Windows 8 forum: Can I install Windows 8 and revitalize my old machine?

Hi Steve

Your question regarding Windows 8 and will it "revitalize" your current computer must be answered as a "yes" and "no". I'll try to keep the techno jargon to a minimum. So here we go....

No Operating System (OS) is designed to "revitalize" a computer by strict definition of the word as defined by Webster's: to impart new life or vigor to : restore to an active or fresh condition.

The basic functionality of an OS is to improve the "User Interface" (UI) experience. Some of the benefits of an improved UI (derived from an OS) are faster start ups or boot sequence, better integration with software programs, improved security, better visual acuity, OS stabilization with less of the dreaded "Blue Screen of Death" (BSOD) and the list goes on.

Revitalization of a computer to a larger extent is typically associated with improvements (by the manufacturer) or upgrades (by the owner) to specific components such as:

1 RAM (more memory)
2 Faster conventional Hard Drive - (5400 rpm to 7200 rpm)
3 Replacement of conventional HD with a Solid State Drive (SSD)
4 Faster Central Processing Unit (CPU)
5 Improved Graphical User Interface Card (GUI)
6 Improved Power Supply Unit (PSU)
7 Upgraded Mother Board
8 Firmware upgrades by the manufacturer (although to a lesser extent)

The aforementioned are components that a user may replace/upgrade on some commercially manufactured computers (4 thru 7 are specific to a tower configuration). Those computers that are DiY built can be upgraded/improved even more so...with some limitations regarding hardware. Having said everything...it is not to say that an improved OS wouldn't contribute to improved performance (or a limited "revitalization" of a computer) by a loose interpretation or use of the term.

Now...can your present system run Windows 8? Click this link http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w8itprogeneral/thread/7d76e468-192e-4672-8f8e-e78d1446dfaa to reveal the following:

Requirements to run Windows 8

1 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster processor
2 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
3 20 GB available Hard Drive space
4 1366 x 768 screen resolution
5 Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver
6 Internet access
7 Microsoft account (Live ID) required fro some features
8 Some features such as touch and Client Hyper-V may require advanced or Windows 8 certified hardware
9 The Windows To Go feature requires advanced hardware. Learn more at http://www.microsoft.com/windowstogo

Given the information you provided you appear to be O.K. regarding the first three requirements (as a doubt you have a 64 bit system). However, I would recommend more RAM. It does concern me that you have 1.5 GB of RAM as most modern system RAM sockets are configured for GB RAM Modules and not MB. If you can't get beyond 1.5 GB RAM you are going to experience slow performance with Windows 8 if multi-tasking. That also leads me to suspect that limited RAM availability may be a contributing factor with your systems performance today.

The requirement for screen resolution depends if you are using a laptop (wherein the screen is not upgradable) or a tower with a stand-alone monitor that can be switched out. Note: Switching out your monitor on a tower or attaching a monitor to a laptop will not solve the resolution requirement if the Motherboard and/or GUI are not capable of processing the required signal. In short you can't make a 60 watt light bulb generate a true 100 watt output.

I'm not one to to try an re-invent the wheel. Here's another link within CNET that has some helpful information regarding upgrading a system to Windows 8. You'll find that the article has additional links in it to further assist you with the process.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33642_7-57505867-292/upgrading-to-windows-8-what-you-need-to-know-faq/

As you mentioned in your post "Microsoft has made no secret of its wish to have one system to rule them all..." That being said you should know that Windows 8 will have a "ton" of functionality designed for the touch screen experience. Which means that even those who purchase a 2012 or later system that is not touch screen capable won't realize the full potential of Windows 8.

That begs a question to you.... considering the age of your system (whatever that may be) will it be worth the time and expense to upgrade versus buying a new system with Windows 7 and getting the Windows 8 upgrade for free or at an extremely reduced price point?

You should also consider the user experience or more importantly the "Learning Curve" associated with Windows 8. Microsoft is betting the farm with its new OS. It's success or failure will depend largely upon how quickly the average user can adapt to the new interface with it's Tile Technology - just to mention one aspect.

Windows 8 is more than just a speed bump in performance and/or security as was the case with XP, Vista (that was a mistake) or Windows 7. People got upset with minor IMO desktop appearance changes in Vista (forget about it's performance for a moment) versus XP!

I can't wait to hear/read what the average user is going to say about the Windows 8 experience. Most of what we have heard or read about to date, regarding Windows 8, has come from experienced evaluators and critics. Such as those at CNET, PCWorld and WIRED Magazine who know how to separate design flaws from basic learning curves. Therefore, the mostly positive press about Windows 8.

