Jump to content

Windows XP: new Z68/Z77 rig in 2017


Tomcat76

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, jaclaz said:

As said IF there is the need of a pagefile, AND the resulting size is in the range 1-3 times the 4 Gb RAM, it means more or less that you would be better served by a 64 bit OS.

I've owned an official copy of XP 64-bit for a few years now, but haven't gotten around to installing it yet.  In fact, I have never worked with XP 64-bit before.  I would prefer to make the switch, as it (theoretically) offers everything I need: XP "looks", screen real-estate (smaller and customizable toolbars) and support for more RAM and larger HDDs.  But I have also read it can be quite problematic getting codecs to work and I am a little scared about not being able to use certain programs anymore.  Also, I am still using WMP9 for embedded windows media on my current XP x86 install as the WMP11 plugin for Firefox/Opera can't scale video (known bug).  XP 64-bit comes with WMP10 if I'm not mistaken but I don't know if the WMP10 plugin exhibits the same bug.  The dual boot I had in mind for the "new old" computer is really just a safety net.
 
 

2 hours ago, dencorso said:

@Tomcat76: give the machine a smallish, fast SSD (a 120GB OCZ Vertex, or any other SATA III OCZ from before takeover by Toshiba would be great, but do avoid the older Octane series) for OSes and one bigger HDD (I suggest a WD2002FAEX or any WDX *FAEX, which is the last 512-byte sectored series from WDC and was findable new/used on eBay till quite recently) for data, and you're all set, IMHO.

I actually had my mind set on installing an unused 150GB WD VelociRaptor I have lying around.  The other disks would be at least two of the four 2TB drives I'm currently using.  For the sake of completeness, I'll also mention that I already bought a Nanoxia Deep Silence 2 and a Corsair AX760 (without Corsair Link) power supply.  I also have two 4TB drives sitting inside another computer in our house hold running Windows 7 64-bit (used by other people), which I'm accessing through the network.  I plan on putting them in the new XP machine until I have the money to buy the video editing machine.
 
Incidentally, if I put those 4TB drives into the new XP machine and boot into XP 32-bit, will that destroy the contents of the drives, or will that only happen if I let Windows perform operations on it?

Edited by Tomcat76
Link to comment
Share on other sites


30 minutes ago, Tomcat76 said:

 
Incidentally, if I put those 4TB drives into the new XP machine and boot into XP 32-bit, will that destroy the contents of the drives, or will that only happen if I let Windows perform operations on it?

Which operations do you expect to be destructive? :w00t::ph34r:

Naah, don't worry, you can use GPT disks just fine, if you install the appropriate third-party driver (not free).

What you cannot do is to boot from such a disk.

And without the driver you won't be able to access the partitions on the disk so no damage can be done. (of course using Diskpart or Disk Management or similar tools and fiddling with the partition table is NOT a good idea).

 

@dencorso

Sorry, but it is "the opposite" (the mixup is between MBR vs. GPT and 512 bytes/sector vs. 4 Kb/sector.

You can have 4 Tb MBR disks (4 Kb sectored only) both as internal and external, but you cannot have GPT disks (no matter if 512 bytes or 4 Kb sectored) if not with the GPT driver (which is only for internal disks):
https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/gpt-loader/

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jaclaz said:

@dencorso

Sorry, but it is "the opposite" (the mixup is between MBR vs. GPT and 512 bytes/sector vs. 4 Kb/sector.

You can have 4 Tb MBR disks (4 Kb sectored only) both as internal and external, but you cannot have GPT disks (no matter if 512 bytes or 4 Kb sectored) if not with the GPT driver (which is only for internal disks):
https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/gpt-loader/

Well, that driver is good news! One actually can access  a 4KiB sectored MBR HDD provided it's  external and through USB, if I understood this right, without any special driver,  isn't it?  But can it be done on an internal SATA/SAS MBR HDDs? Can you provide more info about it? I had understood XP did have problems with internal HDDs having non 512-byte sectoring... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry.  It seems I wasn't too clear with my question on the 4TB drives.  I am aware of the fact that XP 32-bit can't read those.
 
