i7 and windows XP

Is it possible to run 32 bit windows OS's with the new intel i7 processors - seems ever pre built system I see withan i7 comes with Vista 64 bit
38 answers Last reply
More about windows
  1. Yes, should run no problem.

    Can I ask why you'd want to stay 32bit? Ancient bit of hardware?
  2. Yes it will run, but you will be subject to the ~3G RAM limitation.
  3. The reason you're seeing Vista 64 bit on virtually every i7 system is because of Windows XP's (and Vista 32's) 3.25 GB memory limitation. People buying i7s are typically getting 6 GB rigs... and that won't fly on XP. It's kinda like why you don't see i7s with integrated graphics... if you can afford the i7, you're going to have a system that matches... and XP doesn't match up well with i7.
  4. reason I ask is I am currently shopping for new parts for a PC I am building for my studio to handle all of my music production. Currently the main software I use, Ableton Live, does not support 64 bit Vista. Also a lot of the plug ins and VSTs I use still have compatibility issues with Vista. - on top of that I just do not like vista.

    I am sure I can get by fine with a core 2 quad - I was just looking to future proof it for a little while by going i7.

    mi1ez said:
    Yes, should run no problem.

    Can I ask why you'd want to stay 32bit? Ancient bit of hardware?
  5. Strange I had a Xonar DX2 sound card and it came with Ableton Live and it worked just fine on 64 bit Vista.
  6. pappas215 said:
    - on top of that I just do not like vista.

    i was a loyal windows XP user since SP2 all the way until SP3, until i got 4gb of ram and decided to give vista64 a try. i'm never going back to XP. you should give it a try. it's so much faster than XP if you have a capable system.
  7. Ableton Live runs under 64 bit vista, but it is not officially supported. 32 bit vista is though. Don't listen to Apple, vista is a pretty good OS.
    i7 is just as 32 bit compatible as core 2 is. I would get i7, write them an angry letter and use 32 bit XP(or Vista) until they get it fixed. 3gb is enough for most things, and as I said getting core 2 would not make it any better.

    You could also run XP in a virtual machine or as dual boot.

    EDIT: Of course, virtual machine will give you crappy performance, which is probably not what you want.
  8. If he's running a production system for clients, though, you are kind of stuck with what your vendor will support... not that I worry about Ableton Live crashing but it's a hard-sell to tell your clients that you're running late on their project because you weren't getting support from your vendor. :)

    I would recommend Vista 64 completely - except in my case I do have one instance of 32-bit running for Media Center as some relatively common (non-Microsoft) codecs and extensions don't have 64-bit versions yet.
  9. pappas215 said:
    reason I ask is I am currently shopping for new parts for a PC I am building for my studio to handle all of my music production. Currently the main software I use, Ableton Live, does not support 64 bit Vista. Also a lot of the plug ins and VSTs I use still have compatibility issues with Vista. - on top of that I just do not like vista.

    I am sure I can get by fine with a core 2 quad - I was just looking to future proof it for a little while by going i7.



    OK, your hardware/software has a problem with Vista. I have some similar problems with such, so I keep a XP machine around. But have you considered XP64? That's what I installed and it works great, along with having the ability to use more than the 3.2-3.5 gig ram limitation of XP32. many people don't like XP64 because it used to have some driver problems, but that is in the past. Thanks to Vista64, most companies have now released 64 bit drivers, so, problem solved. So I would think that XP64 on a i7 based machine, along with 6 gig of ram would do fine and it should solve the issue you have.
  10. last time I tried some audio software for a client on XP64 (less than a year ago), it was a disaster. the software was not even recognizing that it was XP!! had a hell of a time getting them to install, much less run properly.

    vista 64 on the otherhand, I have had ZERO problems at this time with it.
  11. you should just go with vista64 with a beefy system with lots of memory and run your software in a virtual machine (ie, vmware) using xp pro. This way you can still run the app in the proper environment, and you can take advantage of the extra ram and current software with vista64.
  12. habitat87 said:
    Do you see the contradiction in what you said? Why do you need a capable system if it's faster? Why should anyone believe this? See, this is why I don't like Vista. You'll never constantly hear crazy claims from XP users. LOL!

    3.5 gb ram issue? Yeah, cause we all know everyone in here is a professional heavy user of some type of intensive program. Oh wait, your using Vista, carry on then.


    Believe it or not, vista 64 on a capable system is faster than XP is one the same system, even though vista on a low spec system is slower than xp. That's just how it works.

    Of course, you can keep mindlessly bashing Vista if you want, but it really doesn't achieve anything. As for crazy claims from XP users? I hear them all the time. Most have to do with how bad Vista supposedly is, even though they have probably never tried it on a capable system.
  13. michiganteddybear said:
    last time I tried some audio software for a client on XP64 (less than a year ago), it was a disaster. the software was not even recognizing that it was XP!! had a hell of a time getting them to install, much less run properly.

    vista 64 on the otherhand, I have had ZERO problems at this time with it.



