Windows XP Build

[JamesDean]

So I recently discovered about 50 programs/movies/games for Windows XP. Absolutely overjoyed, I fired up compatibility mode, only to find that random bugs a frequent across multiple applications (Saved data being lost, no audio, missing textures, extreme artifacting, and hard crashes, just to name a few). I've decided that I have my heart set on a retro build, and I began looking around. Austin Evans put up a video that was pretty good, but the prices on the parts are a little much, and the hardware seemed overkill (especially the CPU, an 8-core AMD 9590 OC'd to 5 Ghz) Is there a more modest build that I could do? I'm perfectly content with a 32 bit version of the OS and I don't need a ton of storage either. I just want 100% driver support and as few bugs as possible.

 

 

[Tabs]

It really depends how much effort you're looking to put into getting the hardware working. Anything after core 2 quad or the phenom 2 is likely to have a few issues, and anything newer than Skylake or bulldozer is almost definitely going to be problematic (due to UEFI requiring 64-bit Windows XP, which is based on Server 2003 and therefore has different compatibility from xp 32).

 

Since quad cores of that generation were usually slower per-core, a core 2 duo or Athlon 64 x2 build with 4gb of ram and xp 32 would be your best bet for a smooth setup, as it'll be faster in single and dual threaded workloads (this was before turbo was a thing).

[Bajantechnician]

18 minutes ago, JamesDean said:

So I recently discovered about 50 programs/movies/games for Windows XP. Absolutely overjoyed, I fired up compatibility mode, only to find that random bugs a frequent across multiple applications (Saved data being lost, no audio, missing textures, extreme artifacting, and hard crashes, just to name a few). I've decided that I have my heart set on a retro build, and I began looking around. Austin Evans put up a video that was pretty good, but the prices on the parts are a little much, and the hardware seemed overkill (especially the CPU, an 8-core AMD 9590 OC'd to 5 Ghz) Is there a more modest build that I could do? I'm perfectly content with a 32 bit version of the OS and I don't need a ton of storage either. I just want 100% driver support and as few bugs as possible.

 

 

Ive got some gear im trying to get rid of... i7 950, 6x1gb ram, gt720, and the mobo that comes w/ it

[JamesDean]

1 minute ago, Tabs said:

It really depends how much effort you're looking to put into getting the hardware working. Anything after core 2 quad or the phenom 2 is likely to have a few issues, and anything newer than Skylake or bulldozer is almost definitely going to be problematic (due to UEFI requiring 64-bit Windows XP, which is based on Server 2003 and therefore has different compatibility from xp 32).

 

Since quad cores of that generation were usually slower per-core, a core 2 duo or Athlon 64 x2 build with 4gb of ram and xp 32 would be your best bet for a smooth setup, as it'll be faster in single and dual threaded workloads (this was before turbo was a thing).

Lmao I was thinking something like that, and I'll only take parts that have first party driver support. I wanna have fun, not a headache. Wasn't Athlon the way to go back then? I don't really remember, but I thought I saw something where Athlons had higher IPCs than Core 2 Duos.

[Christophe Corazza]

Don't quote me on this, but:

I don't think that the Athlon was specifically designed for Windows XP.

I thought that Windows XP was released at the same time as the improved version of the Athlon. So as a 'marketing strategy', AMD added XP to the name to market the CPU towards Windows XP.

[Tabs]

18 minutes ago, JamesDean said:

Lmao I was thinking something like that, and I'll only take parts that have first party driver support. I wanna have fun, not a headache. Wasn't Athlon the way to go back then? I don't really remember, but I thought I saw something where Athlons had higher IPCs than Core 2 Duos.

Nah, Athlon 64 and 64 X2 knocked the socks off the Pentium 4 and Pentium D lineup back then, Core 2 was Intel's answer to AMD for that and Core 2 was 30-40% more ipc compared to Athlon 64 X2.

 

AMD batted toe for toe with the Core 2 Quads by releasing the Phenom back in early 2008, but the first generation Core i7 chips came out later in 2008, and AMD didn't really have a response until late 2009/early 2010 when Phenom 2 came around. Core 2 Duo was the start of intel's (until recent) overarching dominance in the desktop processor space.

[Pasi123]

For a high end Windows XP system I'd recommend something like Core2 Duo E8400, E8500 or E8600. Those CPUs have pretty good single-core performance and should be cheap and easy to find and LGA775 mobos are easy to find too. And most Windows XP games doesn't use more than 2 cores so in old games Core2 Quad Q9650 etc. wouldn't be better than those. And of course you'd want 4gb of ram for 32bit XP.

