Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- old_windows [2026/08/23 17:39] – [Windows XP] mattroot
+++ old_windows [2026/08/23 18:14] (current) – mattroot
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 **When in doubt, go NT**. Windows 9x is terrible on new processors, as after some Spectre / Meltdown mitigations it just keeps BSoDing even on VMs. I think Intel 10th or 11th gen was the first one to go quirky ((citation needed)). On AMD anything marked with Ryzen is probably also a sudden death scenario ((citation needed)). If you are on those processors, **forget KVM, forget hardware-accelerated virt**. It will yield you nothing, unless I do not know something yet.
-Somehow, Me was the least quirky during testing on a Ryzen 4000-series mobile CPU - it got through the install, but it's still barely bearable. I cannot stress it enough - **when in doubt, go NT**.
+Somehow, Me was the least quirky during testing on a Ryzen 4000-series mobile CPU - it got through the install, //at least it boots//, but it's still unbearable. I cannot stress it enough - **when in doubt, go NT**.
 If you really need 9x in a box on modern hardware, the way to go is 86box / PCem and trying to set up a virtual PC fast enough to not make you commit crimes.
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ==== Windows XP ====
 You are officially supported on Intel side until **Ivy Bridge** series of processors, including integrated graphics. Although the drivers start to get quirky - but you can run it natively with minimal effort.
+It is said that Haswell-based systems have unofficial, ported, leaked or whatever drivers for XP. Never tested, YMMV.
+If you want to be closer to the golden age, go for **Core 2 series**, preferably the Wolfdale-based designs. They also run Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and early 10 like a breeze.
 On AMD side of things, you are fine until the **Bulldozer** series - so all the AMD FX processors and Am3+ CPUs will run XP like a breeze - but this is heavy overkill territory.
@@ Line 36: / Line 40: @@
 ==== Windows Vista ====
-Vista was terrible in its early days. **Get a service pack NOW**. SP1 is serviceable, SP2 is better.
+Vista was terrible in its early days. **Get a service pack NOW**. SP1 is serviceable, SP2 is better. Better yet, just get a SP2 image.
+It is a good idea to **update Vista to the brim**. Get [[http://legacyupdate.net|Legacy Update]]. On Vista, it allows you to update either through the website, or through the control panel (''wuapp''). Choose what you prefer, for Vista I prefer ''wuapp''.
-It is a good idea to update Vista to the brim. Get [[http://legacyupdate.net|Legacy Update]]. On Vista, it allows you to update either through the website, or through the control panel (''wuapp''). Choose what you prefer, for Vista I prefer ''wuapp''.
+Despite the rumors of Vista being a flaming dumpster, it is rather forgiving and pleasant to get running and use. There is no concept of updates that need to be installed separately in Vista, everything clicks in. You get a lot of concepts that appear in later versions of Windows. It really might be what you are looking for, if you know its limitations.
 ==== Windows XP ====
-XP service packs are... interesting. You got 4 - SP1, SP1a, SP2 and SP3. To get going, you need at least SP1 - many apps expect at least //some// kind of service pack. SP1a was almost the same as SP1, but without Microsoft's Java VM fiasco.
+XP service packs are... interesting. You got 4 - SP1, SP1a, SP2 and SP3. To get going, you need at least SP1 - many apps expect at least //some// kind of service pack. SP1a was almost the same as SP1, but without Microsoft's Java VM fiasco - when I say about SP1 in this section, this applies to SP1a too.
 This is when it gets quirky. SP2 was not just a service pack, it did a really large overhaul underneath. XP SP2 is a completely different OS underneath than SP1. Many security popups changed to Vista-style ones, some old applications are no longer available (like ''progman'' and ''winfile''), and, the lamest... bootscreen changes, from distinct ones for each edition to an unified one. I was personally not able to switch it back to the old one. Keep this in mind if you want to play around. SP2 mostly strips Active Desktop as well - on SP1 most of the toggles are still there, on SP2 there are gone - don't know why. Also, for whatever reason, on SP2 you cannot put the Internet Explorer icon on the desktop, unless you enable classic start menu - then it forces you to have IE icon on desktop. Dumb pattern.