. I am guessing it will be perfectly fine but I'd like to avoid needless hassles. Thanks

 

[goombawaho]

As time goes by, less and less NEW motherboards, video cards, sounds cards, etc. will have drivers for XP. So, the answer to your question "does it mean some devices may not have drivers?" is YES.

It's up to you to ferret out whether all your devices will be supported. Lots of drivers come off the XP CD, but for most computers, there are some that are required from either the computer manufacturer (Dell, HP, etc.) OR from the hardware maker (Creative, Nvidia). So, if you pick your items carefully or use some older components and transfer them over that already work with XP, you'll have less items to check.

But, buyer beware. I just built one of these and no problems with it and XP. MSI G31TM-P21

If I was building from scratch, I would go to Windows 7 though. That PC that I built was made up of leftovers and parts I got from some demolished systems, so it only cost me a tiny bit.

 

[rclarke250]

Never heard of this, would you have the link? All component manufacturers have whats called a qualified vendor list, for compatibility. This lists the cpu/memory for motherboards. This list is not definitive, it just means these are what they have tested. They may only test say a 2GB DIMM and not the 4 GB dimm, but since the timings and voltages are the same it should work, as long as the board supports 4 GB dimms.

All Intel and AMD cpu's based on x86 architecture work with windows XP. If the system board supports a certain cpu i.e. ( Asus sabertooth p67,Intel I-5 2500K) Will work with both XP and XP-64, there are drivers for both OS on the support site. I could find no link to a list that stated a motherboard with one cpu would work with XP, but if you put another cpu in it would not.

 

[vacunita]

The CPU's and memory as long as its less than 4 GB should have no issues with XP. Other than that, as was stated you'll want to check the the hardware has XP compatible drivers.



----------------------------------
Phil AKA Vacunita
----------------------------------
Ignorance is not necessarily Bliss, case in point:
Unknown has caused an Unknown Error on Unknown and must be shutdown to prevent damage to Unknown.

Behind the Web, Tips and Tricks for Web Development.

http://behindtheweb.blogspot.com/

 

[rickscript]

Thanks to goombawaho, Rclarke250 and to vacunita for your fast replies...You guys (I may sound sexist, but I assume you're male) pretty much confirmed what I thought; that there may be some issues in the future with device drivers, especially for newer ones, but there is no inherent reason why hardware like I am considering should not be able to accept an XP install. I knew about the memory limitation for 32-bit XP; I do have the 64-bit version also, so I theoretically could upgrade if needed. I like XP, my limited exposure to Vista and 7 don't lead me to feel the need to enrich Mr. Gates at this time (maybe with 8). I am not worried about the phasing out of support in 2014; this machine is being built because I need more horsepower for my applications, especially audio and video capture/edit/etc, and I want the enhanced multi-tasking with dual to quad core CPU's. By the time 2014 rolls around, if the latest windows seems like a true step forward I'll upgrade.

This is a bit of a tangent, but while I am at it I would like to see if any of you can enlighten me about one other thing. Since I upgraded to the latest version of IE, I've noticed my computer's performance getting noticeably worse. Is it just me or does this new browser gobble up resources like a sailor on shore leave. With only one browser window open and minimized,the iexplore.exe process can easily grab up 200-300 Mb of RAM (and I only have 512, so I can't really spare it) and a lot of cycles as well. Sometimes, if I have a few tabs open, and I close the one that is the most hoggish, the others grab for the abandoned slop-like a game of whack-a-mole! Any thoughts? Is this just the way of the newer browsers (Firefox is better but still pretty selfish)? Again, thanks for your fast and most helpful posts.

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

is your current XP version an OEM version? If so, it lives and dies with the PC, its not transferable, so your cost implication is null and void, as you have to buy a new OS anyway.

secondly, XP runs like rubbish on a new spec machine. the interface is slow compared to a 7 machine and tbh, the kernel is just getting too old to cope.

I build a number of workstations and have to often downgrade to XP for customers businesses still and its a royal pain in the ass. XP installs take so long, and there are more updates and patches for it now that the entire size of the original install!

Xp was great, Vista was a joke, Win 7 is the new windows OS of choice... time to move on....

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[BadBigBen]

and if you do not wish to move on, then here is a suggestion as to the system you may wish to look at...