In the XP 32-bit and XP 64-bit dual boot setup I intend to install, I want to (temporarily) connect the two 4TB drives I already own and use them from within XP 64-bit to backup my data on.  But I wasn't sure if booting into the XP 32-bit partition would somehow destroy the data on those drives.
 

10 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Which operations do you expect to be destructive? :w00t::ph34r:

The word "operations" was perhaps ill-chosen.  I was thinking of XP 32-bit trying to mount the 4TB drives when booting up.
 

10 hours ago, jaclaz said:

You can have 4 Tb MBR disks (4 Kb sectored only) both as internal and external, but you cannot have GPT disks (no matter if 512 bytes or 4 Kb sectored) if not with the GPT driver (which is only for internal disks):

https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/gpt-loader/

That's interesting.  I'll need to read up on the 4TB / MBR / 4KB sector possibility.  There must be a reason HDD manufacturers went 512e before going to true 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.09.2017 at 3:15 AM, Tomcat76 said:

Question 1: the native USB 3.0 problem aside, are there any benefits for me to still pick a Z77 motherboard?

NO, but that z77 newer and there more chances find this in market.

and, are u sure, that u need Z model? u can buy laso h61/b65/b75 series, if u not want overclock.

On 27.09.2017 at 3:15 AM, Tomcat76 said:

Question 2: would the onboard graphics of the Ivy Bridge CPU (Intel HD 4000) be powerful enough to handle that, or is a discrete graphics card still required?

yes, sure, and also 2k h264 videos, but not for h265/hdr/4k. but usually 3770[k] enough powered for software decoding all.

also, i personally recommend find some asrock on z68 with etron usb3. i checked many versions etron drivers and found one, which has good  work in pae mode, so u can use patched xp x86 kernel and get all-in-one: xp/ahci/video/network/usb3/sound and up to 32 GB memory.

 

Edited by MERCURY127
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2017 at 4:15 PM, Tomcat76 said:

I'm looking to upgrade my current computer, which has a motherboard powered by a P55 chipset and the Core i5-650 processor.  This computer has been unstable since I had it (system clock running too fast, frequent program freezes and crashes and the occasional memory error dialog), using Windows 2000 and later Windows XP.  Memory and hard disk diagnostic tools never found a problem.
 
I have thought about this for a long time, and concluded that it would be best if I split my workload onto two computers instead of one.  The first box would be a modern PC running a modern version of Windows, which will be used for video editing and storage (manual backups) exclusively.  The second box should be a high-performing "legacy" computer running a dual boot of Windows XP 32-bit and 64-bit, which I will use for basic tasks.  Unfortunately, "basic tasks" in this day-and-age have become quite hardware-demanding: H.264 decoding, browsing Facebook, etc.
 
It's this second box I'd like some input on regarding the hardware components that I'd use best.  I realize that it's possible to just take a Haswell or Skylake board and use generic drivers, but something tells me I can get better performance using "official" drivers as they are specifically written for individual hardware devices.
 
After some digging around and weighing specs against one another, I have already limited my search to the Z68 and Z77 chipsets, part of the LGA1155 socket range which is the most recent with official support for Windows XP.  The Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs fall into this range.
 
From what I can see, the only real difference of importance to me between the Z68 and Z77 chipsets, is the inclusion of native USB 3.0 by Intel on Z77 boards.  Since there are no Windows XP drivers for this, choosing a Z77 setup will limit me to motherboards that have an extra USB 3.0 chip by another manufacturer such as ASMedia.  But I don't like the thought of working on a system on which some things don't work normally, or need to be disabled in the BIOS or in Device Manager.
 
Question 1: the native USB 3.0 problem aside, are there any benefits for me to still pick a Z77 motherboard?
 