Don't misunderstand me...I'm "stoked" about Windows 8 even as a type this response on a Mac Book Pro! I love technology and can't wait to get my hands on a copy of Windows 8. However, before I invest my hard-earned dollars I'm going to visit my local Microsoft Store and play with it first. I strongly recommend you do the same at a tech store of your choice.

Keep in mind that Windows 7 has proven to be a worthy replacement for Windows XP (not to mention Vista). Win7 will be supported for at least another 2 years after the release of Windows 8, if Microsoft follows it's normal pattern of support. Meaning that you might be very happy with a system running Win7 (provided the hardware is up to snuff) versus venturing into uncharted waters with Windows 8. Just something to think about??

Well Steve, I hope I've provided you with some helpful information that will aid you in determining if your present system is capable of running Windows 8 and if it's going to be the right fit ? Good luck and happy/safe computing!

Together Everyone Achieves More

Hi Steve

O.K. I get your point. I'd very much like to help you reach your goal. If you will please clarify the following:

1. Is your current computer a laptop or desktop?
2. Who is the manufacturer and what model?
3. What year did you acquire the system (used or new)?
4. Can you expand your RAM beyond 1.5 GB?

Here's a link that may give you some insight as to the probable cost of Winows 8
http://www.neowin.net/news/analyzing-the-right-price-for-windows-8

Steve, remember you don't have to throw your current PC away. You've gotten some great advice from members suggesting options that I will list "low to high" regarding level of difficulty:

1. Running disk clean up
2. Deleting all but the most recent restore point
3. Upgrading to Windows 7 and sticking with that OS (options 1& 2 should be run first)
4. Reloading your Windows XP which in effect will return your system to day-one-status
5. Upgrading to Windows 8 ( options 1&2 should be run first)
6. Installing Linux OS ( extreme if you are not comfortable with moving to a totally new OS)

Everyone in this forum wants to help, Steve... So keep us informed!

Together Everyone Achieves More

As others have no doubt suggested, Your best bet would be to use the Windows 8 Upgrade Advisor to start things off. It will tell you what hardware you may have that needs upgrading and what software will need to be updated.
Secondly, you will need to consider which version of Windows 8 you're planning to use. If you go with the 32 bit version, 1.5 GB will likely be barely adequate - that's in spite of the 1 GHz, 1 GB RAM minimum specs.
If you're going for the 64 bit version, you will need a serious RAM upgrade. Depending on the motherboard, you may or may not be able to support more than 4 GB. Check your manual for specifics on that...
By 'basic video card' I'm guessing you've got some sort of onboard video. And that's why you've got 1.5 GB instead of 2 GB. Your onboard video is likely using 512 MB of your system's memory for video. I'd consider spending $30 - 50 and get a more modern video card and popping it in there. And then, If possible, disable the onboard video so it doesn't drain away 1/4 of your available memory. Onboard video btw, sucks for newer versions of Windows - mainly because the chipsets used on many motherboards are old as the hills (and therefore dirt cheap for the motherboard makers to purchase). My 2 yr old motherboard has an antiquated ATI Radeon 1250 chipset. While it works for the most part, it is not an optimum solution. There is no native Windows 8 driver (nor Win 7 for that matter). As such, it also lacks certain features - like the ones in IE 10 that allow Windows 8 to use the GPU as a co-processor to speed up processing graphics (and video streams) being sent to your system.
With many products (like Flash 11.x) adopting GPU co-processing as well - it only makes sense to have at least a basic video card that can help boost browsing. Look for an Nvidia card with a 3 digit number - such as a GT 210 or greater. Anything from AMD that's been released in the last few years should likewise do the job.
For a light duty machine - a juke box or something you're giving your kids to do homework and such on, the 80 GB HDD should be adequate. Windows 8 will take up roughly 10 - 15% of that space to start off with - and that's before updates and before anything else is installed.
Beyond that, your system sounds like it should be capable of doing Windows 8 without too many problems. For about an additional $100 in parts, you can make it a decent enough basic Windows 8 box.

Someone here had configured a Virtual Machine (VM) to match the OP's configuration and ran Windows 8 and it ran OK. However, that was without all the other software the user has. Plus, we really don't know how "slow" the OP's machine really runs. Also, there is a BIG difference between a machine that is gathering little dust bunnies in the registry and a fresh install, so it makes a comparison somewhat difficult.

