geekhack
geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: abdulmuhsee on Thu, 07 November 2013, 07:54:51
-
Alright, so I heard that the 64-bit edition of Windows XP has major issues, such as having terrible driver support. What exactly does that mean? Are we talking, like, I install the new OS, then the XP drivers for my wireless card and GFX card won't even work?
-
Alright, so I heard that the 64-bit edition of Windows XP has major issues, such as having terrible driver support. What exactly does that mean? Are we talking, like, I install the new OS, then the XP drivers for my wireless card and GFX card won't even work?
the "big" things will work..
it's usually small stuff that has no driver support..
-
Driver issues can be a real big pain if stuff doesn't work right.
-
XP64 is for sure worst supported OS since it was only sold as OEM, never had official retail. Not sure why you would want to use XP64 when there are better choices... but yeah just make sure there is XP64 driver for all your needed hardware. If can't find driver for the brand/model try search the device ID, usually you can find something for other brand/model that uses the same chip parts that did have an XP64 driver.
It's been a long time since I used XP64, since 7 came out, but I do remember often having silly problems on that OS.
-
I think the bigger question is, why are you installing XP?
-
Mícros0ft's support for XP ends April 2014. Unless the system is closed from the internet, it is unwise to put too much effort into configuring a soon to be obsolete platform. Better to have a viable plan going forward with a more modern OS.
-
I've never had any issues with drivers under XP x64. In fact, I still have several machines that run it. I wouldn't put it on a new machine but any machines that already run it I wouldn't run out and buy copies to upgrade (if everything's working).
-
I see, so basically make sure my chipset drivers, gfx card, and wireless card work under XP64.
One thing I'm not quite understanding: does a XP32 driver not work in XP64?
-
I see, so basically make sure my chipset drivers, gfx card, and wireless card work under XP64.
One thing I'm not quite understanding: does a XP32 driver not work in XP64?
No, you'll need the x64 driver for the x64 platform. The only thing I wasn't able to find drivers for was my wireless printer, but, I think I was able to use the Vista x64 driver and manually install it (it's been years not sure exactly how I got it working anymore). As long as your components are fairly name-brand you shouldn't have a problem finding XP x64 drivers. Of course, you can always check their websites to be sure.
-
I see, so basically make sure my chipset drivers, gfx card, and wireless card work under XP64.
One thing I'm not quite understanding: does a XP32 driver not work in XP64?
No, you'll need the x64 driver for the x64 platform. The only thing I wasn't able to find drivers for was my wireless printer, but, I think I was able to use the Vista x64 driver and manually install it (it's been years not sure exactly how I got it working anymore). As long as your components are fairly name-brand you shouldn't have a problem finding XP x64 drivers. Of course, you can always check their websites to be sure.
I think the point everyone is making is that there's no "reason" to keep using xp64..
Win7 will run everything... UNLESS you have a single core... in which case... stick with xp32
single core sux ass with Win7 with all the damn prefetching..
-
I think the point everyone is making is that there's no "reason" to keep using xp64..
Yep, right on.
-
I think the point everyone is making is that there's no "reason" to keep using xp64..
Win7 will run everything...
True, but if you come across a FREE disk containing an original XP64 then install the beggar. It still runs with all the latest Video Cards (go figure). Plus you only use a motherboard setup that will utilize all the drivers with this OS; ie., older Asus, Gigabyte and Asrock boards have fully available drivers to work with XP64.
I have installed XP64 on an older P55 motherboard and it's been perfect. Little overhead and with no chiming into Microsoft headquarters without me knowing it and allowing it if need be. You can't stop the idiot 8 from contacting microsoft at all. No matter how you configure the firewall.
There is a reason why older versions of Microsoft Operating Systems still have their legions of devoted followers because it worked with very little memory installed and completes the task(s) perfectly.
Pity Microsoft gave up on the idea of making lean OS's that don't need to contact them daily, on the sly. I always hated on giving up of my privacy to use their latest version of crap, maybe why Linux is now my best choice. Always liked an OS that does it's job with little fanfare and won't need to give up my privacy to dubious corporations.
-
I think the point everyone is making is that there's no "reason" to keep using xp64..
Win7 will run everything...
True, but if you come across a FREE disk containing an original XP64 then install the beggar. It still runs with all the latest Video Cards (go figure). Plus you only use a motherboard setup that will utilize all the drivers with this OS; ie., older Asus, Gigabyte and Asrock boards have fully available drivers to work with XP64.
I have installed XP64 on an older P55 motherboard and it's been perfect. Little overhead and with no chiming into Microsoft headquarters without me knowing it and allowing it if need be. You can't stop the idiot 8 from contacting microsoft at all. No matter how you configure the firewall.
There is a reason why older versions of Microsoft Operating Systems still have their legions of devoted followers because it worked with very little memory installed and completes the task(s) perfectly.
