New Harddrives May Force Windows XP Upgrades

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cryogenic and Hate MS OS seem to be confusing file system block size with hard disk physical sector size.

Block size is dependent the file system and it somewhat configurable when formatting the drive.

Sector size is dependent on the hard disk, is determined by the HD manufacturer, and typically (on modern drives at least) cannot be changed.

The article makes it sound like HD manufacturers will shelve all of their existing drives and make only 4K-byte-sector drives starting in late 2011. This, I do not believe. I *do* believe that they will focus on 4K-byte-sector drives for future models, but I don't think they'll drop older 512-byte-sector drives.
 
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]I can't switch my main OS; I still use 16-bit programs [lets face it: Most modern games stink], so I'm permenantly locked on XP.[/citation]

there's always the option, of simply running a virtual machine of xp inside of 7 when you need to use your older programs
 
Cryogenic and Hate MS OS seem to be confusing file system block size with hard disk physical sector size.

Block size is dependent the file system and it somewhat configurable when formatting the drive.

Sector size is dependent on the hard disk, is determined by the HD manufacturer, and typically (on modern drives at least) cannot be changed.

The article makes it sound like HD manufacturers will shelve all of their existing drives and make only 4K-byte-sector drives starting in late 2011. This, I do not believe. I *do* believe that they will focus on 4K-byte-sector drives for future models, but I don't think they'll drop older 512-byte-sector drives.
 
[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]If it's only 10% slower, than many people won't switch. Now if, let's say, the hard drives ran at 40+% slower, then perhaps people would switch. Considering that Windows 7 forced people to upgrade to an nVidian 7XXX+ or ATI 4XXX+, it makes sense that people will start to realize that their software is out-of-date.[/citation]

How did Win 7 force anyone to upgrade to a Nvidia 7xxx or ATI 4xxx card? Win 7 runs just fine on lesser video hardware. Ever heard of integrated graphics? Works fine for desktop use in Win 7.


And, what exactly is an nVidian? Someone who lives in a town called "Nvidia" ?
 
[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]What are you talking about? No it didn't...besides, those two GPU series aren't even in the same class.[/citation]

Those are the minimum requirements for Windows 7, IIRC.
 
If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:


1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver



 
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]I can't switch my main OS; I still use 16-bit programs [lets face it: Most modern games stink], so I'm permenantly locked on XP.[/citation]

Windows 7 comes with Virtual XP Mode (with a patch you can use it on all Windows 7 versions). Basically, it will let you install a copy of Windows XP in a virtual environment and use your old 16bit programs just fine. You can also use VMLite (which I personally use). http://www.vmlite.com
 
All you need to do is partition your drive outside of the XP install disk and you will be fine.... NTFS uses a 4k block anyway so no performance hit what so ever as long as your partition is aligned correctly. Oh... and WD even released a tool for XP to align it correctly after the fact too.
Here is a great article explaining the change http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3691

Do a little more research before posting untrue garbage.
 
[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]Those are the minimum requirements for Windows 7, IIRC.[/citation]
Considering I run 7 on an ATI 3450 (MUCH less power then 4000 series) I doubt it.
 
[citation][nom]keitmo[/nom]Cryogenic and Hate MS OS seem to be confusing file system block size with hard disk physical sector size.Block size is dependent the file system and it somewhat configurable when formatting the drive.Sector size is dependent on the hard disk, is determined by the HD manufacturer, and typically (on modern drives at least) cannot be changed.The article makes it sound like HD manufacturers will shelve all of their existing drives and make only 4K-byte-sector drives starting in late 2011. This, I do not believe. I *do* believe that they will focus on 4K-byte-sector drives for future models, but I don't think they'll drop older 512-byte-sector drives.[/citation]
ahh yes I did get them confused.
 
OK, so what?

It;s not a native block size. It can be easily simulated anyway. a 10% performance drop? Considering that new drive is probably 2x the speed of the old one, that means its still a net performance increase, so who's exactly going to complain?

