Syclone0044

Member
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Syclone0044

  1. Neo2k, I'm with you 100%. XP has been serving me well the past year for sure, but I still miss the efficiency and compact code of windows 2000. I absolutely despise Microsoft .Net Framework and any other bloated, recklessly coded trash that MS has produced in the last 10 years. I fear that computers have become so powerful that optimization and efficiency is becoming somewhat of a lost art. For shame.
  2. Stiil you serch for ipod touch iphone drivers for windows 2000?

  3. I recently built a Core i5 760 2.8GHz quad-core 4GB system to replace my aging P4 HT 2.6GHz 2GB system and I had every intention of running Windows 2000 on it. I hate to see computer resources squandered with bloated, wasteful, and inefficient code. I also despise DRM like "Mandatory Activation". I spent weeks working out all the kinks in my new Windows 2000 system and it wasn't easy. But with BlackWingCat's help for the driver files and the Win2K Pro 4 CPU-unlock patch, I got it working. I have: MSI P55-CD53 motherboard 4GB Mushkin DDR3 1600mhz RAM. Gigabyte 512MB GeForce 9800 GT PCI-E card. (using BlackWingCat's nVidia forceware drivers) The Problems with Win2K that made me finally give up and switch to Windows XP The primary issue was that Win2K seemed to have some trouble scheduling the multiple CPU cores. When I would play a CPU-intensive fullscreen Flash game like FarmVille in Google Chrome, the mouse would hiccup and stop responding smoothly and the game animations would run wildly. The CPU cores would be loaded unevenly and the game was unplayable. In Windows XP and Windows 7, this worked perfectly and the game was very responsive. Also, Intel SpeedStep did not work properly under Win2K. The CPU VCore would not drop <1.0v to save energy and cool the CPU, like it does under WinXP and Win7. As a result my CPU temperatures were quite a bit warmer under Win2K. Intel Turbo Boost also did not seem to increase the CPU MHz as high under Win2K as it did under WinXP. Worse, I had major troubles with Standby and Hibernate. Hibernate wouldnt work most of the time (but sometimes it would). Instead it would act like it was going to Hibernate, and then kick back to the Desktop without explaining why it failed to Hibernate. Standby was worse - it would standby but upon Resume, the CPU would be loading 100% and the CPU temps would get very hot. It seemed that Win2K had a bug that upon Resume, the SMP CPUs would not be receiving HLT instructions. Manually running RightMark HLT program solved the issue, but then RightMark was always consuming "100% CPU", which made TaskManager and Process Explorer's results appear useless and confusing. Hardly a solution I could live with. Finally, the most recent Win32k.sys security update from Microsoft doesn't have Debug symbols and calling Microsoft was a dead end. Without those Symbols, I cannot run DHEAPMON, a Microsoft tool I used to monitor my Desktop Heap. This is necessary because I tend to open an extreme amount of windows and tasks simultaneously, and when the Desktop Heap reaches full capacity, apps begin to misbehave and crash as they cannot allocate additional desktop heap resources. So I bit the bullet and installed my retail Windows XP Pro. Immediately I was shocked at how much faster it boots that Win2K, and it is a dream to use the Standby mode at night (which fully shuts off the PC fans - silent) and be able to Resume in 2 seconds. Also Hibernate is at least 4 times faster due to XP using HD DMA (Win2K doesn't). Plus it's really nice to be able to upgrade and install any software without having to spend hours of my time researching unsupported hacks and methods to trick the software into working under Windows 2000. Windows 2000 served me well but it was time to say goodbye.
  4. Sorry for the late response! With 4.57 I get about 15000 MIPS. What's interesting is that under Windows 7 64-bit with 7z 64-bit, I get 20000 MIPS! I'm not sure if the 64-bit is the big variable or if it's really that much faster? This is @ 4000MHz on the Core i5 760 with 8 Threads.
  5. Photos of SUCCESS. Before and After. Here it is before BlackWingCat's 4-core Win2K Pro CPU Limit Breaking Patch: Here after BlackWingCat's patch: Proof of using all 4 cores: Long Live Windows 2000!
  6. Thank you very much, iamtheky! That is exactly what I was looking for but unable to find.
  7. Current version 3.2.8 gives immediate error upon install that it's not a supported Host OS. Old versions are available: http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Download_Old_Builds But no documentation discusses which was the latest version that still did support Windows 2000? Any ideas? Here we see currently XP and up are supported. http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch01.html#id2641244 I have a feeling the kernel device drivers are what prevents Windows 2000 from working as HOST OS?
  8. BlackWingCat's files are available again - better hurry and download his KB979683-v2 and CoreChg.zip while you can!! I just did!
