Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Win XP past Apr 2014... (was: Will XP be supported until 2019?)

- - - - -

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
111 replies to this topic

#76
robertcollier4

robertcollier4

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 10 posts
  • Joined 16-November 12
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ay-gqx18UTM
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ToFgYylqP_U
This video demonstrates the slowness of the new Windows 7 GUI.
Windows Display Drivers Model used in both Vista and 7 doesn't include the neccesary hardware accelerated 2D functions to make the graphics generated by GDI and GDI+ as fast as in Windows XP.
Microsoft chose software render because they found too difficult to combine the new graphical engine with the old one. If you want to learn more about it read this: http://blogs.msdn.co...in-windows.aspx
GDI has dozens of functions: http://msdn.microsof...203(VS.85).aspx
GDI hardware acceleration in Windows 7 using WDDM 1.1 drivers has only these functions hardware accelerated: http://msdn.microsof...y/dd434692.aspx
WDDM 1.1 drivers makes mandatory this new "partial" GDI hardware acceleration. So any driver which claims to be 1.1 is already accelerating as much as it ever will.
Too bad, the results I got were based on WDDM 1.1 drivers (both from nvidia and Microsoft itself).
q7j.gif


http://www.passmark....performance.htm
2D results in Windows 7 seem poor compared to previous versions of Windows, why is this?
Different Windows applications use different methods of drawing to the screen. Some applications render directly to the window, which is the same method used in the vector tests in PerformanceTest (GDI+ to a hWnd). These application will likely suffer a performance hit in Win7. Other applications render to a buffer in main memory and then use a method known as bitblt to push the final image to the screen buffer (GDI+ to a DIB section then bitblt). This method is known as double buffering. Most large commercial applications (such as Word and Photoshop) use this later method and will not suffer much if any performance degradation in Win7. There is a discussion of this on Microsoft's graphics performance blog.


http://www.neowin.ne...wer-under-win7/
DWM redirects window draw routines to an offscreen buffer and then re-draw them back to the main screen. That means for any window, DWM is redrawing their contents... twice. Coupled this with slower GDI performance than Windows XP. On the other hand, DWM will ensure the contents of the window fit in before it redraws the whole window, so when you drag the window around, it won't cause graphical glitches because now the window will only be redrawn when it's complete.
On the other hand, not using DWM will free up a lot of CPU resources. But still not enough to make GDI render operations as fast and responsive as Windows XP, as XP has more CPU free to do other tasks. If there is a fix for this, I would love to know, too... but it seems like this is already an integral part of Windows 7. The driver model has had to be rewritten to accomodate the new driver device interface (DDI) of DirectX 10 and beyond, and they had to shaft GDI hardware acceleration to accomplish that. They chose to remove GDI hardware acceleration as they found it hard to combine both driver model features. So there is no likely fix in the future except for a whole new edition of Windows.


http://www.tomshardw...di,2547-15.html
tom2d.png


Edited by robertcollier4, 31 August 2013 - 02:31 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#77
Andromeda43

Andromeda43

    Retired PC Tech.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • Joined 14-August 05
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

I'm sorry.....with 16 computers that I try to keep running and updated, it's easy to get them mixed up.

 

The 12 year old PC, I did build, with Windows ME on it.  When I got it back a few years ago now, I upgraded it to XP-Pro-SP3 and it runs it admirably.

 

I have W8 now set up and running on a 2005 model eMachine, with the AMD cpu and 3 gigs of ram and a 160 gig SATA hard drive.

Sorry for the confusion.  W8 installer picked up everything on the little eMachine but the sound.  ???  It's basic AC 97 so I don't understand that.  Anyway I installed a Soundblaster sound card and W8 picked it right up and now I have sound too.  For an emergency Backup PC, it works darn well.  Maybe not the fastest PC ever, but it puddles right along.  :)

 

Right now, I'm on my main PC, which I built in 2005, and which has had some slight upgrades over the years.

It runs XP-Pro-SP3 very nicely as my everyday OS, and Windows Home Premium, Windows 8 Pro and Windows 8.1 Beta, all on separate hard drives.  "Never the twain shall meet".  One OS never sees the others and they all get along nicely on the same PC.

 

Windows XP will be alive and well here, till I decide otherwise (like that's going to happen, anytime before the Rapture)

 

:cool:


Edited by Andromeda43, 31 August 2013 - 05:47 PM.

A person with experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument.

#78
ND22

ND22

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 49 posts
  • Joined 16-January 08

I don't know what mobo you are using but Intel own Z87 chipset based mobo has Windows XP drivers on Intel website for chipset, lan and bluetooth; the audio driver can be downloaded form Realtek also!