CPU: Intel i5-760 (quad core) or i5-650 (dual-core) about $205/$180 respectively
MoBo: ASUS P7P55D-E LX abut $125 (XP drivers are found on the ASUS website)
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL8D-4GBRM about $45
(for XP 32bit do not go over 4GB as it will not be able to address any larger RAM sizes)


total: $375 / $350 depending on CPU...

and I can not concur with HairlessSupportMonkey on the assessment that "XP runs like rubbish on a new spec machine.", I use a similar board (GigaByte P55A-UD3) and XP is just as fast as the Win7 (Dual Boot)...

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

I really only mention XP running lumpy on a new PC as the GUI in win7 is hardware accelerated in your GPU (DX10 and above), where XP I find its interface slow in comparison.

I would like you to run some bench tests on your rig, one in XP and one in Win7 and see what has the better through put.

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[BadBigBen]

I would like you to run some bench tests on your rig, one in XP and one in Win7 and see what has the better through put.

Like which one do you wish me to TEST for you!? if they are CPU/GPU intensive, then Win7 wins and these I do not need to repeat:

Windows mit Core i7, Core 2 Quad und Phenom II X4
Test: Windows 7, Vista und XP im Benchmark-Vergleich

http://www.tecchannel.de/pc_mobile/windows/2022216/test_performance_windows_7_vista_xp_bechmark/

in two categories XP still beats them all:

Games Benchmark (DX9c):

Office Benchmark:

but you WHERE talking about the GUI aka DESKTOP, any suggestion as to which benchmark program I could use?

Now, back to the thread... The OP stated he wanted a newer type hardware that was CAPABLE of running Windows XP, and that was presented...

and I also agree that he should "bite the bullet" and upgrade to Windows 7, as it is OVERALL a better OS...

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

DX9!!

How about modern games in DX10?

Windows 7 interface also runs in DX10.

Anyway - could on all night....

didnt mean to derail the thread -

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

Quote from a fairly decent set of bench marks:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,2

UI Speed

Many of the behind-the-scenes improvements to Windows 7 were designed to do one thing: improve the responsiveness of the user interface. Whether it’s the result of core kernel improvements that boost the performance of multi-threaded apps on multi-core CPUs, or improvements in the way frequently used applications are cached in memory, the new OS feels snappier in almost every way. Apps seem to load faster, and dialog boxes appear and disappear faster. In general, we found ourselves spending less time waiting for the PC than we do in XP, Vista, or OS X. While we attempted to measure some quantitative benchmarks on app load times and other UI speed tests, we found it very difficult to measure reliably. However, when surveying dozens of users about their Windows 7 experiences, one response was almost universal: Windows 7 feels faster.

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[rickscript]

Thanks again, everybody...

to hairlesssupportmonkey- my windows disks are not OEM versions, they are the full, unencumbered install disks so I won't have any troubles with that. You seem much more positive on win 7 than me or many others I've spoken to. Thing is, I only am interested in having a full, non-OEM install disk and to do that for this new OS is a significant outlay (I would want the best version of the OS, of course) and I just don't see the benefits (money IS an issue for me right now, but perhaps later) being worth it

to BadBigBen- I appreciate the input AND you standing up and defending XP's honor! I have always used AMD and am certainly leaning towards it again (among other things I like the concept of possibly unlocking some additional cores with an AMD duo or tri core CPU) but maybe I shouldn't rule out Intel entirely...Among other things I am probably looking at a new power supply, possibly another optical drive, depending on if the MoBo has an IDE header, etc. so I really need to keep my core components cost (MoBo, CPU, RAM) in the $260-275 range to stay on my target...I've been through a home remodeling before and it's really easy to overrun cost targets with a little of this and a little of that..Honestly, I'm not wild about having to make possible compromises because of economic concerns and I've never found myself in this spot before but it's reality and I can't just have anything I want right now...

Lastly, does anyone have any ideas on the IE resource hogging question? My earlier versions of IE didn't do this-is this just the new reality in web browsers?

 

[DrB0b]

Honestly I've ran into alot of issues with IE9 that should have never made it out of beta testing. On all the machines here, I've rolled back to IE8 and have seen better performance and less quirks than with 9.
And to throw my 2 cents in about the RAM BBB recommended a couple of posts earlier:

"RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL8D-4GBRM about $45"

Please buy a different set of RAM. Just to clarify I love GSKILL and they have always been good to me but this series has flaws. I bought one from Newegg a week ago and 1 of the 2 sticks were bad. Talked with many others who had the exact same issue.