 

And for GPU? Idk... Some say that the GTX 285 is the best DX9 graphics card. But anything that have WinXP drivers should be fine.

 

System like that should be more than enough to run all Windows XP games etc. without any problems. I don't think you'd need anything more powerful than that since games newer than 2008/2009 should work just fine with a modern OS.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, JamesDean said:

So I recently discovered about 50 programs/movies/games for Windows XP. Absolutely overjoyed, I fired up compatibility mode, only to find that random bugs a frequent across multiple applications (Saved data being lost, no audio, missing textures, extreme artifacting, and hard crashes, just to name a few). I've decided that I have my heart set on a retro build, and I began looking around. Austin Evans put up a video that was pretty good, but the prices on the parts are a little much, and the hardware seemed overkill (especially the CPU, an 8-core AMD 9590 OC'd to 5 Ghz) Is there a more modest build that I could do? I'm perfectly content with a 32 bit version of the OS and I don't need a ton of storage either. I just want 100% driver support and as few bugs as possible.

 

Your best bet is to install Windows XP under a virtual machine.  It is the easiest thing to do.

If you really want to install it on as a main OS, then the hardware you get will depends on the version of Windows XP. Is it Windows XP, XP with SP1 or XP with SP2.

If you have Windows XP original, then you will quickly discover that, depending on the hardware configuration, not know what SATA is, or PCIe, among possibly other things. And now you are in for a headache. As, just to get the SATA controller detected to even install Windows XP successfully, the setup only works with floppy drive to load drivers. And so, you'll need to get a functioning floppy drive, let alone a floppy disk to have the SATA drivers in them. You are looking at a week-end project, possibly two of them to get everything up and running. If you have XP with SP2, then the setup experience will be far better, but keep in mind that Windows XP does not support HPET, AHCI, NCQ, UEFI, SSD, and more, which means you'll need to set a lot of stuff to Legacy mode, and that will kill the system performance. Also, keep in mind that 32-bit Windows XP only support system with 4GB of RAM, where between 3.25 to 3.7GB of it will be actually addressable depending on the system configuration, Windows XP 64-bit is plagued with bugs and compatibility issues with programs and drivers (if you think Vista at release was bad, try XP 64-bit). Also, Windows XP does not take advantage of a multi-core CPU environment. Everything in Windows XP is designed for single core CPUs. This means nothing (of Windows) will use 2 core at the same time to do things faster, it will just move to either cores. Of course, anything newer will not have XP drivers or if they do, will most likely not be proper... where the goal is to get the hardware working, not working well, let alone deliver the most performance out of the hardware. Also, Windows XP does not support power saving features. This results in performance degradation due to a warmer operating system (possibly, depends on your cooling), and the hardware guesses the load it is receiving to know if it needs to clock faster or not. The OS communicates nothing to the hardware. This feature was introduced in Vista.

 

Once all done, and the OS fully updated. XP security is in a state that I would classify as more holes than chicken wire. I would not trust this system in your home network. I would cut it from the internet. All its security issues/flaws are exposed and are well known. This was one of the big reasons why Microsoft did the Longhorn project (Vista), which was basically recode the majority of OS from scratch, and hence why Vista was filled with bugs and lack optimization at release. The project took 6 years, and even then was rushed to be released.

 

 

[Crunchy Dragon]

36 minutes ago, Christophe Corazza said:

Don't quote me on this, but:

I don't think that the Athlon was specifically designed for Windows XP.

I thought that Windows XP was released at the same time as the improved version of the Athlon. So as a 'marketing strategy', AMD added XP to the name to market the CPU towards Windows XP.

The Athlon XP has 'XP' in the name as an unofficial reference to Windows XP.

 

OP: I would personally grab an Athlon 64 system for an XP rig.

[GoodBytes]

19 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

The Athlon XP has 'XP' in the name as an unofficial reference to Windows XP.

 

OP: I would personally grab an Athlon 64 system for an XP rig.

But he won't be able to use the "64" part of his "Athlon 64", as 32-bit Windows XP is well 32-bit. So why waste money?

[Mira Yurizaki]

VirtualBox can emulate a GeForce 6800, which most games until about 2009 were fine with. At that point, Windows 7 came out so there's sort of no point in using XP for games made in late 2009 and after.

 

Otherwise, I would suggest nothing more powerful than a second gen Core 2 Quad system, or heck, even a second gen Core 2 Duo should be fine. For the video card, nothing more than a GeForce 200 or Radeon HD 4000 series card since I think NVIDIA and AMD basically dropped XP support after that. I'd stick with a GeForce 8 or Radeon HD 2000/3000 card since that was still within XP's heyday (if you considered Vista to be something to skip)

[Pasi123]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

But he won't be able to use the "64" part of his "Athlon 64", as 32-bit Windows XP is well 32-bit. So why waste money?

