my rule would be.

early Athlon XP (1600) / early P4 (socket 423 Williamette or equivalent - XP SP1
late Athlon XP /P4 - XP SP2
Athlon 64 or above - XP SP3

I would use about 1GB of RAM as minimum , while XP will run fine on less, it certainly won't hurt (especially as XP doesn't suffer from the RAM limitations found in Win9x)

Darkman wrote:

my rule would be. […]
Show full quote

my rule would be.

early Athlon XP (1600) / early P4 (socket 423 Williamette or equivalent - XP SP1
late Athlon XP /P4 - XP SP2
Athlon 64 or above - XP SP3

I would use about 1GB of RAM as minimum , while XP will run fine on less, it certainly won't hurt (especially as XP doesn't suffer from the RAM limitations found in Win9x)

I'm leaning more and more towards similar specs as well.
While I've used XP on rigs as low-specced as Coppermine 800 256MB RAM, in due time I started replacing XP as my default OS on rigs such as these with ME as it felt XP is juuuust a bit too sluggish for these rigs for my taste.

I've used to see 512MB and 1GHz as some sort of cut-off point for ME/XP but these days I think I'd prefer to use ME on anything Tualatin and Thunderbird and slower and the vague area being Palomino and anything between 512MB and 1GB. I'd probably install ME on any s423 rig and slower Northwoods (like the ones using SDRAM if I were to build any of these (which is kinda unlikely 🤣)).

Thoroughbred and anything with HT is XP territory to me.

I'd probably stick with SP2 (NLited for extra performance on lower specced machines) and maybe SP3 for A64

I almost feel like on P3s and early Athlons, RAM is a bigger determinant - if you can stick 1GB or more in there, then XP is fine, otherwise prefer 98/ME or Win2K. I actually don't mind 2000 for a lot of mid-generation DirectX and OpenGL games.

Depending of your needs:

I have a PIII - 500Mhz, 128Mb RAM, with XP-SP3, runs very well for a specific task, burning eproms with my Willem PCB5.0.

In the past, I used an AMD K6-2 500@550Mhz with 512Mb Ram, SP3 run really good for office/study work.

with 1GB of ram, XPSP3 runs like butter.

Some software and games installer, required over SP2, especially with Internet use.

Try N-lite and make your own custom XP ISO

Regards!

jarreboum wrote:

One can find several install CDs for Windows XP, with or without service packs. But which are of interest? The interest being pl […]
Show full quote

One can find several install CDs for Windows XP, with or without service packs. But which are of interest?
The interest being playing videogames. I can use my modern laptop or tablet to procrastinate on the internet do serious work

Let's say for a computer forever offline, is the initial release better? (less bloated, snappier?) or crippled with BSODs that it's better to get SP3? or SP1 or SP2?

And for a connected computer? Purely for gaming, without going to dodgy sites with ie6 (but that doesn't stop Sasser now, does it?). I suppose SP2 is a minimum here.

There's even an unofficial SP4 floating around, is it worth it?

Do license keys work with any version during the installation? Like, if I have bought an original key, can I download an SP3 iso and be cool? What about x64 keys?

If you want to install XP I suggest XP vanilla. Later you can add SP1 to defeat 128GB hard drive barrier. SP2 is recommended since most software and hardware require it to install or drivers to function. SP3 is basically a security update which is outdated now. SP4 exists but I haven't tested.

XP can be installed on modern hardware including 100 series and 200 series and runs perfectly fine although drivers is the only main issue for the hardware components you will need.

95DosBox wrote:

If you want to install XP I suggest XP vanilla. Later you can add SP1 to defeat 128GB hard drive barrier. SP2 is recommended since most software and hardware require it to install or drivers to function. SP3 is basically a security update which is outdated now. SP4 exists but I haven't tested.

So why not just install XP with SP2 to begin with?

