Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Older PC - XP or 8.1


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Bellzemos

Bellzemos

  • Members
  • 172 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 11:03 AM

Mod Edit:  Moved from XP to Win 8 - Hamluis.

Hello!

I have an older desktop computer with the following characteristics:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.4GHz 4600+
Motherboard: ASUS M2N-E SLI
Memory: 1 GB DDR2 SDRAM DDR2-800
Graphics: nVidia GeForce 6600 (256 MB)
OS: MS Windows XP (32-bit)

I decided to add another 2 GB of RAM (so 3 GB in total) and replace the graphics card with an Inno3D GeForce 9500 (512 MB).

I would like to squeeze the maximum performance out of the computer (games, web surfing, watching movies etc.), the security is not an issue because I have it solved in another way.

So, what do you suggest, Windows XP (32-bit) or Windows 8.1 (64-bit) - these two options are available to me. The third option would be Windows 7 (32 or 64 bit version), but I don't think you'd recommend it for my old PC.

I am aware that Windows 8.1 is much more secure than XP but that is absolutely not important for the particular PC. I'm only interested in gaining maxium performance. So, will the 8.1 or XP squeeze more performance out of it (with 3 GB of RAM and GeForce 9500 GT), what do you think?

For the maximum efficiency I will disable FireWire, LPT, COM ports (in Device Manager or in BIOS) which I don't need - this will also slightly speed up the computer, right?

Thank you for your comments in advance!
 


Edited by hamluis, 18 September 2014 - 09:04 PM.
Moved from System Building to XP forum - Hamluis.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Kilroy

Kilroy

  • BC Advisor
  • 3,461 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Launderdale, MN
  • Local time:04:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 12:34 PM

Anything but XP.  XP is no longer supported by Microsoft.  Updates to other Microsoft operation systems (OS) can be reverse engineer to find a flaw that may exist in Windows XP.

 

This PC World Article will explain why you are better off investing in a new machine, rather than putting more money into your existing machine.



#3 Bellzemos

Bellzemos
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 172 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 02:17 PM

Thank you, but have you read my post? I'm only asking in terms of performance. Security is absolutely irrelevant in my case (it's like the computer won't ever be connected to the internet). So, Windows XP or Windows 8.1? :)



#4 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:06:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 02:49 PM

If security dosen't matter, then 8.1 is still a better option. It's a little more demanding (so slightly less performance in games), but nothing is compatible with xp anymore. So all that stuff you'd want to do plain will not run on xp, or if it does it will it will be very buggy and have no support.

 

As far as day-to-day use, windows 8.1 is faster then XP for a number of pretty sly reasons.

 

I'm with Kilroy on the get a new machine initiative. Even if it is a low end 300$ pentium G desktop- it will perform leeps and bounds over the one you have now. If you'd have to save up for a year to get it, it'd still be a better option then getting windows 8.1 right now.


99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#5 Bellzemos

Bellzemos
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 172 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 07:14 PM

Thank you both for your comments!

 

I'd like to know more about those sly reasons please:

As far as day-to-day use, windows 8.1 is faster then XP for a number of pretty sly reasons.



#6 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,385 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:04:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 07:52 PM

The speed differentials between versions of Windows...are just stats.

 

"In terms of Performance"...nice, empty phrase, what does it mean to you?

 

Some people monitor CPU performance, lots of data on that.

 

Some people monitor RAM performance...or other hardware components.

 

I'd like to know...just what a "performnance differential" is, in your mind.  Then, perhaps, someone can give you an answer that you can understand fully and accept without reservations expressed.

 

Your X2 4600 system (I had one) is going to be the determining factor on any efficiencies that can be generated and believed, not the O/S employed, IMO.

 

Louis



#7 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:06:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 09:01 PM

I'd like to know more about those sly reasons please:

It does a bunch of really weird caching for everything. Loading up and managing it all in a intresting way that makes it feel more fluid. I know alot of laptops would implament cheap 20$ msata SSD's into them just to handle that cache better- making it feel even faster.  Google it if you want to know more, there is to much to explain properly here.

