hmm vista or xp

not a new system but im going to get an older system back up and running, it crapped out a few years ago and i kinda gave up on it after screwing around with it for a while, never quite figured out what was wrong, either had a bad mb or bad hd i think in the end. had it up and running again a little while back then it crapped out again. would lock up then force a reboot then after a while just gave me a bluescreen about HD problems and wouldnt' boot again.

anyway im gonna give it another shot and put a new os on it because i was using an old copy of win 2kpro at the time

the thing is im not sure which i should buy. winxp pro or vista.. ive heard a LOT of bad things about vista im concerened it might be this generations windows ME =P I know xp pro is stable and runs pretty damn well, i have it on my current comp. However i heard MS is gonna stop supporting it for some stupid reason soon. Should i just get a copy of xp pro or roll the dice on vista.. if vista will be better down the road then that might be the way to go.

im not sure if my systems up to speed on vista either if thats the way to go its an odler amd 64 4000+, K8N neo2 platinum mb, and a gig of ram and raedon 9800XT

was gonna basically use it as a 2ndary comp for my friends to play wow with me in the room i have an even older thrunderbird that i use for now but it runs like crap would ike to get this one up and running.

so which os should i gofor?
60 answers Last reply
More about vista
  1. If the system is more then 2 years old go with XP. A lot less hassles. Most of the hardware in the system is probably not supported by the manufacturers anymore so do not expect drivers for Vista.
  2. If you have old hardware then go with XP Pro SP2 you will have less problems. I am running Vista 64bit with no problems but my hardware is new. It seems Vista does not like the old legacy drivers of some of the old hardware.
  3. Another vote for XP. Older hardware = XP. Newer hardware = Vista.
    I've been running Vista32 for over a year side by side with XP and I can promise you Vista is no WinME clone. I've been very happy with it and have had zero problems.
  4. Id agree about the hardware side of the discussion. But, what about the software issues? From my researches, my QuckBooks Pro 2006, Word 2002, and MS Money 2002 will not run properly on Vista. Who knows about other software I have. The cost of updating just those 3 probrams alone is prohibited, if I'm correct. Better spending it on anything else, including wine, women and song! Please advise re software problems and Vista.
  5. I also would recommend going with XP Pro over Vista for an older system. Chances are the hardware in your system is not at the level needed to comfortably run Vista. Considering your system use to run Windows 2000, I believe that is the case. XP Pro should be perfect for your system.
  6. Old hardware = XP and new hardware = XP. Vista sucks and doesn't offer anything that you need unless you want the still less than stellar DX10. Before you put that boat anchor of an OS on a system you should at least wait until SP1. I believe XP will be supported until at least 2012. They will probably get sufficient resistance so that they will probably support it a little longer just like they did with 98. What you saw was probably related to this link.
    PC World - Windows XP to Be Discontinued in Early 2008
  7. Hmm, I must be the odd one out. My family PC (formally mine) is running a Socket A Motherboard Athlon 2800 and 1GB or RAM. The system is close to 4 years old and I've had no problems with hardware not having drivers. Only problem I've had with Vista was an early Video driver problem that has been fixed for 6 months.

    If its a its a good brand name Motherboard, you should have no problems.
    Only think I haven't found drivers for is the Creative Sound Blaster. Just took it out and went to the onboard sound. No problems!
    Just check the MF's site to see if there is drivers available.

    I'm running Vista Home Premium on the family PC and on My PC am running Vista Ultimate and on the whole like them better then XP home or XP Pro.
    Except the Networking, that sucks! :fou:
  8. I vote for XP 'cause I really don't see any justification for Vista, unless you really, really, really want to play game with DirectX 10 games.

    MS excluded the two best features from the release version of Vista.
    1. Better security
    2. More importantly, a new file system that would have made it easier to search for documents and would have invalidate many current generation viruses from what I've read.

    Nah, I'll wait for MS's next OS in 2010 currently codenamed Windows 7 (formerly called Vienna). That'll mean I will be using XP for 10 years by that time.
  9. Xp is the best OS released to date (from what ive seen, and yes i did have a vista pc, its now xp and linux).
  10. I have Vista and all I can say is thank god for dual boot.

