Jump to content

Nvidia GTX 1050Ti


Windows 2000

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Dibya said:

i will try . Today got back from Taiwan so now in home with my pc . It is time to mod kernel .

do you have any problem using kernel Extension? (like personally you donot like etc )?

For XP I prefer using either XP standard running natively not in a virtual environment and no special kernel mod but I can also use XP SP3 as well for the tests.  Usually it should not matter if you are using XP without service pack or with service pack for the normal nVidia Hdmi Display and Hdmi Audio driver to work.

Are you able to create a standard XP display driver for nVidia GTX 1050 Ti?  I will test it.  I can restore XP image if corruption occurs so no worries it will only take a few seconds to restore XP back in case I cannot get back into XP.

The last working nVidia was GTX 960 with native XP driver support.

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 hours ago, Windows 2000 said:

I just noticed that even the NVIDIA High Definition Audio driver, which came with the display driver, is working just fine.

New_Bitmap_Image.jpg

it seems to be 1050 specific problem . 1060 working well though no 3d Acceleration 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Windows 2000 said:

Yes, it was the on the same computer, but with GTX 560.

The motherboard was ASRock H61M-DGS and it was a hell on earth to completely get it to work, but after a few weeks, I've got everything to work.

Interesting.  That is a Sandy Bridge chipset.  Did you document what you did to get everything working on Windows 2000?

Did you use SATA AHCI mode or SATA IDE mode for installing Windows 2000?

What hardware devices on board did you get to function under Windows 2000?

Were you able to get these to function -> Intel HD Graphics, Onboard Audio, and Onboard Ethernet.

What about ACPI?  Standby mode or Shutdown have any issues?

http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/h61m-dgs/#osXP32

H61M-DGS

http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/h61m-dgs/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dibya said:

it seems to be 1050 specific problem . 1060 working well though no 3d Acceleration 

Dibya you got GTX 1060 XP driver working?

You tried GTX 1050 Ti and it didn't work?

Let me try your GTX 1060 XP driver to see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly better than running without driver: VBEMP NT Project: Universal VESA/VBE Video Display Driver

It enables high resolution and high refresh rate (which is better than running at a low resolution and at 1Hz using the generic default windows driver), but it doesn't help you with any 2D/3D acceleration, which means that you won't be able to play any games and that videos are going to be decoded by your CPU; anyway, it should be kinda smooth on 144/360/396/480p contents, as long as files are not so "CPU intensive" (high bitrate, long prediction with reframe set too high etc).

nt51-1.gif

nt51-3.gif

Edited by FranceBB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 98SE said:

Interesting.  That is a Sandy Bridge chipset.  Did you document what you did to get everything working on Windows 2000?

Did you use SATA AHCI mode or SATA IDE mode for installing Windows 2000?

What hardware devices on board did you get to function under Windows 2000?

Were you able to get these to function -> Intel HD Graphics, Onboard Audio, and Onboard Ethernet.

What about ACPI?  Standby mode or Shutdown have any issues?

http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/h61m-dgs/#osXP32

H61M-DGS

http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/h61m-dgs/

I did not document it, but there was actually a topic in this forum where I was asking once again, how to get the GPU to work.

Otherwise, I don't remember what I exactly did, but I remember that it was an absolute hell.

It was on that same machine with that motherboard and all other devices.

Edited by Windows 2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Windows 2000

I took a look at that thread.  It looks like you had to deal with BWC Windows 2000 Files in order to use it.  So I suppose there was no way you could use it with regular Windows 2000 SP4?

What was BWC trying to do with Windows 2000?  Was he trying to make it run appear like it was XP to programs being installed or run on it?

If that's what he was doing I'm still not sure why all that work to keep Windows 2000 alive instead of just making Windows XP his primary OS which already runs everything Windows 2000 does or finding ways to use some XP OS files copied to the Windows 2000 instead to see which ones can work without modifying since they are closely related maybe that would be easier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 98SE said:

@Windows 2000

I took a look at that thread.  It looks like you had to deal with BWC Windows 2000 Files in order to use it.  So I suppose there was no way you could use it with regular Windows 2000 SP4?

What was BWC trying to do with Windows 2000?  Was he trying to make it run appear like it was XP to programs being installed or run on it?

If that's what he was doing I'm still not sure why all that work to keep Windows 2000 alive instead of just making Windows XP his primary OS which already runs everything Windows 2000 does or finding ways to use some XP OS files copied to the Windows 2000 instead to see which ones can work without modifying since they are closely related maybe that would be easier?

Lol XP and 2k use different kernel Architecture .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Dibya said:

Lol XP and 2k use different kernel Architecture .

Different but not as different at 98 and 2K or XP and W7.

A lot of drivers and programs that function on 2K will run on XP.  XP is closely related enough to 2K that probably 99% of the software will work in it and 2K drivers can be forced.  But XP software running on 2K is another nightmare and harder to do.  No way you can force XP drivers to function in W7 they are completely different.  Same with Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello!

I made my 1063 work in 2D in XP. It works in 32bit color, supports different resolutions, passes the test of DirectDraw and shows videos by CPU. Without any 3D acceleration. I've just installed 368.91 driver (latest, that supports XP), and had chosen a GTX 960 model. I think, it doesn't matter, what model of videocard to choose.

1063.JPG

Edited by andrew68
adding image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 6/27/2023 at 3:50 PM, Milkinis said:

I can't tell whether this is fake or how the device manager recognizes the GTX 1060...

maybe they modded the INF and it's actually 900-series graphic card in the background @Dietmar

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B9OWVlLdZ6k/XbVDYg_CShI/AAAAAAAACKg/tR58uXkqzUoCp68BgjDSCMpLlCNTvPYTACNcBGAsYHQ/s1600/J01zTS5.png

 

Probably not fake, Cinebench is showing CPU (not GPU) rendering.

Device Manager simply reports the name in GPU driver's .inf file. I didn't bother editing .inf when installing 1070,  just chose the "TITAN" entry & manually installed it. Device Manager now reports the GPU (1070) as "TITAN."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 66cats said:

Device Manager simply reports the name in GPU driver's .inf file. I didn't bother editing .inf when installing 1070,  just chose the "TITAN" entry & manually installed it. Device Manager now reports the GPU (1070) as "TITAN."

I had read some nvidia forums about people asking drivers for Pascal based graphic cards

are you sure that the 1xxx-series features are actually fully supported with the older drivers ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Milkinis said:

are you sure that the 1xxx-series features are actually fully supported

Hi, they're not, only 2D acceleration is supported (desktop compositing, web browsing, that sort of thing), 3D isn't. 

All I meant was the screencap you linked is likely genuine (Cinebench score is for CPU rendering, which doesn't rely on that 1060 or require video drivers to be installed). 

My box with 1070 and XP is useless for gaming, but it also multiboots a bunch of other OS (for no particular reason, it's just a collection of parts that would otherwise go unused), that's the only reason for XP+1070. 

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...