AnX

In the future, you can also upgrade to an FX 8 core processor.

The scheduling fix really applies to both the FX and the APU line, and all of its CPUs. So, this means that we have another OS that can properly support these CPUs.

One of my friends have installed Windows Vista on their FX 8 core, and after running Windows Update, Windows Vista Sp2 utilizes the FX properly, and runs the cores in the same manner 7 with hotfix or Win8 would. So all you have to do is to run Windows update, and Vista will support the CPU.

THIS JUST IN: One of my friends have installed Windows Vista on their FX 8 core, and after running Windows Update, Windows Vista Sp2 actually utilizes the FX properly, and works better than even 7 on it! So all you have to do is to run Windows update, and Vista will support the CPU.

They will, but it isn't long before one of the unofficial geeks on this site create a patch. In fact, all it takes to fix the problem is to make Windows use the Intel HT scheduler, so the cores are scheduled in a way that shared cache can be cleared.

There was a hotfix made for Windows 7 to support the CPU, and Windows 8.x has it out of the box.

Basically, you need Vista to schedule cores 1, 3, 5, 7, 2, 4, 6, 8 for the 8 core, 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6 for the 6 core, and 1, 3, 2, 4 on the 4 core.

It should work for the most part I guess, but you might have to do this on some apps that don't use all cores. That is, until you can get a hotfix for Vista up and running I doubt you'd have to do it as much on the FX-4300 though, it's really only for the 6-core and 8 core

Is there anyway to optimize the AMD FX scheduler in Windows Vista like a hotfix did in WIndows 7? I need Windows Vista to take priority of cores 1, 3, 5, 7 instead of cores 2, 4, 6, 8., just like how the hotfix does it in Windows 7. Is it also possible to make the hotfix compatible with Windows Vista?

It's a bit of a challenge to use Windows 7 DLLs on Vista, but you could probably port the functions from Windows 7 into Vista like tomasz86 and blackwingcat did with Windows XP and 2000.

The fact that XP has a significant userbase even to this date (and most likely, beyond EOL), is what will prevent XP from achieving security through obsolesecence. The nature of compatibility in Windows XP is what makes it worse - a lot of malware for Vista+ will still be backwards compatible for XP, making XP very insecure. 3rd party security is your best bet, but that won't last forever either.

Has anyone tried looking into Haswell on Windows 2000? If someone is willing to install Win2k or has installed Win2k on Haswell, please post here.

The FX has an auto throttler from what I see, on Windows 7 it runs on high perfromance but still throttles at times. Microsoft actually said that the AMD FX should be run at full power at OS-level. I'm gonna do this myself, on a spare HDD. Sounds like an interesting proect.

I know loads of people who still wish to use Windows XP as their main OS, and I'm cool with that for the most part. So to help them out, I've created a security solution that should help secure your PC. 1: Set a password on the Admin account(s), and use a Standard account for everyday use. 2: Install the following software: 2a: avast! Free Antivirus: http://www.avast.com/en-in/index 2b: Comodo Firewall: http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/ 2c: Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware: http://www.malwarebytes.org/ You should be all set then. The type of security provided here is quite high, such that it's more secure than your average supported OS

Well, the issue is that Turbo core is limited to 4 cores out of 8. It does slightly improve CPU perfromance, but only if the hotfix is on there. Yes, the M5A97 has an option to disable it. You can Overclock your CPU to 200MHz (0.2GHz) over the original speed, and you'll get better perfromance than what ever Turbo core can give you.

Have any of you run Windows 2000 on an actual 8-core FX? If so, how is it like?

Vista runs good on FXs, if you disable turbo core. As for power consumption and temps, My 8320 uses 94W on prime95 with max heat/power consumption setting. As for the temps, they never go above 54c.

Yeah, I don't see why x64 Vista wouldn't support 8GB. It does on typical configs.

You shouldn't adopt an OS at it's RTM stage if it's Windows - most people learned that with XP. You should've tried Vista when it got to SP1, or SP2, like XP.

POSReady 2009 will only receive tech support - no security updates, as Windows 2000 embedded also lost its security updates on July 2010, even though support is stated to be until 2015.

Thanks. Will really help me out.

On this PC, Vista averages much better MIPS to any other OS. Vista peaked at 8533 MIPS, while 7 peaked at 7555 MIPS, and 2000 only got 7254 MIPS I refuse to use XP, as it has been such a problematic OS for me in all cases.

So, after tons of testing on both a VM and on my PC, i've found Vista to be faster and more snappier than 7 by a considerable margin. I have also installed my updated copy of Vista onto a Single core Sempron with 2GB of RAM (this is 64-bit) and it runs great and snappy. So it seems that Vista's faster than 7? In all my opinions, it's better than XP. Because XP was super problematic for me.

I've ran tons of exploits in a Win2k VM with UUR, and none of them worked. At all. Win2k was still usable.

We can still use dedicated cards in out systems..