A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Updating an XP box



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 9th 18, 03:35 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
pheasant16
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Updating an XP box

Have an old box using XP with 5 hard drives full of data that needs
updating due to financial website issues and XP.

Would it be possible to add Win 7 or 10 on an SSD in an PCIE slot to
get a newer operating system and retain most of the integrity of the
current box?

The current MB is probably about 10 years old, MSI 980-G65.

Haven't messed with a build since this one, but thought if possible to
do the above, then I could remove all HD connectors except the SSD get
it booted and then plug all the drives in and let it reassign new
letters to the drives. Then add the programs back to the SSD and away
we go.

If that is possible would I need to tell the bios not to find the old HD
with XP or once it boots into a newer one, would that not be a concern

Thanks for your thoughts.

Mark



  #2  
Old December 9th 18, 05:40 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default Updating an XP box

On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 08:35:05 -0600, pheasant16
wrote:

Have an old box using XP with 5 hard drives full of data that needs
updating due to financial website issues and XP.

Would it be possible to add Win 7 or 10 on an SSD in an PCIE slot to
get a newer operating system and retain most of the integrity of the
current box?

The current MB is probably about 10 years old, MSI 980-G65.

Haven't messed with a build since this one, but thought if possible to
do the above, then I could remove all HD connectors except the SSD get
it booted and then plug all the drives in and let it reassign new
letters to the drives. Then add the programs back to the SSD and away
we go.

If that is possible would I need to tell the bios not to find the old HD
with XP or once it boots into a newer one, would that not be a concern

Thanks for your thoughts.

Mark



Depending on how it's approached, yes -- given present physical
limitations of the CPU, memory, to some extent driver issues -- for an
assessment of whether there are further cost considerations, if at
all, to balance for an actually and what will means to you realize
that performance.

For less than $100/US, for the new MB and 4G memory, I run Windows 7
and XP on four processors of varying costs and considerations. I
currently have at my disposal for three MBs, at a minimum of four and
up to eight cores. Two run between 2 to 2.5GHz, the other two 3.5 to
4GHz.

What that means to me need not mean the same to you. I run drives
through software boot arbitrators, which negate specific hidden-drives
by definition, by ways a BIOS is incapable or unconcerned to effect.
Nor need running XP at 4GHz over eight cores be appreciable to effect
a world processing terminal or fiscal updates.

Were I doing the work and providing function, that did not suit form,
I'd do as you are and sell my slowest processor on my oldest MB to
you. I would encourage your expectations in all regards, except for a
PCIE SSD. I don't promote what I don't have prior experience, which
doesn't mean you may, at least attempt to, disprove my approach: I
find SATA SSD application more than an adequate, to discourage you
from PCIE applicability, as it were, and I was promoting myself for a
paid computer technician to satisfy your needs.
  #3  
Old December 9th 18, 06:04 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default Updating an XP box

On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 11:40:44 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

I would encourage your expectations in all regards, except for a
PCIE SSD.

-
The PCIE construct is one to first establish and now exceed, as it
still is, even Windows 7. There are those interests at work, such to
engineer the future computers of tomorrow, without a SATA bus
architecture. And Microsoft policy is not interested in providing
drivers unless people exclusively run their computers on a Windows 10
operating system, an OS that in turn will qualify what is, precisely,
suitable hardware for a purpose of computing;- software, ipso facto,
whether or not written, or donated by developers, at some point prior
to a Windows, not Windows 10, need neither apply to Microsoft's
present assurance of intent nor approval.
  #4  
Old December 9th 18, 08:58 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default Updating an XP box

pheasant16 wrote:
Have an old box using XP with 5 hard drives full of data that needs
updating due to financial website issues and XP.

Would it be possible to add Win 7 or 10 on an SSD in an PCIE slot to
get a newer operating system and retain most of the integrity of the
current box?

The current MB is probably about 10 years old, MSI 980-G65.

Haven't messed with a build since this one, but thought if possible to
do the above, then I could remove all HD connectors except the SSD get
it booted and then plug all the drives in and let it reassign new
letters to the drives. Then add the programs back to the SSD and away
we go.

If that is possible would I need to tell the bios not to find the old HD
with XP or once it boots into a newer one, would that not be a concern

Thanks for your thoughts.