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver...

 

[BadBigBen]

@HSM, a quote out of your quote

While we attempted to measure some quantitative benchmarks on app load times and other UI speed tests,we found it very difficult to measure reliably.

I see, NO way to test what you suggested I SHOULD test... hmmm...

However, when surveying dozens of users about their Windows 7 experiences, one response was almost universal: Windows 7 {b[feels[/b] faster.

opinionated, with no hard facts, so argument goes right out of the window...

@rickscript, XP is on the way out, not quite 3 yrs. and it will be no longer supported... and yes I know about budget constraints, been there seen that...

@DrBob, thank you for the warning, although I've been running exactly that set of RAM for nearly two years, with no problem, newer production runs could have problems...

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[rclarke250]

If you are thinking about windows 8, look for the Microsoft information regarding the beta test for it, may be out at the end of this year, or early next year. They are very good at giving away a copy to the beta testers, and those attending the launch seminars. I haven't had to pay for a copy of windows since windows 98. I got a signed copy of windows 7 ultimate for taking part in the beta for 7,and reporting on a few bugs, and taking a few surveys. My suggestion is to not put the beta on your everyday machine,unless you dual boot. Every time a new evaluation copy comes out, you have to wipe the drive and do a fresh install.

 

[Sympology]

I'll throw in my bit.
XP 64 bit, drivers can be difficult to get hold of, not just MoBo, but printers, scanners, etc etc.
Also, people will not be writing for XP 64bit, but will for 64 win7, just search for "dropping XP support" and look what's happening.
At the end of the day, you can always upgrade to 7 later. I think it's much better then XP, once you get used to it.

Robert Wilensky:
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

http://alvechurchlounge.org.uk

 

[cdogg]

opinionated, with no hard facts, so argument goes right out of the window

Ben,
I know a lot of us (including myself) like to live and die by the cold, hard facts. MaximumPC is a reputable magazine, however I seriously doubt they would have followed a legit polling procedure to gather those survey results. Even so, I still believe the opinionated statement carries some weight. The consensus I've gathered online in several forums and in my personal experience would generally support the idea that many applications run smoother (if not quicker) in Win7 as opposed to XP. Certainly not a cold, hard fact of course, but it's something that can't just be tossed out the window either!

I would be curious as well to see gaming benchmarks that use DX10 instead of DX9. Also, the test systems should be loaded with both system RAM and video RAM to bring it up to today's standards.

Carl

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test
a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln
[tab][navy]For this site's posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[BadBigBen]

cdogg,
quote]...that many applications run smoother (if not quicker) in Win7 as opposed to XP.[/quote]never said they did not... the statement was about the GUI (that is the Graphic User Interface, not the underlying program), and as stated by the reputable magazine, there is NO reliable Benchmark that would/could tell us those milliseconds of differences...

one response was almost universal: Windows 7 feels faster.

that statement, is the one that irks me... now, imagine driving down the highway in an 18 wheeler going 65Mph, feels zippy right... now imagine going down the same stretch of highway in a Porsche 911S or Ferrari F40, at the same speed, FEELS faster doesn't it?

I would be curious as well to see gaming benchmarks that use DX10 instead of DX9.

will never SEE that, I am afraid... DX10 is VISTA and above only... (and DX9 games still outweigh DX10 or above, to this day, probably due to the long development time of modern games)...



Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[cdogg]

DX10 is VISTA and above only

Ben,
Yes, I suppose that could be a problem!

Are there any current games that will run in both DX9 and DX10 environments? I'm just brainstorming here, but I wonder if a game that is optimized for DX10 will show any significant improvement over its performance under DX9 in XP.

never said they did not... the statement was about the GUI

Fair enough. I did not make the distinction beteween the GUI and the application layer, that is true. However, I can personally vouch for a handful of applications that run faster in Windows 7, and we are talking 15-30 seconds per operation in many cases (not milliseconds).

Carl

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test
a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln
[tab][navy]For this site's posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[BadBigBen]

Carl,

I wonder if a game that is optimized for DX10 will show any significant improvement over its performance under DX9 in XP.

I am not sure, most have a separate DX10 installer, but I am quite sure that they have better looking graphics...

...run faster in Windows 7...

W7 does have a better memory management layer and other optimizations under the hood, that do spell performance boost...

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"