# Advice on new system with my beefs. . .



## msurmint (Aug 4, 2010)

Ok, I'm ready to build another gaming computer, I've built all my systems for 20 years so I'm not new to it but here's my problem;  I can't STAND windows 7.  I know, I know, lots of reasons to go new, newest games, software, hardware, blah blah blah.  I've tried it, it drives me bonkers, . . .  soooooooo
What is the absolute best system I can build for good old XP?  I've used XP 64, not enough support, I've used Ubuntu, still not to my liking.

I'm working on a $2000 budget, but 50% of that will be an SSD and a video card.  I'm planning on a Kingston V+ 128gig SSD for 330 at newegg.  I was looking at dual crossfire cards, but I'm lost in what works with XP.  In each part I'm stuck trying to figure out not what's the newest thing, but what will work with XP.  I was prepared to spend 6 or 700 on video cards but, of course, the best video cards only work with windows 7!  (unless I'm missing something) 

I'm afraid I'm not going to find what I need, and I'll eventually end up triple booting my system with XP/7/Ubuntu.  Sounds schizophrenic!

I have a thermaltake xaser full tower case I'll use, and I don't need new monitors . . .  I don't mind quiet, and the system will be left on 95% of the time.  I think I'm going to raid 0 a couple of terrabyte drives for backup saftey.  
Suggestions Please?

Milo


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 4, 2010)

not sure where you heard that about the new video cards, but considering TPU has a version of ATI 10.6 catalyst for winXP32, I think the ATI 5000 cards will work on XP.

Intel Core i7-930 Bloomfield 2.8GHz 4 x 256KB L2 C...

ASUS Rampage III Gene LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/...

G.SKILL 3GB (3 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333...

CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready...

Kingston SSDNow V+ Series SNVP325-S2B/128GB 2.5" 1...

XFX HD-587X-ZNFV Radeon HD 5870 (Cypress XT) 1GB 2...

Noctua NH-D14 120mm & 140mm SSO CPU Cooler

Price is $1533.94


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Aug 4, 2010)

Umm...if hes using XP 32bit 6GB of ram is overkill and 2 1GB cards or even a 2GB wont play nice with ram http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=91260&highlight=32bit . 3GB of ram and a 1 GB GFX card would suit XP 32bit better IMO.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 4, 2010)

AlienIsGOD said:


> Umm...if hes using XP 32bit 6GB of ram is overkill and 2 1GB cards or even a 2GB wont play nice with ram http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=91260&highlight=32bit . 3GB of ram and a 1 GB GFX card would suit XP 32bit better IMO.



your correct, been awhile since I used a 32bit OS. I'll edit my post.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 4, 2010)

I mean no disrespect mate but I was once like you.  It took about 6 hours of pulling teeth but I got Windows 7 running almost as picture perfect as I had XP.

I kept a log of all the changes I made, and I must admit its still a work in progress, but it's worth it.  I helped one of my friends, who was a major holdout, and he's now fairly pleased with 7.

By all means double/triple/quad boot.  I do (7 and XP), and I think you'd be insane not to considering that during the process of fixing 7 you stand a good chance of breaking it beyond repair.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2010)

barbarics build should be fine, but its a losing battle: you have to go 7 sooner or later, and it might as well be sooner so you can benefit from it.


----------



## JATownes (Aug 4, 2010)

IDK why someone wouldn't like 7...I love it...best OS by MS ever.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2010)

JATownes said:


> IDK why someone wouldn't like 7...I love it...best OS by MS ever.



some people have been running XP for nearly 10 years now, they dont remember (or werent around) when MS released an OS every year or two.


95, 98, NT and all its flavours, ME, 98SE, 2000, XP, XP 64, 2003, vista, 7 


as far as some people are concerned, it went XP (all they know) vista (CHANGE IS BAD!) 7 (ZOMG! MORE CHANGE!)


give it a year or two, and XP will be useless. new apps wont run on it, companies wont offer support, drivers will be nonexistent. sure, make his new system run XP if he wants - but dual boot with 7 so you can LEARN.

one big mistake people make with 7 is trying to tweak and modify it like XP... its not an OS that NEEDS tweaking. XP was a pile of crap on default settings, 7 isnt. install it, turn off UAC, have fun.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> as far as some people are concerned, it went XP (all they know) vista (CHANGE IS BAD!) 7 (ZOMG! MORE CHANGE!)



I take exception to that.  I'm not the only experienced user who is not fond of 7.  I don't want to write a bloody novel about what's wrong with 7 because there are already at least a few very good ones out there.



Mussels said:


> one big mistake people make with 7 is trying to tweak and modify it like XP... its not an OS that NEEDS tweaking. XP was a pile of crap on default settings, 7 isnt. install it, turn off UAC, have fun.



What are you talking about?  You can't even install custom drivers on 7 without jumping through hoops.  Several of the default Windows 7 services are about as useful as a splinter in your foot and there are more of them and with less information on what they do.  The new and improved Indexing Services (Windows Search Service I think) feels uninhibited about going on a user impeding 60 minute recursive crawl of any drive I plop in AHCI style.  The firewall has a million and one exceptions that shouldn't be there unless you love Microsoft and want WMP to become a new deity.  The HomeGroup feature is bitterly useless unless everyone else on your network is using 7 or Vista.

Windows 7 needs tweaking.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I take exception to that.  I'm not the only experienced user who is not fond of 7.  I don't want to write a bloody novel about what's wrong with 7 because there are already at least a few very good ones out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



why do you need custom drivers?
why disable services, even if they dont help you? rams so cheap its not worth saving the 100MB you get from cutting it all back.

homegroup is useless, so dont use it.
windows search doesnt index extra drives by default - YOU must have changed something to cause it to index drives.

as for the windows firewall, who gives a damn? end users are fine with a firewall letting software by the company who made the damn thing get through, and everyone else installs their own firewall.


you're exactly my point: some users cant help but want to modify every damn last thing abotu an OS, and they're the ones who always end up in trouble because of it. leave it alone and it works fine.


----------



## INSTG8R (Aug 4, 2010)

I have 2 PC's running on it, have had ZERO issues with ANY drivers I have put on them(one AMD/NV one Intel/ATI). I use the Homegroup just fine on them. 

Like Mussels said you turn of UAC, and for me Indexing(useless and a memory eater for all you ever use it IMHO)
Heck I hadn't touched my XP install since the Win7 RC on my Desktop and couldn't wait to get Vista off my laptop and Win7 on it.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> why do you need custom drivers?


The only program I use currently that requires them is ATI Tray Tools.  The reason why I need custom drivers is because it's an area that Microsoft can impede freeware/opensource initiatives by forcing them to pay an astronomical driver licensing fee.  I won't stand idly by while Microsoft pushes freeware/opensource drivers out of the Windows 7 landscape.



Mussels said:


> why disable services, even if they dont help you?



Why carry luggage if you don't need it?  Haven't you ever been annoyed, even just a little, by that thing that says, "are you sure this program installed correctly"?



Mussels said:


> why do you need custom drivers?
> rams so cheap its not worth saving the 100MB you get from cutting it all back.



Really?  I must have missed the memo.  It was cheap a year ago when I could get 2x2GB for $50 but it's closer to $100 these days.  I suppose that's relatively cheap but still prohibitive.



Mussels said:


> homegroup is useless, so dont use it.



I don't of course.  I disabled it and now I don't have any more sharing problems with my LAN computers.



Mussels said:


> windows search doesnt index extra drives by default - YOU must have changed something to cause it to index drives.



It won't index them until I open them in explorer.  Of course I disabled the feature a while back so I can't experiment with it.



Mussels said:


> as for the windows firewall, who gives a damn? end users are fine with a firewall letting software by the company who made the damn thing get through, and everyone else installs their own firewall.



This may be true, but I'm not everyone else.



