i5 with Win XP good or baaad

[citizenx13]

I had a search and could not find this being asked yet and if it has been i do apologise.

A buddy getting himself an i5 system and being a cheapa** wants to put 32 bit XP on it, will much of the "power" be unutilised with this OS?

Any pitfalls I should make him aware of?

Thank you in advance

 

[Beerbaron]

If he has more than 3GB of ram 32bit Windows wont utilise it.

 

[citizenx13]

If he has more than 3GB of ram 32bit Windows wont utilise it.

Thank you,

Yes I figured the 3 gig ram max due to the 32bit system, beside that the chip etc should be utilised to its 32bit potential?

 

[cmndr_andi]

Also, if he is playing modern games then he won't be able to make use of DX10 or 11, as XP only supports DX9.

 

[citizenx13]

Also, if he is playing modern games then he won't be able to make use of DX10 or 11, as XP doesn't it.

dang, ok I think that will be his biggest pitfall, thank you

 

[Duke]

Why not get Windows 7? Bit of a waste of a system as XP won't make full use of it.

 

[lcg]

He should get Windows 7 x64 as Windows XP won't be able to make full use of his hardware. I doubt buying a copy of Windows 7 Home Premium would cost much more than a copy of Windows XP.

 

[Hagar]

There will be no more service packs, improvements, patches and upgrades for windows XP. Support will end very soon frm Microsoft.
Hardware drivers will largely stop development for XP (except maybe nVidia or AMD).
Software developers will concentrate on latest OS version for compatibility issues.

andy.

 

[Big.Wayne]

A buddy getting himself an i5 system and being a cheapa** wants to put 32 bit XP on it, will much of the "power" be unutilised with this OS?

Should be fine?

If he has more than 3GB of ram 32bit Windows wont utilise it.

This won't effect the processor in anyway? . . . and it won't make any difference is the user doesn't need more than 3.25GB of memory? . . .

if he is playing modern games then he won't be able to make use of DX10 or 11, as XP only supports DX9.

This won't effect the processor in anyway? . . . what does DX10 and DX11 offer that is really compelling? . . .

Why not get Windows 7? Bit of a waste of a system as XP won't make full use of it.

Well Windows 7 is £80-£100? . . . . Why won't Windows XP make full use of a Intel® Core™ i5?

There will be no more service packs, improvements, patches and upgrades for windows XP. Support will end very soon frm Microsoft.
Hardware drivers will largely stop development for XP (except maybe nVidia or AMD).
Software developers will concentrate on latest OS version for compatibility issues.

Well when that times comes it may be a good idea to upgrade? . . . as far as I know a lot of people are still happily using Windows Xp 32-bit including myself?

• Steam Stats
  • Windows 7 64 bit 32.25%
  • Windows XP 32 bit 27.93%

 

[richb93]

XP isn't really worth it unless you are in an environment where you have software/hardware that explicitly requires it. If you're a gamer than the DX9 issue is annoying and the fact that 32-bit can only address 4GB of memory is a major pain, not to mention the fact that support will start dwindling. It's almost a decade old operating system!!

Well when that times comes it may be a good idea to upgrade? . . . as far as I know a lot of people are still happily using Windows Xp 32-bit including myself?

• Steam Stats
  • Windows 7 64 bit 32.25%
  • Windows XP 32 bit 27.93%

I reckon most of the people in the Steam hardware survey don't want to use XP, but they have to.

 

[Mason-]

Some good statistics on OS'

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

 

[Big.Wayne]

XP isn't really worth it unless you are in an environment where you have software/hardware that explicitly requires it

If somebody isn't paying for it then of course its worth it! . . .

If you're a gamer than the DX9 issue is annoying

What DirectX® issue? . . . games play just fine in Windows XP? . . .

and the fact that 32-bit can only address 4GB of memory is a major pain

If 3.25GB of physical memory is a limit for someone then I agree you need a 64-bit O/S . . . but this does not directly address the Intel® Core™ i5 and how it processes really . . . . 3.25GB is not such a limit for everyone . . .

not to mention the fact that support will start dwindling

Yes but that is no incentive "Today" to spend good money on a new O/S? . . . if that time comes in the distant future then maybe thats the time to think about an upgrade? . . . .