Mark


It's a nice chipset, could be this one. Notice the Southbridge (MCP)
connects to the CPU first, and the PCI Express switch is at
the bottom. What doesn't make sense to me, is I thought the
Nforce200 had four x8 interfaces (32 lanes), yet your
motherboard appears to have 40 lanes. It must mean
the second video card slot cheats somehow. Maybe it's only
wired x8. The Nforce200, I thought it takes PCIe on the
input side, and as long as those PCIe are overclocked,
you get a bit more bandwidth in aggregate, from the slots
themselves.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screen...k-Diagramm.jpg

The manual has the details. It does cheat a little bit, and
it looks like the Nforce200 supports bifurcation, has
"fake 32 lanes bandwidth" and 40 lane wiring.

3 PCI Express Gen2 x16 slots
(PCI_E2, PCI_E4, PCI_E5) x16/ x16/ x0 or x16/ x8/ x8 ===
2 PCI Express x1 slots
2 PCI slots, support 3.3V/ 5V PCI bus Interface

You do have some PCIe slots, so expansion for I/O is
still possible if you needed it. The slots are hefty
enough, even a $1000 RAID card could be used.

x16 PCIe video card here Rev.2 wired x16
x1 PCIe (slot may be covered by video card) Rev.1.1
x16 PCIe Rev.2 wired x16/x8
PCI (suitable for sound card)
x16 PCIe Rev.2 wired x8
PCI (suitable for sound card)

That means there are at least two PCIe slots
for I/O card experiments.

AM3 (Phenom II)

DDR3 memory, four slots, 16GB max

Win7 and Win10 could run in 1GB to 3GB of RAM,
Win10 will run in as little as 256MB of memory
in a virtual machine, and you can still open
Notepad in 256MB of memory.

But the OSes start to be happy at maybe 2GB of RAM.
Any more RAM than that, is for your application size.
Opening the Yahoo News page takes 1GB of RAM (on a bad day).

*******

Your storage ports are SATA II. 300MB/sec max.
Still perfectly usable with modern SSDs.

If you want to get slightly more than 300MB/sec,
you'd want a SATA III card.

*******

Let's draw a cheap expansion card diagram.


PCI Express x1 lane -------- SATA chip -- SATA III
-- SATA III

PCI Express Rev1.1 250MB/sec 600MB/sec per port
Rev2 500MB/sec 600MB/sec per port
Rev3 985MB/sec 600MB/sec per port

While the card has two ports, there's only enough
bandwidth for one storage drive, if you want to
"win some benchmarks". In normal usage patterns with
two SSDs connected, you won't notice the limitation.
Since PCIe is full duplex, you can copy files from
SSD1 to SSD2 at *full rate*. That's because SSD1
is using the TX bandwidth, and SSD2 is using the RX
bandwidth. It's only benchmarking contests, where you
sweat the details like this.

If we take this hypothetical SATA card and plug it
into your x1 rev1.1 slot (the little slot next to
your video card), "you lose". The SATA port
actual operating speed, is about as good as your
Southbridge ports.

If we install the SATA expansion card in one of
your video card slots (it'll fit, but the heel clip
won't hold down the tail of the card), the bandwidth
is "getting better, but isn't great".

There was an early Marvell SATA chip, that only
did 300MB/sec, even when you fed it a fine dinner
and all.

Other chips work better than that.

What would really be a win, is if we could spot a
SATA chip with two lanes on the bus side.

PCI Express x2 lane -------- SATA chip -- SATA III
^ -- SATA III
|
500MB/sec 600MB/sec per port
1000MB/sec 600MB/sec per port
1970MB/sec 600MB/sec per port

Now, our Rev.2 slot allows winning some benching contests
on the older motherboard. Can we find a chip like that ?
The edge card of the SATA board, ends up with a x4 shaped
edge, with x2 lanes wired up. And then it *only* fits in
a big slot, and no longer fits in the x1 slot.