Mussels said:


> you're exactly my point: some users cant help but want to modify every damn last thing abotu an OS, and they're the ones who always end up in trouble because of it. leave it alone and it works fine.



Sweet jebus that's not true.  Though I do performance improvements to my own computer I wouldn't push them on other users unless they inhibited productivity.  Most of the issues I've mentioned are serous problems depending on the work environment of the computer in question.  Windows 7 is not by default a lean mean machine.

I'm happy leaving something alone if it works, but on 7 it didn't and doesn't for many features.  Other pieces of 7 are simply a waste or a danger to the system.

I'm also disappointed that Microsoft is doing with WMP what it did with IE only a few years ago.

(I can't tell you how pleased I am that a poster with the handle, INSTG8R, decided to chime in.)


----------



## JATownes (Aug 4, 2010)

Agreed.  Kill UAC, like everyone says, and it is a sweet dream.  The os user interface is worth it in and of itself.  I have never had driver issues at all either.  But this is not an XP vs 7 thread so to get on topic:

Any current hardware is compatible with XP besides the RAM amounts.


----------



## Frick (Aug 4, 2010)

If you're bying a new system for $2000 you might as well throw in cash for Win 7 Ultimate. Your SSD's will be happy, and you will be happy with the WinXP Mode.

And windows XP is 9 years old now, and in a few years you will, as Mussels said, pretty much be forced to change and that change will be more like Windows Vista/7 and less like XP. It's the future wether you like it or not.

BTW, are streetfighter maybe mixing up custom drivers with WHQL signed drivers?? Because really, that thing about Tray Tools makes no sense.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 4, 2010)

Frick said:


> BTW, are streetfighter maybe mixing up custom drivers with WHQL signed drivers?? Because really, that thing about Tray Tools makes no sense.



I'm actually not sure if I'm mixing it up.  I'm not familiar with the nomenclature perhaps.  What I'm saying is in regards to any non-WHQL drivers.  I don't like the fact that you have to pay Microsoft to get drivers signed just so you can load them.  You should be given the option, like XP, to load drivers without WHQL signatures (without having to go into a special testmode).  Perhaps this has been fixed in an update since I last attempted it but I couldn't get ATI Tray Tools to work because I couldn't load the driver for it.  Ultimately I found out I could switch to some special driver testing mode, then use DSEO to test sign the driver and finally open ATI Tray Tools.


----------



## overclocking101 (Aug 4, 2010)

this thread is great! where did mussels go!


----------



## msurmint (Aug 4, 2010)

*Wow!  Great responses!!*

Thanks everyone, I really didn't expect to get this many responses this fast!

As to XP and 7; I'm beginning to feel my age (computer wise).  I started on computers when the 8088's were new, I had a 256K (DS!) disk drive when 128K's were common.  I had one of the first CGA displays, and . . . What's a hard drive?  I really loved DOS.

Now that I have everyone rolling their eyes, I was dragged kicking and screaming into windows 95, just to play current games, then windows 98, and eventually XP.  At each step I've spent time making it look like the older versions.  For some reason, MS thinks a new operating system needs to look and work in a way foreign to the last one.  My current XP looks like 95 visually.  I still go to a command (DOS) prompt to do lots of things.  My main complaint with Umbuntu is that the commands are totally different, making all my familiar commands obsolete.  I like to learn a system well, and then actually get to be GOOD with it!  I like fast, but every time they make a newer faster piece of hardware, the operating system does more and the system actually goes the same speed in the end.

Ok, enough history and mental wandering;
I know eventually I'll have to go 7.  I actually went out and bought a stock 7 computer, after 6 hours of fighting to make menus look like I wanted them, I returned it.  I think I'm getting old.  Yes, dual booting with 7 will let 'this old guy' get used to it slowly.  So many of my old programs don't work with XP 64, I'm guessing I'll have similar problems making them work with 7.  I'm still running plenty of DOS programs.

