On Sunday, March 30, 2014 11:12:16 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Actually the question was this:
"My machine is old, 12 yrs to be exact. I do believe my hard drive is
dying. Wouldn't mind keeping my monitor, but would like to increase memory,
speed, etc. And, specifically would like all my information put on the new
system. I really like Outlook Express, but have heard it is not available
Irrelevant. Given the stated issues, it's time for a new PC.
Since Outlook Express is no longer supported, he can try out Windows Mail
on his current system and see if he's OK with it. If so, then
there isn't any issue to going with a new PC with an OS that
isn't being EOL'd, instead of putting money into a dinosaur. If
he doesn't like Windows Mail, as someone else pointed out there are
other alternatives and a bit of googling should produce plenty
of opinions from folks in a similar position.
Sometimes the smart thing to do in the OP's case is to get a win7
machine that supports virtualization and put on a virtual XP - so he
can still use his favourite programs like outlook express.
Or buy an off-lease computer with WinXP Pro that is only less than 5
years old with DDR3 ram and SATA hard drive instead of his ancient
ide HD and DDR2 ram.
On 3/30/2014 10:15 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Bingo. A lot of electronics retailers and electronics recycling
companies sell refurbished second-hand pcs dirt cheap. These are
usually off-lease business models. A guy I know recently replaced his
ancient XP box with a refurbed IBM-era Lenovo running Win 7 Pro from
Microcenter. A big improvement over what he'd had, for only $130.00.
Speaking of which, searching the inventory of retailers such as
Microcenter will still find new pcs running Win 7. In fact, a quick
check of Microcenter's website just turned up more than two dozen Win
7 desktop models. So if you really don't want to wrestle with Win 8
(and I can't blame you), you can still choose new and get an OS that
doesn't require completely relearning how to use the pc.
Grow into a brand new machine. Keep present one working and set up. Data
and pics and stuff can be transferred in some fashion. Get advice as you go
I have vrious computers and different operating systems. I got W98, W2K,
XP, W7, Vista. I am not getting rid of a computer or system just to
upgrade, anytime soon. I have no reason to stop using XP.
A new computer is only comparable with whatever it specifies.
I'm not the "gotta get the latest and greatest" person. However, when a
computer is 12 years old, while still usable, things start to get slow.
As time goes on and computers get more and more powerful, software
developers use up all these nice new resources leaving us with the older
PCs waiting longer and longer. I just recently replaced a 4 year old PC
with a new one, faster and better. Normally, I would not do this for a
PC that was only 4 years old, however, I came into this motherboard
because it was not compatible with another application ... mostly
specific hardware incompatibilities. My wife would still be using W95
and complaining all the way, how slow it it, if I didn't upgrade
periodically. We probably won't be seeing W8 anytime soon. BTW, I
haven't heard a word yet on this new computer, but I know the day will
come, even if it's 5 years away. This all said, with the OP's 12 year
old machine, the 1st thing I would try is a clean new install of the OS
and a new HD if it is required. Of course, if you need a new HD, it's
probably PATA and depending on the OS, it might be too large for the OS
to deal with, in which case you would need to partition it into several
smaller drive. And, the stuff you need, must be backed up. The nice
thing about a totally new PC, is that you can still use the old PC to
bring everything to the new one, either by network or thumb drive.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
-- | Sometimes the smart thing to do in the OP's case is to get a win7
| machine that supports virtualization and put on a virtual XP - so he
| can still use his favourite programs like outlook express.
He probably has OEM XP. Putting it on a Win7 box
would require buying a new OEM CD, for probably
about $100 if he could find it. There's no reason he
can't keep the old machine running. And it doesn't
sound like he's the sort of person to be setting up
| Or buy an off-lease computer with WinXP Pro that is only less than 5
| years old with DDR3 ram and SATA hard drive instead of his ancient
| ide HD and DDR2 ram.
Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably
had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's
more than enough for most uses. Nothing is faster than
instant, no matter how new it is. *A lot* of money is
wasted on loads of RAM that never gets used. If he wants
to do a lot of editing of 30 MB images then he probably
needs a new box. For most other things, the cheapest PCs
have been more than adequate for many years now. (That's
a nice aspect of XP. Microsoft went to great lengths to
build bloat into Vista/7 so that their hardware partners
could sell more stock. Win8 needs 1 GB RAM just to sit there.
But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
MB RAM for most uses.)
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 11:30:48 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Ridiculous. I recently retired a secondary 1 Ghz XP machine
with 1 GB of RAM and it's performance was pathetic compared
to any current basic PC. It's pathetic compared to the 3 year
old PC I'm using as my main PC.
