Jody Thornton

Hmmmmm - I think aside from not being able to utilize Plug and Plug, DirectX (beyond v2.0), USB and some newer apps, it would be faster. It's NTFS file system was simpler than NTFS5, so maybe less overhead. It was fairly stable, but I think Windows 2000 bettered it. I'm not sure I could go back to a Windows 95 Explorer interface now though. It's just too simple. I complained at the time about the Windows Desktop Update that accompanied IE 4, but now, it's commonplace, and hardware has well exceeded it's overhead.

Just a couple of things I wanted to say on this, because it irks me how a couple of you are extremely fatigued about ad nauseum conversation on Windows Updates/XP EOL. Here's wny I keep bringing it up (along with many others mind you) and contribute to several update threads. First off, the way I see it, Windows XP's EOL is "THE BIG STORY OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS" right now. I think of it as the same weight in computers as 9/11 or JFK was to news (I'm exaggerating a tad, but there is a comparison). Days after the attacks, I still only wanted to hear, talk about or find out more about anything that had to do with the events of September 11th. Some of us become fixated on a story and want to follow it's development, and visit EVERY MINUTE detail of it. With our XP topic, I find that I hear different details about different elements of the story as time moved closer. Those that disagree with what I've stated, instead of disparaging my having the level of interest I have in watching Windows XP's EOL unfold; skip the thread. If I wish to discuss it in fine detail, thread after thread (again others seem to as well), why can't I? Really, I'd like to know that. Besides, what other really interesting things are happening in Windows right now? Windows 8.1 Update? What else? Not despite my lack of interest in that, I won't chime in one of those threads and tell them to stop whining or get a life (Yes I know jaclaz apologized, but at the end of the day, I'm sure he'd wish I'd shut up about XP EOL; but I won't because sometimes the most obscure details come from asking things repeatedly. Different people tell you different things, and sometimes when you cross-reference something, you get clarification.) Besides, I've already switched to Vista, so I'm watching the EOL occur from afar. But if it turns out XP users end up faring better than expected, I may switch back to XP x64. I simply like to reasearch things through and through. **** UPDATE **** Just to further validate my viewpoint, in a related story with MSE support, we were originally told that MSE support for XP would die on April 8th. Then we have been told that support for MSE on XP will remain until July 2015. Now, the MSE page has been removed and is unavailable (at least accoding to a thread on this forum). So see? Things are constantly in flux. That's why speculative questioning (even if repeated) is interesting to me. Cheers, Jody

It sounded to me as if he eluded to getting x64 updates AFTER April on Windows Update. Read the paragraph: "There won't be anymore new official updates for XP. Through windows update. You maybe able to download patches to an unpatched system but wont recieve any new ones. You may however be able to access the windwos update cataloge Idk though. I run X64bit so I am still getting patches." The manner in which he makes the distinction sounds as if in May, June, July, .... he still expects to receive updates for x64 through Windows Update.

What I will be checking though are those update ISOs that were pointed out on here, and see just how many XP updates are nested in them.

My understanding would have been ongoing that Office 2007 updates would only be available for Vista, 7 and 8. IE 6 updates only for Server 2003, and IE 8 only for Server 2003, Vista and 7. For Office 2000, if you installed the Office 2007 Compatibility Pack, I think Microsoft Update detects those binaries as "Office 2007 being installed", and thus provides an update, but that's a one-off.

How are you getting updates for XP x64 Edition?

Actually some important clarifications to submix8c's statements: Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP Professional are in fact two distinctly different operating systems So they are different codebases. They may look and act EXTREMELY similar, and 2003 may look and act just like "Windows XP Server", but it's not. XP reports as Windows NT 5.1 and 2003 reports as Windows NT 5.2. If you happen to be using Windows XP x64 Edition, now there we have a commonality. XP x64 Edition is a reworked version of Server 2003 x64. They receive similar updates, have only two service packs, and both report as Windows NT 5.2. But x64 Edition sees the reimplementation of the Welcome Screen, Windows Firewall, System Restore and some other niceties. Now free AV programs are a hit or miss. By all legal means, only Server versions of vendors app "should" work or be used. And many free versions do not work when attempting installation on Windows Server 2003. Once it detects a server OS, it bails. I think Comodo can be made to work and prehaps Avast. I know Avira AntiVir did not work, unless you used a server version. Now MSE. No the XP version DOES NOT work at all. However, the Vista/7 installation does install, works and operates flawlessly, on both Server 2003 and XP x64 Edition. And with MSE support extending now to the same extended support deadline as Server 2003 (July 2015), you're golden.

Check the folder \windows\system32\etc\drivers (I think that's the full path) and see if the nVidia driver that keeps reinstalling is nested in there.

I appreciate everyone's help. Yesterday, I finally turfed the XP installation on my notebook PC and installed Precise Puppy Linux v5.7.1. Everything is working like a charm, fully installed.

So Flasche, I'm confused. Are you looking for a replacement DOS, or are you looking for a hybrid OS that runs on top of DOS? (like Win9x/Me)? Your question said DOS-based. FreeDOS only replaces the text-based DOS portion (that's not at all like Win9x/Me)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm - what is it specifically that you need to do on your PC that only a hybrid version of Windows can do?