My suggestions to the OP center around trying this himself. Either back up his current XP installation, of prepare a partition to use for XP testing, depending on how much space he has. Then, install one of the pre-release versions of the software. (All versions including the RTM are considered pre-release). The OP will have to reinstall all of his software as he would have to do anyway since you can't upgrade XP to Win 7 or 8.

See how it runs. Good performance is subjective anyway.

My new rule is to look at the Microsoft sticker on the computer. Whatever OS it says the hardware is compatible with, stick to that. Why go to the store and buy a new OS when you can get it FREE with a new computer

Just IMHO.

Win XP is the only Operating system the GE uses on their servers. These servers run and control power plants. Not Win 7, 8. You can wait until WIN 9, WIN 10 comes out as they are in the MS software mill.

I heard it needs 2 GB or better. Remember that you are quoting MINIMUM resources here. That does NOT mean that every feature of Windows 8 (or 7) will run on his box. Also, just because it meets minimum doesnt mean that anyone will see an improvement in performance. It could be disappointing.

In the days of MS-DOS we had Windows 286 and we had Windows 386. Both came with MS-DOS (at lease at work they did).

Windows 3.0 was the first that I saw that came all by itself. I could be wrong here. In the old days, software came in a 286 version and some came with a 386 version. It had to do with the power of the 386 and how it handled memory. Since software for a 386 was larger and a bit slower, many just stuck with 286 software. Did anyone really USE Windows 386? It was the same way with Novell software. We always used Netware 286 instead of 386 because it seemed to run faster for what we used it for. As for Windows, we started using Windows (in general with all users) at work with Windows 95. Some of us in tech had Windows 3.1 but our application was DOS-based until a windows version was written around when Win 95 came out.

I don't remember hearing about a Win 2.0 though. Maybe I blinked.

Thanks for asking, Lee. I usually click reply on the post I am replying to whether it be the OP or someone else's reply. Last night, I did accidentally have one out of place and I believe I apologized to that one. I try hard to make sure I'm replying to the correct post. I do make mistakes. I'm looking at the one's "above" your reply and they DO seem out of place. If I'm the only one doing it, I not only apologize even if it is something in my software. I'm pretty sure they were all to a post I was replying to but I can't be positive as my brain seems to work in "mysterious ways." I will try to be a lot more careful and we'll see how that goes. I have IE 8, if that helps, but I also can use Firefox, if this is a problem.

I certainly apologize if I managed to mess things up.

Howie

MS-DOS
MS-DOS 6.0 with disks for:

Windows 286
Windows 386

Then came 3.0 followed by
Windows 3.1
Then Windows 95. Not sure when Windows ME came out.

Windows 98
Windows 98SE

Then Windows NT
Windows 2000...

etc.

Straight from horses mouth, so to speak...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/32905

everybody is just a little confused - but hey was a LONG time ago...

(just the very early days, i mean years)

I saw 1or 2 GB of RAM. It was dependant on something but I forgot what it is. They should have a tester out like they did for WIN 7 so you can see what fetures will run and which will not. Aero, for example is a BIG resource hog and probably won't run well.

I think Windows dropped price of system in retaliation of what Apple was doing, $29 upgrade for OS in last 2 cycles, resulting a more staying up-to-date, more users running latest system, more developer interest to program for OS X.

Note: I was using DOS 4.x and Windows 3.x for years before I tried Mac (PowerBook). While I still have PC's at home, all my mission critical work on Mac's.

The sticking point for both of my old computers was the CPU. Here's the meat of it:

If your PC does not support PAE, NX, and SSE2 you won't be able to install Windows 8.

MS has an FAQ page at

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/faq

and check out the CNET article:

http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57479377-285/how-to-prepare-your-pc-for-windows-8/

He gives the links so you can run the Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant as well, to check your system for Windows 8 readiness, and to check the Windows 8 Compatibility Center to manually look up your software and hardware.

After giving it a look, only 'Core' processors (core solo on up, I.E. Stepping 22) have NX and therefore will work. I have dozens of machines, only 1 has a core processor. Most if not all 'old' machines will not work, even those bought with Vista. Your best off with XP for them (as even older machines are best off with Windows 2000). Any of these will also run various Linux versions well.

Early in my post I said that I installed Windows 8 after having "a rant about Linux".

My rant about Linux was negative- in fact, here's a link to it: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2051144

While I believe my criticisms were valid, I think Windows 8 is a much bigger schmozzle than anything I've ever experienced on Ubuntu. The Reply button on my post wasn't even working on Internet Explorer until I refreshed the page - I know I complained about the functionality, aesthetics and occasional bugginess of Linux software, but at least Linux web browsers work correctly.