It's almost a decade old operating system!!

that has no bearing really? . . . thats like saying the Sun is billions of years old its rubbish!

I reckon most of the people in the Steam hardware survey don't want to use XP, but they have to.

I don't understand what you mean? . . .

 

[PermaBanned]

No point any more, it's been as good as EOL for a few years now and it's really getting on. Use Linux, Ubuntu 10.10 is easily more than the equal of XP. No real reason for using 7 over it either, and if people didn't then it would have better gaming support. Either way, Wine should be able to deal with all the gaming you could have wanted to do on XP.

 

[richb93]

If somebody isn't paying for it then of course its worth it! . . .

True

What DirectX® issue? . . . games play just fine in Windows XP? . . .

What's the point of buying a new computer with a DX10/11 capable graphics card if you can't use these features. Some newer games (such as Just Cause 2) don't even run on XP anymore.

If 3.25GB of physical memory is a limit for someone then I agree you need a 64-bit O/S . . . but this does not directly address the Intel® Core™ i5 and how it processes really . . . . 3.25GB is not such a limit for everyone . . .

As far as I know 4GB is the total amount of addressable RAM including devices such as graphics cards. If you buy a graphics card with 2GB RAM then you're system is limited to 2GB of usable RAM which is slow for games.

Yes but that is no incentive "Today" to spend good money on a new O/S? . . . if that time comes in the distant future then maybe thats the time to think about an upgrade? . . . .

The biggest incentive for me was that being the latest version it's just less hassle. It's fast. It supports the latest hardware and has the most driver support as it's arguably the widest used OS. It's designed specifically for newer computers and is designed to exploit the latest hardware. I'm sure these reasons are why others have bought it too, besides it being provided with new computers.


that has no bearing really? . . . thats like saying the Sun is billions of years old its rubbish!

We're talking about computers here, where technology moves quickly. It's basically the same as someone running Windows 98 up until 2007/8.


I don't understand what you mean? . . .

A sizable amount of steam players use either the family PC or have a low end machine that really isn't that great (Check the steam forums for 'Will my old PC run X?' threads). They use XP because their system is older came with XP and was designed for it. Sure Windows 7 will run on it but what is the point of buying it for an old machine?


XP has it's place, but not on newer computers imo.

 

[deusexlumina]

It really is time people started to ditch xp and move to a more copious operating system. Win 7 is streets ahead of it in so many ways, in fact when i deal with a system that has xp on it i see it as such a pain and its much more hassle. Hardware has been so far ahead of software for about the past 5 years now, and one of the many reasons it lags so far behind is that people insist on sticking with thier old os for dear life.

Some people upgrade their GPU every 6 months or so. I would argue that upgrading your OS is a far more beneficial upgrade and - whats more - only needs to be done every 2/3 years and doesn't dent the wallet as much as that new i7 950 or the sparkly gtx480.

 

[JonJ678]

I don't follow the argument that windows 7 is needed to make full use of any hardware. I'll readily believe that it'll squander whatever processing time is available, but this doesn't seem a good thing to me.

I imagine there are security reasons in favour of 7 instead of XP (if there aren't then shame on m$), but no, the computer isn't going to run more slowly with windows XP on it until the spyware mounts up.

^Got to choose your battles Super, Linux isn't going to be appropriate here.

 

[Admetos]

I run XP64 on my i5 750, and it's totally fine. Turbo boost working, low power mode puts the multiplier into x11 at idle.

As mentioned the only thing you really loose is DirectX 10 & 11. Saying this I run Battlefield Bad Company 2 and it looks fine to me on DX9.

At some point i'll go Win 7 64, but I like XP 64 and i'm having a last hurrah moment with it. Run XP64 4 years now, I skipped Vista!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello richb93

Well before we digress completely lets remember this thread was created by citizenx13 to find out if the Intel® Core™ i5 "processor" would work fine and dandy alongside Windows XP . . . We have no idea what his mate does with the PC? . .

anyway to thrash out a few points which may or may no be relevant to the O.P . . .

