VOGONS


First post, by Grayshazzle

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hey everyone, I just wanted to know which version of XP would run the best for this machine since SP3 seems to run pretty darn slow, especially for install. I know people have recommended 2000 for this build as it is a little closer to specs but I wanted to push the machine a little to have multi-boot with these specs (plus it is the OS I grew up with and want to experience it again), mostly to just play some early low running CD-ROMs from my childhood. This machine is primarily intended for 98 SE but I just wanted to know from you guys that if I do choose XP, then what would be the best version for it? Thank you all.

Reply 1 of 7, by bloodem

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

For earlier Windows XP builds I always go with SP2 and it works great. I also compared SP2 to SP1, to see if it was worth to go with the latter, but... no, I saw no performance difference between the two (at least not with 1GB RAM or more). However, SP2 does feel more polished overall, so it gets my vote.

4 x Socket 3 / 4 x Socket 7 / 6 x Super Socket 7 / 5 x Slot 1 / 3 x Slot A / 5 x Socket 370
5 x Socket A / 1 x Socket 478 / 2 x Socket 754 / 3 x Socket 939 / 4 x LGA775 / 1 x LGA1155
Current rig: AM4 - Ryzen 5 3600X
Backup rig: LGA1151 - Core i7 7700k

Reply 2 of 7, by Grayshazzle

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
bloodem wrote on 2021-04-09, 20:33:

For earlier Windows XP builds I always go with SP2 and it works great. I also compared SP2 to SP1, to see if it was worth to go with the latter, but... no, I saw no performance difference between the two (at least not with 1GB RAM or more). However, SP2 does feel more polished overall, so it gets my vote.

Awesome! Thank you very much, I will try it out!

Reply 3 of 7, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I installed SP3 on my slot 1 board, and while I haven't spent a lot of time with it, it seems to be fine. I would be wary of the "black edition" or custom builds as they tend to install later versions of .net which may or may not be a problem.

Last edited by Stiletto on 2021-04-13, 11:39. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 4 of 7, by mjd93

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

+1 for SP2, provided you're in an isolated environment.
If you've got any network connectivity at all, SP3 with the very latest updates would be more advisable. Note that you can disable a lot of unnecessary services/visual effects to try and get SP2-level performance if you're finding it a tad slow.

Reply 5 of 7, by nd22

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I got 2 Tualatins 1400s systems. One with Abit ST6 and 512mb of ram and one with Abit VH6T and 1536mb of ram. I tested XP SP3 on both and the second one was actually pretty usable on the net and I also managed to fully update it up to April 2014. I should mention that I have disconnected from the internet all my socket 370 systems.

Reply 6 of 7, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I use SP3 on my PIII, but that's running at 1.63GHz and has 2GB of RAM. Still, on idle at the desktop, it's only using ~135MB of RAM and 0% CPU usage. Heck, the CPU usage remains at 0% even when I play FLAC and MP3 files in foobar2K, indicating that there's remarkably little OS overhead, even with SP3.

Ten Gigahertz
5 Groovy GHz: Ryzen 9 5900X | GTX 1080 Ti | 32GB DDR4-3600 | 2TB NVMe, 8TB HDD | Win 10
5 Troll GHz: AMD FX-8350 | Radeon R9 Fury | 16GB DDR3-1866 | 500GB SSD, 2TB HDD | Win 8.1

Reply 7 of 7, by gerry

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I use XP sp3 on a Duron 800 with 384mb ram on an old kt133a board and it works just fine across many applications include a bunch of circa 2005-2010 emulators, mame and .NET2

I'm very sceptical when people say XP requires fast CPU or lots of RAM. Certain games and applications might and certain computers may have problem drivers, tons of installed apps messing with settings and so forth, but windows XP is fine well below your spec with any service pack