  9. Great news! Today I received the NewEgg.com shipment and built the system. It works AWESOME on Windows 2000 with BlackWingCat's help! The system is an MSI P55 CD53 motherboard ($109) which is fabulous and has tons of ports, including legacy ports, 10 USB, 8 SATA, tons of overclocking options. 4GB Mushkin DDR3 RAM. Gigabyte 512MB GeForce 9800 GT PCI-E card. Installs using BlackWingCat's nVidia forceware drivers. 3D games (Quake4) work, but the nWiz.exe display control panel fails due to UxThemXP.dll failure. Intel Core i5 760 CPU @ 2.80 GHz. Win2K Pro only uses 2 cores Until I can find BlackWingCat to reupload his patch that will allow all 4 cores to be used. Realtek 10/100/1000 NIC works great with driver right off Realtek website - it has win2000 directory in the driver install! Intel HD Audio works great with BlackWingCat's drivers ---> http://w2k.flxsrv.org/drivers.htm I'm so happy! I will continue to tune and optimize this machine and report back.
  10. Windows2000-KB979683-v2-x86-ENU.EXE is not available right now, can you reupload it? https://files.me.com/theblackcat/hzziiw It gives error: "Account Error: Inactive"
  11. Firstly: I am not interested in hearing any opinions on the age of Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is my OS of choice - please respect that. I am trying to upgrade a P4 2.6 HT system to a Core i5 760 which is a 4-core CPU (no hyperthreading). I am in the process of selecting the motherboard etc. My concern is that it wont boot and the motherboard is just too different for Win2K to handle. Today I tried booting a vanilla Win2K SP4/Rollup1 install on a friend's 1-week-old Dell Inspiron 580 "Core i3 540" system, and I got a NTOSKRNL KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED BSOD right before the screen would have kicked in the video driver. Is there anybody out there running an Intel Core i3/i5/i7 on Windows 2000? I saw BlackWingCat has it running, but how? The USB keyboard and mouse won't function in Win2K Setup (with SP4 slipstreamed of course). Does win2k absolutely require a motherboard with PS/2 Keyboard? Will Windows 2000 Pro only use 2 of my 4 cores? I know Microsoft officially licenses by CPU "Socket" but I wonder if Win2K Pro will use all 4 cores? Thanks for your time,
  12. Great news! I have just succeeded getting Chrome 4.1.249.1036 (March 2010 version) to work on Win2K using KDW 0.83a. First I made sure wtsapi32.dll was added to my ExcludeFromKnownDLLs registry and rebooted to take effect. Then I downloaded Chrome 4.1.249.1036 from here: http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/symbols/4.1.249.1036/mini_installer.exe Saved it to my "Default download folder" so BlackWingCat's Chrome2K can find it, and renamed it to ChromeSetup.exe. Then I went here: http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/360097.html To download crm2k35a.zip from here: http://files.me.com/theblackcat/7ypvtl Then I ran the Chrome2K.exe down the line of buttons and setup.exe CRASHED... but Chrome 4.1 was successfully installed nevertheless! See the result: Who needs Windows XP with it's Activation & DRM nonsense?
  13. Has anyone successfully gotten the iPhone to function with iTunes on Windows 2000? With BlackWingCat's blog help I was able to get iTunes 7.4 installed on Windows 2000 (the minimum version to support iPhone, which also requires XP or greater). I used Fcwinen.exe from KDW to do SpecialRewrite, which allowed QuickTime and iTunes to install. However when I start iTunes, it says: Then, iTunes does launch and when I connect the iPhone USB it says: In TaskMgr I see AppleMobileDevice.exe "Apple Mobile Device Service" is running, and iPodService.exe is also running. So why doesnt the iPhone work? BlackWingCat's blog is in Japanese and has terrible Google Translation to English, so I can't follow it. Can anyone give a straightforward guide to what needs to be done?
  14. Thank you, I didn't even realize that Recovery Console loads a registry hive. Brilliant solution! I assume this is tested & known to work; I'll post back if for some reason I have trouble.
  15. I just installed a 1TB SATA drive on my Windows 2000 workstation and transferred all my partitions over to the new disk. Everything is working speedy (this Seagate 7200.12 does 100 MB/sec avg sustained reads, my old Seagate 250GB did 55 MB/sec avg reads...) However Recovery Console can't mount the drive because it's too large. It shows as 131GB. I'm concerned because since enabling HyperThreading, my NTOSKRNL.EXE Windows Updates always seem to break the boot by installing Uni versions instead of SMP versions. And I have to use Recovery Console to swap the files around to fix the boot. Now that I have the larger drive, this becomes impossible... I slipstreamed a Win2K install directory with SP4 and URP1 and the 2005 ATAPI.SYS and then did winnt32 /cmdcons which actually deletes the old CMDCONS and rebuilds a fresh one. This updated all my Recovery Console files to the latest versions. But still it fails! It mounts my smaller drives OK but not the 1TB. Am I screwed? I could use my Windows XP CD for XP Recovery Console but then it would obnoxiously automatically "upgrade" all my NTFS 3.0 (Win2K) disks to NTFS 3.1... Not sure if that has any harmful effects, but feels unnecessary.