    Sorry to hear of the problem you had. I've been running XP64 on one of my computers for a year and a half now and the only problem so far was with a 7800 GTX card that used to be in it. Since that card was changed over to a 3870, I have had zero problems. That said, some people will find particular problems with almost any OS that is made. On my two other computers, I have Vista64 Premium and Vista64 Ultimate. They work fine, but they won't accept some of the older hardware that I have, thus the need to keep the XP64 machine running.
  14. cjl said:
    Believe it or not, vista 64 on a capable system is faster than XP is one the same system, even though vista on a low spec system is slower than xp. That's just how it works.

    Of course, you can keep mindlessly bashing Vista if you want, but it really doesn't achieve anything. As for crazy claims from XP users? I hear them all the time. Most have to do with how bad Vista supposedly is, even though they have probably never tried it on a capable system.



    As for anyone who doubts this take the time to dual boot xp and vista on any machine with 3GB of ram and a quadcore. (easy enough to do as vista will automatically setup a dual boot if you install it to a different partition or drive.) I used to run xp32 and vista x64 in dual boot but found myself deleting xp cuz I had better things to do with the space. As a bonus if you spend the extra cash for ultimate MS provides Virtual PC for free. You can run xp in a virtualized instance at no additional cost.

    My PC, (q6600 w/ 8GB of ram and 8800GT)

    As for the OP, has anyone actually done it? install xp on a core i7system that is? I could be very wrong but I could have sworn that xp couldn't tell the difference between a core, vcore and seperate CPU. That would mean xp would believe that the i7 is 8 seperate CPU which would be a limitation if not on xp pro then perhaps on xp home.
  15. you really shouldn't limit yourself to xp. xp is old now and vista is not nearly as bad as it once was, if it even was all that bad to begin with. i'd suggest giving vista x64 a try. i went from xp 32 to vista 64 and i'm never going back.
  16. habitat87 said:
    Do you see the contradiction in what you said? Why do you need a capable system if it's faster? Why should anyone believe this? See, this is why I don't like Vista. You'll never constantly hear crazy claims from XP users. LOL!

    3.5 gb ram issue? Yeah, cause we all know everyone in here is a professional heavy user of some type of intensive program. Oh wait, your using Vista, carry on then.

    do you honestly know what you're talking bout besides vista bashing? i've used extensively vistaSP1 and XP SP1-3. i would know what i'm talking bout from direct experience. XP is a great OS, that's why i've used it since it came out 7? years ago? A system with lower specs will run XP fine but vista slower, but a system that is more capable would run Vista like a knife through butter. All my components get a perfect 5.9 in the windows user experience on vista. I love Xp to death, but technology changes, and at some point you will have to change with it.

    the limitation from 3.25gb of ram to 4gb, isn't noticeable..but vista has superfetching, all my programs i use often loads much much more quicker than on XP. i boot up in literally 30 seconds. DX10.1 and soon to be DX11 when windows7 come out can be downloaded on vista. it has so much more features that i can't even begin to list them all on top of my head. if you don't believe, give vista64 a chance and instead of being dogmatic, you have to realize i'm not bashing any OS, i love them both and this is from a user who had XP since it came out. gg
  17. @OP: If you don't really want Vista, you CAN get XP x64. Beware though that sometimes there are not XP x64 drivers (ie. my old printer). I run XP x64 on most of my PCs along with Vista x64 or x32. XP x64 is mostly aimed at CAD users and such.
  18. The only possible issue would be if the motherboard's drivers do not support XP. I checked Gigabyte's site for the GA-EX58-UD5 drivers, and they all support XP.

    So you can run XP 32-bit on an i7 build. The OS uses the BIOS to determine what hardware is being used (like the number of CPUs) and the drivers to actually communicate with the hardware.

    Can you install your current copy of XP on a new system? If you had to buy a new copy, you might as well go with Vista 64.

    You should get 6G of RAM, even if you only plan on using XP for now. XP will use less than 4G of it, but the system will be ready for you to upgrade to Vista 64 or Windows 7 (more future proof).
  19. In our office we run AutoCAD, Revit, lots of different commercial engineering analysis packages, old word processing, lots of old engineering programs even some that are written to run under DOS. Also we have had problems in the past when we mix OS versions on our network so for now we are all staying on the same OS. Can anyone guarantee that we could switch to Vista64 and run everything we want to run? We have heard of problems with the 64bit versions of AutoCAD and so forth, and granted not everybody is stuck with 20 year old DOS programs but if they increase our productivity (meaning increase PROFIT), then we will gladly suffer through XP for that reason.
  20. ^Just a thought: If you MUST run DOS apps (btw do you mean DOS from the 1980's? or are you reffering to a command line program? I see people calling command line programs DOS programs hence why I am asking this) you can run it on something like DOS Box if you have the specs.
  21. DOS vs. command line- in my case it is the same thing. Bring me a 286 computer and they'll run on it. I don't know enough about Vista to know what it will and won't do with really old programs. Even though the owners of my company have decreed XP only, I'm tempted to order a Vista 64 computer anyway.