And this is any more a a big driver than, say, the OS is simply fracking obsolete, that you can't get software for it, that most other hardware won;t have drivers for it, and more?
 
[citation][nom]spacemonkey211[/nom]All you need to do is partition your drive outside of the XP install disk and you will be fine.... NTFS uses a 4k block anyway so no performance hit what so ever as long as your partition is aligned correctly. Oh... and WD even released a tool for XP to align it correctly after the fact too. Here is a great article explaining the change http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3691Do a little more research before posting untrue garbage.[/citation]

I read this headline and knew it was going to be sensationalist garbage.

These drives with 4k as the default are just fine. You just have to realign the drives (with a free tool) that will install the OS on a sector that lines up instead of 63, I believe. The jumper is another option, but not advised because the drive actually thinks it is still starting at a specific sector, while it is actually a different one.

I don't see this affecting XP or Server 2003 any time soon. It's not like the drive manufacturers are getting rid of the other drives right now either.
 
Some people don't understand the problem correctly.

There is 2 sectors impact:
1.NTFS and
2.HD structure

1.
I set my NTFS to 64k!!! It's my personal choise.
This just create less block in the NTFS index.
1gb (1 073 741 824 bytes) = 2097152 block of 512bytes
or 262144 block of 4k
or 16384 block of 64k.

If you have to read 1 time a 64k block, the hard drive have just to remember 1 address for 64k block but 128 differents address for using 512bytes cluster.

NTFS is the data part, so the os need to read the index for find address to ask the data at those address.
This could have impact on large file (since more pieces could be anywhere on the disk)
This is for the OS part.

2.
But the NTFS is written on HD in 512bytes blocks (with a parity at the end of each block). So a 4k NTFS block is written at the end in 8 clusters on the hd.

They'll change that to 4k clusters with larger parity at the end. This doesn't change much.. except when you use 512bytes block in your NTFS.

In this case, the HD have bigger cluster, so you have to read larger cluster for 1/8 of his data.
In the worst case scenario (and if you IGNORE OS ACCELERATION), you could lose up to 87.5% of your i/o using NTFS 512bytes cluster on 4k hd cluster.

But Microsoft could also just release a Windows XP patch for force NTFS to not format under hd cluster size. But they doesn't support XP anymore... it's why they talk about changing your OS.
(By default, in WinXP installation, they format in NTFS bytes I think. So you have to fix that or don't install your OS on your big HD.)

If you know what you doing with you NTFS clusters, you don't have to change your OS at the end.
 
[citation][nom]jrrdmchls[/nom]If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit) 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit) DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver[/citation]

OK, sure, if you want to run Windows... and only Windows.
I want to run Windows, security software to keep it safe, a web browser with a few plug-ins, e-mail client, communications client (chat/etc), some printer/scanner drivers, play/stream music, and run a few foreground apps (like a document and a spreadsheet at the same time), and have it do all that without stuttering and sputtering.

This is not exactly hard core computing use, and 1GB of RAM under Win 7 can't handle that. I've got an 80GB boot partition, Documents folders re-routed to a H: drive and large games installed on a G: drive, so only core apps, logs, temp data, and other bloat Windows puts there, along with common apps are on it, and I've used more than 45GB with just that.

RECOMMENDED Win7 hardware: (for real world use, not just having windows run on it's own with nothing else, and be at least "non-sluggish")
- 2GHz processor with at least 2 cores.
- 2GB RAM Min, 4 recommended if not using Readyboost, not less than 6GB RAM for 64bit. (why bother with 64 bit if not going beyond 4GB? fucking pointless).
- 4GB Readyboost drive, fastest possible flash you can get your hands on (skip this and just go with 4GB RAM for laptops or systems rebooted/hibernated frequently)
- 80GB boot drive containing OS and all common apps.
- additional storage (same or alternate drive)

If you plan to play use video on the web at all, better make sure its got something BETTER than the Intel GMA 4500HD, so it will actually be capable of playing web video a year from now when Adobe Flash is dead.

