Differences

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

--- old_windows [2026/08/23 18:03] – [Windows Vista] 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 24: / Line 24: @@
 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.