 

Most people back in the days of Athlon 64 used 32bit WinXP. And waste of money?  Athlon 64s are really cheap

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

But he won't be able to use the "64" part of his "Athlon 64", as 32-bit Windows XP is well 32-bit. So why waste money?

Athlon 64s are relatively easy to come by and can usually be had for free.

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, Pasi123 said:

Most people back in the days of Athlon 64 used 32bit WinXP. And waste of money?  Athlon 64s are really cheap

I've got 2 Athlon 64 machines, both of which I got for free since they're basically worthless

[Tabs]

7 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

But he won't be able to use the "64" part of his Athlon 64, as 32-bit Windows XP is well 32-bit. So why waste money?

 

It was still the fastest processor at running 32-bit code as well though when it was released. And clock for clock it was close to 80% faster than the Pentium 4.

 

Still, though... A dual core is going to be close to the pinnacle of performance for an XP machine, and they are so incredibly easy to find. There were far more Intel Core 2 duo systems in the 2007-2010 time frame than AMD equivalents, since AMD was pretty much only for the high end. The E6600 came out for about $300, and outperformed the $1000 FX-62. It only got worse from there. You can find E4000, E6000 and E8000 core 2 duo's for less than $10, and motherboards equally readily available. Socket 939 and Athlon 64 X2 are way harder to find by comparison, will be more expensive and slower overall.

[JamesDean]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Your best bet is to install Windows XP under a virtual machine.  It is the easiest thing to do.

If you really want to install it on as a main OS, then the hardware you get will depends on the version of Windows XP. Is it Windows XP, XP with SP1 or XP with SP2.

If you have Windows XP original, then you will quickly discover that, depending on the hardware configuration, not know what SATA is, or PCIe, among possibly other things. And now you are in for a headache. As, just to get the SATA controller detected to even install Windows XP successfully, the setup only works with floppy drive to load drivers. And so, you'll need to get a functioning floppy drive, let alone a floppy disk to have the SATA drivers in them. You are looking at a week-end project, possibly two of them to get everything up and running. If you have XP with SP2, then the setup experience will be far better, but keep in mind that Windows XP does not support HPET, AHCI, NCQ, UEFI, SSD, and more, which means you'll need to set a lot of stuff to Legacy mode, and that will kill the system performance. Also, keep in mind that 32-bit Windows XP only support system with 4GB of RAM, where between 3.25 to 3.7GB of it will be actually addressable depending on the system configuration, Windows XP 64-bit is plagued with bugs and compatibility issues with programs and drivers (if you think Vista at release was bad, try XP 64-bit). Also, Windows XP does not take advantage of a multi-core CPU environment. Everything in Windows XP is designed for single core CPUs. This means nothing (of Windows) will use 2 core at the same time to do things faster, it will just move to either cores. Of course, anything newer will not have XP drivers or if they do, will most likely not be proper... where the goal is to get the hardware working, not working well, let alone deliver the most performance out of the hardware. Also, Windows XP does not support power saving features. This results in performance degradation due to a warmer operating system (possibly, depends on your cooling), and the hardware guesses the load it is receiving to know if it needs to clock faster or not. The OS communicates nothing to the hardware. This feature was introduced in Vista.

 

Once all done, and the OS fully updated. XP security is in a state that I would classify as more holes than chicken wire. I would not trust this system in your home network. I would cut it from the internet. All its security issues/flaws are exposed and are well known. This was one of the big reasons why Microsoft did the Longhorn project (Vista), which was basically recode the majority of OS from scratch, and hence why Vista was filled with bugs and lack optimization at release. The project took 6 years, and even then was rushed to be released.

 

 

Lmao I thought about a virtual machine, but I need a project and an XP build would be perfect. Something under $500 and has a genuine place and purpose in the house. I wanna use XP SP 3, and I would like to avoid IDE if I can, but I can deal with it if I have to. As for cooling, I'll use the stock fans, since I'm using stock clocks on whatever I buy. The storage, case, and PSU will all be modern (or modern-ish, I suppose the mobo won't have support for USB 3.0) If the fans have too much coil whine or something then I'll slap a box fan over it and put some headphones in. I may or may not buy a DAC as well since I know that audio wasn't the best on mobos back then. I understand that 32 bit Windows only supports 4 GB of RAM, but is that really gonna bottleneck anything? I just wanna play games like Midnight Club, Diablo, Freelancer, etc. without a crash and/or blue screen. 64 bit was a pretty big headache, and the whole idea here is that this is sort of a therapeutic build, with little to no hassle. This is staying unconnected from my router btw, I don't really wanna take the chance of the security being breached. At the end of the day, I just want a solid answer on what my CPU and GPU should be, and whatever would have the newest driver support at an affordable price.

