Win XP needs some TLC to use next-gen hard drives
By Sean Hollister 
posted March 12th 2010 5:21PM
posted March 12th 2010 5:21PM
Solid state drives may be the fast-moving wave of the future in PC storage, but the technology for bigger and better magnetic media keeps on trucking. Only recently, that truck hit something of a pothole: the 4096-byte sector size that will allow advanced format drives to have more usable space (and surpass the current 2TB capacity limit) doesn't play nice with the world's most popular OS -- Windows XP. While manufacturers like Western Digital have already introduced software that successfully combats the problem, the new drives perform poorly in Win XP without it, and rival manufacturer Seagate told the BBC that even with software tricks, XP users should expect the occasional 5ms delay, or 10% speed reduction, during write times. Is this the end of Windows XP? Hardly. Should you make sure to install the software that comes with your next hard drive? Absolutely.
If you have the cash to buy a SSD, then surely you've got the money to upgrade to Windows 7. Windows 7 will give you more performance improvements than a SSD will anyways.
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
it looks as though Windows Xp is still the best choice for an operating system. Sure the others look nicer, but in terms of performance I think Xp is the one to go with on average.
@nachotech
The problem is not with SSD drives... It's with newer hard drives that use 4Kb sectors...
@huh
No, no it isn't.
@nachotech
SSD will give much more performance boost than win7. Win7 is not even a performance boost (it's a boost, but definitely not a performance one). What kinda brain shampoo are you using?
@nachotech
completely the opposite
win7 literally eats up more hardware resource than XP ever does
and there's like a million articles out there that show you the tested results that prove this
@(Unverified)
you want a pc thats snappy, who cares about a test report saying Microsoft Word opens .8 seconds quicker. Jeez some people need to get out more.
People don't usually use an OS's speed as the only deciding factor.
@huh Erm, did you read that article? The only place where XP had a lead worth batting an eye over was OpenGL. Consistently. Otherwise, things were on-par (like, 6-10 second differences over tens of minutes) fluctuating between a slight 7 and slight XP lead.
Throw in the other 7 benefits and it's a no brainer. Windows 7 is the real winner there. XP is a decrepit old OS that is so buggy and missing so many features it's not worth it. I feel crippled every time I sit at an XP system.
@huh
Okay you guys got to stop with this XP is better than Windows 7 crap. Didn't XP run as fast on new computers back in 2002 as Windows 7 runs on new computers today? Its not the always the OS, but sometimes the hardware. People who say XP is better than Windows 7 are running Windows 7 on outdated hardware. When Windows 8 comes out people are going to say that Windows 7 is faster but most of them will run Windows 8 on outdated hardware (what comes in new PCs today). Also, Windows 7 was released a few months ago, so not everything will be compatible with it. Same deal with XP when it first came out. So I think its saafe to say the Windows 7 is a worthy successor to an old decrepit OS that people still tout off as the best version of Windows.
@nachotech I would disagree. My dads PC is running Windows 7 and it runs like a dog. Much like my mums Windows Vista laptop.
@Tothamax In that case, I think I will wait for Windows 8 before I quit using XP.
Hmm... 10%. Most people won't notice. Or care.
Yes something to kill XP finally ...the milk's gone bad...
@fourthletter
Now if only all those people out there making software that just doesn't work on Windows 7 would follow suit...:P (even with XP compatibility mode). Give me a day or two and I could print out a long list of hardware vendors who only support firmware upgrades on XP even on current products (razer up until january, highpoint raid adapter flash programs still fail on win7 and can even brick your raid card), and software vendors as well.
@DoctarPeppar
I have never had an issue - since Beta, through RC and on the final version.
@fourthletter
You blabber one thing.
60% usage statistics says otherwise. (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp)
@pretol
Wow, look at 7 go!
@pretol So let me get this straight, you're bashing fourthletter for saying that XP really should be put out to pasture and using install base statistics to back that up?
Oh look, even Vista is doing better than Win 7 according to those stats... are you going to claim that Vista is a better OS than Win 7 too?
All those stats tell us is that the vast majority of the install base - who'll be businesses by the way - haven't changed from XP yet... likely because of bespoke in-house developed applications that haven't been tested yet for the upgrade to Win 7.
Setting aside the fact that we're only just managing to push out of a global recession, any project to upgrade an OS is going to take a reasonable amount of time to implement properly.
Spouting stats to back up an argument is only valid when you understand what those stats are actually showing you and, even then, can be interpreted in pretty much any way you like!
I don't understand this but I haven't read the source article.
Every RAID system I've ever used that allows for a 4k sector size on the RAID volume works perfectly fine in XP formatted as an MBR volume. I guess when the drives are virtualized and the RAID controller takes over it's different than the drive natively supporting 4k sector size? But why? Guess I'll have to read.
It's sectors larger than 4k that's the problem, such as 500k sectors.
Hell, my drive is 320GB. Im thinking of getting a 500GB just to replace this 3 year old one. Despite me using only 167GB. Maybe ill get a 1TB next year But what the HELL do i need MORE than 2TB for?!
