Welcome to MSFN

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


AnX

Windows 2000 on Haswell?

100 posts in this topic

Has anyone tried looking into Haswell on Windows 2000? If someone is willing to install Win2k or has installed Win2k on Haswell, please post here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked into it when Haswell first came out, only to find that no motherboard manufacturer offered any drivers whatsoever for Windows XP, much less Windows 2000 (aside from Intel's own chipset device software).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check if BlackWingCat has made some port. W2k runs on ich10r thanks to him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BWC... Thank you I've been thinking of buying NUC for a long time but was afraid of 2000 compatibility. This is good information.

Edited by tramtrist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked into it when Haswell first came out, only to find that no motherboard manufacturer offered any drivers whatsoever for Windows XP, much less Windows 2000 (aside from Intel's own chipset device software).

Intel's latest Chipset Device Software (2/25/2014) just went up, and it looks like they've dropped support not only for Windows 2000, but Windows XP as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to install Haswell Graphics Drivers 6.14.10.5449.

But It has same problem. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the unofficial Graphics Drivers 6.14.10.5441 (aka 14.56.0.5441), which support XP, and Haswell and IvyBridge, floating around the net.

Attached is an inf for it, with the erroneous (but cosmetic) "Intel® HD Graphics 3000" corrected to "Intel® HD Graphics 4000", as it should be.

igxp32.inf for Intel Graphics 6.14.10.5441.7z

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already tried offical version 6.14.10.5441.

It is haswell 1st generation XP RTM driver.

The 5445 is 2nd.

The 5449 is 3rd.

There is the unofficial Graphics Drivers 6.14.10.5441 (aka 14.56.0.5441), which support XP, and Haswell and IvyBridge, floating around the net.

Attached is an inf for it, with the erroneous (but cosmetic) "Intel® HD Graphics 3000" corrected to "Intel® HD Graphics 4000", as it should be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already tried offical version 6.14.10.5441.

It is haswell 1st generation XP RTM driver.

The 5445 is 2nd.

The 5449 is 3rd.

There is the unofficial Graphics Drivers 6.14.10.5441 (aka 14.56.0.5441), which support XP, and Haswell and IvyBridge, floating around the net.

The 5441 driver seems to be the last one that supports XP.

None of the later drivers have even a leaked or unofficial version for XP, AFAIK.

Am I wrong?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already tried offical version 6.14.10.5441.

It is haswell 1st generation XP RTM driver.

The 5445 is 2nd.

The 5449 is 3rd.

There is the unofficial Graphics Drivers 6.14.10.5441 (aka 14.56.0.5441), which support XP, and Haswell and IvyBridge, floating around the net.

The 5441 driver seems to be the last one that supports XP.

None of the later drivers have even a leaked or unofficial version for XP, AFAIK.

Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong.

And 5441 is previous official driver, but the link closed now.(Cause of it is old)

Plz see #5 link lastest comment.

You can download XP lastest driver (7th Mar 2014) from link.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 5441 driver seems to be the last one that supports XP.

None of the later drivers have even a leaked or unofficial version for XP, AFAIK.

Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong.

And 5441 is previous official driver, but the link closed now.(Cause of it is old)

Plz see #5 link lastest comment.

You can download XP lastest driver (7th Mar 2014) from link.

You're right. I stand corrected.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scroll down - Post#466 - Appears to be XP drivers -

http://forums.laptopvideo2go.com/topic/24340-intel-gma-drivers/page-24

edit - please note that the following thread categorically states that they don't even work on XP.

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170907-solved-xp-freeze-on-dual-boot-with-7/

Please note that said post now points to another (last page) post indicating the same as BWC. Intel doesn't have their *ahem* together at all. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphics is OK, but I want to know if the OS works on the platform.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? Post #5??? All but Graphics?

I suppose BWC will have to provide some details. I can't seem to find the Blog Entry.

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already tried offical version 6.14.10.5441.

It is haswell 1st generation XP RTM driver.

The 5445 is 2nd.

The 5449 is 3rd.

There is the unofficial Graphics Drivers 6.14.10.5441 (aka 14.56.0.5441), which support XP, and Haswell and IvyBridge, floating around the net.

The 5441 driver seems to be the last one that supports XP.

None of the later drivers have even a leaked or unofficial version for XP, AFAIK.

Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong.

And 5441 is previous official driver, but the link closed now.(Cause of it is old)

Plz see #5 link lastest comment.

You can download XP lastest driver (7th Mar 2014) from link.

5445 and 5449 do not install correctly for my i7 3777k (on XP SP3)

But by substituting igcodeckrng700.bin and igvpkrng700.bin by the files of the same name from 5441, it then installs OK.

I guess substituting igcodeckrng700.bin and igvpkrng700.bin, as well as igcodeckrng750.bin and igvpkrng750.bin, by the files of the same name from 5441 should fix all the problems reported. Please test this and let me know how did that work for you all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already tried offical version 6.14.10.5441.

It is haswell 1st generation XP RTM driver.

The 5445 is 2nd.

The 5449 is 3rd.

There is the unofficial Graphics Drivers 6.14.10.5441 (aka 14.56.0.5441), which support XP, and Haswell and IvyBridge, floating around the net.

The 5441 driver seems to be the last one that supports XP.

None of the later drivers have even a leaked or unofficial version for XP, AFAIK.

Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong.

And 5441 is previous official driver, but the link closed now.(Cause of it is old)

Plz see #5 link lastest comment.

You can download XP lastest driver (7th Mar 2014) from link.

5445 and 5449 do not install correctly for my i7 3777k (on XP SP3)

But by substituting igcodeckrng700.bin and igvpkrng700.bin by the files of the same name from 5441, it then installs OK.

I guess substituting igcodeckrng700.bin and igvpkrng700.bin, as well as igcodeckrng750.bin and igvpkrng750.bin, by the files of the same name from 5441 should fix all the problems reported. Please test this and let me know how did that work for you all.

hi, do you mean take igcodeckrng700.bin and igvpkrng700.bin from 5441 and put in 5449 folder?

It didn't work for me for HD4400. device ID DEV_041e

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's more complicated than that: IMO igxp32.inf in all 544x versions of the intel driver is botched.

Problem is that it was botched when support to the Haswell was added, so that there is no good driver for the Haswell at all.

Now, the reason nobody came out with a driver after your requests here and elsewhere is that most people who have Haswells don't care for XP (which MS and intel are doing their best to kill, to no avail), and most people who care for XP and have the necessary know-how to correct that .INF don't have a Haswell to test any mods, so they cannot do it properly and, hence, direct their skills to tasks they can accomplish properly and can benefit from (of course). So, you see, it's kind of a Catch-22 situation.

That said -- provided you undertake to test whatever modded files are give you, bearing in mind they can leave you with a non-functional video and, in the worst case, cause a reinstall, *and* agree to do it without putting *any* pressure on people who'll be doing it in spare time they really don't have, just for the sake of the challenge -- there may be people willing to try modding the .INF, although, even so, there may not be anyone available right away...

In any case, please do tell us what are you using as a graphics driver at the moment? The standard supervga? The default VGA? A scrennshot of the device manager window with the display drivers expanded and the window given by the properties option on the right-click menu of the active display driver, with be driver tab selected, would be much welcome as well (see attached example).

post-134642-0-61968300-1397067322_thumb.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's more complicated than that: IMO igxp32.inf in all 544x versions of the intel driver is botched.

Problem is that it was botched when support to the Haswell was added, so that there is no good driver for the Haswell at all.

Now, the reason nobody came out with a driver after your requests here and elsewhere is that most people who have Haswells don't care for XP (which MS and intel are doing their best to kill, to no avail), and most people who care for XP and have the necessary know-how to correct that .INF don't have a Haswell to test any mods, so they cannot do it properly and, hence, direct their skills to tasks they can accomplish properly and can benefit from (of course). So, you see, it's kind of a Catch-22 situation.

That said -- provided you undertake to test whatever modded files are give you, bearing in mind they can leave you with a non-functional video and, in the worst case, cause a reinstall, *and* agree to do it without putting *any* pressure on people who'll be doing it in spare time they really don't have, just for the sake of the challenge -- there may be people willing to try modding the .INF, although, even so, there may not be anyone available right away...

In any case, please do tell us what are you using as a graphics driver at the moment? The standard supervga? The default VGA? A scrennshot of the device manager window with the display drivers expanded and the window given by the properties option on the right-click menu of the active display driver, with be driver tab selected, would be much welcome as well (see attached example).

post-390963-0-22785900-1397109738_thumb.

Please see mine in attached image.

It is XP sp3

My device id is;

PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_041E&SUBSYS_85341043&REV_06\3&115 83659&0&10

my system is desktop pc. mainboard chipset is H81, cpu is i3-4130, i use xp service pack3.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I installed Windows 2000 Professional using a Biostar Hi-Fi Z87X motherboard and an Intel i7-4770K Haswell processor (Series 8 / C220). I used tomasz86’s most recent HFSLIP package with BWC’s 8.9c AHCI driver integrated. With one glaring exception, the installation proceeds much like it does on the Z77 motherboard.

The initial problem with W2K on Haswell: installation stalls at the “Setup is starting Windows 2000” screen.

To get past this, I started over and hit F5 rather than F6 when prompted for a third-party driver. This provides a choice of computer types, but choosing “ACPI Multiprocessor PC” does nothing to correct the stall, so I’m forced to choose the “Standard PC” HAL instead. This leaves me running on one core instead of four cores.

The rest of the OS and driver installation is just about exactly like the Z77.

I tried using Device Manager to change the “Standard PC” driver to “ACPI Multiprocessor PC” after the fact, but this produced a BSOD upon reboot.

Edited by bluebolt
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, at the moment (and today is Apr 21, 2014) there's no way to get either Win 2000 or Win XP running correctly on Haswell processosrs. There's no decent embedded Graphic Adapter drivers, so an external Graphics card is a must. And there's no support at all for Intel USB 3.0... Therefore, IMO, it's much better to go Ivy Bridge. This is just my 2¢, of course and, particularly here, YMMV a lot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that everything does work, except the ACPI multiprocessor PC. The installation is complete, and I'm running in AHCI SATA mode using BWC's 8.9c driver. The only driver I don't have is the video driver, which is the one I don't need.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No native Graphics, no USB 3.0 (those can be solved by using add-on PCI-e cards...) and no multiprocessor? And all that works OK with Ivy Bridges (except for USB 3.0 that is absent, so that one add-on PCI-e card is a must)... so that, IMO, an Ivy Bridge is a better choice. Just saying it.

(@ bluebolt: I've removed my statement about SATA fro my previous post. Thanks for the correction!)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

Plz Try to create EXtended kernel DVD from hfslip.

It makes the USB compatible to XP.

If you use Intel XHCI USB then It can use by USB2.0 compatible mode.

and you use 3rd party USB then you can use completely it with Extended kernel DVD.

http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1763141.html

And I think that you can use VGA Driver if you use Ivy Intel HD VGA

http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1165914.html

If it does not work on your PC, plz tell me your VGA card DEV_ID.

No native Graphics, no USB 3.0 (those can be solved by using add-on PCI-e cards...) and no multiprocessor? And all that works OK with Ivy Bridges (except for USB 3.0 that is absent, so that one add-on PCI-e card is a must)... so that, IMO, an Ivy Bridge is a better choice. Just saying it.

(@ bluebolt: I've removed my statement about SATA fro my previous post. Thanks for the correction!)

Edited by blackwingcat
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.