This reminds me of the old blog post "[url=ttps://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fweb-beta.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20110217025940%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.blog.de%3A80%2Ftb%2Fa%2Fr%2Fsoftware%2Fbeste-windows-zeiten-windows-xp-sp2%2F6572489%2F&edit-text=&act=url]The best Windows ever - Windows XP SP2[/url]" (archived and auto-translated).
So is it true that SP2 was the best one ? I liked SP2, but SP1 felt a bit more speedy by the times we had a Pentium III machine..
Or maybe it is SP3 now ? I heard it got some improvements for the lower end PCs again (maybe caused by the Netbook/Nettop wave of the late 2000s ?).

dr_st wrote:

95DosBox wrote:

If you want to install XP I suggest XP vanilla. Later you can add SP1 to defeat 128GB hard drive barrier. SP2 is recommended since most software and hardware require it to install or drivers to function. SP3 is basically a security update which is outdated now. SP4 exists but I haven't tested.

So why not just install XP with SP2 to begin with?

Well if you want to be able to have a clean XP you would want the original vanilla. Later they had actual SP1 and SP2 and probably SP3 retail CDs but once you have the Service Pack installed you can't remove it easily. If you install with XP vanilla and you install SP1, SP1a, SP2, or SP3 you can actually revert back and uninstall back to XP vanilla. That's the only advantage of Vanilla XP and probably it is smaller in installation size. However from a modern usability standpoint SP2 is recommended since a lot of software and drivers need it in order to function properly. Some video card drivers won't work without SP2 installed. SP3 is basically a security update and a bunch of update patches rolled into one for the most part and some software companies did enforce SP3 as a prerequisite but you can still trick the software into thinking you got SP3 installed with a registry hack. Some programs won't install unless it sees SP1 and doesn't acknowledge SP2 or SP3 so you have trick it to think you got SP1 installed. Anyhow this is getting more technical but XP SP2 is recommended SP3 is optional unless your software won't install without it. If you use nLite to slipstream the Service Pack you can't remove it later.

Jo22 wrote:

This reminds me of the old blog post "[url=ttps://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fweb-beta.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20110217025940%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.blog.de%3A80%2Ftb%2Fa%2Fr%2Fsoftware%2Fbeste-windows-zeiten-windows-xp-sp2%2F6572489%2F&edit-text=&act=url]The best Windows ever - Windows XP SP2[/url]" (archived and auto-translated).
So is it true that SP2 was the best one ? I liked SP2, but SP1 felt a bit more speedy by the times we had a Pentium III machine..
Or maybe it is SP3 now ? I heard it got some improvements for the lower end PCs again (maybe caused by the Netbook/Nettop wave of the late 2000s ?).

Actually I'm not sure which is the best if you are referring to benchmarking a game on each Vanilla, SP1, SP1a, SP2, SP3, or SP4.

I would assume Vanilla might be the fastest assuming the game doesn't require any service packs installed to function.

There was a debate whether Windows 2000 was faster than XP back in the day so if there was a game that ran on 2000 and XP that would be an interesting since 2000 had it's own SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4.

So in theory you could do a 11 version comparison benchmark of results. There might be one game I can think of to do such a test and I think it also has Windows 98 support as well so maybe if you include 98FE and 98SE that would make it 13 total OS version tests for one game. At the moment I'm not quite there yet to consider even doing such a test. 😀

Installed XP SP3 on a Dell Dimension 8200 with 2GHz P4 and 1,280MB RAM + NVIDIA GeForce2 MX on an 80GB 7200RPM IDE drive. Booting XP was fine but then using it was cumbersome.

95DosBox wrote:

If you install with XP vanilla and you install SP1, SP1a, SP2, or SP3 you can actually revert back and uninstall back to XP vanilla.

But why would you want to do that?

Some programs won't install unless it sees SP1 and doesn't acknowledge SP2 or SP3 so you have trick it to think you got SP1 installed.

Do you have a particular example in mind?

Damn I hate it when the browser crashes while mid text.

Keeping it short this time. Space or size issues since hard drives were smaller than. Extra sluggishness in boot time using Service Pack possibly.