ASM1062

http://www.asmedia.com.tw/eng/e_show...cate_index=166

two lane of PCI Express Rev.2.0
2 ports SATA III

Now, the closest I could get, is this one. But it has the
connectors on the faceplate as ESATA, and that's definitely
not what the doctor ordered. We can't buy this one, but
at least we can admire the layout of the adapter board.

https://www.amazon.com/Ableconn-PEX-.../dp/B07595M2MK

You can see in the detail photo, the edge-card is actually x2 long.
Normally, you would expect a larger x4 edge card connector, but the
cheap *******s didn't want to gold-plate a whole x4 connector,
so they shaved it down to x2. It's still the same selection problem
though, because an x2 or x4 connector, only fit in an x4, x8, or
x16 slot. The x2 won't fit in an x1 slot. (There are motherboard
connectors with an "open end" on them, that allow plugging larger
cards into smaller slots, but they're not all that common of
a connector design. Usually the connector is a bright yellow,
if the end is open on it.)

Summary:

1) Your Southbridge ports are already SATA II and good enough
for a cheap SSD. The prices of SSDs are plunging a bit,
as several fabs bring 64-layer VNAND into production.

2) If you wanted to "beef up" your machine, for bragging rights,
you do have excess video slots for the purposes of adding
I/O cards. Even though your slots are Rev.2 lanes, you can
still find I/O cards with x2 lane interfaces, and two lanes
of Rev.2 there is 2x500MB/sec or 1GB/sec. This should suffice
to see the full read bandwidth of that Samsung Pro SSD you bought.
But for most trashy SSDs, (1) is enough for them, as you're
not buying that SSD to brag about it. Someone with an NVMe
drive at 2.5GB/sec is doing the bragging.

You can't boot your machine with an NVMe. You can buy PCIe to
NVMe adapter boards. In some cases (a Canadian company offers
this), they place a PCIe switch on the card, plus multiple
NVMe slots for $100. And because there is a switch chip, it
can convert Rev.2 lanes to Rev.3 lanes and get full bandwidth
from an NVMe. But without boot support, you'd still need
some other drive with a System Reserved or similar. It's
not worth the hair loss to research this... Just stick with
a cheap SSD and stay within your budget, whatever it is.

A 128GB SSD will have plenty of room for an OS. The OS install
is 10GB to start. You might have a hibernation file on there,
which could increase the footprint. If you install a lot
of games and software, it might consume the whole SSD.
For non-gamer applications, even a Visual Studio setup
would likely only use half the SSD.

Keep your movie collection on the rotating hard drive.

Paul
  #5  
Old December 9th 18, 09:09 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default Updating an XP box

Paul wrote:
pheasant16 wrote:
Have an old box using XP with 5 hard drives full of data that needs
updating due to financial website issues and XP.

Would it be possible to add Win 7 or 10 on an SSD in an PCIE slot to
get a newer operating system and retain most of the integrity of the
current box?

The current MB is probably about 10 years old, MSI 980-G65.

Haven't messed with a build since this one, but thought if possible to
do the above, then I could remove all HD connectors except the SSD get
it booted and then plug all the drives in and let it reassign new
letters to the drives. Then add the programs back to the SSD and
away we go.

If that is possible would I need to tell the bios not to find the old
HD with XP or once it boots into a newer one, would that not be a concern

Thanks for your thoughts.

Mark


If you don't tell me what your core count is on the CPU,
I can't guess as to whether it's good enough for Vista+.

I recommend quad cores for Windows 10, as it can be a bit
of a pig at times. Quad cores would be nice for Win7, but
dual core would also work.

I've tested Win7 and Win10 on a single-core laptop. They
work. But as soon as you install a webcam package and
a printer package, with "bloat" in them, then the party
is over. And it can feel slow after that. You don't have
to add much software, before the snap is gone.

A few more cores would not hurt.

Win10 has instruction set requirements, and before you
spend a dime on fancy SSDs, you should download Windows 10 ISO,
make an installer DVD and *try* to install it. If the OS
doesn't like your hardware, it'll tell you.

And if you tell me "I can't afford the bandwidth to download
a 4GB DVD", if you say that, then Win10 isn't for you anyway.
There will be lots of bloated downloads on that OS. It's
not a "dialup modem user" OS. Be warned. If the Win10 DVD
download doesn't blow your broadband cap, and happens at
decent speed, then maybe you're Win10 material after all.

This is one reason I can't upgrade some relatives computers,
because... no broadband.