Edited by ND22, 04 September 2013 - 12:29 AM.


#79
Dogway

Dogway

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Joined 24-December 11
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

I don't know what mobo you are using but Intel own Z87 chipset based mobo has Windows XP drivers on Intel website for chipset, lan and bluetooth; the audio driver can be downloaded form Realtek also!

 

It's not "officially" supported. I finally managed to find drivers (haven't tested though) for my asus mobo but it required some research. The same shady research that prevents mobo manufacturers to openly link the drivers in their mobo support pages (they would be glad to content 1/3 of the user base, after all this is not their war). You can follow my efforts in this thread.

 

If you can add something or find an official Intel RST driver that would be cool.



#80
halo3productions

halo3productions
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 16-September 13
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

What's the current status of extending XP past 2014? I'm not talking about petitioning M$ because we all know that's a waste of time. I'm talking about the users' status on extending XP, like the Windows before.

 

I noticed in the early posts that Windows POS may have compatible updates. Now to me that would seem reasonable, but why would MS allow that? I mean sure they aren't advertising it, but clearly people would notice. However, I guess we won't know until after the deadline (say something magically changes about the updates).

 

And I've just been wondering why I'm not on Windows XP x64... now to find a copy.


Edited by halo3productions, 16 September 2013 - 03:05 AM.


#81
AnX

AnX

    ...

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined 20-June 12
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

POSReady 2009 will only receive tech support -  no security updates, as Windows 2000 embedded also lost its security updates on July 2010, even though support is stated to be until 2015.



#82
halo3productions

halo3productions
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 16-September 13
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Did a benchmark. Came up with interesting results.

 

Windows XP Professional SP2 x64 (completely updated)

 

CCCv4uY.png

l2fN1Ic.png

 

Windows 8 Pro x64 (completely updated)

 

aJDDA6A.png

UtJuFZJ.png



#83
CharlotteTheHarlot

CharlotteTheHarlot

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,054 posts
  • Joined 24-September 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Did a benchmark. Came up with interesting results.
 
Windows XP Professional SP2 x64 (completely updated)
 
Windows 8 Pro x64 (completely updated)


Yep, not surprising except to MetroTards.

There are way more things occurring per second in the OS as you move from XP > Vista/7 > 8. Just running ProcMon will demonstrate that. And that is true no matter how many services and tasks and autoruns that you remove. The core OS is doing more talking.

This is not to say that some of the updates are not any good, obviously some are. But there is simply less core OS housekeeping happening in the older operating systems and consequently there is more CPU available to be used by running programs.

... Let him who hath understanding reckon the Number Of The Beast ...


#84
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,401 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I would say "interesting but not surprising" ;).

 

In my dinosaurish view, something that is not there (if not really-really needed) and/or it is smaller, will result in faster operations :yes:.....

http://www.msfn.org/...otsdi/?p=933421

 

 

jaclaz



#85
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,869 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I would say "interesting but not surprising" ;).

 

+1 :thumbup



#86
ND22

ND22

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 49 posts
  • Joined 16-January 08

Windows server 2003 is supported until July 2015. Wouldn’t be possible to install those updates on XP with minimal modifications?


Edited by ND22, 19 December 2013 - 11:35 AM.


#87
5eraph

5eraph

    Update Packrat

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined 04-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Very possible, ND22. Moreso with x64 than x86, since XPx64 uses the 2003x64 SP1 codebase.

#88
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

 

Windows server 2003 is supported until July 2015. Wouldn’t be possible to install those updates on XP with minimal modifications?

 

actually you could do following, but isn't quite legal yet also not illegal either

 

find yourself Longhorn (Vista) reset build, the client version 5.2.3790.1232
this is XP since it is client version of Server 2003 SP1 RC

its EULA makes it illegal, but its out of ANY support makes it legal

-

by logic it should accept any Server 2003 SP and hotfixes since its kernel is 5.2 (remember this one is 32bit) and is still XP
so stiff Servers '03 SP2 init and all hotfixes (or try slipstream) and there you go


Edited by vinifera, 19 December 2013 - 05:56 PM.

If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#89
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • Joined 20-January 14
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

Any one of you who are willing to try and use POSReady 2009 should after install download a virus removal program( I used Malwarebytes) or Manually remove these registries

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\Notify\SSOExec]
"Asynchronous"=dword:00000001
"Impersonate"=dword:00000001
"Logoff"="SSOReset"
"Unlock"="SSOExec"
"Lock"="SSOReset"
"DLLName"="%windir%\\temp\\sso\\ssoexec.dll"

 

Their was a virus on the install and microsoft forgot to remove some of the registries.