    Vista is nice but unneeded and the whole signed driver thing is pissing me off

    Go with XP or dual boot like some do
  11. Signed drivers is also in xp. You can turn it off... its not a big deal. I prefer vista only because I've had to fix so many people's comps with spyware. So much less spyware sneaking onto newbie users comps when its a vista pc.

    I also have a killer rig I built for myself that only cost 400 bucks to upgrade and is capable of playing crysis with most settings on very high. Most people i see complaining about vista say its too slow, but i'd wager its just they're comps are too old, or they're too picky.
  12. Have daul boot system. Vista looks pretty, Have had no problems (newer Hardware, but older software (ie Office 2002 even my old dos programs that I wrote work. problem with tje older software is primarily with Vista 64 Bit and old programs that still contin som 16 Bit code.

    My vote is, as most have said, go with XP.

    Quote from PC world mag article
    "According to the Office performance benchmarks, Windows XP SP3 is also considerably faster than Vista SP1. "None of this bodes well for Vista, which is now more than two times slower than the most current builds of its older sibling," said Barth"
  13. Meh. I liked XP, but i am always ready to adapt to the new tech as it comes. That quote is fine and all, but what do they mean by 2 times? XP opens office in 8 seconds while vista opens it in 16? That's where i go with the whole: "they're too picky" idea. But then again, its all personal preference.

    I agree though, for some programs as old as you want to install, XP is for you. But you might want to look into OpenOffice(you can get it at OpenOffice.org) for a replacement for Word 2002. It also handles excel, word, and powerpoint, plus its free...always a good thing, and compatible with just about any Microsoft document file you want to throw at it.
  14. XP Pro is the way to go for what you have.
  15. Yeah, I have OpenOffice. But it would still cost $36 + shipping for Money 2008 on ebay; Qicckbooks Pro = need 2007, costs $200, no more upgrades available. My Word 2002 may work, but is not supported by Microsoft for Vista. If I wanted the Vista Capable MS Office 2007, that's around $120.00 at Amazon. With the cost of Vista, add in $356 for redundant software I already own and have the keys for, it seems just ridiculous! It's like they're all conspiring so that you must buy new software (really the same as the old, with minor GUI updates and other "add-ons". Fed up in SW Florida!
  16. tnx guys sounds like xp pro is definatly the way to go. I actually think i have an xp pro disc for my laptop and i remember hearing you can do a laptop and desktop with the same xp pro disk.. is that true?

    not sure if i do have the disk, its a dell laptop so i think they just give you that stupid recovery cd instead of the actual OS.. which is dumb, you pay for the os why dont you get a disk? i'll have to double check

    so the verdicts still out on if vista will be better down the road or this gens ME i guess? I listed my systems specs think vista could even run it?

    guess i'll probably just pick up a copy of xp pro. whats it run these days anyway? also, how do you partition the hd with it, is it like win 2k, it just gives you an option durring setup to set aside a certain ammount of space for the os to be installled seperatly? how much space do you need for xp? I definatly wanna partition it in case anything goes wrong i dont have the headache of trying to get my data back
  17. As has been said before. For the older hardware I think XP is your best bet...no, XP does not have a pretty interface, but there are some that actually like that. However, if that's important to you there's 3rd party utils that are widely available to make XP look great, its 2008 who wants to look at an ugly OS?

    Besides being a bit prettier (IMO) Vista doesn't really offer much and if anything it is a little slower so why bother?
  18. I have had XPpro / Vista64 Ultimate dual booting for the last 6 months….

    This weekend I formatted all my drives and installed only Vista64, I like it far better then XP and have found myself using XP less and less.

    I would suggest that if you have an older machine stick with XP. Any new machine should run Vista premium or Ultimate, as it really is a good OS, people just don’t want to learn something new.

    I believe if you don’t like Vista then your machine isn’t up to snuff, if your machine has the resources available it is a good OS… I have NO complaints.
  19. You people are in denial… Vista will take over, might as well jump on the bandwagon now. Vista doesn’t offer a lot over XP… but it does offer more.

