New system, couple ?s

Advertise at AfterDawn.com

Link to us!

Private messages

Compose a private message

List of all updated threads

Threads without replies

Search messages

Monday 18.8.2025 / 08:57

Search AfterDawn Forums:

afterdawn.com > forums > software, operating systems and more > windows - general discussion > new system, couple ?s

Browse by topic

Forums

Start a new thread

New system, couple ?s

Jump to:

Posted

Message

mj0704

Newbie

8. June 2007 @ 15:20

Link to this message

Currently I have this:

P4 Prescott 3.0gHz
2GB PC3200 RAM
ATi X800XL 256MB AGP 8X

I just upgraded those components (well, they haven't arrived yet) to:

AMD 5600+ Dual Core
4GB DDR2 800 Kingston RAM
nVidia 7950GT PCIe 16x 512MB

Couple of questions...

1) When I get everything set up, do I need to reinstall Windows XP Home or is that just a myth? (this question is really what prompted me to start this thread in the Windows forum)

2) Will Windows XP Home recognize and utilize all 4GB of this RAM?

3) How much of a difference do you feel I will notice with the above upgrades?

[ + quote]

krj15489

Senior Member

8. June 2007 @ 20:59

Link to this message

xp will not be able to use all 4 gigs. if you want that then you will need to run vista. you will see probably a big difference in gameing because of the processor and video card upgrade but not much in just web browsing or basic stuff like that.

[ + quote]

PeaInAPod

AfterDawn Addict

1 product review

8. June 2007 @ 21:25

Link to this message

1) You will more than likely have to reinstall XP, even if it wasn't required it is still a good step to take when adding major hardware like this. Now if you were just swapping out processors I would say you wouldnt need a new install but since your current board is a Intel and your switching to a AMD then it is safe to assume that you got a new motherboard. It is also fairly safe to assume that since you got a new motherboard the chipsets will be different and thus warrant a reinstall of XP.

2)Since windows is a 32 bit OS natively it can't handle all 4 gigs. There are methods to get around this but they could seriously screw up your rig.

3) The performance boost you see depends on waht you do. If you just email and surf the web it is more than likely that you will not notice much if at all of a difference. But for gaming and video encoding you will notice a huge difference.

[ + quote]

"Some people have no damn sense." - Nephilim, March 27 2007 @ 18:08

krj15489

Senior Member

8. June 2007 @ 21:58

Link to this message

if you want to use all 4 gigs you could also use windows server edition 2003 and set it up as a workstation
http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/index.htm
it has a 32 gig limit for the 32bit version. so you would be able to take full advantage of your ram

[ + quote]

mj0704

Newbie

9. June 2007 @ 05:28

Link to this message

If I decided to upgrade my OS (since I have to reinstall anyhow), would it be better to use Windows XP x64 since it has been out longer and presumably has more driver and software support?

[ + quote]

krj15489

Senior Member

9. June 2007 @ 08:03

Link to this message

i would not upgrade to the x64 XP. all that i have read about it has been bad. it has poor driver support and cannot run many things that alot of people use in the regular version. games will be hard to play because installers alot of times use 16bit code wich makes it impossable to use. you will not be happy with the x64 version.

[ + quote]

mj0704

Newbie

9. June 2007 @ 08:27

Link to this message

So what 64 bit version of Windows should I use?

[ + quote]

krj15489

Senior Member

9. June 2007 @ 08:58

Link to this message

dont use a 64 bit windows. use windows server 2003 data center or enterprize edition. they are basicaly the same as xp but can support more than 4 gigs or ram. you can disable many of the server features and just use it on your desktop like you would xp. use the link above to turn the server edition into a workstation and here is a link that shows windows memory limits
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

[ + quote]

mj0704

Newbie

9. June 2007 @ 09:07

Link to this message

I'm more concerned about the ability to use the 64 bit processor than the one or so gig of ram.

[ + quote]

krj15489

Senior Member

9. June 2007 @ 09:27

Link to this message

ok, what are you going to be using the computer for. if its for games then you will not want a 64bit version.64 bit processors allow for slightly faster processing but will not be noticeable in every day use. but if you really want a 64 bit os then use vista ultimate 64.

[ + quote]

mj0704

Newbie

9. June 2007 @ 09:56

Link to this message

Originally posted by krj15489:
ok, what are you going to be using the computer for. if its for games then you will not want a 64bit version.64 bit processors allow for slightly faster processing but will not be noticeable in every day use. but if you really want a 64 bit os then use vista ultimate 64.

I do play games occasionally (FEAR, Oblivion, maybe RS: Vegas)...but for the most part I do video encoding and burning and a ton of multitasking. Games are not the major purpose of the system though. Besides, could I do a dual-boot with XP x32 for games?

[ + quote]

krj15489

Senior Member

9. June 2007 @ 10:24

Link to this message

a dual boot would work fine. just remember that it is hard to find working drivers for 64bit vista. but there is a hack that allows unsigned drives to run on it.

[ + quote]

PeaInAPod

AfterDawn Addict

1 product review

9. June 2007 @ 19:16

Link to this message

Generally speaking, since most if not all software today is programmed in 32 bit code there is not point in investing in a 64 bit OS. The support for 64 bit isn't there yet.

[ + quote]

"Some people have no damn sense." - Nephilim, March 27 2007 @ 18:08

Start a new thread

afterdawn.com > forums > software, operating systems and more > windows - general discussion > new system, couple ?s


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.