    I'm need to make them buy me a laptop for out of office use and it WILL be Vista.

    (You guys can feel sorry for me- my current work computer is an AMD Sempron 2800.)
  22. ^ Meh my sisters school still has PIII laptops :P
  23. You can certainly run 32-bit, even older OS's on i7. But old OS's can count multicores as separate processors and limit you with processor licensing (pre-XP), or they might not handle physical vs. logical cores properly.

    I find Vista 32-bit SP1 very stable, comparable now to Win2000 SP4 and Server2003 RC2 on desktop hardware. (I don't have XP but assume it matured into the same.) Without SP1, Vista was a whole different story.

    Vista is noticeably faster at the interface IF you enable Aero. Your windows and desktop are stored as textures on the GPU, so your system does not need to poll the HD and redraw icons and screen portions every time you expose a window previously covered.

    That's not to say it'll still be faster than XP if you enable other things on Vista and not on XP - previews, thumbnails, and fancy backgrounds - or if you're on tight resources. Those previews take processing power to generate at first, and Vista is fatter than XP, so you'll notice a lot of slowdown if you have a slow media CPU or a slow hard drive.
  24. Habitat, it's not so much the core CPU speed, as long as it's modern. What aznguy said specifically was "perfect 5.9" in the vista benchmark. What makes this OS snappy beyond a modern CPU:

    1) Decent GPU for Aero
    2) Enough fast RAM
    3) Fast flash/fast hard drive

    Curious, what are your scores in each of the categories? I'm also running 5.9 in GPU/SSD disk, but 5.7 in CPU (dual core) and 5.7 in RAM (just ddr2-800, 3 GB).

    No one is saying it isn't a resource hog as with each succeeding version of Windows, but it actually utilizes some resources that XP does not.
  25. habitat87 said:
    @cjl That's still contradicting and doesn't make any sense. No, it's not mindless bashing when Gates doesn't even like to take credit for it. Interviewer "So, would product do you think would need a little more polishing in your opinion" Gates, "Ask me AFTER we release the next Windows, then I'll be more open about it..." Sure... Oh, and I didn't know that an e5200 at 3.96 ghz wasn't capable enough. Hmmm...


    It isn't really contradicting, you just have to try it. Certain things in low end systems will bottleneck Vista, while the same cannot be said in high end ones (oh, and of course an E5200@3.96 is enough CPU power). XP does not utilize some of these resources, and will therefore not be bottlenecked in the same way on low end systems. Of course, you could just try it, but that would allow for the chance that you might be proven wrong...

    Oh, and if you really want snappy, run Vista X64 on a fast duo or quad with 6-8GB of RAM and a decent graphics card (actually, almost anything but integrated graphics). It's pretty impressive how fast it can run.
  26. So, I guess we are all on board with Vista?

    I, for one, am still pissed about the DRM, but that's just me. As MS knew, everyone would embrace it sooner or later. Of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
  27. I think most are on board with it - SP1 brings the stability we've come to expect of a mature OS, which happens to be a huge improvement over the original Vista.

    The DRM argument is a non-argument. A non-DRM OS simply will not play the DRM content at all. So if you have a Blu-ray title, you can:

    1) play at reduced resolution on XP, and copy the video
    2) play at reduced resolution on Vista, and copy the video
    3) play at full resolution on Vista (with full HDCP supporting hardware), and not be able to copy the video

    Nowhere is playback functionality disabled as a result of having Vista. It's an old rumor from those against DRM - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=429
  28. pappas215 said:
    - on top of that I just do not like vista.



    Say, you should try Microsoft's newest OS - Mojave! Surprised you haven't heard about it yet :)

    I've been dual-booting between 32-bit XP and Vista 64 for almost 2 years now, and what I've found is that V64 seems better handling multiple threads or multiple instances of the same program, both in speed and in stability. However XP is of course more backwards-compatible :).

    I'd guess we'll be having a similar discussion about Vista vs. W7 in about a year from now...
  29. WR said:
    A non-DRM OS simply will not play the DRM content at all.


