1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows XP Home and Quad core CPU

Discussion in 'Software' started by Almightyrastus, 2 Jun 2008.

  1. Almightyrastus

    Almightyrastus On the jazz.

    Joined:
    21 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    6,625
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    Hey guys,

    Just a quick question, will XP Home edition work ok with a Q6600 or would the home edition see this as too many CPUs?

    Thanks, for your help.
     
  2. Cupboard

    Cupboard I'm not a modder.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    30
    as far as I know, as the q6600 is only one processor, you will be fine.
    But why would you want to use XP home? Go to Vista!! go on, it is worth it!
     
  3. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Go Vista 64-bit, or buy a P4 I say.
    Your CPU is a 64-bit multi-core CPU. Vista 64-bit is the only OS from Microosft that takes complete advantage of both (64-bit and multi-core).
    XP, limits your CPU to 32-bit, so basically it's like hitting that turbo button off on those old computer because the computer is too fast for you. Yea kinda lame. Also, XP does not take advantage itself of your multi-core; the hole OS was design for 1 core in mind, so Windows process can be executed from core 1 to 4. In Vista it will use 4 at the same time to accomplished the demanded task. This means that Windows will be much faster, and much more responsive. Also lets' not talk about the greatly improved memory management, and the ability to have up to 128GB+ of RAM (or 16GB of RAM if you go with Vista Home Premium). XP 32-bit has a limit of 3.2GB, anything above will be ignored, and above 4Gb Windows won't startup.
     
  4. oasked

    oasked Stuck in (better) mud

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    78
    It will work fine with XP Home (the limit is on the number of CPUs, not the number of cores). :)

    If you already have XP Home use it, if you're buying new Vista x64 should be your first choice if you want to run Windows.
     
  5. chrisb2e9

    chrisb2e9 Dont do that...

    Joined:
    18 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    4,061
    Likes Received:
    46
    goodbytes you dont sell vista for a living by any chance do you? ;)
     
  6. Krikkit

    Krikkit All glory to the hypnotoad! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    23,925
    Likes Received:
    655
    He's definately on comission. :p
     
  7. klutch4891

    klutch4891 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    693
    Likes Received:
    25
    the q6600 works like a charm on XP. Im using it myself actually till I have a good reason for Vista.
     
  8. Almightyrastus

    Almightyrastus On the jazz.

    Joined:
    21 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    6,625
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    Thanks guys, the question was raised due to a collegue of mine sorting out a hardware upgrade and still having a copy of XP. He has been since convinced of the benefits of an upgrade to his OS at the same time now, esp considering the OEM cost of Vista
     
  9. Drachnem

    Drachnem Minimodder

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to be an ass but just about everything you said was false and misleading. First off P4 isn't work using unless its for a "****" system thats a horrendous suggestion, do not heed it. Also what Goodbytes forgot to tell you is that with windows 64 bit some of your applications may not work with it, and that if your drivers aren't signed they will not work, and the OS will not allow you to install them. XP DOES take advantage of multi cores there was a few updates that made that work. Vista does have better memory management I wont argue that, however it uses a much larger chunk of your system resources and if your planning on gaming you will see a frame loss. However if you plan to play directx 10 games, your stuck with vista until the Dx10 comes out for xp via microsoft or 3rd party.

    Vista 32 bit will also cap your memory allowed, and if you have SP1 your system will say you have 4 gigs of ram but it still doesn't make use of it. (Hit Ctrl+Alt+Del and your system still only shows 2.8ish of physical ram so the patch just tells you that you have it, but still doesn't use it) Windows will start with 4 gigs of ram installed I have no idea where Goodbytes came up with that info, but you can boot up just fine with 4gbs.

    In summary if you don't plan to use directx 10 games for a while, just use XP for more frames in games, but if you want to play dx10 games your stuck with vista, as for using a 64-bit version I would put it on a separate partition and make sure all your stuff works with it before you decide to make it your main OS.


    Good luck if you have any more questions let us know :thumb:
     
  10. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Oh really? We shall see...

    Granted the P4 is slower than the mentioned CPU, but the market pushes for 64-bit CPU's, and it end up not even using it. So why push companies to invest millions (witch you pay when buying such CPU) for something you don't use.

    Do you REALLY run Windows 9x or 3.1 applications on your computer? If the application you use was programed in 16-bit instead of 32 or 64-bit, then it is not my fault that the programmer is complete morons, or the company is moron for not asking the programmers to change it to 32 or 64-bit. If the new version still is not Vista or XP 64-bit compatible (meaning programed in 32 or 64-bit), then you have nothing to do using such application. I am most positive they are way better ones out there.

    I have unsigned drivers on my Vista 64-bit (ie: Printer and X-fi), all I had is a dialog box saying: I am about to install unsigned drivers, do I want to continue?

    Sorry, but having explorer.exe being multi-core compatible, is non-sense, Vista is the HOLE system including its kernal.