So . . . I figure I'll buy plenty of memory in anticipation of needing it for 7, but XP doesn't really benefit from over 3gigs.  The boot drive SSD seems smart no matter what I do.  There seems to still be current drivers for XP with crossfire cards, and my understanding of Toms Hardware tests say that I'll be better buying two mid-level crossfire cards for slightly less money than one great one.  The ASUS Rampage III looks great.  I think I need to start ordering.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 4, 2010)

Out of curiosity did you try Classic Shell?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

I gave it a try but I'm not that nostalgic and there are some benefits to the 7 interface.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 4, 2010)

> I know eventually I'll have to go 7. I actually went out and bought a stock 7 computer, after 6 hours of fighting to make menus look like I wanted them, I returned it. I think I'm getting old. Yes, dual booting with 7 will let 'this old guy' get used to it slowly. So many of my old programs don't work with XP 64, I'm guessing I'll have similar problems making them work with 7. I'm still running plenty of DOS programs.



7, Fortunately, has the XP mode, that allows many older programs to run, but forget about 3D acceleration. However, on AMD 890FX, with IOMMU enabled, it's possible to get hardware acceleration through virtualiztion of XP, making the need to for legacy OSes disappear. Of course, not many 890FX even have the IOMMU enabled...


Anyway, dual-booting is easy. When you get the rig, install XP first, and from the XP desktop, install 7, and you'll have the option to boot form either when ou turn the pc on.


So, with that in mind, you can delay buying 7, if you really want to, without much issue. I do suggest, however, that you partition your main OS drive with ~100MB at the front for the 7 install.

ON ram...I have 8GB. It barely gets used. 4GB is fine. 6 is perfect(Intel's choice makes sense, to me), as I see regular usage in 7 @ a wee bit over 4.75GB.


----------



## msurmint (Aug 5, 2010)

*Ordered!*

Ok, I've coughed up the money, thank you everyone for your help/advice.

So I only need 100 meg for Win7 (on the dual boot)?  I have the 128Gig SSD I'll be partitioning for boot drive(s)...

While I was shopping, newegg had a package of gamer memory, a total of 24gig of it!  what do you do with 24gig?  Run a virtual system?  Geesh!  Just sidetracked, I bought 6.

Even bought 2 terrabyte drives to raid 0, since I'm starting again from HDD failure.  Even with backups, restoring is always a pain.

Thanks again everyone, and for the really fast responses!


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 5, 2010)

7 requires more than 100MB, however, it does require a "System" partition of that size where the boot loader and such gets placed, in addition to the normal OS partition.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 5, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I'm actually not sure if I'm mixing it up.  I'm not familiar with the nomenclature perhaps.  What I'm saying is in regards to any non-WHQL drivers.  I don't like the fact that you have to pay Microsoft to get drivers signed just so you can load them.  You should be given the option, like XP, to load drivers without WHQL signatures (without having to go into a special testmode).  Perhaps this has been fixed in an update since I last attempted it but I couldn't get ATI Tray Tools to work because I couldn't load the driver for it.  Ultimately I found out I could switch to some special driver testing mode, then use DSEO to test sign the driver and finally open ATI Tray Tools.



not allowing shitty untested drivers is exactly why vista and 7 are so much more stable than XP. So much cheap hardware flooded the market (webcams, soundcards, wireless/bluetooth devices) and they all had cheap, untested shitty drivers because there was no quality control for them.

you dont have to jump through many hoops to get the drivers signed (which allows them to install, you dont need WHQL) - its just that some people refuse to pay any money at all to sign their drivers, because they're XP diehards (or 32 bit diehards) and dont see the need.



overclocking101 said:


> this thread is great! where did mussels go!



to bed.



msurmint said:


> Thanks everyone, I really didn't expect to get this many responses this fast!
> 
> As to XP and 7; I'm beginning to feel my age (computer wise).  I started on computers when the 8088's were new, I had a 256K (DS!) disk drive when 128K's were common.  I had one of the first CGA displays, and . . . What's a hard drive?  I really loved DOS.
> 
> ...



i hated vista when it first came out too. then again,  so did everyone.