    SOOO if you were going to purchase a new OS… Get an old one (XP)? Or get the new one(Vista)? Telling someone to buy XP at this point is like telling them to buy a radeon 9700

    If your machine can take it, Vista all the way.
  20. Well I pretty much have to agree with grieve here (it is rare that Edmontonians and Calgarians agree on things). Aside from Creative being bastards about releasing working drivers Vista has been very pleasant for me. I run 64 bit and have had no real problems. Anything that wouldnt run I just "run as administrater" and that seems to solve any issues. I wouldnt say its vista that was the problem, i'd aim most of the blame at piss poor driver support for it. Fact is, without Windows software companies (and hardware) would have to spend a fortune writing drivers for multiple OSes, as it stands there are really only two Oses to write for and the third is open source so there is no overhead cost. Given that these companies owe their financial well-being to microsoft i dont think microsoft is asking too much that they spend a little bit of time and effort to provide working drivers. After all, as much as people like to demonize Microsoft for making an OS that is incompatible with some hardware, it really is the companies who dont make working drivers disregard for their market (aka. Ultimate consumers) that creates these problems.

    Vista is a more secure, user-friendly, nicer-looking OS. It has more future-oriented programs, and include the fantastic Windows Media Center (it works extremely well with my hauppauge tuner). If you want a more capable OS get vista, you can always turn your old computer into a HTPC if you want. Vista really is the better of the two OSes, now that apple has FINALLY gotten its act together as well as creative there are few if any compatibility issues left.

    My vote goes toward Vista. WMC alone makes it worth it for me.
  21. Well, I'm running Vista64...and it runs great, truly, I like it. ...but that's only possible because I have a machine with contemporary specs. Not high powered, but at least contemporary. ...but I think the OP (according to his/her posts) has a yester-year machine...and so I'd say stick with XP. ...but by gosh, don't buy XP...if you don't already have a contemporary MS operating system (Win2K is NOT contemporary) and have to buy an MS OS, then get Vista, you can always tune it down to an XP-like interface (and, therefore, more XP-like performance). In my experience XP32 runs faster than Vista32, but others will tell you I'm smoking weed if I think that.
  22. Running 4gb of ram my Vista runs just as fast if not faster then my XP. When running just 2gb it accessed the HD a lot more.

    I enjoy Vista 64bit, and rarely have a problem. But when it comes to running an OS on a system older then 2 years it is not worth the hassle. I am sure the drivers would be there, but better safe then sorry.

    On a side note, I am running Vista 64 on a AMD 3500, MSI Neo4 Plat, 2gb ram, ATI HD2600XT with no issues, but I can trouble shoot computers pretty well so I risked it.
  23. Zorg said:
    I believe XP will be supported until at least 2012.http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130710-c,xp/article.html

    No, not that long.

    XP will be 11 years old by then. Next year is probably the cutoff date, if not this year.
  24. WR2 said:
    Another vote for XP. Older hardware = XP. Newer hardware = Vista.
    Older hardware = XP. Newer hardware = XP.

    Even MicroShaft admits Vista is bloatware (15GB vs. 1.5 GB for XP). If you absolutely have to run Vista (and there is nobody who does), you can strip it down with vLite.

    As to support for XP being withdrawn, I've *never* depended on or used M$ for support, so this is a non-issue.

    Anonymous said:
    In my experience XP32 runs faster than Vista32
    So why on Earth would anyone want to run this crappy OS? Feeling sorry for poor Bill Gates? Need DRM? The "enhanced security" of Vista was more about preventing piracy than protecting users, and they even failed to do that.
  25. Well, Vista is just a little over a year old...and I'm the kind of person that likes to go with the new technology. I know, not always smart. ...but I can remember when many said the same thing about XP vs. Win2K. ...I run Vista64 and XP32 on my "getitdone" box. I had some troubles with Vista32 but I actually think that was due to overclocking.
  26. lol now theres a bunch of people saying to go vista =P not so sure what to do now. I do have to buy a new os so it seems like almost a waste to buy xp pro new.. but i dunno if vista will have problems ungh


    like i said, heres the specs:

    amd 64 4000+, K8N neo2 platinum mb, and a gig of ram and raedon 9800XT

    would that run vista? and if so what version should i get? theres like 10 its a 64 bit chip i guess but one of the first ones so i dunno if i could get vista 64 or whats up i think the rams kinda low for vista

    also stil would like an answer on how to partition on xp pro, and how much room to set aside
  27. XP Pro is not a waste, it's proven time and again faster than Vista on equivalent hardware.
  28. kenshindono said:
    lol now theres a bunch of people saying to go vista =P not so sure what to do now. I do have to buy a new os so it seems like almost a waste to buy xp pro new.. but i dunno if vista will have problems ungh


    like i said, heres the specs:

    amd 64 4000+, K8N neo2 platinum mb, and a gig of ram and raedon 9800XT

    would that run vista? and if so what version should i get? theres like 10 its a 64 bit chip i guess but one of the first ones so i dunno if i could get vista 64 or whats up i think the rams kinda low for vista

    also stil would like an answer on how to partition on xp pro, and how much room to set aside


    1 gig ram is the unofficial minimum for Vista, for general users, but two is generally considered the geek's minimum.
    To be honest I'd feel better putting XP on that rig. XP will continue to live for a long time. All you will miss really is DX 10 which you can't run anyway without a DX 10 vid card. This is coming from a Vista lover.

    But don't buy 80% of what the old foggies around here tell you about Vista. They are just hatin and spouting a bunch of stuff they heard somewhere. It takes quite a bit of research and experience to get to the bottom of this issue. Vista does not act or feel slow on a powerful PC. As many here will attest. The frame rate gap on games has all but closed, as the firing squad study proved. Vista for a home user/gamer with a powerful system makes a lot of sense. Vista is actually selling quite well in that stratum and in home use overall.

    Vista is selling very poorly in the business/corporate world for many practical reasons. XP is entrenched there. The PCs are underpowered there. The proprietary software there has yet to get a full Vista AOK. Lot of them have not even moved to ie 7 because it breaks their web apps, etc, etc. There are issues with mixing different clients on the network. They have lots of legacy hardware, printers etc. They have a much more complex environment. Upgrading for them is a huge trauma. Always will be when an OS changes dramatically.
  29. I use vista business and Ubuntu linux. Vista is a great OS as long as you have 2 or more GB or ram. Vista runs like a dream on my desktop but it sucks a$$ on my notebook that has low amounts of ram.

    lots of ram = Vista :: low ram = Ubuntu linux :bounce:

    while I liked XP , it slows down after a while and the you have to reformat. Vista has not slowed down yet.
  30. kenshindono said:
    not a new system but im going to get an older system back up and running, it crapped out a few years ago and i kinda gave up on it after screwing around with it for a while, never quite figured out what was wrong, either had a bad mb or bad hd i think in the end. had it up and running again a little while back then it crapped out again. would lock up then force a reboot then after a while just gave me a bluescreen about HD problems and wouldnt' boot again.

    anyway im gonna give it another shot and put a new os on it because i was using an old copy of win 2kpro at the time

    the thing is im not sure which i should buy. winxp pro or vista.. ive heard a LOT of bad things about vista im concerened it might be this generations windows ME =P I know xp pro is stable and runs pretty damn well, i have it on my current comp. However i heard MS is gonna stop supporting it for some stupid reason soon. Should i just get a copy of xp pro or roll the dice on vista.. if vista will be better down the road then that might be the way to go.

    im not sure if my systems up to speed on vista either if thats the way to go its an odler amd 64 4000+, K8N neo2 platinum mb, and a gig of ram and raedon 9800XT

    was gonna basically use it as a 2ndary comp for my friends to play wow with me in the room i have an even older thrunderbird that i use for now but it runs like crap would ike to get this one up and running.

    so which os should i gofor?


    Solve problem 1 first, then worry about your OS. What's the matter with W2KPro BTW? Cheapest alternative is just to stay with what you have.

    But, all of the hardware you have would work on either alternative OS, so this bulls**it about 'get xp because your hardware is 2 years old' is just that... What you decide to do in the end is up to you, but whether you get XP or Vista, get a retail version so that it is xferrable.