Nothing is faster than
If he wants
And the current cheap one blows away that 12 year old
1 ghz system, running XP, which MSFT is discontinuing
Irrelevant because PCs have had a lot more memory than that
for a decade+.
It's also being EOL'd by MSFT. Why would anyone who wants
more speed invest more money in a 12 year old PC, running XP,
with a dying disk?
Maybe if you only load XP and then never do a thing on it. Otherwise,
that is turtle time.
You want decent performance, you need more RAM.
The biggest mistake people make is to view a computer as if it is a
major appliance. Sure, ovens and fridges don't change much over time,
so they'll still perform their basic functions just fine even when
newer models are on the market. But computers are dynamic devices. The
software and peripherals that run on/with them are constantly
changing. They gradually lose efficiency, and eventually lose
compatibility. At some point, they won't be good for much anymore.
Bite the bullet and upgrade.
The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and
installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".
I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25
years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on
XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if
running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive
(swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the
On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:54:04 AM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
You could do that, but I wouldn't be so sure it's a piece of cake.
XP is being EOL's by MSFT right now. No more support, no more
updates for security fixes, nada. Also, I wouldn't assume that XP
has all the necessary drivers, with bug fixes, etc for any new
PC that he's about to buy. For example if he buys an HP with a
particular vidoe card in it, how can you be sure that driver is
certified to work with XP? And if you buy a new HP, screw it up,
and can't get XP installed, then what? And the point to installing
an old OS is what exactly? He can't just use Windows Mail or
switch to an alternate?
Then add in the fact that IDK what browser he's using, but if it's
Windows Explorer, the newer versions of that no longer run on XP,
so he's very likely to run into big problems there, trying to access
web content for example, that won't run on an old unsupported browser.
In short, just buy a new PC and use it out of the box.
And the 6GB or whatever that you get with a basic PC today, combined
with a multi-core 3 ghz CPU will work even better. Even a $100 Android cell
phone has 2GB of memory today.
Wonder what kinda stuffs you have been working for 25 years?
When I started out I was working on vacuum tube and transistor
driven systems. Today's apps size is often bigger than 256, LOL! One
example, look at the Photo shop Pro..... Wonder what people do with
computers these days. Just doing word processing? emailing? that's it?
| > Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably
| > had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's
| > more than enough for most uses.
| Ridiculous. I recently retired a secondary 1 Ghz XP machine
| with 1 GB of RAM and it's performance was pathetic compared
| to any current basic PC. It's pathetic compared to the 3 year
| old PC I'm using as my main PC.
There is a caveat: It won't be fast if you don't run
it clean. XP starts out with dozens of unnecessary
services running by default. Then installed software
often loads at boot without asking. If you run anti-virus
you're adding a huge load with doubtful benefit. When
you install hardware it will often load unnecessary
startup programs. All of that can drag down any
On numerous occasions I've had friends ask for help
because their computer is running in slow motion. It's
not XP that's the problem. And it's not old hardware.
Once the software "barnacles" are cleaned off those
machines run fine.
| > But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
| > MB RAM for most uses.)
| It's also being EOL'd by MSFT. Why would anyone who wants
| more speed invest more money in a 12 year old PC, running XP,
| with a dying disk?
The OP may not want to. I was trying to describe
his options. If he really wants to stay with what he's
using his best option is to replace the hard disk. If
he's happy moving to Win8 then he can do that for
as little as $300. It's up to him. To my mind, replacing
the hard disk is certainly a viable option. It's the
part most likely to wear out.
XP EOL could certainly be an issue. If you just want
to buy a box and have it work then it makes the most
sense to simply buy new PCs when the old one seems
inadequate. But if you don't mind spending some time,
there's no reason they can't be maintained. And XP EOL
really means very little. I run XP with SP3 but don't -- and
wouldn't -- ever allow AutoUpdate to run, installing a
constant drip-feed of barely tested changes... But that
gets into security issues, which is a whole other kettle of
I recently built myself a new box. I have XP on it.
I built it with cheap parts from TigerDirect. I always buy
older models of motherboard and CPU because the
technology far outstripped the need years ago. I see
no sense paying hundreds for the latest CPU when a
model for $65 is still incredibly fast. I put 4 GB RAM
into my new box, but only because that was the cheapest
option. Win32 can only use a bit over 3 GB, and 2 GB
would have been more adequate.