@IvanP91
Videos, Photos, Music, Recorded TV.
Any media.
I've got 10TB now and desperatly need more space.
@IvanP91
Get a video camera, and your gigaschmites will start dissappearing at a rate of 20gb/event (depending on quality/compression/etc).
Or download HD movies (torrent)... 1080p will run you at 4gb/movie (heavily compressed)...
@espentan
When we say it's good to make backups, we did not mean to backup the internet.
@pretol Usually 720p movies are 4-8 GB and 1080p movies are 7-15 GB. I don't think I've ever even seen a 1080p movie less than 6 GB.
@GoodBytes
10TB Isnt enough to back up the internet
he would need ''World's total Digital content has been roughly estimated to be 500 billion gigabytes, or 500 exabytes''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabyte
But but, what if a website goes down and I'd like to see what was on it?
@Tuxie
Depends how much you compress it. I have been using x264 to compress my HD movies to 720p and they come out at roughly 1.88 GB each with pretty darn good quality.
But yes... If you do plan on storing movies or even TV shows on a hard drive, you can easily surpass 2 TB. Believe me, I have roughly 2.5 TB of space in hard drives and almost half of that full thanks to DVD and Blu-Ray ripping. Not only that, I'm in the process of also turning some old VHS tapes into digital format.
@Metayoshi
I have 3.5TB of hard drive space only half used so far, I spent over half a year converting over 300 vhs tapes to digital each averagely 5hours long, and thats not including over 500 DVDs im currently ripping or download content im also currently adding,
@IvanP91 Allright, you guys convinced me. Ill get a 1TB next, forget the 500GB. :)
@GoodBytes Like this? http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
Way back machine FTW
Everyone needs to tell Dell to upgrade there Samsung SSD firmware to be compatible with TRIM for windows 7. That is all
@wupolo You could just go to the Samsung site and download the drivers there, never downloaded a driver from Dell or HP, I always go to the manufacturer, better drivers and always up to date
@z0phi3l im reading that dell customized the firmware somehow and that people are having problems updating using the (manufacturer) samsung firmware. Apparently samsung sent the new firmware to dell to have them make it compatible but dell said they arent interested. please tell me im wrong.
So use 128 bit ZFS.
@grub XP doesn't support ZFS. And the problem isn't the file system, is the disk partitioning scheme.
something something XP, Windows 7...
Yay, another knife in XP's back, how much longer until that old thing just dies? I hope its before 2012
@rstoplabe14 seriously, when is that shit going to go away. i have 7 64 installed on a 4 year old hp athlon and it runs great. if hardware is a problem then suck it up and buy a new ig. the middle of the road is $600-$700 bucks. so do it already. WTF, I remember when a new pc ran you 3 grand. Move on. XP... xylophone poop.
@vandrook I am not a user of Windows XP, I have a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate x64, thanks to the Windows 7 Launch Party last October, and also on my ThinkPad T61, thanks to the student discount. I was not being sarcastic, I am happy that Windows XP is being forcefully left behind by hardware. I cant wait until developers make apps with NT 6.0 + in mind. I hate it when customers walk up to the tech area at "big red" computer store, and ask for PCs with XP.
I am sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I hate XP almost as much as I completely hate OSX.
@rstoplabe14
XP will die once the majority of software (applications and drivers) stop supporting it.
@LMcClure ...and when the corporate world moves on... but I heard that was a costly endeavor.
Seriously, just let XP go.
Windows 8 will be out by the time these have saturated the market and Windows 7 is pretty great as it stands.
Just a thing: if you still use Windows XP, why would you need 2TB?
@(Unverified)
XP is no less capable than Win7 of taking advantage of what you would likely fill up a 2TB drive with.
Install a software? On the new Western Digital drives, as long as you only use the heard-drive as 1 single partition, WD drives have a jumper setting to allow XP compatibility.
My biggest beef is with Windows Homer Server, which is based on Server 2003, which does not support 4K sectors. For a desktop OS, I couldn't care less, but for a server OS not being able to support larger capacity drives is highly annoying. Better buy those 2TB EADS WD drives before they're gone.
Why do I prefer XP over 7? Because XP takes like 3gb on my SSD while windows 7 takes 10gb... 7 gb doesn't sound much in the world of 1TB hds but when you're working with 80gb total, 7gb is A FREAKING LOT.
@happyzor All those GBs add up. 7GB here, 10GB there a few movies, MP3s, games, photos and suddenly you're easily filling a 1TB HDD and looking for a new 2 TB model.
Put your whole life on a PC and a terrabyte is nothing compared to what you will actually need to have to avoid upgrading every 6 months. So your damned right. 7GB is a freaking lot of space just for the OS.
@happyzor
Jeez. If space is that much of an issue, why don't you just run Puppy Linux?
I'm no Linux fanboy (I'm a happy switcher from Mac to Windows 7) but Puppy Linux is slick, takes up about 300 MB, and has everything you need for basic work and online stuff.