 

Again that's only for day to day use that makes it feel faster- watching youtube, facebook, word documents, general media viewing, ect. As far as gaming goes compared to XP- you can't really say for sure because stuff made for one won't work well with the other seeing how far and apart support for the two are. Real world aplication that is, since I'm sure someone here could pull up tons of statistics and charts saying one is technically faster then the other for X,Y,Z reaons. REAL world though? 8 is better on everything (except low clocked single core CPU's) that meet or exceed it's min requirements.


99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#8 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:06:42 AM

Posted 06 September 2014 - 09:16 PM

"In terms of Performance"...nice, empty phrase, what does it mean to you?

He means general use (browsing, media consumption, ect) and ocasional games that would run on his hardware compared in performance doing the exact same things in xp. Like I mention though there really isn't anything that is compatible enough with both to test it out for day to day stuff.

 

Sorry about double posting*


Edited by SEANIA, 06 September 2014 - 09:17 PM.

99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#9 Bellzemos

Bellzemos
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 172 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:42 AM

Posted 07 September 2014 - 08:09 AM

Yes, that's what I meant - performance for everyday tasks (surfing the net, writing documents, watching videos) and some gaming (namely Skyrim). So you advise me 8.1 over XP, OK. What about Windows 7? 8.1 or 7 (for an older system as mine)?

 

Thank you all for help.



#10 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:06:42 AM

Posted 07 September 2014 - 10:16 PM


 

What about Windows 7? 8.1 or 7 (for an older system as mine)?

 

 

Windows 8.1 still- make sure it's fully up to date. Alot of people still perfer windows 7 over 8 because it's interface is alot more desktop oriented. 8.1 does perform faster in every aspect. The differnce is negligible once you start using newer hardware though, so it's why people choose 7 for it's interface instead of the faster 8.1.

 

8.1 has lower requirements to run it because it was also made to go onto really weak tablets/netbooks instead of just desktops/laptops. I'd assume a part of the reason is that netbook (small weak laptops) makers were still installing, the over 10 year old, windows XP onto their netbooks- just because it had lower requirements to run then windows 7 did.

 

So 8.1 over 7 for you.

 

Checked and your GPU (the 9500GT) appears to have a driver for 8.1. So that shouldn't be a problem. Was a little surprised to see that the GPU could run Skyrim- but it can so you're set.


99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#11 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,385 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:04:42 AM

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:43 PM

I think it's important to note...that 8.1 is already headed for the scrapyards and MS has been working on a version (Win 9) to be released in beta format near the end of Sep 2014.  There's less reason to focus on any version of Win 8, since it seems that they are more akin to Win Me in the 9x versions of Windows...with Win 7 still continuing to be the version of Windows deployed the most by Windows users.

 

Currently, the projected release data of Win 9 to the public...is 1st or 2d quarter of 2015.

 

Anybody investing in purchases of Win 8 in light of these items...is really seemingly making a bad choice, IMO.

 

Louis



#12 rp88

rp88

  • Members
  • 3,067 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:10:42 AM

Posted 08 September 2014 - 02:11 PM

IF you are NEVER going to take this machine online XP is a better choice. Windows 8.1 is a recent design and hence is designed for high powered modern hardware, XP was designed long ago for old slower hardware. Running an older operating system on newer hardware will allow it to compartively quick, certainly much faster thna a new OS on old hardware. Another matter is what programs you will run, if it is old programs they will be compatible with XP, if it is new ones there is a chance XP will not be able to run them. If you are going to take this pc online then XP is a bad idea, wonderful an operating system as it was it is now becoming insecure due microsoft stopping producing updates to patch holes in it. The logic behind putting XP on this old machine is the principle responsible for why despite vast advances in hardware technology our machines do not get visibly faster, because having newer technology gives programmers the ability to make more processor/memory intensive programs. A very fast machine has new hardware for maximum processing capability, but old software so that the computing resources of the machine are not taken up in running the os rather than helpding speed up programs. Once again this is only true if you are not taking the pc online, if you are online you need a new OS to make it secure.


Back on this site, for a while anyway, been so busy the last year.

My systems:2 laptops, intel i3 processors, windows 8.1 installed on the hard-drive and linux mint 17.3 MATE installed to USB

#13 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:06:42 AM

Posted 08 September 2014 - 02:56 PM

 Windows 8.1 is a recent design and hence is designed for high powered modern hardware, XP was designed long ago for old slower hardware.