    Lie (other then the memory management part), I made Vista run on 256MB of RAM with pagefile disabled. I basically had to disable some services such as Media Center services, SuperFetch, SmartCard, TabletPC services, and well anything that is new to Vista over XP. Vista takes a tiny big more RAM. What takes the most is SuperFetch. What is SuperFetch? It is a system that learned what you run (.dll files, NOT program names, so don't worry about privacy) at what time, and pre-load it before you do, in results your application can run (approximation) 3-6 times faster. The space of SuperFetch that is takes on your RAM is flexible. You need AT LEAST 2GB of RAM to take advantage of it, anything else SuperFetch should be disabled as it won't help at all (unless maybe at opening MSN Messages or something small like that). The space it takes varies on what program you use and how much RAM you have. Usually the more RAM you have the more it will take. On my Mother computer, with 2GB of RAM, Vista + SuperFetch takes ~550MB, on my computer (with 2GB of RAM), (same configuration), it takes about 1GB. SuperFetch does not reserve space on your RAM, it's flexible and changes on the spot. Try this: Open task manager, and open a bunch of big programs, you will see that the RAM consumption stay more or less the same. When I use Virtual PC and run XP on it with 512MB of RAM, after I finished my session, I look on the task Manager, I see that only ~450MB is taken. Also your RAM that you buy is meant to be used.

    Game slow down, is because NT6 (Vista) is a bran new core, XP is based on a core dated since 1993, so drivers for it (XP) is super well optimized. In Vista things are significantly different, so their is a slow down, as drivers are not as well optimized, if you keep your drivers updated you will see that on every update you do, you see the score in Windows Index goes up, and your benchmark score goes up (in the sense that higher the benchmark score means better performance). We are now at a point that most new games is just 5-10 fps slower on Vista then on XP. That is not much at all. Unless your game runs already at 15fps, then yes you will see a slide show, however I think 15fps to begging with is not much (fast slideshow?!), and you should aim for 75-90fps at least (in XP), so reduce your settings if needed. And with 75fps it will be 65fps or lets even say 60fps at worst, under Vista, it's the same speed as most games on the PS3, XBOX 360, Wii. And you see that they play pretty smooth.

    Ignorance at it's best Let me educate you a bit. Do you know what DirectX is? Like, do you really know what it is? In simple, DirectX is a very complex librray of API codes and effects that communicated directly with the Windows kernal, and your video card GPU. It by passes many layers for maximizing performance. It's NOT a silly software that runs on the back that can be updated (in fact, if it was that, believe me, that would be adding another layer to Windows, and make things significantly slower). Both Windows and the video card needs to have the same DirectX support. If it was just a silly software, why do you think you need a different video card to support it?
    However, I perfectly understand how this can be confusing, as I think, DirectX and OpenGL is the only ones that work this way. The rest are software that tried to communicate to cossets as it can with your video card and Core.

    Thank you for reading my post... How about you re-read it. :)
    I mentioned Vista 64-bit. (XP 64-bit will do just fine, however we come back to the issue of not taken complete advantage of your multi-core CPU).

    EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. At 4GB of RAM it will WORK, however Windows XP or Vista 32-bit, will use only 3.2Gb of RAM. If you put anything above 4GB, you will get a Blue Screen during the loading of Windows.

    In summary read my post, and get your facts straight.
    Having a dual partition one with XP and the other with Vista, will be like everyone here that did it, they end up not changing to XP, and use Vista more and more, as it is better, and is tedious not only to setup the hole thing, but annoying as you have to keep switching OS.
    If you want to use XP for a certain program, then use Microsoft Virtual PC (freeware).

    So far I mentioned the above about Vista and Windows 7 many times, and everyone end up agreeing.
    Proof me wrong, and I will perform a public apology on this forum on what was mentioned to be totally false.
     
    Last edited: 3 Jun 2008
  11. LeMaltor

    LeMaltor >^_^

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    27
    Everyone? :lol:
     
  12. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Those that spoke up about it, I can't really read minds. Sorry.
     
  13. Glider

    Glider /dev/null

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    21
    Exactly...
     
  14. Drachnem

    Drachnem Minimodder

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm going off of what I have read about 64-bit windows, I'll look into what you have said above. I didn't come up with this mumbo jumbo I read it off a collection of sites. And as far as Direct X goes, there are many parties working on Dx10 for XP. Again I wasn't trying to be an ass I was just going off what I have read and been told by others. Thanks for the information thought.
     
  15. Glider

    Glider /dev/null

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    21
    Maybe you should wonder about the quality of your sources... First hit from google:
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb219721.aspx#Will_DirectX_10_be_available_for_Windows_XP
     
  16. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Oh I know, I was like you. After digging and testing myself, this is were I started to see some things not connect on certain site claims. Moreover, after talking for many hours spread on several days with a computer engineer working nVidia, it is were stuff to come clear. From there you can see where people confuse and blame the wrong things, or perform bad testing.

    Again Vista has it's issues: ;)
    http://www.istartedsomething.com/taskforce/index.php?view=newest&category=
     
  17. Drachnem

    Drachnem Minimodder

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glider, I know there were some 3rd parties working on a port or emulation for dx10 for xp don't know if thats still going on thought.

    Goodbytes, maybe i'll have to try out 64-bit myself see if it gets better performance, I sure would like to use ALL of my ram. I love how vista uses my video card ram as part of the 3.2, as windows only lets me use 2.8.
     
  18. mm vr

    mm vr The cheesecake is a lie

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    84
    Yes, I know that too.

    The project was cancelled.

    Do you know why? Because it's not possible.

    I'll just echo what the others have said. If you want to read more on the topic, here's a link to another thread about the same question: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=149166
     
  19. Drachnem

    Drachnem Minimodder

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just installed vista 64 bit and its workin pretty good, just have to upgrade all my software to new 64bit versions, but so far its great.
     
  20. cyrilthefish

    cyrilthefish What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    15 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    99
    Not everyone, vista WILL NOT run on my PC without bluescreening and/or hard-locking up randomly... even in a clean vista install without having installed any programs/drivers yet :eeek:

    XP64bit on the other hand, is 100% rock stable for me :lol:
     
Tags:

Share This Page