Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire
.....Then, knowing XP would not really work well with multiple cores....
|
Euuurrhhh, nope, you got something wrong here.
XP works swell on multiple core PCs.
Drawback is that you lose a lot of speed as XP isn't build to take advantage of spreading the workload over multi cores.
Example, ripping a DVD movie to high quality MP4 on my quad core:
Win7 : approx 10 minutes.
Xp (same PC!) : approx 22 minutes.
Ubuntu: approx 13 minutes.
On the other hand, I wouldn't run Win7 on a single core, there XP wins as Win7 is always busy with a lot of things on the background, much more then XP.
Me thinks that Japo's advise probably the best, buy a new PC if needed, but keep your old one for 'old games' and stuffs, that's also what I do.
If your old one isn't worth keeping in working order, look around, there are plenty really cheap sacond hand fast single cores to find.
Last I bought 4 (yes 4) HP-Compaq d530 office desktops for 100€ (25€/PC !! ), 2.9Ghz single cores, makes lovely gaming XP PCs after cranking up the RAM to 2GB and putting an AGP vidcard in them.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire
I already realized that they only gave me 4gigs ram for this computer. I guess it would be best to up it, unless XP would go funny if there was more ram than it could handle?
|
XP will not 'go funny' on plenty RAM, but if you want that your OS can use more than 4GB you will need a 64 OS, XP or Win7 will only only take advantage of more than 4GB if 64b OS.
A 32b OS will work fine on even something as let say 16GB, but can't use the extra RAM.(page file restrictions)