Jody Thornton

I wonder if it would be easier to setup one with only post-SP3 updates. Everyone should be able to get SP3 on to their installation (SP2 for us x64 folk). Would that not be more productive? Why stock all of the original Post-RTM updates when one service pack will take care of that need?

I placed a thread on the Windows XP x64 forum probing the latter question. I think that updates for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 would need to repackaged in order to be used for Windows XP x64. But it would be great to use the OS until July 2015. On my second machine, I was using regular 32-bit Windows XP as a simple file server, but I since changed over to Windows Server 2003 so that I could have an additional year of extended phase support. Hopefully, there is a way I could do the same with Windows XP x64. Failing that, I plan to move to Windows Vista x64 Ultimate Edition (my DVD has SP2 integrated) to take me to 2017.

I wrote one to five years for my vote. To be honest though, three of those years were using Windows 3.1 as a Win-OS/2 session. 16-bit apps ran great under OS/2. (Edit: Apparently from reading the thread, I'm not alone. There are other Win-OS/2 users too.)

Found a copy to install onto v3.1 (it looks like Outlook 97 running in Windows NT 3.51). However there is no POP support right out of the box. Interesting to observe anyhow.

I tried the Gavotte RAMDisk and PAE with 32-bit XP initially too. However, I found that XP gave a performance hit. PAE/RAMDisk worked fine when I only used the remaining 512 mb of RAM (of my 4 gb). But once I enabled PAE/RAMDisk with 7 gb of RAM, there was a definite slow down. 64-bit XP Pro is a MUCH more elegant solution.

In a year from now (when extended phase support dies out for my Windows XP x64 Edition), I plan to install Windows Vista x64 Utimate Edition. I have ran a test install for a couple of weeks. I find that, except for the boot logo and Weclome Screen taking twice a long to load, I have managed to tweak Vista x64 to the point that it's besically as fast as XP in Basic Mode, once the desktop appears. In fact it runs REALLY well! I am using an HP xw8200 Workstation with 7 GB of RAM, and two Xeon CPUs at 3.66 GHz.

Is there a better forum where I could have posted this question? I mean no disrepect, but I just want to find out more about these legacy products. This thread has reached a dead end here.

I vote for Seamonkey. It renders modern pages the same as Firefox, thanks to it's Gecko engine revisions. But it's simpler like Netscape was. Seamonkey would be a good bet for MaxImRecoil (except for tabbing which never will, nor should go away.) I run an unofficial x64 build of Seamonkey v2.15 on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It makes for a WONDERFUL, yet simple browsing experience.

I am running Seamonkey 2. 13.1 (x64 experimental) on Windows XP x64 Edition (and using an experimental x64 plugin for SumatraPDF). The x86 version of Seamonkey works great on x64 too, and I use the 32-bit version on my older XP notebook PC (running 32-bit)

I'm on 2.13. When I get home, I'll give you a link to the x64 experimental build.

Some good points jaclaz. I did want to challenge a couple of them with my experiences (not to be argumentative at all, but just to provide my own experiences. For running a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS, I would find it is usually snappier. I am running an experiental x64 build of Seamonkey, and it seems to render slightly more quickly than an x86 build on 32-bit XP. Outlook 2003 (an x86 app) should be slower on WinXP x64 since it's running on WOW emulation. But I wonder if more memory access allows more cache allocation to a 32-bit app (perhaps that may offset the speed dcrease from running in an emulation layer, is that possible?) I have found using PAE mode memory access on Windows Server 2003 creates a noticeable performance hit, compared to accessing more memory with an x64 OS. Just some thoughts.

The Gecko engine on v1.7 is old though (I thought it was v1.9, no?) I really liked K-Meleon and I tried some 1.7/1.6 rebuilds that worked better (without a working passowrd manager though). I am just concerned that I'll adopt K-Meleon as my daily driver, and then not be able to render pages sooner than I think. Whereas now, I am running Seamonkey, which is VERY lightweight and has an up to date Gecko engine. It works GREAT!

I must be very lucky. I have an HP xw8200 (with two Xeon CPUs) that works flawlessly with Windows XP x64 Edition. Now I am not a gamer, and I don't run too much fringe software, but I have a GREAT user experience with this OS. I understand the compatibility and driver issues, but if you can get past them, I think Windows XP x64 Edition makes for a terrific and VERY stable OS. Am I wrong folks?

Wow! This was a doosie. It really must be hard to find...lol.

I have 7 GB of RAM installed so I finally decided to turn off paging. Taking this step does not hugely impact performance, but it does cut down on fragmentation.

I still prefer Microsoft Office 2003. It is much more contemporary looking the Office 97. But it still adheres to the rest of your desktop appearance. Office 2007 and 2010 use their own skinning and you can't change appearance as easily, or as consistently (kinda like Google chrome; another offender in this area)

Hi Folks: I understand that Exchange Server v5.5 included a 16-bit client for Microsoft Outlook, in addition to a client for DOS based computers. My question is, does any one have any screenshots of these applications? The curiosity is killing me, and I'd love to see what these applications looked like.

Well I've bookmarked Ryan's board and this thread to revisit later. Of course, no one knows if as of May 2014, Microsoft will change other parts of the updates to make sure XP x64 is blocked out. Thanks, Jody

Darn! I was hoping for a more drag and drop solution. but you did answer my questions, and that was very helpful. Now it means I have to decide on an alternate lightweight OS that can run select Win32 apps, and yet not be a pig like Windows Vista or Windows 7. Cheers, Jody

Here's my concern: I am aware that extended phase support for Windows XP x64 Edition goes down the drain with 32-bit Windows XP on April 8, 2014. But Windows Server 2003 is in extended phase support until July 2015. And Windows XP x64 Edition shares more in common with Windows Server 2003. So for an extra year, will I be able to manually download Windows Server 2003 updates and use them to patch my system running Windows XP x64 Edition? I enjoy using 64-bit Windows XP and my system is pretty snappy with it. So the longer I can run the OS, the happier I am. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers, Jody Thornton (Hamilton, Ontario)