I do some photo editing, some web design work, and
I write Windows software. (I make most of my income
as a carpenter/contractor, but also have a sideline writing
shareware, freeware utilities and components for use
I've got a dual CPU, super-duper Dell in the other room
that was given to me. It has Win7 on it. I don't like Win7.
I prefer XP. Win7 is a bloated, spyware mess to my mind.
It's salvageable, but barely. Win8 is worse. I use the Win7
box for testing software.
Both the Win7 dual CPU box and my new XP box, with
"mediocre" AMD A6 2-core, respond instantly. I keep them
clean. If you find you need a high-power machine for
speed to do things less intensive than video editing then
you probably have a lot of crap weighing down the system...
And you've probably been reading too many mainstream
media articles written by tech journalists who depend on
hardware and software companies for ad dollars. The world
of tech survives on a dizzying pace of forced obsolescence,
so if you go by what the media tells you you'll end up
replacing gadgets as fast as you buy them.
On Monday, March 31, 2014 9:45:51 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Never had that problem here. Standard XP load was fine, for
it's day. Today, not so much for a lot of reasons, including that
it's EOL'd and new software won't run on it.
Then installed software
Sure, anti-virus isn't needed. More bad advice assuming it's
going to be used like a typical PC.
A 1 ghz, 500mb XP system that is 12 years old is a joke
today. My $100 cell phone has a dual core 1.6ghz cpu and
2GB of RAM.
Your option didn't address his need for more performance.
You said a 12 year old 1ghz XP machine is just fine for most
people today. It's not.
If he really wants to stay with what he's
He didn't say he wanted to stay with what he had.
Makes no sense to me when he's talking about wanting more
performance, more memory, etc. And the PC he has is 12
Sure put it in a museum.
And XP EOL
It means no more security fixes, if any issues are found. It means
the last IDK how many versions of Windows Explorer won't run on it,
nor will an increasing amount of new software.
It means that if you buy a new system now, there is a chance
that the drivers for the hardware won't be there. Unless you think
manufacturers of new video cards, new video chips, etc are testing,
certifying them, issuing fixes, etc for an OS that is EOL.
I run XP with SP3 but don't -- and
Gee, there's a clue. So, why are you talking about 500MB?
Win32 can only use a bit over 3 GB, and 2 GB
On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:53:20 AM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:
I never said it was. You claimed that all HP's come loaded with
crapware. I have two of them, all I said was that it's not true
because mine only came with Norton and some HP utilities, none of
which are intrusive. None of which are popping up ads, or anything
like that. And I said that I'm very happy with my HP's.
YOU then replied with:
"Most people have brand loyalty not matter how irrational it may be...you may drive a Chrysler branded vehicle that is majority owned by Fiat.
Dell,HP/Compaq,Acer/Gateway,Lenovo, all sell entry level PC's...and they all come with a certain amount of "crapware" (or limited use programs) that subsidizes the lowest price!"
So, who exactly is it that's arrongant and only think their answer is
the be-all, end-all? You're saying that I have brand loyalty on an
irrational basis. Besides that, I say you're full of crap. Because
I have the HP's and I don't believe you do. And now it's shifted from
HP's have crapware to just "entry level" PCs do. I think you're full of
crap, but even if it's true, it doesn't make all HP's unacceptable and
if you bought a cheap one that's subsidized with adware from whoever,
who's fault is that?
| The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and
| installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".
You mean Virtual XP mode for Win7? I thought you
meant installing a VM. I don't know anything about
Virtual XP mode, but it seems to require Win7 Pro,
which costs quite a bit more than Win7 Home OEM.
Maybe that's worth it to someone who can't give up
XP but *has to* buy a new machine.
| I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25
| years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on
| XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if
| running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive
| (swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the
| hard drive.
How is it that so many people in a home repair group
suddenly turn out to build computers for a living? :)
I wouldn't prefer to install 256 MB RAM, of course, and
there is an issue these days with bloated software, but
256 MB RAM can work OK on a clean machine where people
are doing typical things like Web browsing, email Office
docs, etc. If you're worried about wearing out your hard
disk then turn off the useless indexing service and either
avoid AV or at least don't leave it at default settings,
scanning everything you touch. There are lots of software
causes of running the disk unnecessarily that have nothing
to do with using the swap file.
On Monday, March 31, 2014 9:59:19 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Good grief. A MB today wouldn't even support installing
the density chips you'd need to make 256MB.
If you're worried about wearing out your hard
Or just buy a basic new PC, which sounds like the solution
to the OP's problem, which is a 12 year old PC with a failing disk
and where he wants more performance. Why does it have to get
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.