Pity Microsoft gave up on the idea of making lean OS's that don't need to contact them daily, on the sly. I always hated on giving up of my privacy to use their latest version of crap, maybe why Linux is now my best choice. Always liked an OS that does it's job with little fanfare and won't need to give up my privacy to dubious corporations.
there's no point in making a lean OS if the general public never use more than 100gb...
-
I'm replacing more and more of my older Windows machines with various distros of Linux. The lighter weight of them is nice for dated hardware. Really only need Windows on a gaming machine.
-
I'm replacing more and more of my older Windows machines with various distros of Linux. The lighter weight of them is nice for dated hardware. Really only need Windows on a gaming machine.
that's fine for a third world country... but I find it difficult to keep using my older PCs when new ones are so cheap and scale well for low power usage when necessary...
my Oced 2500k, without the drives and on Integrated graphics use only 40watts off the outlet...
There are NO 478 / 939 c2d 775 machines that can match that...
-
Oh yea for sure the ones with integrated graphics are great. My oldest one I think is the one sitting next to me right now is an e6750/775. Unfortunately my main computer is still a 2600k :'(
-
So when XP support is stopped, do Microsoft like turn off the activation servers so you can't even install it any more?
-
So when XP support is stopped, do Microsoft like turn off the activation servers so you can't even install it any more?
I think the activation servers are only for 7 and 8 OS's. But I could be wrong, who knows?
-
XP too - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307890
-
XP too - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307890 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307890)
It looks like Linux is the better deal then. At least there's no time limit on it's use and is always available when you want it.
-
XP too - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307890 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307890)
It looks like Linux is the better deal then. At least there's no time limit on it's use and is always available when you want it.
Already switched to Mac (although my servers run Linux). Asking for a friend, ya know ...
-
traitors....
-
You can't stop the idiot 8 from contacting microsoft at all. No matter how you configure the firewall.
There is a reason why older versions of Microsoft Operating Systems still have their legions of devoted followers because it worked with very little memory installed and completes the task(s) perfectly.
Pity Microsoft gave up on the idea of making lean OS's that don't need to contact them daily, on the sly. I always hated on giving up of my privacy to use their latest version of crap, maybe why Linux is now my best choice. Always liked an OS that does it's job with little fanfare and won't need to give up my privacy to dubious corporations.
Exactly this; I will never install an OS that connects to a site without my permission. That's what a virus/malware/spyware does. I may make the small upgrade to XP64, but if I ever need to make a sizable upgrade in the future, it will either be to Linux or a future version of Windows that doesn't talk to Microsoft behind my back.
-
Why are some people so obsessed with their OS being "lean"? Are you still using 15 year old hardware? The reason some operating systems like XP and some Linux distros have smaller footprints is because there's less functionality. Windows 8/7 runs measurably faster on the same (as long as it's at least semi-modern) hardware than XP will.
-
My newest computer is from 2009, and everything else is older so yes, I do tend to prefer older operating systems as they do not place as much load on the old computers.
-
Why are some people so obsessed with their OS being "lean"? Are you still using 15 year old hardware? The reason some operating systems like XP and some Linux distros have smaller footprints is because there's less functionality. Windows 8/7 runs measurably faster on the same (as long as it's at least semi-modern) hardware than XP will.
I have a semi recent laptop with an ivy bridge i7, 16gb RAM, and the fastest solid state drive I could buy. I run Linux on it and make it a point to keep bloat off, and stay as lean as possible. I prefer to keep the resources free for other programs, mostly virtualization of routers and servers for setting up test environments. Between KVM running a bunch of servers and GNS3 running dozens of routers tied to real equipment on my CCIE rack via QinQ tunnels, I can make the system move at a crawl when loading up huge topologies to test designs and configs for customers, or for my own practice to test technology. There are some pretty good use cases to run a minimalist OS on top shelf hardware so that you can beat the **** out of it with test environments(engineering, math, computer science students, etc), but I will agree that doing this is pretty silly if you aren't beating your hardware to death, and just get a stiffy from watching your used system resources at almost nothing with top(linux process manager). What's the point of buying top shelf hardware just to surf the net and look at retarded crap on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter? I had 2u Dual Xeon QC servers on my rack for doing testing, but my wife hates the sound of airplanes and gets concerned about money for the electric bill that could be spent on other stuff LOL.
-
My newest computer is from 2009, and everything else is older so yes, I do tend to prefer older operating systems as they do not place as much load on the old computers.
What are your 2009 and older computers struggling to do that requires the use of an older OS?
-
My newest computer is from 2009, and everything else is older so yes, I do tend to prefer older operating systems as they do not place as much load on the old computers.
What are your 2009 and older computers struggling to do that requires the use of an older OS?
Only a couple are still in use.
The newest is a Mac, and still running Snow Leopard. Mavericks is supported on it, but I need to replace the hard drive before I can install, and I have not had the time to do that yet.
Only one other is in regular use, and that is my ageing gaming rig.
The next newest I built when Doom 3 came out, that used to be the gaming rig but has now been more or less retired.