I already went ahead to find more information on the Z68 chipset, which raises a few more questions.  There appear to be two main versions of it: the "standard" version and the "Gen3" version, the latter supporting PCIe 3.0 if used in combination with an Ivy Bridge CPU.  Another advantage of Ivy Bridge is that it has improved onboard graphics (Intel HD 4000) compared to the onboard graphics of Sandy Bridge (Intel HD 3000).  On the other hand, I have read posts on forums stating that Ivy Bridge CPUs are running hotter than the Sandy Bridge CPUs.  Silence is an important factor for me as well.
 
Graphics-wise, I want:
- smooth playback of 1080p uncompressed video
- hardware-accelerated 1080p H.264 decoding (online videos on Youtube, etc.)
- smooth operations on multi-layered PSD images in Photoshop 7
 
Question 2: would the onboard graphics of the Ivy Bridge CPU (Intel HD 4000) be powerful enough to handle that, or is a discrete graphics card still required?
 
I have also done some digging with respect to graphics cards, as nVidia (my preferred manufacturer) has dropped Windows XP support somewhere along the line as well.  The newest supported cards are the 700 series as well as the GTX 950 and 960-based cards.  If a separate graphics card is still required, I was thinking of one of the following:
- Asus STRIX-GTX750TI-OC-2GD5 (19.6cm ~ 7.71in / 640 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX750TI-DC2OC-4GD5 (19.6cm ~ 7.71in / 640 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX950-DC2OC-2GD5-GAMING (22cm ~ 8.66in / 768 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX950-DC2-2GD5-GAMING (22cm ~ 8.66in / 768 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX960-DC2OC-2GD5 (21.5cm ~ 8.46in / 1024 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX960-DC2-2GD5 (21.5cm ~ 8.46in / 1024 CUDA)
 
I chose Asus STRIX boards because their fans don't spin below a certain point (65°C if I'm not mistaken).  All of these are marketed as PCIe 3.0 cards, but I have read on various forums that there is practically no difference with PCIe 2.0 in terms of gaming performance.  I don't do games, but does that mean they will still work as spec'd if I put them on a PCIe 2.0 slot on a "standard" Z68 motherboard?  I might save some bucks there if "Gen3" boards are more expensive.
 
Lastly, as far as the motherboard goes, I have the following "prerequisites":
- 1 PS/2 port for a keyboard
- 1 PCI slot, preferably at the bottom
- 4 SATAIII 6Gbps ports and 2 SATAII 3Gbps ports (requires additional controller as Z68 only supports 2 SATAIII ports)
 
I'd prefer not to have more than 1 or 2 PCI slots as they are usually positioned in such a way that not all PCIe ports can be utilized in conjunction with the PCI ports.  If I will ever need another extension card of any kind, I plan on going PCIe all the way.
 
These are the boards I had in mind:
- Asus P8Z68 Deluxe / Gen3
- Asrock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3
 
The Asus is a bit overkill with the dual LAN and Bluetooth features, but their other boards in the Z68 series don't offer everything I need.  Long-term durability is also a concern as the PC will be left turned on 24/7.  How can I tell if a motherboard is better or worse equipped for continuous operation?
 
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Looks like most of the information you got hasn't been up to date and some of the new advice you got so far needs it.

P55 chipset and the Core i5-650 if you want you should do a fresh install with Windows 2000 SP4 on this system as an older rig.  There shouldn't be any reason why it is unstable.
 

Quote

 

On the other hand, I have read posts on forums stating that Ivy Bridge CPUs are running hotter than the Sandy Bridge CPUs.  Silence is an important factor for me as well.

 

Actually the Ivy Bridge can probably run cooler than Sandy Bridge if you are underclocking.  On the IB you can undervolt the CPU down to 0.60 Volts.  The lowest I could get SB was around mid 0.7X range.  If you are talking about overclocking then IB could run hotter.  But if your goal is silence that means lower voltages and less heat.

I see no point in having two machines or one dedicated just for XP use in your situation.

I've been building multiple XP systems and even Kaby Lake will work with XP just fine.

In fact I'm recommending you wait a little longer for Coffee Lake to be available in your area since you are in Belgium and get what I consider the Paclaz class top tier build.