    All that said, I'd get Vista. I've been running it since the last alpha version. The first three betas were very much hair-pulling affairs. But the two betas prior to RC1 were relatively stable, RC1 was almost bulletproof, RC2 was so bug-free I could'nt find a reason to write a bug report and ran it until my license ran out. Then I got Ultimate retail. I still have XPPro as a dual boot, but haven't started it in over a month, and then only to update the OS.

    I'm thinking to retire my XP drive, and put in another, install Vista Ultimate 64, and dual boot with that. (nice thing about Ultimate retail, you get both versions, same key...)

    But, for your system if you go for XPPro or Vista, I'd get another GB ram... BTW, I had a 3200+ until about six months after I got my retail version Vista... My GPU's are Nvidia 6800 Ultra's, running in SLI, and I do have 2GB ram. So my hardware is older than yours and runs Vista just fine.

    My 2p
  31. I love xp pro-sp2, however i am running vista ultimate 32 bit, and vista enterprise 64 bit on virtual pc and a partiotion, and I love both despite what people say. I will probably upgrade to vista ultimate 64 and run it and xp=pro
  32. croc said:
    What's the matter with W2KPro BTW?


    Nothing, nothing's wrong with W2KPro at all. Nothing's wrong with horse and buggy. Nothing's wrong with DOS. ...but for some reason my horse and buggy can't go as fast as everyone else's car and I can't find good DOS drivers for my video card. I'll keep looking.
  33. Considering the hardware, XP. Vista drags on 1GB.
  34. jedimasterben said:
    No, not that long.

    XP will be 11 years old by then. Next year is probably the cutoff date, if not this year.



    No. MS has promised to support Windows XP Pro until at least 2012. Large businesses are not inclined to switch over to an new OS until it has been throughly test and it work with all in-house proprietary software, or until new software has been written for the new OS and is 100% stable. This can take years; at my previous company, they did not upgrade to Windows XP until 2003/2004.

    Since Vista is only an interim OS it is unlikely my current company will upgrade from XP. I'm sure they will wait until Windows 7 is released in late 2009 or early 2010 before they will even consider upgrading. At which point the Financial Information Management team will need to test the supposedly increased data security features which were stripped out of Vista. It will probably take 2 or 3 years of testing before my company will start rolling out the new OS in the network and then to all the end users.
  35. alright i think i am locked into xp pro.. jesus though i thought it would be like 80 bucks, i glanced at newegg and xp pro with sp2 is like 200 bucks still! is that right? wtf? yeesh i thought id have to pay like 80 bucks or somehing that seems really high for an 'outdated' os

    also should i get xp pro or xp 64.. dont even know anything about 64, only used pro before. it is a 64 chip i belive

    once i get it how do i partition the hd, is it just like on 2k pro where it gives an option at the start to section off the hd? and if so, how much room do you need for xp, 2k only needed like less than 10 gigs im assuming xp will need more
  36. No matter what the hardware, an older MS OS will always be faster than a newer one. On the same hardware, XP is faster than Vista, Win2k is faster than XP, NT4 is faster than Win2k. This may change with Vista if and when we see hybrid drives that are as fast as current SATA models but they haven't lived up to expectations .... at least not yet.

    MS has yet to top the stability or quickness of NT4. We track IT time spent on each box in the office and no OS had the "up time" of NT4. We have an old NT4 box in the office that is just used as a place to store backups. However, we still use it for certain CAD operations despite having several Core Duo workstations in the office because it simply is faster at doing them....and this with an 8 MB vid card, 512 MB of memory and and a P600! It gets rebooted about every 6 months ..... no one here goes more than a week without rebooting XP.

    The "rule of thumb" on older hardware is to use the oldest OS you can up to a point where there is a specific feature that you need. I have had a lot of people ask me to install XP on their Win2k boxes because a game box listed XP as a "minimum system requirement". So what I have done is add XP as a 2nd OS on it's own partition such as:

    C:\Win2k
    D:\WinXP
    E:\Shared swap and temp files for both OS's
    F:\ and so on - whatever.

    To the user it becomes immediately apparent that the older OS is faster. But there's no downside....with each OS on its own partition, uninstalling one is a very easy task. Ya can also use a borrowed XP CD to "try it out" for a few days before activating and see if you notice a difference.'

    Since you already own Win2k, I see no reason to go out and buy XP unless you have something that needs XP to run. Again, what the box says and what is reality are often two different things. I find very often that games that say they only work on XP run just fine on Win2k....they just list the latest OS to cut down on the number of people they have to do TS for. Unless of course it's a MS game which gives the a reason to force you to upgrade like they did with Halo 3.

    I'd use BootIT NG (free for 30 days) to partition ya drive as above and install Win2k on C:\ If you have XP on another box, try installing XP to D :\ and see if it helps you in any way. I'd wager that anything you run under Win2k will be faster than under XP. Delete XP if it's not helping you any. If it is, then grab an OEM copy of XP, and install over the original install on D:\.

    As for expecting to pay $80 for an "outdated" OS, ya have to think about who would buy Vista if XP was $80 and Vista was $200 ? Right now, all Vista has going for it....

    -It plays Halo 3
    -It has "cool" but resource eating aero interface
    -It can use hybrid hard drives (which peeps might do if and when they approach the speed of mechanical ones)
    -It can address more than 3.5 Gigs of RAM ..... but it needs more RAM just to run itself.
    -It does DX10 .... of course this means that you need a DX10 game to take advantage

    And ya can get WinXP OEM for $140

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116400&Tpk=32-116-400

    Still....I have never found a situation where upgrading a PC to an OS other than the one it came with or one I originally built it with to be a worthwhile effort.
  37. Why not go with xp home or xp media center? I never noticed much difference. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will chirp in and tell us all the differences and you can decide if it is worth an extra 100 bucks.

    As far as I know. both xp and xp pro were written off of w2k code and that pro only offers a couple of extra features but they are both stable. Oh yeah, i've upgraded everything I own to vista and love it. 2 gb ram does make a difference. It was a good os with 1 gb -- really like it with 2 gb
  38. hmm what IS the diff between xp pro and xp home? I just assumed pro was more secure and ran better

    also, like ive said a few times can someone tell me how you partition the hd with xp? I havent messed with it before, just 2kpro. Is it like you do with 2kpro, you just have an option at the start to set aside a certain ammount of space or whatever? If so how much should i set aside for xp, for 2k i did like 10 gigs

    I want to get a new OS because i have had several problems with the computer before and want a newer os to see if that will help. Im not sure if its the nforce drivers i used with the mb or the hd just crapped out or what, maybe this time i'll just skip the nforce drivers (msi K8N neo2 platinum mb)
  39. For what it is worth, I have run Vista Home Basic on old hardware with no problems. I did this mostly as an experiment. In each case, the machine performed just as well as XP.

    The hardware mix was as follows: Athlon 2600+ Barton, Athlon 64 3200+ Newcastle, 512mb PC2700, 1gb PC3200, ATI 9600 256mb, Nvidia 6200 256mb, Nvidia MX440 64mb.

    Vista Basic is the newer equivalent of XP Home. Due to the lack of the Aero interface, its requirements and overhead are much less than the other versions.

    As with all Vista, there may be issues with older peripherals and games.
  40. Biggest difference between Home and Pro versions is how many concurrent network users there are....5 for home and 10 for Pro....but Pro also comes with tools not available in home. You also can't turn off simple file sharing in home to give different people access to different resources.

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx
  41. go with XP - I use Vista but since yours is just for playing wow and only for friends, I wouldn't pay for Vista on that older comp.
  42. Hi, I've had Vista 64 since early feb 2007 and had no major problems with it except for waiting for creative labs to release a driver for my sound card and honestly that is where most of the problems have been, with drivers. To be fair that isn't microsofts fault, people should complain to the indiidual hardware manufacturers.

    I've found Vista to be very stable, and i've had no virus or spyware problems. Yes it runs a little slower than XP, but XP ran slower than ME/2000 and 98 etc etc. People also complain that it uses far too much RAM, have you seen the price of RAM, it costs £20 ($40) for 2GB, I remember spending £400 ($800) on 16MB when windows 95 first came out.

    Vista is not this generations ME, I used ME and hated it because it crashed far too often.

    My old copy of Office 2000 works fine on Vista 64.