Hmmm, I must say that IE9 runs quite well on my system. I am running the 64-bit build full time. Are you running classic desktop? I only ask because in Baisc and Aero modes, there is no title.

My main workstation is as follows: HP xw8200 Wokstation Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition (SP2) 7 GB DDR2 RAM, Two Xeon 3.68 GHz Netburst style processors, Two U320 SCSI controllers each with a 73 GB HDD. *** I use this as my everyday productivity workstation. I edit documents, speadsheets, record/edit audio, burn CDs for the car, browse the web and send/receive email. Until February, I was running Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. **** HP xw6000 Workstation Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition (SP2) 4 GB DDR RAM, Xeon 2.66 GHz Netburst style processor, UltraSCSI controller with a 36 GB Boot HDD, Two 80 GB EIDE HDDs *** I use this machine as a file server and a music server. I use radio automation software to play non-stop audio and route the output of the sound card to a transmitter. Then I can play my music on any FM radio in the house. *** Dell D610 Notebook Microsoft Windows XP Professional (SP2) 1 GB RAM, Pentium M Processor at 1.8 GHz, 40 GB HDD. *** I use this notebook to browse the web and read email wirelessly. As of next month, I will be running Precise Puppy Linux v5.7.1. ***

I think so - thank you Ace2 - and that's even a relatively recent build.

Yes I will stop hijacking the topic TrevMUN so I do apologize to you. However, jaclaz's reaction and position of my my interests and concerns about updates and support is completely unacceptable. There are many others that care about topic as I do, and just because you don't share it to the same level, you don't have to be so disparaging. Don't ever call me a whiner. My text never conveyed any such tone. Back on topic TrevMUN; I wouldn't "think" that there would be chipset drivers for XP x64 for a DDR4 capable board (especially a year from now.) Mind you, there might be an example where you "could" use an x64 driver for 2003 if it's ever released. But I'm guessing. For chipset experts, would there still not be a boost in speed from the faster RAM even if there were not chipset drivers explicitly made for the board?

This is not at all meant to be argumentative, but nothing I've read at all would indicate that updates would be installable on XP x64 after that date. Microsoft flat out states support will end alongside x86's date of April 8th. So I'd have to think they would at least make it difficult to use 2003 updates on an x64 system. Hey I hope your right and it may mean my eventual return to XP x64. I am continuing to run XP x86 on my old D610 Dell notebook PC, and I'll see how it fares post-support date. If I experience no issues at all after a significant amount of time, I may just return to XP x64 Edition on my xw8200 Worstation.

So far, no modifications are necessary for high priority updates, JodyThornton. The packages are the same for x64 versions of XP and Win2003. Always have been because of the shared codebase. The only "dedicated" updates have been a few QFE patches for Win2003, but most of those apply to XPx64 and can be installed with a simple hex edit. Even with the hex edit though, is it not possible that you'll be able to install some updates that aren't really valid for XP x64? So it may have adverse effects?

Well, OK what I mean to say is that "as they are delivered", 2003 updates will not install on XP x64 past April 8th; is that not indeed correct?

Speaking of which though, I came across a dandy HP Workstation (z810 I believe) from 2010. It seems VERY powerful and from what I understand, Windows XP x64 Edition is fully supported. Does anyone have some impression of this model (or even experience with it?). I used an HP xw8200 for three years with XP x64 Edition on it, and it was a perfect machine for the OS.

You are incorrect about support. Extended phase support for Windows XP x64 Edition ends alongside that of the x86 buld on April 8, 2014. Yes, XP x64 and Windows Server 2003 are the same codebase, but only Server 2003 continues to receive updates until July 2015. While it may be possible to modify updates from Server 2003 to apply to x64 (5eraph will vouch for that), there are no dedicated updates relase for Windows XP x64 Edition after two weeks from now.

Yeah but eComstation isn't an xNix based OS. Its roots bear a closer relationship with Windows NT. So there would either need to be a native OS/2 build of Seamonkey, or else Odin (think of Odin as Wine for OS/2) needs to work well enough to allow running the Win32 version.

Also, I think I might attempt (now I know this might be a dirty work in a Microsoft-based froum but here goes) eComstation ... lol Seriously though, it apparently supports a Dell D610 (even the wifi - at least that's what I gather) and there's an updated Firefox for it (I wish Seamonkey were a possibility). Nonetheless, I loved OS/2 so I'm hopeful it it will work in my tests.

I have tried Zorin OS (not really impressed). So far I really like Precise Puppy. Apparently I can install this to a hard disk partition too, though I may just perform a frugal installation. It runs quickly and for browsing and email, Seamonkey works just fine on it.

Oooops (sorry vinifera) I didn't see your reply...lol

Er, that's not a flaw. SP2 for x64 Edition is like SP3 for XP. Remember XP x64 Edition is NOT AT ALL a 64-bit edition of the regular XP version. It's a workstation style retrofit of Windows Server 2003. So it's distinctly a different operating system. x64/2003 both report as Windows NT v5.2 whereas joe-blow XP is Windows NT v5.1