What's the point of buying a new computer with a DX10/11 capable graphics card if you can't use these features

If somebody has been running Windows XP with an Athlon XP and 512MB of DDR400 then they will be blown away by the processor performance of the Intel® Core™ i5 running under Windows XP . . .

These DirectX® 10/11 features you speak of are not really anything special . . . the hardware will still peform very well rendering DirectX® 9.0c titles . . nothing really is being "wasted" . . .

Some newer games (such as Just Cause 2) don't even run on XP anymore.

Good to know . . . although one game does not the world make and it certainly does not much to help someone "Justify" spending money to upgrade their O/S . . .

As far as I know 4GB is the total amount of addressable RAM including devices such as graphics cards. If you buy a graphics card with 2GB RAM then you're system is limited to 2GB of usable RAM which is slow for games

That’s fine . . . I'm not sure who here has specified buying a GPU featuring 2GB of vRam? . . . or are you saying the O.P's mate should buy Windows 7 and more memory in case he wants a GPU with 2GB of vRam? . . .

The biggest incentive for me was that being the latest version it's just less hassle.

That's fine, the main reason you bought Windows 7 was because it was "less hassle" . . . . I can't say anything about Windows XP is a "hassle" for me personally? . . .

It's fast

Windows XP is not slow?

It supports the latest hardware

Windows XP also supports the latest hardware? . . . the only function I can think of that is missing is perhaps TRIM support for SSDs? . . .

and has the most driver support as it's arguably the widest used OS.

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from? . . . feel free to share them with us please?

It's designed specifically for newer computers and is designed to exploit the latest hardware

This is basically second hand marketing guff . . . if your happy with the O/S I'm happy for you . . . if you want someone else to spend out good money on the O/S like you then please find your good reasons to convince them! . . .

I'm sure these reasons are why others have bought it too, besides it being provided with new computers

Basing a purchasing decision on what other people do is flawed reasoning . . . and has no bearing on anything . . .

It's almost a decade old operating system!!

that’s like saying the Sun is billions of years old its rubbish!

We're talking about computers here, where technology moves quickly

The principle is the same, to say Windows XP is almost a "decade old" has no bearing on why someone should upgrade, it works, it does what its meant to do . . . just like the Sun!

What you should be doing is finding good "reasons" to convince someone to part with £80-£100 on Windows 7 and highlight the Real-World benefits it would bring them . . . . saying "Well everyone else is upgrading and the other O/S is old" is flawed reasoning . . .

You may think "technology moves quickly" but actually its plodding along . . .I've been watching it closely for 15 years and really nothing exciting has happened in ages . . . I would say technology is more "slowly but surely" . . .

A sizable amount of steam players use either the family PC or have a low end machine that really isn't that great (Check the steam forums for 'Will my old PC run X?' threads). They use XP because their system is older came with XP and was designed for it. Sure Windows 7 will run on it but what is the point of buying it for an old machine?

I don't believe this is "fact" . . . this is "assumption" and "conjecture" on your behalf . . . Windows XP works fine, yes its years old, yes it doesn't support a single game and a single hardware feature but this is not compelling reason to upgrade . . .

XP has it's place, but not on newer computers imo.

Your welcome to your opinion . . but as we know an option is nothing more than a persons interpretation of "facts" . . .

Windows XP is working very well here, I have a newer computer and the older O/S has its place on it!

 

[richb93]

Fair enough I'll accept your argument I just feel that if you're buying a new computer then you'd might as well just buy a new OS for it as well, otherwise it's a bit like <insert car analogy here> !

 

[JonJ678]

Well argued Wayne, however security may be a sticking point. I have a computer running XP which doesn't appear to be receiving updates from microsoft anymore, whereas windows 7 still is. Microsoft has a pretty black reputation as far as writing stable, secure software goes so I'm reluctant to conclude that no updates => no more need for patches. It may however mean windiz updates is down, in which case I withdraw this statement.

I'm not in a great position to conclude either way on this, as while I have an XP and a 7 installation, I don't trust either with access to the internet. I think the reasoning is sound though.