    The best advice I can give is to check your hardware has vista drivers available and that your major software will run on it. If you get a bunch of yes's on that, you will be fine.

    Michael
  43. JackNaylorPE said:
    No matter what the hardware, an older MS OS will always be faster than a newer one. On the same hardware, XP is faster than Vista, Win2k is faster than XP, NT4 is faster than Win2k.
    In my experience XP was a step up in performance from Win2k.
  44. XP XP XP XP XP XP XP XP XP
  45. so really it looks like the only difference between xp pro and xp home is some remote access options and stuff. I thought the home editionw ould run slower, or have bad security features or something, that doesn't seem to be the case

    hell, maybe i'll just get the home edition then


    hate to keep harping on it but ive asked 3 times and still havent got an answer. How do you partition a hd with xp? and how much space should you set aside for the os? I remember with win 2kpro it was just an option at the install process and very easy to do, is it the sam with xp? does both home and pro let you do it? how much space should i set aside? with 2k i only set aside like 10 gigs
  46. nhobo:
    You experience or recollection of it is wrong. 2k is faster then XP, non-service packed XP is slower yet still and so on. NT4 was slower multi-tasking though and 9x just faked.


    kenshindon:

    Pretty much the same as 2k but just google it there are plenty of instruction out there for you. Not really sure why you would partition it out though the performance gains are not worth the hassle.
  47. During the XP install you can create, delete, and modify partitions at will. However, XP is very slow at this. I generally use the utility that comes from the drive maker for this. Much faster. If you do not have this, it can be downloaded from the maker's web site.

    Another good and fast tool is the Gparted LiveCD.

    A good size for the XP partition is 20gb. I actually set mine at 20, followed by 4gb for the Windows swap file, and the remainder for data. Once Windows is up and running, you can tell it to move the swap file to the 4gb partition.
  48. nhobo said:
    In my experience XP was a step up in performance from Win2k.


    Gotta be careful on what you use as a comparison point. Same hardware /....same installation limitations ?

    For example, you using Win2k on a box for two years and then wipe the HD and install XP. Your new fresh install is faster than the ole Win2k. While this can happen, a fresh install of Win2k would have had not only the same but actually better result. If you run benchmarks over time, you will see a gradual decrease in perofrmance as a system gets older as uninstalls / reinstalls / more installs leave more clutter which the OS has to deal with.

    But try this....make twin 16 GB partitions on the front a a clean HD. Put Win2k on 1st and XP on 2nd (Windows doesn't like it when you install a older OS after a newer one) and dual boot with shred swap temp files on D:|and the rest as you see fit. I have one here now and Win2k ranges from 9 to 16% faster depending on benchmark used.
  49. kenshindono said:
    hate to keep harping on it but ive asked 3 times and still havent got an answer. How do you partition a hd with xp? and how much space should you set aside for the os? I remember with win 2kpro it was just an option at the install process and very easy to do, is it the sam with xp? does both home and pro let you do it? how much space should i set aside? with 2k i only set aside like 10 gigs


    Did you search the HD section of these forums ? There's many threads in the HD section that describe how to partition your HD. I think it's a lot to ask someone to retype this all out again when the information is already here on the forums.

    See my post here for example:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/245075-32-which-suggest

    You can use the OS to Partition, you can purchase a 3rd party program to do it, you can use BootIt NG for free for 30 days. There is no "set way" to partition a hard drive no more than their is a set for all people to put their clothes in their dresser drawers (well I wouldn't advocate stuffing everything into one drawer)

    You partition it the way that works best for you. General things to keep in mind:

    1. Will you ever upgrade or dual boot your OS ? If so, partitioning is the way to go with each OS on its own partition.

    2. Save space and increase speed by letting those two OS's use the same FAT32 space for swap and temp files. Use NTFS for all others.

    3. Put what you want fastest on first, closer to the outer edge of the drive....you want your most used files (swap and temp files) on the 80 MB's portion of the disk or the 40 MB/sec part ?

    4. HD has to search your entire 500 GB MFT to find location of your file.....when you have say 125 Gig partitions, that search takes 1/4th as long.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Windows Vista Windows XP Systems Product