95/98/ME/NT 4.0 SP5/2K/XP capable game from Raven Software / Activision:
https://archive.org/details/StarTrekVoyager-EliteForceDemo

I guess a lot more tests could be done than I originally imagined. 😀

Most of the PCs I install XP on usually stick with SP2 since I have an XP Pro disc with SP2 slipstreamed, In my personal opinion this is the system spec guide I commonly see for XP and its service packs when it comes to best performance:

Windows XP RTM and Service Pack 1: Intel Pentium III (and AMD Athlon) at less than 1 GHz, or 64-256MB RAM
Windows XP Service Pack 2: Intel Pentium III or 4 (and AMD Athlon XP) between 1.1-2.4 GHz, or 320-512MB RAM
Windows XP Service Pack 3: Intel Pentium 4 (and AMD Athlon XP/64) at 2.4 GHz and above, or 512MB+ RAM
Windows XP Post-SP3 (all updates until 2014): No preferred CPU for now, but I hear it's better if you have more than 1.5GB of RAM

I have a few systems with a service pack other than SP2 for certain reasons, I have SP1 on my Dell Inspiron 8200 for nostalgia purposes, and I have SP3 on my Dell Latitude D600 and my Athlon 64 Gaming Rig so they're more compatible with modern applications, None of my XP systems go online these days so it doesn't really matter what SP I use.

Jorpho wrote:

Some programs won't install unless it sees SP1 and doesn't acknowledge SP2 or SP3 so you have trick it to think you got SP1 installed.

Do you have a particular example in mind?

I remember StyleXP would refuse to install on SP3 because its installer has a limitation to disallow installation on anything other than SP2 due to it being made before SP3 came out.

KCompRoom2000 wrote:

Most of the PCs I install XP on usually stick with SP2 since I have an XP Pro disc with SP2 slipstreamed, In my personal opinion […]
Show full quote

Most of the PCs I install XP on usually stick with SP2 since I have an XP Pro disc with SP2 slipstreamed, In my personal opinion this is the system spec guide I commonly see for XP and its service packs when it comes to best performance:

Windows XP RTM and Service Pack 1: Intel Pentium III (and AMD Athlon) at less than 1 GHz, or 64-256MB RAM
Windows XP Service Pack 2: Intel Pentium III or 4 (and AMD Athlon XP) between 1.1-2.4 GHz, or 320-512MB RAM
Windows XP Service Pack 3: Intel Pentium 4 (and AMD Athlon XP/64) at 2.4 GHz and above, or 512MB+ RAM
Windows XP Post-SP3 (all updates until 2014): No preferred CPU for now, but I hear it's better if you have more than 1.5GB of RAM

I have a few systems with a service pack other than SP2 for certain reasons, I have SP1 on my Dell Inspiron 8200 for nostalgia purposes, and I have SP3 on my Dell Latitude D600 and my Athlon 64 Gaming Rig so they're more compatible with modern applications, None of my XP systems go online these days so it doesn't really matter what SP I use.

Jorpho wrote:

Some programs won't install unless it sees SP1 and doesn't acknowledge SP2 or SP3 so you have trick it to think you got SP1 installed.

Do you have a particular example in mind?

I remember StyleXP would refuse to install on SP3 because its installer has a limitation to disallow installation on anything other than SP2 due to it being made before SP3 came out.

At the moment I'm using XP3 on a Z77 but there were a few of those patches for Hd Audio that only worked with SP1 so if you had SP2 or SP3 it would refuse to install. But the registry fix is the simplest way to get around most stubborn installers.

SP1 is the minimum if you want to use over 137GB really 128GB hard drives to be safe. But I recommend SP2 only because it's easier to troubleshoot the Hardware IDs of unknown devices that aren't shown in SP1 and Vanilla.

For Performance testing if I had the time benchmark all those legacy OSs that game demo could support it would run off a pure Ram Drive so no delays due to hard drive access lag. Today is a good day to use XP and see how fast it performs. Intel is out to kill XP so I have a feeling Z370 they might due something drastic to really make it incompatible. Windows 7 runs fine but still more noticeable lag. I know too many people are worried about getting XP hacked or something but I roll on the dangerous side of things. 😀

At least when you are in pure DOS you can't get hacked while you are enjoying your game unless you are using a dial up head to head game but I don't think anyone out there ever bothered to hack someone that way since it was usually a direct connection.

95DosBox wrote:

Keeping it short this time.

Y'know, you could do that more often.

Space or size issues since hard drives were smaller than.

But you can only uninstall a service pack if you keep the older files around.

95DosBox wrote:

XP can be installed on modern hardware including 100 series and 200 series and runs perfectly fine although drivers is the only main issue for the hardware components you will need.