[GoodBytes]

 

1 hour ago, JamesDean said:

Lmao I thought about a virtual machine, but I need a project and an XP build would be perfect. Something under $500 and has a genuine place and purpose in the house.

Not Windows XP. It has no purpose in a house.

A project idea that I have done recently is made a Netflix box for my TV (its not a smart one). I used my old Nvidia ION platform (1st gen Atom 1.6GHz dual core CPU 64-bit, GeForce 9400M) , which I overclocked the CPU to the max at 2.05GHz (limited by the motherboard which can't deliver more voltage to the CPU. I like I picked the max from the menu selection for the CPU voltage ), installed Windows 10, and strip the OS from everything I could while keeping networking, and running UWP apps (Atom CPU, even overclocked is way to slow). Set it is to tablet mode to get a full screen menu, installed Netflix, Skype, Plex, got an air mouse with a keyboard on the back, and a programmable IR receiver (to put the system to sleep and wake up via the Air Mouse which its power button is through IR, the rest aren't). The end result is, once everything is loaded, a smooth experience, and enjoy 1080p Netflix (technically also 4K but the GPU doesn't support it, and Atom CPU is too slow). Was a fun little project.

 

Budget was near 0$, so it looks like this:

Spoiler

(Yes, those are motherboard standoff used on reverse with HDD screws to lift the board up )

The CPU is the bottleneck by considerable margins. UWP apps shine the most, as the whole GUI is all GPU rendered, same for Edge, Netflix, Plex are uses the GPU exclusively for video rendering... but loading content uses the CPU, and that is sooo slow. Even if you put a laptop crappy 5400RPM HDD, the CPU is still the bottleneck. It is a hopeless case)

 

Quote

I wanna use XP SP 3, and I would like to avoid IDE if I can, but I can deal with it if I have to.

You'll need to set your SATA controller to IDE emulation mode in the BIOS in any case. Although you can inject the SATA controller drivers to Windows XP setup, make a new disk, and hopefully it works. If you have XP SP2 disk, than you might be OK, or use the motherboard driver disk and load the drivers from there during XP setup.

 

Quote

The storage, case, and PSU will all be modern (or modern-ish).

Ok, this may not work. I know that older PSU doesn't work with more modern CPUs even if you have all the power connector due to the ATX standard change. Not sure if modern'ish PSU are backward compatible, is what I am saying. All to say, if the system doesn't power up or doesn't POST, it might a PSU ATX version issue.

 

Quote

I suppose the mobo won't have support for USB 3.0.

Correct. Windows 7 needed separate drivers from the USB 3.0 controller chip manufacture to make it work. So XP definitely doesn't. Unless you happen to have a USB 3.0 controller with XP drivers. Expect those ports not work at all until the drivers are installed. Use USB 2.0 port.

 

Quote

I may or may not buy a DAC as well since I know that audio wasn't the best on mobos back then.

If you end up with an AMD Athlon XP, on an Nvidia nForce 2 motherboard WITH Nvidia SoundStorm sound chip (yes, Nvidia did a sound chip back in the days), the sound is pretty decent. It was equivalent to the Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2 if memory serves correct. Nvidia stop making sound chips soon after, as most motherboard implementing the nForce 2 chipset, didn't put the SoundStorm audio chip due to cost. So those motherboards are rare... they were few back in the days, to start with. I had one. Was nice.

 

Quote

I understand that 32 bit Windows only supports 4 GB of RAM, but is that really gonna bottleneck anything? I just wanna play games like Midnight Club, Diablo, Freelancer, etc. without a crash and/or blue screen.

You should never have a Bluescreen on a Vista and up system. Blue screens occurs due to an unrecoverable problem, which is either driver related or faulty hardware. I would investigate. Crash of game and graphical glitches are possible. You can maybe find unofficial patches to make the game work on modern Windows.

 

 

Quote

 At the end of the day, I just want a solid answer on what my CPU and GPU should be, and whatever would have the newest driver support at an affordable price.