Win7 is somewhere between the excesses of Win10, and the
economy of WinXP. I'm not addressing that in detail, because
the SKU you want of Win7, might not be available from a
trusted source. I bought a copy of Win7 Pro about four
years ago, and you could still find it on large etailer
sites at the time. Today, I don't know who to trust.
Every etailer out there now, "tries to be Ebay" and
allows shabby sellers onto their platform.

Paul
  #6  
Old December 10th 18, 01:44 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
pheasant16
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Updating an XP box

On 12/9/2018 2:09 PM, Paul wrote:
Paul wrote:
pheasant16 wrote:
Have an old box using XP with 5 hard drives full of data that needs
updating due to financial website issues and XP.

Would it be possible to add Win 7 or 10 on an SSD in an PCIE slot to
get a newer operating system and retain most of the integrity of the
current box?

The current MB is probably about 10 years old, MSI 980-G65.

Haven't messed with a build since this one, but thought if possible
to do the above, then I could remove all HD connectors except the SSD
get it booted and then plug all the drives in and let it reassign new
letters to the drives. Then add the programs back to the SSD and
away we go.

If that is possible would I need to tell the bios not to find the old
HD with XP or once it boots into a newer one, would that not be a
concern

Thanks for your thoughts.

Mark


If you don't tell me what your core count is on the CPU,
I can't guess as to whether it's good enough for Vista+.

I recommend quad cores for Windows 10, as it can be a bit
of a pig at times. Quad cores would be nice for Win7, but
dual core would also work.

I've tested Win7 and Win10 on a single-core laptop. They
work. But as soon as you install a webcam package and
a printer package, with "bloat" in them, then the party
is over. And it can feel slow after that. You don't have
to add much software, before the snap is gone.

A few more cores would not hurt.

Win10 has instruction set requirements, and before you
spend a dime on fancy SSDs, you should download Windows 10 ISO,
make an installer DVD and *try* to install it. If the OS
doesn't like your hardware, it'll tell you.

And if you tell me "I can't afford the bandwidth to download
a 4GB DVD", if you say that, then Win10 isn't for you anyway.
There will be lots of bloated downloads on that OS. It's
not a "dialup modem user" OS. Be warned. If the Win10 DVD
download doesn't blow your broadband cap, and happens at
decent speed, then maybe you're Win10 material after all.

This is one reason I can't upgrade some relatives computers,
because... no broadband.

Win7 is somewhere between the excesses of Win10, and the
economy of WinXP. I'm not addressing that in detail, because
the SKU you want of Win7, might not be available from a
trusted source. I bought a copy of Win7 Pro about four
years ago, and you could still find it on large etailer
sites at the time. Today, I don't know who to trust.
Every etailer out there now, "tries to be Ebay" and
allows shabby sellers onto their platform.

Paul


The current processor is an Athlon II X3 445.
Have 4GB RAM installed
Have a 3 license Win 7 disk with 2 licenses unused as of today
Have good broadband. 94mbps d/l, 8.1 upload.

Not a gamer, just need a newer OS to run current browsers so can do
things on websites that don't accept what works on XP any more.

Your first post was above my level of knowledge. If what I want to do
is possible; (yes or no) and maybe a suggestion as to the card to buy
with SSD and bios pointers would be most beneficial to me. Cost isn't
an issue. Even if it costs more to retrofit an old box that is still
more than adequate for me that's ok.

I do appreciate the effort you shared. Thank you. 10 years ago I would
have relished the data. Today just need to know yes or no. The tech
days have given way to other middle age distractions.
  #7  
Old December 10th 18, 07:01 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default Updating an XP box

pheasant16 wrote:

The tech days have given way to other middle age distractions.


OK, so the selection method would be:

1) Buy an SSD, plug into a Southbridge port and test.
Store some large files on it and make sure it isn't
having any problems you can see.

2) If it makes a nuisance of itself, look for a SATA expansion card.
Make sure you have room in the PC for the card to fit.
They're usually pretty small cards, as they need just
one chip for a SATA controller.

HTH,
Paul
  #8  
Old December 10th 18, 07:52 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default Updating an XP box

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 06:44:14 -0600, pheasant16
wrote:

Not a gamer, just need a newer OS to run current browsers so can do
things on websites that don't accept what works on XP any more.