How can you install XP on modern hardware, if there are no AHCI drivers (and I'm pretty sure, there is no "IDE Compatible" mode for disk controller on Z170/Z270) ?
I'm guessing you need external SATA PCI-e controller for this to work, am I right ?

PS. XP on VM does not count as actual installation (at least to me).

EDIT : OK, found Z170 AHCI XP driver : LINK 😁

Jorpho wrote:

Y'know, you could do that more often.

I try my best when it's required 😕

Space or size issues since hard drives were smaller than. But you can only uninstall a service pack if you keep the older files around.

Yes if you don't clean out the backup files you can still revert back to the previous state it was in before the SP was installed. There will be an option before installing the SP if you want to back up or not.

If you install Vanilla and then SP2, if you revert back it will be Vanilla.

If you install Vanilla and then SP1, SP2, and then SP3, you can only revert back to SP2, then go back to SP1, then back to Vanilla. You can't skip straight to Vanilla from SP3 if you kept all backup points. There will be a ton of space used up most likely doing mini SP upgrades steps this way.

agent_x007 wrote:

How can you install XP on modern hardware, if there are no AHCI drivers (and I'm pretty sure, there is no "IDE Compatible" mode […]
Show full quote

95DosBox wrote:

XP can be installed on modern hardware including 100 series and 200 series and runs perfectly fine although drivers is the only main issue for the hardware components you will need.

How can you install XP on modern hardware, if there are no AHCI drivers (and I'm pretty sure, there is no "IDE Compatible" mode for disk controller on Z170/Z270) ?
I'm guessing you need external SATA PCI-e controller for this to work, am I right ?

PS. XP on VM does not count as actual installation (at least to me).

EDIT : OK, found Z170 AHCI XP driver : LINK 😁

No I don't count VM as a valid XP installation either and always do native XP installations. Try it on a separate hard drive so you don't mess with your boot loader if you got vital data on your system. What are your system specs? Sorry to hear my growing up Bond Sir Roger Moore has died.

95DosBox wrote:

Space or size issues since hard drives were smaller than.

But you can only uninstall a service pack if you keep the older files around.

Yes if you don't clean out the backup files you can still revert back to the previous state it was in before the SP was installed.

My point was that it doesn't seem to make sense to uninstall a service pack to save hard drive space, since deleting the backup files would save just as much hard drive space.

95DosBox wrote:

If you install Vanilla and then SP1, SP2, and then SP3, you can only revert back to SP2, then go back to SP1, then back to Vanilla.

Is there any practical reason why one would want to do this? I can't think of one.

Jorpho wrote:

My point was that it doesn't seem to make sense to uninstall a service pack to save hard drive space, since deleting the backup files would save just as much hard drive space.

Uninstalling a service pack from the Add or Remove Programs method should completely restore it back to whatever state the registry entries were prior to the SP modifications (no guarantee) and you'll have to reboot to clean up any files that are locked down that can't be removed while in the OS than if you simply went and manually deleted the SP Rollback files directory. Personally I still think it leaves some traces of something was done either in registry or some left over files that weren't there prior to the SP using either removal method. I usually use the nLite SP slipstream method instead and the entire OS is more compact from the start.

dr_st wrote:

95DosBox wrote:

If you install Vanilla and then SP1, SP2, and then SP3, you can only revert back to SP2, then go back to SP1, then back to Vanilla.

Is there any practical reason why one would want to do this? I can't think of one.

If you're doing XP benchmark testing and had limited hard drive space to test each SP this would be what you had to do back in the day to switch SP versions. Today with the extra hard drive space and if I were to do some extremely extensive benchmark testing with all the XP Professional Standard vs Service Pack versions for comparison and performance analysis I would do it differently using nLite to slipstream each SP and then install each XP version to a different partition as follows: 98SE DOS Boot Partition C:, XP SP0 D:, XP SP1 E:, XP SP1a F:, XP SP2 G:, XP SP3 H:, and XP SP4 I:.

95DosBox wrote:

What are your system specs? Sorry to hear my growing up Bond Sir Roger Moore has died.

I know 🙁

Specs... that depeds on what I want to play with 😀
Right now, I'm posting from Core i7 3820 OC'ed with 16GB RAM and GTX 580/GTX 780 Ti.
But under my screen, I have this : LINK 😉