No...no it isn't, 7 was, but 8 isn't. It was desgined for weak tablets and netbooks that would've ran on XP if 8 hadn't been released. Tablets and netbooks that are weaker then his system. The ones that only have 2GB's of RAM and a Atom CPU, OEM's choosing 8 or XP for them.

 

The thing about XP requirements being weaker only aplies to the non updated version with no service packs. With the service packs, the minimium requirements increase expediently- putting it almost on par with 8. Also to put out that those service packs would be required to run Skyrim anways. There is good reason behind microsoft pushing 8 onto windows XP users besides just increasing market shares. He obviously means to run newer software to if he wants Skyrim to work.


Edited by SEANIA, 08 September 2014 - 02:58 PM.

99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#14 Bellzemos

Bellzemos
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 172 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:42 AM

Posted 08 September 2014 - 03:26 PM

 

 Windows 8.1 is a recent design and hence is designed for high powered modern hardware, XP was designed long ago for old slower hardware.

No...no it isn't, 7 was, but 8 isn't. It was desgined for weak tablets and netbooks that would've ran on XP if 8 hadn't been released. Tablets and netbooks that are weaker then his system. The ones that only have 2GB's of RAM and a Atom CPU, OEM's choosing 8 or XP for them.

 

The thing about XP requirements being weaker only aplies to the non updated version with no service packs. With the service packs, the minimium requirements increase expediently- putting it almost on par with 8. Also to put out that those service packs would be required to run Skyrim anways. There is good reason behind microsoft pushing 8 onto windows XP users besides just increasing market shares. He obviously means to run newer software to if he wants Skyrim to work.

 

 

That's really interesting, where do you get all that info? :)

 

But all the replies are still keeping me in perception... 8.1 or XP. If what you said is true then 8.1 is indeed the way to go. Note: I was able to run Skyrim on XP SP2 too.

 

Thank you all!



#15 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:06:42 AM

Posted 08 September 2014 - 08:49 PM

That's really interesting, where do you get all that info? :)

 

But all the replies are still keeping me in perception... 8.1 or XP. If what you said is true then 8.1 is indeed the way to go. Note: I was able to run Skyrim on XP SP2 too.

 

Thank you all!

 

Got the info half from personal experince and half from what other people have said/research.

 

Skip this next bit if you'd like
Someone brought me a early 2000's laptop with 256mb (1/4 of a GB) of ram on it. Xp had broke on it and required a reinstall. However it couldn't take the new service packs because the requirements were to high for it. Ended up putting SliTaz on it to make it functional for day-to-day use. As for other people, I know ALOT of repair shops that would upgrade the RAM in peoples desktops because people would complain it was to slow- not that the problem had anything to do with something they did to it, but that the requirements had just increased for windows XP. There was even sorta a spam craze awhile back about "upgrading your RAM" that I think it caused.

 

The increase in requirment's happend around the same time alot of really overly demanding user interfaces started showing up. In the transistion of "hobbyist and professional only" being the main computer user to the everyday facebooker that actually cared if their programs looked pretty. Making it look pretty caused a huge spike in what computers needed to run it. Happend again (to a lessor extant) with the release of Windows Vista. WIndows 8 becoming a comprise between both pretty usablity for the average user and speed for the professional. They slimmed it down as much as they could while also throwing in all that fancy cache (among other things) to boost daily usability more.

History lesson over

 

If Skyrim works, as well as everything else you want to do, and seeing as "Security is absolutely irrelevant/won't ever be connected to the internet", there'd be no point in getting windows 8.1 if you already have XP then. Sorry I glanced over the "won't ever be connected to the internet" part somehow and just read "Security is absolutely irrelevant".

 

If it does what you wan't it to do right now XP over 8.1 for you. If only because you already have it, aren't going online, and does what you want it to do already.

 

Even though 8.1 would be slightly faster, it's not worth that 95$ (varies) price tag. Oh that "slightly faster" proably wouldn't translate into Skyrim running better. It'd only make movies/file browsing feel faster.


99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users