AsRock Z370 Extreme4

64GB Ram Max so in your case just buy a 16GB DDR4 single stick.  Later when DDR4 gets cheaper you can fill the last 3 slots over time.  I don't see the point in buying say a 4GB or 8GB module and then having to replace it later with a 16GB later to get the 64GB max.

This one you can equip with an i5-8400 or i7-8700 both at 65TDP.  But the biggest reason is the first Intel 6 core consumer CPU and will work in XP.

The i7-8700 has 12 Threads if you need it.

Why do you need the PCI slot?

You can get the PCIe to Dual PCI internal slots adapter and put it in the last PCIe 3.0 x16 slot I mentioned in my Z170 Test.

If you get a USB 3.0 PCIe card it can work in XP so you can use USB Audio and USB Network devices if you want to save slots.

6 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s Connectors since that was a concern,

1 Serial Com Port header in case you are interested in using Windows 98 on it.

Quote

Dencorso

"I'm fully satisfied with the onboard video, but that may not be of much help for you, because I'm no gamer. However I think the onboard video is good enough to do what you require satisfactorily. In general, Asus is a better hardware line than Asrock.
In any case, the standard disclaimer applies: it works great for me, but YMMV."

 

As Dencorso admits to not being a gamer although this is a bit strange he has an i7-3770K which is a top end Ivy Bridge I'm not sure why choose that powerful a CPU at that time.

Also I have to disagree that Asus is not necessarily a better hardware line than AsRock.  I have the same Z68 MB and that one the iGPU failed to work detect anymore and on top of that 2 of the 4 banks won't fully detect 32GB so stuck with 16GB max on it.  Several of the Intel SATA ports also have failed.  On the AsRock Z68 and Z77 versions they still detect 32GB and iGPU still detects and works on them.

I've tested all the Intel HD Graphics 1000 up to the HD 4000 is the last official XP driver supported for Intel iGPU.  As far as performance yes it could do the the 1080P videos and such.  But there's one major weakness is the HDCP was not included so commercial Blu-ray playing software will not work with it "DU" Intel.  Only Windows 7 was properly programmed to include it.  So going with an actual graphics card is a better option for XP and Vista.

From your list of XP video card possibles I'd go with the - Asus STRIX-GTX960-DC2OC-2GD5 (21.5cm ~ 8.46in / 1024 CUDA)

It is slightly better than the other 960 but since both need the extra GPU power connector and both take up 2 slots no reason not to go with the OC version here.  With this card it will run in XP and use HDMI so no extra audio card is needed.

Quote

nVidia card with 48 cuda cores.  My current GT 610 card also comes with 48 cuda cores so I can always rely on that should the onboard graphics not be sufficient after all.

I would say you are better off using the GT 610 simply because it has proper HDCP in XP and Vista.  Also HD 4000 lacks Vista drivers so that is another con.  The performance playing on a GT 610 will be far superior than the HD 4000.  Also another thing you overlooked is the Intel iGPU uses shared memory so it will actually steal from the 3.22GB you have whereas using a physical graphics you aren't penalizing yourself.

Quote

I just realized I also had a question concerning the RAM.  I want to use 8GB, but am doubting between 2 sticks of 4GB and 4 sticks of 2GB.  If only XP 64-bit was in the frame, I'd go with 2x 4GB; but I also have to consider XP 32-bit.  I don't know how a motherboard's memory controller handles the RAM if an OS can't use all of it.  If it disables the sticks that are above the memory limit, I'd think that having 4 sticks of 2GB would be better as it will still allow 2 sticks to be used by XP 32-bit; in the case of 2 sticks of 4GB, only one stick would remain.  Or isn't that how memory controllers work?  If it will just give me a percentage of each stick, then it's probably better to go with 2x 4GB.

XP 32-bit doesn't care if you install 512MB or 32GB or 64GB.  It can see it but the OS itself probably can't utilize more than 3GB for the OS applications but the excess memory I've used as a Ramdrive, Pagefile, Temp, Browser Cache, and Program Storage which includes Gaming in your case and yes you can run Crysis on it.  I've tested this with 32GB and 64GB configuration so you could really benefit if you are doing video editing and storing the video file in the Ramdrive and editing it.

