This is a rather old write up that shows overall that even when the drivers etc were newish and the OS support was lacking (XP) that AHCI was better for fast IO which could be a gaming upgrade all by itself if it is not already enabled.
AHCI vs IDE
In seriousness you asked for ways to make your system more responcive an better able to handle games and a newer version of Windows with better implementation of GPU and multithreaded programs is a valid responce. If you want to hold on to XP for personal reasons that is your perogotive but we were only answering the question you answered.
Another advantage to Windows 7 is that you won't have to faff around integrating the SATA drivers like you do with XP. It would be interesting to see if your computer is still dog slow once you enable AHCI.
As AngryTechnician demonstrated on his blog, W7 also lowers your electricity bill too.
Also, you really want to update to Windows 7 now, as game support is better in it. My system I was talking about earlier is running 32bit XP Windows 7 and it is fine. Sure, it doesn't fly, but it runs everything I throw at it just fine.
Last edited by localzuk; 28th August 2011 at 05:06 PM.
Well I can't afford to do Windows 7 and CPU/Graphics.
so which would give me a better performance, a graphics card, a CPU or windows 7?
Do the GPU and the OS, look at doing the CPU later, overall this will probably work out smoother for the games especially with the support. Which will work best depends heavily on the game and how it is programed so in some cases the CPU would make it faster than the OS even with the XP crippleing but for the best support for the games the OS will help.
Unfourtunatly it is so late in the cycle now it may be worth waiting for the next version which is probably due eairly next year. If you can get home premium for a good price under OEM then it may be worth it but thinking about it more it may be more worth going the hardware route now given how late to the show it is.
CyberNerd (28th August 2011)
I can't believe people are still sticking with XP. It wasn't even designed when dual cores in standard PC's were even slightly common. The whole software stack is completely geared against the multithreading that is available in the current OSs. x64 XP is a completely bad idea, MS have almost completely dropped support for it.
Having to use XP at work feels totally backwards after all the GUI and usability advances in the later OSes.
If you want a real boost in real term performance on modern PCs I would recommend an SSD for sheer boot up and also game loading time performance they cannot be beaten.
TBH I don't actually use XP, 99% of the time I run on linux at school and at home so I have absolutely no interest in the 'advances' in the windows GUI, it's just there to load games. I've been playing BF2 fine on the current system (dual boot XP) and was thinking ahead to DeusEx (which is in the post
I'll probably wait for windows8 if it's going to help with game performance that much and stick a new gfx in it.
Microsoft Windows 8 release date: 2012; demo next week - Computerworld Blogs
It depends on which is more correct, but I'm sure CyberNerd would be a little irked if he brought it and it was replaced 4 months later."there's a kind of hush" Ballmer has softly whispered ... that Windows 8 will
be out in time for 2012. ... The first time that [Microsoft] has given a time
frame for the operating system and ... that he has mentioned the OS by name.
Dx10 is a minimum requirement for a lot of new games, and that means vista or better...
Windows 8 still has no firm release date, but if it follows Windows 7's precedent, we'll probably see a beta sometime in early 2012, followed by a release candidate in the spring and RTM in the summer before the OS is released to the public in the fall. (Source)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)