Should handle W7 easily.
Socket: AM3
Clockspeed: 3.1 GHz
No of Cores: 3
Typical TDP: 95 W

I'd mistook you keeping both OS. You're good to go also with PCIE SSD,
although I'd question the point with only a browser in hand.

And I'd need the real experience of running both PCIe Gen3x2 M.2
against SATA SSD for an impression of applicable benefits. Presumably
perhaps a couple times faster than SATA, although I might advance, on
a loan, that you really can't expect HTML5 to look any prettier for
it.

You'll also need more help with XP and how all that works: having an
assembled hardware platform -- in subsequent preparation of stages and
processes for "bringing it all up" into its intended final
configuration.
  #9  
Old December 11th 18, 12:43 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Bill[_39_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

Flasherly wrote:

And I'd need the real experience of running both PCIe Gen3x2 M.2
against SATA SSD for an impression of applicable benefits.


Since you brought it up, and since I am curious. I would like to
ask if there a difference between running these 2 technologies?
My MB has the capability of running both (I am using SSD Sata
6.0). I don't process video, play games, or do anything else
that involves a very large number of GB all at once. I just
enjoy a responsive system.

Bill
  #10  
Old December 11th 18, 01:32 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

Bill wrote:
Flasherly wrote:

And I'd need the real experience of running both PCIe Gen3x2 M.2
against SATA SSD for an impression of applicable benefits.


Since you brought it up, and since I am curious. I would like to ask if
there a difference between running these 2 technologies? My MB has the
capability of running both (I am using SSD Sata 6.0). I don't process
video, play games, or do anything else that involves a very large number
of GB all at once. I just enjoy a responsive system.

Bill


Let's take an example.

If I run a Macrium backup, if the storage is infinitely
fast, the backup still only runs at 200-250MB/sec.
Why is that ? The software computes a checksum while
it is backing up, and that is the rate limiting step.

I have little MD5 and SHA1 programs here of my own,
and the speed ranges between 100MB/sec and 300MB/sec.
And these are far from optimal programs.

Now, given these speeds for some existing tasks,
how much difference would a 600MB/sec or a 2400MB/sec
storage device make.

The answer is... none.

Once the things your computer does are "accelerated
enough", perhaps there is a benefit from a whizzy
storage device. For example, if the CPU had MD5 or
SHA1 acceleration, the Macrium backup could run much
faster, in which case a faster storage device might
help.

7ZIP can do a CRC32 calc on a file, at 1500MB/sec. But
no serious uses of CRC32 exist for GB sized files. It
was original invented to detect errors in 1500 byte packets.
If you "need a hash calc in a hurry" though, it's
one option, and a case where your fast storage device
pays off.

The "saddest day" for me, was having a fast storage
device, and owning some software that could only
achieve 1MB/sec performance from it. The same level
of performance it would have got, from an old
hard drive.

The fastest I/O I've seen on my machine, was spotted
in perfmon.msc, while something similar to Secure Erase
was being done at driver level on a RAMDisk. That
ran at around 10GB/sec for a couple seconds.

But in Windows, if any activity traverses full
storage stacks over and over again, no steaming
hot transfer numbers result. If you can "stay
in a storage driver" (which almost never happens),
it could go fast.

And this is really nothing different than we saw
25 years ago. We had desktop computers, where the
operating system could not use a disk drive at full
speed. And we would have a Unix box, which could
drive the disk at the limit of its speed (which
at the time might have been around 40MB/sec).
That impressed me the first day I saw it.
"Woah, this thing knows how to use a disk."
We need to slim down the OS design, to get
that feeling back again.

I keep my eye peeled, for some standout example
of a whizzy disk paying off, but haven't run into
that example yet. While CRC32 is fun, there's not
a lot of point to it.

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A7M 266 Updating Chull Asus Motherboards 5 August 19th 05 04:45 PM
updating cpu from 533 to 800 fsb BigJim Asus Motherboards 2 August 5th 05 06:43 AM
updating a7nx-vm/400 seadubya Asus Motherboards 1 February 25th 05 05:17 PM
Updating MoBo, what about XP..? Tim Gigabyte Motherboards 1 November 30th 03 11:04 AM
pb after updating my system Elouan Le Bretton Nvidia Videocards 1 October 15th 03 10:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.