 

source http://forums.mydigi...ady-2009/page10


Edited by Flasche, 28 January 2014 - 10:44 PM.

Seeker Of Truth by E. E. Cummings                                                                                           Quote (Me)

  • seeker of truth                                                 "If you want to reach and discover the true meaning of order; You must go through chaos first."            344d0f9.jpg
  • follow no path                                 
  • all paths lead where
  • truth is here
 

#90
dersonpg

dersonpg

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 10 posts
  • Joined 11-April 09

Four days ago I installed POSReady 2009 in a notebook Sony VGN TZ 350 and was very good!

The system is fast, stable and so far have not had any problems, crash or blue screen of death.

Honestly, I tried Windows 7 and Windows 8 but POSReady and far exceeded my expectations.

Too bad XP is set to end on 8 April this year but who are willing to stay with him five years worth experience POSReady 2009 (extended lifecycle until 2019).



#91
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Windows server 2003 is supported until July 2015. Wouldn’t be possible to install those updates on XP with minimal modifications?

 

actually you could do following, but isn't quite legal yet also not illegal either

 

find yourself Longhorn (Vista) reset build, the client version 5.2.3790.1232
this is XP since it is client version of Server 2003 SP1 RC

its EULA makes it illegal, but its out of ANY support makes it legal

-

by logic it should accept any Server 2003 SP and hotfixes since its kernel is 5.2 (remember this one is 32bit) and is still XP
so stiff Servers '03 SP2 init and all hotfixes (or try slipstream) and there you go

 

Can anyone else confirm this?  Would it be updated continuously along with Server 2003?



#92
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Bump!  Can we do that?

 

Also I wondered if anyone out there still running Windows 2000 Professional in 2014 can chime in on a related topic.  You folks have been running an unsupported OS for nearly four years, and it's VERY SIMILAR to Windows XP Professional (sans Visual Styles, Firewall, WLAN Support, and Clear Type Font Smoothing).  Since Windows 2000 is so similar, perhaps we can get a glimpse into the future and see how they fare running Windows 2000 unsupported.  That may tell us what to expect by choosing to run XP unsupported without updates.  Have the 2000 bunch ran into security issues running 2000 as a primary OS?

 

This is important because before now, most people running an unsupported Windows OS were running some 9x flavour.  Windows NT 3x and 4x never amassed mainstream use and lack too many now needed features like USB.  So this will really be the first time that MOST people running unsupported Windows OS, will be running an NT based build.



#93
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,798 posts
  • Joined 12-May 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

From all the 2K threads I have read over the years, I really cannot recall a single security related issue caused due to running an "unsupported" OS.  Issues have manly been due to:

 

1) trying to run an older OS on newer hardware and trying to find drivers that work, or

2) trying to run newer software on the older OS, or

3) being restricted to older browsers which do not support newer features so accessing things like Flash or YouTube no longer work.

 

So if you can stay with your existing hardware, and the software you are currently using meets your needs, then you only need to "worry" about the last issue which should be stable for at least a pretty good while.  After all, 2K users can still get by. :)

 

Jody, you have brought up the potential possibility of security issues on an "unsupported" OS several times, and as far as I can remember, every time the responses have tried to reassure you that will not be an issue.  It appears that there is nothing that anyone can say to give you the "guarantee" that you appear to be seeking, so why do you keep bringing this up?  What do you want us to say?

 

Security issues are very real, and I'm not trying to minimize them in any way, but you seem to believe that the OS you use is the key to your security solution, while I believe that the security of the OS is only one of the minor reasons to choose the OS you decide to use.

 

Cheers and Regards my friend


Posted Image


#94
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

@JodyThornton Microsoft will produce Windows XP updates for much longer than April 2014. The last official updates for Windows 2000 were released last year, 3 years after EOL, and were distributed inside the monthly security ISO update packages. Apart from that, a few more non-public official updates were leaked.

In case of Windows XP I'd expect at least regular official updates until July 2015 (when Windows 2003 is becoming EOL). After April you should definitely check the monthly ISOs available under this link:

Security updates are available on ISO-9660 DVD5 image files from the Microsoft Download Center

Just keep in mind that Microsoft will not mention the existence of those updates in their official news channels. As in case of Windows 2000, the updates can be found inside those ISO packages even though Windows 2000's name itself isn't listed there at all.