    There's nothing preventing a 'non-DRM OS' from playing a Blu-Ray title; Microsoft deliberately crippled playback on Vista because they want to DRM the OS. If Microsoft had stood up and said 'no' to the movie companies, Vista would be playing Blu-Ray at full resolution with no problems; the reason why they didn't do that is because DRM is something Microsoft want for their own reasons.

    And all that is extra software which provides absolutely zero benefit to the user alongside plenty of opportunities for bugs, security holes and performance loss.
  30. WR said:
    I think most are on board with it - SP1 brings the stability we've come to expect of a mature OS, which happens to be a huge improvement over the original Vista.

    The DRM argument is a non-argument. A non-DRM OS simply will not play the DRM content at all. So if you have a Blu-ray title, you can:

    1) play at reduced resolution on XP, and copy the video
    2) play at reduced resolution on Vista, and copy the video
    3) play at full resolution on Vista (with full HDCP supporting hardware), and not be able to copy the video

    Nowhere is playback functionality disabled as a result of having Vista. It's an old rumor from those against DRM - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=429



    But of course, there are ways around that as well, including ripping the media directly to one of the mpeg file formats and running it that way. Bit of a pain for the unitiated, but doable.
  31. I've been using vista 64 for over an year now.. I was very excited to see that vista x64 ran great on my asus p5e q6600 8 gb of ram. I've recently bought a gigabyte x58-ud5 motherboard and 920 i7 processor helped by 6 gb of ram 1333 mhz and i'm desperate.. Vista 64 runs like s..t, hangs (no blue screens), and doesn't have that feel of running smoothly.. I'm seriously thinking to go to xp 64 and wait for windows 7.. but as I know microsoft they'll blow it with this one too..
  32. Umm...sounds like a dual-boot would be the best way to resolve this situation...
  33. Recently bought an i7 with 12 GB Ram with Windows 7. I'm fine with Windows 7 for some things but would like to also use XP on the i7 as well. I use pull-out hard drive trays for swapping between the two operating systems, so I don't have to re-partition the drives.

    I've tried to install XP Professional (32 bit). It gets through most off the initial installation, says starting windows and then I get the blue screen of death.

    Bought a new 500 GB HD for the XP install (prefer pull-out drives for each operating system) and have verified that a) the drive is visible on my old XP Professional system (AMD 64 bit), b) installed XP professional on the 500 GB drive on my old AMD 64 bit machine, c) can see the 500 GB with the old operating system as a second drive on my new Windows 7 drive.

    What I can't do is finish the boot from an OEM XP Professional CD nor can I use the 500 GB drive alone on the i7 (keeps rebooting no matter what selection I make on the reboot menu (Safe mode, safe mode with command prompt, regular, last HW boot).

    I'm assuming at this point that I need XP 64 bit but would like to verify that someone has done this with an i7 before I actually purchase the 64 bit version of XP.

    Any guidance someone can provide on using XP and i7's together who has actually done it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
  34. Thanks for the necro post.

    You cant install the OS on your old machine then swap the drive into the i7 machine and have it boot.
  35. why not. recently upgraded to an i7 930 booted my existing copy of win 7 with no problems, then i booted xp pro 32 no mouse control, rebooted with an old ps2 mouse installed mb drivers and have had no problems since. Know this isnt ideal but i couldnt be bothered spending another 16 hours getting all my music production stuff reinstalled for the 3rd time in a month.

    Xp works great no problems whatsoever

    Rob
  36. Ack, the necro thread that refuses to die!

    *uses necro spray* Begone old thread!
  37. aznguy0028 said:
    i was a loyal windows XP user since SP2 all the way until SP3, until i got 4gb of ram and decided to give vista64 a try. i'm never going back to XP. you should give it a try. it's so much faster than XP if you have a capable system.


    Windows 7 x64-bit is faster then the windows vista x64-bit.
  38. What a great post... At running a pc shop and studio here is my take....

    Most plugins = 32bit

    XP32 = < 4gb ram

    XP64 = > 4gb ram and runs, but many drivers not supported, eg Audio interfaces, firewire deviced... and some of the best plugin wont work.

    Vista64 works pretty well, the odd crash, good driver support and if the DAW and plugs are installed and run in xp compatibility mode hey presto it works pretty well.

    Win7 64, too many problems with firewire, which is still a huge requirement for audio work and some of the audio firewire processing devices cost more than the pc!!!! Also after updates the midi side has problems... and best plugs dont work yet... (I tried bridges but they bring their own troubles)

    Win7 32 untested...

    For me the audio hardware suppliers run months behind the OS, the audio software plugin folks even longer, xp32 is still the most stable of the pc operating systems. Probably in a few months all will be well on win7 but for now if more ram is desired the vista64 is the best bet, but watch out that all the installed devices ALL support 64bit. (and then run the DAW all in xp compatibility mode)

    Good luck
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel i7 Processors Windows XP