If you are going to use those DDR3 sticks I'd go with 4GB, 2GB, 4GB, 2GB to fill all 4 Banks in that order to get 12GB total.

If you have the money or can get the money just wait for the AsRock Z370 Extreme4 and can build a super powered XP 32-bit / Vista or W7 64-bit Dual Boot.  Vista 64-bit closely resembles XP-32 bit the most and there is no point in going with XP-64 as it can't run the DX11 software and Vista can be made to run in Classic mode which is what you want an XP like interface.

 

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 98SE said:

On the other hand, I have read posts on forums stating that Ivy Bridge CPUs are running hotter than the Sandy Bridge CPUs.  Silence is an important factor for me as well.

yes, IB and all newer CPU from intel have poor TIM inside,  vs SB which have good metallic TIM. all intel's cpu after SB relative hot under heavy load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2017 at 6:33 AM, MERCURY127 said:

yes, IB and all newer CPU from intel have poor TIM inside,  vs SB which have good metallic TIM. all intel's cpu after SB relative hot under heavy load.

Yes this is old news and only relevant for overclocking and heat issues.  You are also dealing with a die shrink so less area to cool down on top of that issue.  If you underclock and undervolt the IB is a superior CPU for that purpose of 24/7.

 

On 9/30/2017 at 6:36 AM, MERCURY127 said:

u can NOT install or use xp on any Skylake+ or Ryzen. dot. forget about xp on this machines.

You are incorrect.  I use XP on Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs no problem.  Ryzen I haven't had time to test it yet but I have the parts just need the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 98SE said:

I use XP on Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs no problem

what? can u show screenshots it? my interesting  DM window with HDD controllers properties.

Just now, 98SE said:

Yes this is old news and only relevant for overclocking and heat issues

no. i have IB undervolted, but its anyway heat to 80C on load even with good tower cooler. with simple cooler from Pentium G630 (which i use pne year before i7) 3770 just overheat to 105 C. then as 2600 nice work, all it  w/o overclock 

sure, underclocking can solve problem, but then no reason find 3770 and Z chipset... better use 2600.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said the confusion is between different "features" of the drive.

A disk can be:

1) "traditional" 512 bytes/sector
2) "Advanced Format" 4 Kb/sector BUT exposing 512 bytes/sector
3) "Native 4 Kb", exposing 4 Kb/sector

M) Partitioned MBR Style
G) Partitioned GPT Style

S) Smaller than 2.2 Tb
B) Bigger than 2.2 Tb

XP 32 bit (without added "special drivers") cannot "understand" ANY disk drive partitioned with the "GPT style".

XP 32 bit (without added "special drivers") CAN "understand" ALL disk drives partitioned with the "MBR style" BUT it won't be able (normally) to boot from "native" 4 Kb sectored disks AND it won't be able to accesss a larger than 2.2 Tb partition on 512 bytes sectored ones.

Even if the experiments carried by Tripredacus were not finalized, I am still convinced that is possible to access "MBR style" disks (512 Bytes/sector) up to 4 Tb IF (and ONLY IF) they are partitioned with two partitions, of which the first is slightly smaller than 2.2 Tb.

(Tripredacus succeeded without issues with Windows 7 32 bit on such a scheme but had issues with disk drivers on XP, so the expereiment is still to be finalized)

So, disks compatible with XP 32 bit AND with later OS's (without using particular tricks or third party drivers/whatever):

1MS
2MS
3MS <- these don't really exist
3MB <- usable for storage BUT NOT for booting from it [1][2]

With the Paragon GPT loader (and possibly/maybe also with some transplants from Server 2003), still for storage only (not bootable) and limited (if the Paragon GPT loader is used) to internal disks ONLY:
1GS
2GS
3GS
1GB
2GB
3GB
 

Possibly with the special partitioning, limited to two partitions (or however with a single partition starting immediately before the 2.2 Tb limit and spanning over the rest of the disk, given that the rest does not exceed 2.2 Tb, in practice limited to 3 Tb or 4 Tb disks, bootable, both internal and external:

1MB <- these don't really exist
2MB

It's a mess :w00t::ph34r:, I know :(.

@Tomcat76

Don't worry, the "GPT style" scheme includes what is called a "protective MBR", any OS that has not been coded to recognize the "GPT style" scheme will simply see an unmountable disk and won't access it, unless you intentionally (DiskPart/Disk Management and similar) delete such protection. 

jaclaz

[1] a number of external USB enclosures designed for "Big" disks may expose 4 Kb/sector even if the disk drive inside is 512 bytes/sector, so they can be used in XP 32 bit (for storage not for booting).
[2] I wouldn't totally exclude that with a number of tricks these can be made also bootable, but no senseful experiments have been made about it that I know of.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MERCURY127 said:

and, are u sure, that u need Z model? u can buy laso h61/b65/b75 series, if u not want overclock.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't consider the H61 that much of an upgrade compared to the P55 I have now.  The others are used on mATX boards (at least with Asus).
I don't plan on overclocking, but I wouldn't mind having the ability to do so should I ever change my mind.
 

4 hours ago, MERCURY127 said:

i checked many versions etron drivers and found one, which has good  work in pae mode, so u can use patched xp x86 kernel and get all-in-one: xp/ahci/video/network/usb3/sound and up to 32 GB memory.

At this point, I don't really feel up to patching the kernel (I'm aware of the different possibilities).  In fact, I want to move over to XP 64-bit completely if the programs I use allow me to.
32GB of RAM is overkill for me and will be for the foreseeable future, unless I start using fuller/heavier video editing software than the freeware tools I'm using now (Avidemux 2.5 and VirtualDub 1.9.11 mostly).  Besides, the plan is to use a different PC running Windows 7 Pro 64-bit (already have the license and DVD) for the video editing stuff so there is nothing left that would require me to have over 16GB on the XP machine.
 

3 hours ago, 98SE said:

P55 chipset and the Core i5-650 if you want you should do a fresh install with Windows 2000 SP4 on this system as an older rig.  There shouldn't be any reason why it is unstable.

I was running Windows 2000 Pro SP4 for many years, and always ported it over to new systems to avoid reinstallation.  Windows 2000 is very forgiving when it comes to this.  I had one install going over AMD, nForce4 and various Intel boards without problem until I got the P7H55 I'm using now.  After a year of putting up with the occasional freezes and memory-related issues, I needed to reboot after installing a program, but Windows failed to boot with the dreaded "WINNT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM is missing or corrupt" error message.  With Win2K, that's the end because there is no backup like with XP.  I tried to install Win2K Pro SP4 fresh onto the second partition of the system drive, but it failed after the first reboot (entering the GUI section of Windows setup) stating a problem with USB.  I tried all the settings in the BIOS but nothing helped.  Since I needed the computer working again in a few hours, I decided to install WinXP Pro 32-bit fresh onto the second partition, after formatting it.  This install went through, but the instabilities remained.
I also noticed that the top right corner of the motherboard (on the side of the RAM) is bending upwards, which (I assume) could imply that the heatsink wasn't installed properly.  This could also explain why I have to re-seat or wiggle the memory and some of the cards from time to time, especially after tilting the case down to clean it or install/uninstall components.  If I don't do this, the computer itself might fail to even run the POST or I get BSODs in Windows.  Some of the motherboard expansion card slots don't fully align with the case slots either, which is strange because I have used several boards with this case and never ran into this problem before.  The board with CPU and heatsink wasn't preinstalled by me but by a fellow system builder (I used to actively build computers myself up and through the Athlon64 X2 era).  But it doesn't serve to point a finger anymore; I've noticed many of the IO ports have become pretty rusty over time, possibly because of the excess humidity where my computer is operating.
 

4 hours ago, 98SE said:

I see no point in having two machines or one dedicated just for XP use in your situation.
(...)
If you have the money or can get the money just wait for the AsRock Z370 Extreme4 and can build a super powered XP 32-bit / Vista or W7 64-bit Dual Boot.  Vista 64-bit closely resembles XP-32 bit the most and there is no point in going with XP-64 as it can't run the DX11 software and Vista can be made to run in Classic mode which is what you want an XP like interface.

First, I need to say I'm not a gamer.  I don't know where that idea got started, but I'm not.  I don't intend to play either.

I've worked with Vista/7 32/64-bit and 8/8.1 64-bit extensively and played a little with 10 64-bit.  There are currently 5 computers in this house hold and another one in an office space that I'm maintaining.  I'm aware of Classic Mode, but I need more:
- basic bass and treble controls in the Windows Volume Control panel
- that huge button toolbar in Explorer needs to go and replaced with a customizable toolbar featuring only the icons that I need, set to "small icons"
- big status bar in Explorer needs to go away if I enable the small status bar
- remember sizing and position of all windows, including those that are partially shifted out of view
 
I often run multiple programs (usually 4 to 5) side-by-side so I need as much screen real estate as I can get.  I don't want to use a big monitor for tasks other than video editing.
 
Why 2 computers?
I don't want the backup to be in the computer that I'll be using 24/7, but I won't be doing high-profile automatic backups either so an external NAS is over the top.  A second workstation computer connected to the network is good enough for me.  Since I won't be sitting at that computer very often (I can initiate the backups from the source PC), I might as well use modern, high-end components for it and make it a dedicated video editing machine using Win7 Pro 64-bit so I have the option to run more recent professional video editing programs.  So I need Win7 (or 8.1 if need be) for some tasks, and XP for other tasks.
I want to be able to do all the other tasks WHILE editing video, which I can't do with a dual boot on the same computer.  The XP 32-bit / XP 64-bit dual boot I had in mind is intended to allow me to test XP 64-bit in anticipation of a full transition from XP 32-bit.  If my XP 64-bit testing won't prove to be the "experience" I had hoped for, I still have XP 32-bit to fall back to.  Writing about this now, I realize that I could also just install XP 64-bit from the start (skipping XP 32-bit) as I still have my current PC to fall back to.
 

5 hours ago, 98SE said:

Why do you need the PCI slot

Sound card, and possibly a capture card.
I currently have an Audigy 2 PCI card that I'm very happy with and was thinking of transfering over.  I also wondered if it would be useful to upgrade to an X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Champion or a newer Audigy RX, as both are PCIe (and come with XP drivers).  What's holding me back there, is that the X-Fi cards have combined Line In/Mic In, and many reviewers complain about not so good sound quality with the Audigy RX (though they never compare it to the Audigy 2).  Also, since I have never used any of these cards before (let alone on an XP system), I don't know if their drivers give me the basic bass/treble controls in the Windows Volume Control panel.  I was never much of an equalizer guy; it's good for setting a base sound, but it's too much hassle to make a minor temporary adjustment for one song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jaclaz
 
I'm not worried about not being able to use such large drives to install Windows on.  In fact, it's pretty common.  I bought a 3TB HDD for my dad about a year ago, but I couldn't install Windows 7 64-bit on it as it required EFI/GPT.  It's now living its life as a secondary drive.  I prefer to use a small system drive anyway.

But I didn't know you could go over 2.2TB with MBR (albeit limited to native 4K drives).  You mentioned "4TB"; is that the maximum MBR can handle or were you referencing my 4TB drives?

Edited by Tomcat76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 98SE said:

As Dencorso admits to not being a gamer although this is a bit strange he has an i7-3770K which is a top end Ivy Bridge I'm not sure why choose that powerful a CPU at that time.

Because I can. I'm also considering setting up a X79/i7 4960X when I manage to get the parts at a decent price (up to now that processor's price, even used, can only be rightly described as obscene!). I'm no gamer, but I do serious math and image processing.

@jaclaz: Are there any 3MB HDDs in the market (if so please name 'em) or do have I to get a 3GB HDD and convert it myself? You've got me interested (even more so if there are any 3MB WDC HDD...). :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...