SSD's and some modern mechanical drives dont play nice with XP - you dont get TRIM support for SSD's, and i made a thread somewhere about modern drives not liking XP (maybe its in my sig? will check in a second)

IMO its far better to buy one great card than two, because crossfire and SLI are plagued with issues. Dont forget that video memory (and thus video memory bandwidth) doesnt add up in crossfire, so 2x5770's has the GPU power of a 5870, but with half the memory bandwidth - this WILL hurt you down the track, at high resolutions/with high settings.



msurmint said:


> Ok, I've coughed up the money, thank you everyone for your help/advice.
> 
> So I only need 100 meg for Win7 (on the dual boot)?  I have the 128Gig SSD I'll be partitioning for boot drive(s)...
> 
> ...



i assume you mean 100GB. i use 60GB, and store my games elsewhere. RAID 0 is not a backup solution (no RAID is) - in fact, its worse than two standalone drives for risk of data loss.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 5, 2010)

msurmint said:


> Ok, I've coughed up the money, thank you everyone for your help/advice.
> 
> So I only need 100 meg for Win7 (on the dual boot)?  I have the 128Gig SSD I'll be partitioning for boot drive(s)...
> 
> ...



What exactly did you get? I'm curious as to how close you followed my build.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 5, 2010)

@Mussels

No he meant 100MB unallocated for an OS System partition. See link.
http://img.techpowerup.org/100805/Capture089.jpg 

Also, where's your FAQ regarding ram, OS and video cards? I remember reading it but can't find it.


----------



## msurmint (Aug 5, 2010)

*my ending build . . .*

Well, I was going just fine, and within budget, until I got to processors . . .

Gigabyte GA-x58A-UD9 motherboard ($700)

I ended up only getting a single video:
GIGABYTE GV-R5876P-2GD-B  ($500)

Corsair CMPSU-850TX powersupply ($130)

2 WD Caviar Black WE1002FAEX 1TB HDD (at $95 each)

Kingston SSD V+ 128GB ($330)

G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB (4x2gb) DDR3 PC3 12800 memory ($240)

But where I blew it . . . I started looking at processors too long;
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.33GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7980X  ($1000)

build comes out at $3000.  My wife's rolling her eyes again.  

Actually, the cooler I tried to order was out, and I didn't order anything else.  I'll probably use the stock cooler for now, not really planning on overclocking anyway but I like strong cooling. 

And in the end, I broke down and ordered Windows 7 ultimate 64 ($175).  I'll install it and have time to hit my head against it.    I wonder if my extra XP 64 will run this system any better than 32bit XP?  So much less support for XP64.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Aug 5, 2010)

msurmint said:


> Well, I was going just fine, and within budget, until I got to processors . . .
> 
> But where I blew it . . . I started looking at processors too long;
> Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.33GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7980X  ($1000)
> ...



 I think the 980x has that effect on a lot of people


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 5, 2010)

$700 motherboard?  Heh, it's your money. Hope you find a use for all those PCIE slots


----------



## JATownes (Aug 5, 2010)

Epic build.    Do you have an idea what chassis you are going to put this in?  With a build of that quality, I would like to recommend the  Corsair 800d


----------



## msurmint (Aug 6, 2010)

I already have a Thermaltake Xaser full tower case I'll use.


----------



## CJCerny (Aug 6, 2010)

Almost all new hardware still has 32 bit XP drivers available for it. You'll want to double check that before buying your parts, though. The only modern hardware I might shy away from in XP is an SSD. XP doesn't support TRIM, which means you either have to manually run it from time to time on an SSD or just do without any kind of garbage collection for the SSD.


----------



## msurmint (Aug 7, 2010)

*ssd Trim*

I expected to run it manually (in XP).  Being my first SSD, I knew about it, but not how long it takes, was considering just putting it in my startup or something like.


----------

