Jody Thornton

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

Why does Business run faster? What do you sacrifice between the two? (and don't send me on a Google chase...lol. I'm at work, so if someone can actually tell me, I'd appreciate it. I'm running a vLited Ultimate, and it's pretty much fine in 7 GB of memory.)

Thanks for those suggestion. I shall take a serious look.

So I have a small Dell notebook PC from 2005. It's running Windows XP Professional SP3 in 1 gb of RAM on a 40 gb drive. I'm looking for a no nonsense OS to run in its place come April. So after a ton of recommendations, I tried the Linux Mint Live CD which was the extended service Maya release version 13. It includes the Cinnamon desktop. I tell ya - hmmmmmmmm, it really doesn't do it for me. Mint users recommend it due to an XP like interface, but I find Vista is even better in that respect. I just like a simpler desktop enviroment or even a window manager. I'm going to try PC Linux which is KDE based and see what I think. I have tried Puppy Linux 4x and 5x and I like the Wary Puppy distros for older hardware. But I wish I could do a regular full installation rather than a frugal install. What Linux distros do you find are more like say a Win9x interface (very simple)?

Was Blake Stone one of those? I liked that game...lol

But what good is it to Opera Software, if they have now shifted to WebKit?

Signed!

Actually I tried installing v10.10 on my work PC (XP sp3). A few things don't work, but Facebook does. Google and Duck Duck Go search has some misalligned graphics.

So how compatible with the modern web (HTML5, etc...) is Opera 9x and 10x? (I liked v10.10). Is it good enough to get around in?

I use v9.20 on XP and Vista. It works with RAR format too, so now I don't even install WinRAR. Wow, so it works on 9x/Me too.

I find good results on x64 systems with Auslogics, but just don't click on any of the "System Scan" or "Upgrade" links. As a utility it cleans well, but not too abrasively.. Then I just use Ccleaner. I always backup the changes it makes first. Never, EVER, EVER user RegSeeker. Albeit terrific in the 2000/XP days when you wanted to search out that last remaining remnant of a program, you can seriously damage an x64 system since it doesn't understand the tree underneath Wow6432Node. I also use NT RegOpt as a registry compressor. There have been times where I've noticed a slight improvement, but not often. For the most part, I wonder if registry cleaners bring about THAT much improvement over and above the risk you take with such apps.

Just a curiosity. Does 7-Zip have compatible versions, or is that just unicode/NT? And are those AVG versions still able to be updated?

I don't know (I have mixed views on this). On the side of Microsoft, I can see them saying from a marketing perspective, "Look folks, Windows XP no longer represents what Windows is in 2014. In fact Vista and Windows 7 no longer convey that image. When you think Windows, we want you to imagine a tablet-firendly, compatible OS that can run your existing modern or desktop applications. XP is not in line with that." And since you are licensed the use of the OS, cannot Microsoft take that away as they feel? If they own XP, don't they have the right to say, "Stop using it please?", so should they not be allowed to kill activation? However, on the side of the user, Windows 2000 users have been already going through what XP users face since 2010. Why is this such a new phoenomenon with XP (Activation concerns aside).?

See I'd be tempted to go back to say, Win 98SE or Win ME on a second system if only I could get modern browser support on it. I can still use Seamonkey v2.9 on Windows 2000 but that's more of a security risk. How do you find getting hardware support on those old OSs? Can you use any moden equipment?