Just do NOT get:

• Intel Atom CPU, any model. Just don't
• AMD Sempron
• Intel Celeron (especially the old ones)
• Intel Pentium D

If you do want to get an AMD Athlon XP, I recommend it is on an nForce 2 chipset motherboard for easy overclocking. You can easily overclock the 2500+ to 3200+ just by changing the multiplier which is unlocked, heck the motherboard was identifying the CPU as the higher end model once you did it. The 2500+ was a very popular model due to this ability.

 

If you want to get an AMD Athlon 64 or 64 X2 on Socket 939, those system will run Windows 7 64-bit, especially the X2, so you can use it for other projects. Get it with an Nvidia nForce 4 motherboard, preferably the 32X SLI model (not for the SLI, but usually the motherboard is feature rich, and good at overclocking, and the best performance, if I recall correctly). Keep in mind that the Socket 939 CPUs DO NOT support Windows 8 or 10 64-bit, due to missing needed CPU technologies that Windows needs. You are limited to Windows 7 64-bit.

 

If you get a Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz+, with a nice SSD, you run Windows 10 with great experience. You'll quickly notice a fast and responsive experience, especially if you load it up with 4GB of RAM or more, and a dedicated entry or better GPU (forget Intel integrated graphics). It will be slow, and really impact you when you'll extract .zip files or compress them, install programs, and well anything CPU heavy. Gives out this weird feel, as the HDD isn't the bottleneck, as it is a decently fast SSD, but rather the CPU, and Windows 10 stays in RAM. Heck if you want to do a mad scientist experiment, if your HDD/SSD is on SATA controller set to AHCI mode, and you ensure no disk activity, you can pull the HDD/SSD SATA cable, and the whole OS will still operate fine until you open a folder, or start a program, or load anything not in memory (the more RAM you have, the more Windows will put itself to your RAM). And once you plug the SATA cable back in, and wait several seconds while everything syncs up, Windows will execute everything that needed the HDD/SSD you did in order. WARNING: If you do this, expects data corruption which can occur, and if disk was needed when you pulled out the SATA cable, the system will BSOD. Do at your own risk.

 

As for GPU.

• GeForce FX 5900 SE (Sucky Edition) 128MB or faster/newer/better. You should be able to play all sorts of games of the time with this GPU, including HalfLife 2 with great visual settings. Of course, newer/faster/better the GPU the more power you'll have for games, and can run future version of Windows and games better, let alone have drivers for the newer version of Windows.

 

[Pasi123]

Don't get an AMD Athlon XP. It doesn't support SSE2 so newer WinXP games and programs wouldn't work on it. I'd recommend getting some E7000 or E8000 series Core2 Duo. LGA775 boards should work just fine with any modern power supply unlike Athlon XPs.

Pentium 4 and Athlon XP would be good options only if you wanted to build an actual retro PC with AGP and IDE. And system like that would be only good for 2000-2005 games and stuff.

 

I actually have 3 different XP retro gaming PCs (Tbh I have a lot more than 3 XP PCs)
 

Spoiler

 

My main XP rig. I'm actually writing this on it. and it's really fast on normal usage

Intel Core2 Duo E6300 @ 2.33GHz

2gb DDR2 667MHz

NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT (I'm planning on upgrading that to a 8800 GTX/GTS or something)

Asus P5B (P965)

32gb SSD + 80gb HDD

 

For 2004/5 and older games:

Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.0GHz (S478)

2gb DDR1 400MHz

ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

Gigabyte GA-8SGXL

2x slow 40gb IDE HDDs

 

For... Idk..

AMD Athlon XP 2400+

1,5gb DDR1

NVIDIA GeForce4 MX-440 or sometimes ATI Radeon 9200

MSI something

40gb IDE HDD

 

 

What kind of monitor you are going to use? Most of the older XP games doesn't support widescreen resolutions. If you have a 16:9 monitor, you'd probably want to use GPU scaling with fixed aspect-ratio if your monitor doesn't have a 4:3 or 5:4 mode.

[Lenovo1984]

If you want something really simple for Windows XP support, just get an older Dell OptiPlex. My office used a few 755s and 760s running XP Pro, and as far as I ever knew there weren't any issues. They use Core 2 Duo CPUs, so you should be good there. Just add a GPU and you're good. 

[Jarsky]

Get something based on Core2Duo/Quad, Athlon X2/X4 or Phenom II. 

I'd stick with anything Radeon 7000 series or lower, or Nvidia 600 series or lower as far as GPU. 

And of course 4GB RAM max for 32-bit systems. 

Intel and Crucial include driver/software support to allow for TRIM under XP on their SSD's as well. 

 

Unfortunately we still have the odd XP machine I have to support at work so its the bane of my existence. 

I started using XP when it was project Whistler back in 2000. I'm happy to never see it again personally