More than that, due to the fact that Windows XP is much more popular than Windows 2000, I'm 99% sure that a lot of non-public updates will be leaked as well.


Posted Image
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages

#95
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

From all the 2K threads I have read over the years, I really cannot recall a single security related issue caused due to running an "unsupported" OS.  Issues have manly been due to:

 

1) trying to run an older OS on newer hardware and trying to find drivers that work, or

2) trying to run newer software on the older OS, or

3) being restricted to older browsers which do not support newer features so accessing things like Flash or YouTube no longer work.

 

So if you can stay with your existing hardware, and the software you are currently using meets your needs, then you only need to "worry" about the last issue which should be stable for at least a pretty good while.  After all, 2K users can still get by. :)

 

Jody, you have brought up the potential possibility of security issues on an "unsupported" OS several times, and as far as I can remember, every time the responses have tried to reassure you that will not be an issue.  It appears that there is nothing that anyone can say to give you the "guarantee" that you appear to be seeking, so why do you keep bringing this up?  What do you want us to say?

 

Security issues are very real, and I'm not trying to minimize them in any way, but you seem to believe that the OS you use is the key to your security solution, while I believe that the security of the OS is only one of the minor reasons to choose the OS you decide to use.

 

Cheers and Regards my friend

I appreciate your views (however it seems you appear to think of Microsoft warnings as instilling fear, while I guess I take them more legitimately).  In fairness, you actually cannot "guarantee" that everything will be fine in an unsupported environment, it's just (as you stated) your opinion.  And while I don't agree that the OS is key to a security solution, I do think it plays a substantial role.

 

I never got the impression either that I'm the only one here who has concerns or even an interest in running unsupported OSs.  I have plenty that agree with me about the view of security through obscurity (as in I don't agree with that premise), so I will be very interested in this topic for some time to come.  By the way, how many reponses do you see in this thread?  They're not all mine, so I am certainly not alone in my concerns.

 

Besides, I've already moved to Vista.  But it doesn't mean I cannot maintain an interest from the "other side of the fence" so to speak.  I do wonder how XP users will fare in a few months (despite your opinion, which I do respect by the way), and I thought Win2K users might be able to shed a light on it from their experiences.  Again just interested. :)

 

Cheers my firend!

Jody



#96
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@JodyThornton Microsoft will produce Windows XP updates for much longer than April 2014. The last official updates for Windows 2000 were released last year, 3 years after EOL, and were distributed inside the monthly security ISO update packages. Apart from that, a few more non-public official updates were leaked.

In case of Windows XP I'd expect at least regular official updates until July 2015 (when Windows 2003 is becoming EOL). After April you should definitely check the monthly ISOs available under this link:

Security updates are available on ISO-9660 DVD5 image files from the Microsoft Download Center

Just keep in mind that Microsoft will not mention the existence of those updates in their official news channels. As in case of Windows 2000, the updates can be found inside those ISO packages even though Windows 2000's name itself isn't listed there at all.

More than that, due to the fact that Windows XP is much more popular than Windows 2000, I'm 99% sure that a lot of non-public updates will be leaked as well.

So I checked out the links you gave me, and I even went back through the archives (I have visited there before).  How in heck :) do you validate that there are any Windows 2000 updates there without it being specified on the site?  It only appears to be supported Windows versions listed.  How do you find your Windows 2000 updates then?



#97
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

So I checked out the links you gave me, and I even went back through the archives (I have visited there before).  How in heck :) do you validate that there are any Windows 2000 updates there without it being specified on the site?  It only appears to be supported Windows versions listed.  How do you find your Windows 2000 updates then?


Well, it's pretty simple. You just need to download every single ISO and check whether there are Windows 2000 updates included. In many cases they're are there despite not being listed in the description.
Posted Image
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages

#98
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,869 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

What Jody seems to be failing to realize is that the names of the executables are unmistakable: any Win 2k update has a name like, say, "Windows2000-KB892130-x86-ENU.exe"...



#99
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

What Jody seems to be failing to realize is that the names of the executables are unmistakable: any Win 2k update has a name like, say, "Windows2000-KB892130-x86-ENU.exe"...

No that's precisely what I didn't see.  That's exactly what I looking for.  I extracted a few ISOs and most of them were for Server 2008, Windows 7 and a couple XP if I remember.  None the matter, I just wondered how you were recognizing Win2KPro updates if they weren't labelled as such.



#100
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Never mind.  I didn't see that tomasz86 typed "last year" as the final updates for Windows 2000.  I should find them now.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN