Leaderboard

Introduction: Here, you will find a list of AMD/Intel CPUs/chipsets and Intel/NVIDIA/AMD GPUs which support Microsoft® Windows Vista™. If you have any additions that aren't currently listed, feel free to reply with them and they will be added as soon as possible. Supported CPUs: Intel (Desktop/Server): Note: Windows Vista has been known to work with Pentium III and even some Pentium II processors, however this configuration is extremely suboptimal and the OS is practically unusable on these processors, so using at least a Pentium 4 (Prescott), plus installing Windows Vista Service Pack 2 is recommended for acceptable performance. Intel Pentium 4 (Prescott, 2004-2005) *x64 is only supported from the Pentium 4 505 Processor and newer Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (Prescott, 2005) *Supports both x86 and x64 Intel Pentium 4 HT (Northwood, 2003-2004) *x86 only Intel Pentium 4 HT (Prescott, 2004-2005) *x64 is only supported by F-series, 5x1, 517, 524 and few OEM models in E-series (SL7QB, SL7Q8) Intel Pentium 4 HT (Prescott 2M, 2005) *Supports both x86 and x64 Intel Pentium 4 HT (Cedar Mill, 2006) *Supports both x86 and x64 Intel Pentium D & Pentium Extreme Edition, all models Intel Celeron, all Netburst-based models (Williamette & Northwood-128, 2002-2003) *x86 only Intel Celeron D (Prescott, 2004-2005) *x64 only supported by 3x1, 3x6, 355 models Intel Celeron D (Cedar Mill, 2006-2007) *Supports both x86 and x64 Intel Celeron *all Core-based and newer models up to Ivy Bridge based Celerons; Braswell/Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Core 2 Duo, all models Intel Core 2 Extreme, all models Intel Core 2 Quad, all models Intel Pentium up to Sandy/Ivy Bridge G series processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Core i3 *all models up to 3rd generation Ivy Bridge processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Core i5 *all models up to 3rd generation Ivy Bridge processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Core i7 *all models up to 3rd generation Ivy Bridge processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Xeon 1.4 "Foster" - Intel Xeon 3.2 "Gallatin" *x86 only Intel Xeon, all models from 2.8 "Nocona" to 3rd generation Ivy Bridge Xeon processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel (Mobile): Intel Pentium M, all models *86 only Intel Pentium 4-M, all models *x86 only Mobile Pentium 4, all models *x86 only Mobile Pentium 4 HT, all models *x86 only Intel Atom *all models up to Bonnell microarchitecture (2012); Silvermont (2014) and later may not properly work with Vista (not yet tested). Intel Core Solo, all models Intel Core Duo, all models Intel Core 2 Solo, all models Intel Core 2 Duo, all models Intel Core 2 Quad, all models Intel Core 2 Extreme, all models Intel Pentium up to Sandy/Ivy Bridge mobile processors, Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Core i3 *all models up to 3rd generation Ivy Bridge processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Core i5 *all models up to 3rd generation Ivy Bridge processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. Intel Core i7 *all models up to 3rd generation Ivy Bridge processors; Haswell and later do not properly work with Vista. AMD (Desktop/Server): AMD Athlon 800 - Athlon 1000 (Pluto/Orion, 2000) *x86 only AMD Athlon 800 - Athlon 1400C (Thunderbird, 2000-2001) *x86 only AMD Duron 800 or later (2000-2003) *x86 only AMD Athlon XP, all models (2001-2003) *x86 only AMD Athlon 64, all models AMD Athlon 64 X2, all models (X2 & K10) AMD Phenom, all models AMD Opteron, all models AMD Sempron (Palermo, Socket 754; July/August 2005) *x64 only supported by all models with an OPN ending in BX and CV) AMD Sempron (Palermo, Socket 939; October 2005) *x64 only supported by all models with an OPN ending in BW AMD Sempron "Manilla" or later, all models AMD FX (Bulldozer Family), all models AMD Ryzen (all Summit Ridge models; Raven Ridge has yet to be tested) AMD (Mobile): AMD Mobile Sempron, all models (2003-2006) *x86 only AMD Mobile Athlon 64, all models (2004-2005) AMD Turion 64, all models (2005) AMD Kite Platform - AMD Carrizo Platform, all CPUs & APUs (2006-2015); Bristol Ridge (2016) may work but has yet to be tested. Supported GPUs: Intel GPUs: Intel 915GM/GMS will work with Windows Vista by using XP drivers, however Aero Glass isn't supported due to lack of WDDM drivers. Intel GMA 950 (Desktop: 945GC, 945GZ, 945G; Mobile: 945 Family) or newer, last Intel GPU to support Vista is Intel HD 4000 series (Ivy Bridge; Desktop and Mobile). Download Intel HD 4000 Graphics Drivers for Vista: 32 bit - 64 bit ATI/AMD GPUs: ATI Radeon 9250 and all later GPUs released prior to the 9500 will work with Vista using XP drivers, however Aero Glass isn't supported due to lack of WDDM drivers. ATI Radeon 9500 or later; last AMD GPU to support Vista is AMD RX 300 series; drivers are coming soon. The first official version of ATI Catalyst to support Vista is version 7.1. The last official version of AMD Catalyst to support Vista is version 13.12 (Download: 32 bit 64 bit). However, newer versions up to 15.6 Beta for Windows 7 can be modified to work on Vista. View this thread for more details. NVIDIA GPUs: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5100 and later NVIDIA GeForce 8 series to GeForce 300 series; download recommended driver here: 32 bit 64 bit NVIDIA GeForce 400 series and later; last NVIDIA GPU to officially support Vista was the GTX 980 along with driver version 365.19. Download here: 32 bit 64 bit - Note: Vista 3D Vision support was dropped around version 310.00. The GTX 1060, 1070, and 1080 can also be made to work with Vista, as driver versions up to 372.70 work with Vista, albeit not officially supported by NVIDIA. Download here: 32 bit 64 bit - Note: DirectX applications aren't properly utilized by these drivers under Windows Vista, so this will cause a bottleneck in performance over using the GTX 980 or older, where the 365.19 drivers (more optimized for Vista as they're officially supported) can be used. Final Apple Mac Computers to support Vista via Boot Camp: iMac; all Late-2009 models Macbook Air; all Mid-2009 models (32-bit only) Macbook and Macbook Pro; all Mid-2010 models Mac Mini; Mid-2010 (This is the only Mac Mini to support Windows Vista 64-bit; earlier models are 32-bit only.) Mac Pro; Mid-2010 Miscellaneous Hardware: Looking for an Xbox One Controller driver for Windows Vista? View this thread for download + how to install (HUGE THANKS TO @GTAGAME for this.) Download Elgato HD 60 S Capture Card drivers here - to install, extract the exe with 7-ZIP and manually install the drivers in Device Manager (thanks again to GTAGAME for pointing this out).

Said so very wel @msfntorl. The hard work put into our 360 chrome is appreciated and we a grateful to have the experience to (both) continue to use XP in 2021 (noting compares to XP) and to use this chrome browser knowing that so much love and energy and determination went (and still is) towards its development. You see; and "they" said it couldn't be done ... a secure private chrome on windows xp EDIT: I don't intend to ever give up on XP completely, nor will I give up on Roytam (Serpent Browser) or our two 360 developers 360EE. I truly hope we will enjoy many more years on our systems - despite the fact that the internet is closing in on us. We fight and never give up easily (both in real life and technology). Full speed ahead!

Back to the essential: 360 Extreme Explorer... 360Chrome (and DcBrowser) behave better than the newest Chrome versions, in many parameters! - thanks to our two developers, who dedicate their time to create builds that are at the top of the current web requirements, for our belowed Windows XP machines! For us in the West, and for the Chinese too! A first private worldwide initiative for more security and privacy in browsers for Windows XP! Excuse me for doing the translation for the Chinese: 回归本质：360极速浏览器... 360Chrome（和DcBrowser）在许多参数上比最新的Chrome版本表现得更好 - 感谢我们的两位开发人员，他们奉献了自己的时间，为我们低于Windows XP的机器创建了符合当前网络要求的构建版本 为我们西方人，也为中国人! 世界范围内的第一个私人倡议，为Windows XP的浏览器提供更多的安全和隐私!

I have seen around same age laptop booting Windows 3.1. That laptop did not have any documentation with it and finding info is hard as it is Olivetti rebranded to digital. I have that laptop still but without understanding error codes I cant swap rechargable cmos battery. I installed one to it which had same voltage and laptop turned off every so often blinking heart symbol on LCD which I assume means system health warning. When I pulled battery it worked and still works great just need reconfigure bios on every boot. I also was able to salvage very rare WSOY EN-FI dictionary program (1991) from it hard drive that runs on DOS and WIN16 (it runs even on XP).

They are not too bad to run but problem is that many programs use those as unnecessary depency. For example firefox by default wont work without pulseaudio without good reason but you can make it work without. SystemD, Dbus, Pulseaudio etc are more things that power user may not want in their system but for average mortal does not have to worry about them. I recommend newbie to just get just work distro like Linux mint or Salix and not think Artix, Devuan or Gentoo and avoiding pulseaudio and others before is advanced enough (and even then is not requirement) If systemd would be my biggest worry and not worry from making enough to to pay bills or any other actual issues I would be happy

This is repeating the same debunked pseudoscience that the industry and government have been repeating for years: "Currently the only proven biological effect of exposure to EMF, even at 5G frequencies, is slight tissue heating" Complete hogwash, mostly repeated by physicists who don't know what they're talking about, with no medical or biological credentials. Interestingly, also physicists who told everyone tobacco was safe and climate change doesn't exist... Look at actual reputable, independent, peer-reviewed science - most of which (more than 70%) finds biological effects from non-ionizing RF exposure. Now you are just spreading disinformation around. Industry scientists like to claim it's safe, and we're hearing the same types of claims that we did about lead, tobacco, and more recently climate change. It's the same BS playbook over and over again. 180 scientists signed a petition in 2017, warning about 5G: https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf 419 scientists have called for a moratorium on the technology: http://www.5gappeal.eu/ The 2020 Consensus Statement of UK and International Medical and Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation, which represents over 3500 medical doctors, would also disagree with you: https://phiremedical.org/2020-nir-consensus-statement-read/ More recently, 7,000+ scientists, 4,000+ medical doctors, 400+ building biologists, and 13,000+ engineers (and a lot of others) have signed the petition to stop 5G on earth and in space: https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/signatories-organizations Doesn't sound like "just a few people" are concerned to me... More studies: https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp Here is a portal of 34,000+ more studies on the topic: https://www.emf-portal.org/en Here are some charts showing actual health effects at what the FCC would consider "low" levels of radiation, along with the study the finding was from: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf Consequently, there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about the 5G rollout: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161 With all the manufactured doubt created by people just like you, of course, it's no wonder people are misinformed about the topic: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ Lots of misinformation from outlets like the New York Times, as well: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/fact-free-hit-5g-critic Feel free to subject yourself to whatever exposure you like (and smoke those Camels while you're at it!), but you're not doing anyone a favor by trying to mislead and distort the science. Could go on and on, but clearly, you will believe what you want to believe - cause face it, who wants to believe their gadgets are harming them? - but you can't argue with science. Well... you can, and are... but that doesn't change the reality... Sorry, but I'm getting sick and tired of all the lies and conspiracy theories that are floating around... "smoking is safe" (YES, I still hear this from id***), "climate change doesn't exist" (YES, this too I hear), the vaccine has tracking chips inside it, 5G caused the virus, the election was stolen, 5G is safe with no health effects whatsoever, Windows 7 is not getting ANY security updates, etc. etc. etc. Time and time again, people ignore the facts and believe their own version of reality. If only everyone could be more scientific and actually use their brains, and if they don't know the facts, admit it and do some research.

Oops, I did it again! I tossed out an off-hand comment that I didn't like the content at BitChute.com, and derailed the whole thread! My apologies, but one statement made above deserves a rebuttal, as it seems to have started a bit of a panic here, and sounds suspiciously like it came from EMFScientist.org: Uh, no. Some scientists (at EMFScientist.org) are pretty concerned about 5G (as they were earlier about WiFi, Bluetooth, cell phones, microwave ovens, overhead power lines - shall I go on?), but the consensus of "most leading scientists" is that 5G, like all those other technologies, poses a minimal, if any, hazard to our health. Those interested can read a good article (from 2019, when 5G technology was first emerging) about the controversy here: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/5g-is-coming/ (Emphasis added.) You're free to disagree, of course; but this will be my final word on this topic. If you try to troll me, I'll just plonk you. Hopefully most of you will relax a little bit about your new 5G phones now, and remove your tinfoil hats. Neither do I (and thanks for suggesting PMPlayer)! The problem wasn't modifying install.rdf - that was easy - it was getting the PMPlayer.xpi file in the first place, since you must get it from one of two Web sites deliberately configured to make that task difficult, or compile it yourself!

it is possible to install tablet PC components on any pc running any version of 32bit XP, but I have never tried to install them on 2003 server x64/XPx64. Theres a chance it could work becasue some of it runs on .net 1.0, then again the way Tablet input works on XP might be incompatibile. I probably wont test it because I can't think of a valid reason to try it.

I'm not running any new hardware really, my main PC is a Dell OptiPlex 980 tower, from 2009 or 2010. A bunch of them were being recycled so I snagged as many as I could.