Can Win XP Pro Support Core 2 Quad Processor ?

[gregg]

I am buying a Core 2 Quad System.

It comes with Vista Home Premium but many of my software will not be supported by Vista so I am thinking about installing Win XP Pro SP2 OS when I get the system.

But I am not sure if Win XP will support Core 2 Quad Processor or not.

Anyone knows the answer or alternate solution ?

I really like that system & I need the as much processing power as possible. My applications are very processor intensive so more the better.

Thanks in advance.

 

[rgeist554]

Yes, Windows XP will work with Quad Core CPU's. Instead of just removing Vista, you can try a dual-boot system so you can use both Vista and XP.

 

[skittle]

yes, so can XP home.

Which software doesnt work in vista, by the way?

 

[Reynod]

Stick 4 Gb of decent ram in the system ... my best recommendation for a workhorse system that your building.

Get low latency RAM - DDR2-800.

I am sure others will help with recommending different brands ... I tend to stick with higher end Corsair RAM ... but there are others equally as good.

Also ensure you buy a quality motherboard ...

A good workstation can be crippled by a crap motherboard and cheap RAM.

Good luck.

 

[babybudha]

A good workstation can be crippled by a crap motherboard and cheap RAM.

Intel processors don't really need high quality RAM. Their massive cache resolve the bottleneck of slower/higher latency RAM (I'm not saying go with the cheapest around, but top of the line memory is generally not worth it on a price to performance ratio).

On the other hand, AMD architecture do rely on better memory to get max performance.

Also a decent P35 $120-140 motherboard from Gigabyte or Asus will performance on par to X38 $220. Main diff. is that the P35 boards have a few less features (which most don't use anyway), and the X38 are possibly a little better if you are crossfiring 2 high-end ATI video cards.

 

[jonisginger]

Why get Vista? Sorry to burst in here...just build your own and get XPPro.../home if you is a newb


Also, cheap RAM can possibly slow things down, but TH did some tests a while ago and it would seem a motherboard is a motherboard in terms of performance (not overclocking or features)...

Not saying Reynod is wrong but can anyone show me some proof? Cheers

 

[skittle]

Why get Vista?

Because vista actually gets a few things right that XP, OSX and linux havnt.

 

[jonisginger]

...

 

[Vindicoth]

Like making you sit at your computer longer, while waiting for files to transfer.

Oh and also making your in game performance generally 20%-30% less, for no reason at all.

It does that much better than XP.

 

[Shadow703793]

Because vista actually gets a few things right that XP, OSX and linux havnt.

DX 10?

 

[wsbsteven]

DX 10?

IE 7 Protected mode and start menu searching to name two.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I'm happy with Vista. I only had to give up a few old XP applications. And now everything that comes out is made for Vista. Crysis runs good for the hardware I have.

And yes, quad-core will work with XP home or pro.

 

[stevenpchurch]

Yes, Windows XP will work with Quad Core CPU's. Instead of just removing Vista, you can try a dual-boot system so you can use both Vista and XP.

Will Vista allow a dual boot system? It was my understanding that it will not accept a second OS...stevenpchurch

 

[M3d]

Will Vista allow a dual boot system? It was my understanding that it will not accept a second OS...stevenpchurch

Yes you can. I ran a dual boot of vista and xp for a couple of months just fine.

 

[speedbird]

I dislike vista, but I don't want to state my reasons in this thread, already expressed my opinions in the Vista section of the forum

XP will use Quad core's just fine and will also be able to use even more cores when Such processors exist for the home desktop market.

 

[dobby]

Because vista actually gets a few things right that XP, OSX and linux havnt.

spot on, hes right

and i don't want to sound like an arse, but you havent told us what S/w doesnt work on vista, i doubt you've really looked into it. coz the only thing i have found not to work is really old games and some really old apps, and i get the impression you dont need a Quad to run them

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

The only software I had big issues with was Sid Meier's Railroads. I did a lot of research on the web and they is an unsupported fix for it that worked for me. Dos games don't seem to work, but they actually work great if you run them inside of an emulator.

Where there's a will, there ususally seems to be a way.

 

[evilr00t]

IE 7 Protected mode

Try:
psexec -l -d iexplore.exe

 

[jimmysmitty]

For Vista don't forget the seperate Registries per user so people who screw up their login registry don't destroy the entire OS. Also Vista is like XP. If you have an old FAT32 based game(like the Die Hard Trilogy) you can run it by using the "run in compatability mode" just like in XP.

Vista seems faster in some things to me plus I don't need to look for a work around or edit some file and possibly corrupt it for a game to use DX10. Also I think SP1 will change a lot since it is performance based and MS wont release a SP that will make the OS slower. Hell even with how big SP2 was for XP it ran much faster and smoother.

And yea XP can support Quad cores. I'm not sure about Octo cores though. I have seen Vista running 8+ cores but not XP. But maybe it can.

 

[apache_lives]

Why get Vista? Sorry to burst in here...just build your own and get XPPro.../home if you is a newb


Also, cheap RAM can possibly slow things down, but TH did some tests a while ago and it would seem a motherboard is a motherboard in terms of performance (not overclocking or features)...

Not saying Reynod is wrong but can anyone show me some proof? Cheers

And do you know what the difference is between home and pro? whos the newb (NOOB) now?

Why get a 6 year old OS for a new computer? Get vista.

 

[someguy7]

Maybe because the person doesnt like vista and the 6 year old OS works fine and gets better performance in games. Its also cheaper. I am never going to install vista. I have no need for it

 

[jimmysmitty]

I understand prefering XP over Vista as that is what happened with XP. Everyone liked 2000 until SP1 and then once SP2 hit XP made 2k look like 98.

I just think it will be funny if Vistas SP1 makes it perform better than XP SP2 and everyone upgrades to it.

BTW you can get Vista Ultimate for 169.99(32bit) and 189.99(64bit) at www.newegg.com. Thats great considering it is the same thing as the retail just in a slim DVD case. I got Home Premium for 139.99(32bit) in September.

 

[jkflipflop98]

Chances are, this fellow has never used or seen Vista, and is going off all the inane rambling of idiotic fanboys about how bad Vista sucks. When in fact none of the idiotic fanboys themselves have ever used or seen Vista.

Vista is good. It's fast, stable, and runs darn near anything out there. It's pretty to look at, and very functional at the same time.

 

[Lassar]

Vista drives me crazy. I tried to shrink the C: drive which was only using about 30 GB. I could only shrink it to about 300 GB.

Also the defragmenter is lousy. No progress bar. You have to guess how long the defragmenter will take,

Just about everything annoys me with vista. It's slower. Takes about 4 times more memory.

You have to go thru 5 or 6 screens to get anything done.

 

[mostlyharmless22]

I hate to bust in too but in the scientific community there is a lot of analysis software that will not run on Vista even in compatibility mode and, according to the software designers, it NEVER will. We buy Dell downgraded to XP Pro for this reason.

Vista Home is a huge pet peeve of mine. Every student who rotates through our lab has it and the Vista VPN doesn't work right. At least with XP Home and a VPN we could get them sufficiently connected to access the servers they needed to. This is impossible with Vista.

I hate Vista.