If you plan to have this machine for 4 years, it better support MORE than 4GB total system RAM (start with 4, upgrade later, but you better be able to upgrade it. MOST Dell and HP machines MAX out at 4GB today, sad i know...). If it's a laptop, and you do web 2.0 or watch video, just insist on a dedicated GPU. If you edit home video and might get an HD camcorder, i'd start with 64bit, and plan on needing 8GB of ram or more in coming years, and get a machine with a really fast HDD or at the least an eSATA port. Make sure the CPU also has VT support and SSE3.

If you're buying a new primary (no netbook/companion) computer that costs less than $700, be prepared to buy another one within 2 years...
 
I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the "old" drives will suddenly be pulled off the shelves. I'm sure they will be around for a long time. PCI-e has been around since 2004, yet you can still buy brand new AGP cards. Socket 478 came into being with the Pentium 4 around 2000, yet you could still buy brand new 478 boards for a couple of years after the Core came out with socket 775 in 2006. Simply put, it takes quite a few years to phase out the old stuff to a point that the market will no longer support it. I'm not even sure if we'll see the "old" drives phased out. IDE was predicted to be phased out with the introduction of SATA, yet you can still buy IDE drives and most mobos hold onto that 1 last IDE channel.

It's like people are so "book-smart" they can create these new and exciting technologies, yet they lack the "street-smarts" to understand that not many people NEED the latest and greatest hardware and software. There are a lot of people who simply use computers to check their email and do some basic web surfing. Not everyone is a gamer that needs overclocked quad cores, gigantic graphics cards, and 10,000rpm drives with the hottest formatting. These people don't see a need to upgrade to Windows 7, much less the hardware and software upgrades associated with it. They simply want a computer that works, and their current computer ALREADY works.

Microsoft's idiotic strategies lately are just driving more people into the arms of their competitors. It's almost as though they are trying to FORCE people to spend more money. Their removal of the "autosave" feature from Office 2007 has caused the company I work for to look into OpenOffice. Not to mention the compatibility issues between Office '07 and previous versions of Office. And with more and more of these problematic hardware reports, we are also beginning to look at Mac 🙁
 
Well, XP is nearing a decade in age, and really it wasn't Vista that was the issue, it was the hardware, the systems people had. In turn, we are saying it's time to upgrade your system and your OS to the most current decade. (And really, as far as real-in person experience goes, most people that dislike Vista, usually had very poor computer skills to begin with). That poses a poor user problem, but far from any technical problems.
 
This whole issue is not a compatibility problem, it is simply a performance issue when there is an alignment problem. Every volume on a hard drive, whether it is formatted as FAT, NTFS, Ext2, HFS+, etc. is divided into clusters. Almost every volume formatted in the last 5 years has a default cluster size of 4096 bytes or some multiple of it. The alignment problem comes when each of those clusters do not start at some multiple of 4096 from the beginning of the drive.

Any volume, whether it is used by Windows XP, Windows 7, or other operating system, will exhibit the performance penalty if it is not aligned properly. New volumes created by Windows 7 are aligned properly by default. New volumes created by Windows XP are not guaranteed to be aligned properly.

Any existing volume can be fixed using an alignment tool so Windows XP will run just fine without a performance penalty on the new drives if its volumes are aligned.
 
To all of you who still think Vista sucks. You dont know your rear from a a hole in the wall. Yes its that simple. Fact is Vista Sp2 runs on all my PC's right now and all compare very nice with my lone Win7 desktop. Win 7 is Vista just updated. Get over yourselves and let go of this Vista sucks attitude because you make yourselves look stupid.

Also something to keep in mind. For most people todays computer tech is way beyond what youll ever need. Up until last year I still had a Pentium 3 machine running Windows Xp in full service for things like surfing the web, editing photos, playing and burning CD's, and more. The machine performed beautifully. The only reason it was replaced was because I needed that box to install Smoothwall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom