bluebolt

XP still seems fresh as a daisy compared to the wilting goutweed that is Windows 10.

Never heard of SugarSync, but judging from that link they don't know which way is up.

That sounds good; I always overprovision, although some people consider it passé. I read a recent paper put out by Intel regarding their latest SSDs, and it showed they last longer with a 10% overprovision, and even longer at 20%, which I use. I figure why not, unless yours will be a big OS and you can't spare the space.

I was referring to the System Reserved Partition, but maybe I misremember. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/technet-magazine/gg441289(v=msdn.10) https://www.howtogeek.com/192772/what-is-the-system-reserved-partition-and-can-you-delete-it/

@TrevMUN Assuming you're using NTFS file system, your only concern with Windows XP x86 or x64 is creating an aligned partition. Once that is done, the subsequent formatting and OS install can be handled by XP. Probably lots of tools can do this, here's one way to go about it, off the top of my head... Use diskpart in Vista repair disk or Windows 7 to create the aligned partition (the offset). Hook up your SSD to the Windows 7 computer, open command prompt and enter "diskpart.exe" without the quotes. Enter "List disks" and identify your SSD. If it is, for instance, disk 1, enter "Select disk 1". Then enter "list partitions" and it will list the existing partitions on that SSD (or say that there are none, if the SSD is new or blank). If it lists a partition, enter "delete partition" and it will acknowledge the deletion. Then, for example, enter "create partition primary align=1024 size=90000" to create a 90GB partition. Diskpart should acknowlege the creation of your partition, and you're done. You're ready to install XP on that partition, including formatting. (The reason for using diskpart with Windows 7 is that Windows 7 OS Disk Management will include an extra header partition peculiar to Windows 7, and botch an XP installation). I use a little tool called AlignScript/SSDalign after the fact, to verify that the partition is properly aligned.

Does this concept pertain as well to Dynamic Disks? I'm trying out software RAID for the first time, and I'm concerned about whether volumes will be aligned, or need to be.

When total writes to the drive exceed the size of the drive, some bad math comes in to play, something like a quadrupling of every new write, and when new writes exceed the size of the drive again (happens faster, of course), then the math gets worse, something like x16 for every new write operation, filling the SSD even faster, the SSD becoming slower and slower all the while until it finally grinds to a halt, so to speak. Strictly speaking it's not the formatting per se that causes the problem, it's the creation of the partition. Windows XP can format an existing aligned partition, no problem there. (EDIT: although from what jaclaz posted, using FAT32 there would still be a problem).

It's ironic how people decry the older operating systems like W2k Pro as outdated, yet can't even trust newer Windows 7 or Windows 10 systems far enough to let them update. These days, generally speaking, lots of new stuff sucks--because people take it for granted that new stuff is better. From that presumption, lazy thinking ensues, and movement replaces progress. So, although we still "go," we go backwards instead of forward. Windows illustrates the regression.

Sometimes I get the OS to boot normally with hyperthreading enabled by introducing some change in the BIOS settings (such as enabling Fast Boot), so in one such instance I took the opportunity to benchmark. Hyperthreading enabled: As usual, XP performed better with HT enabled; too bad it won't stick. I haven't been able to get a grip on the inconsistency--seems like with hyperthreading enabled it should either boot normally, or not. To be clear, the setup always boots--I have not experienced a single blue-screen or failed boot in weeks of testing. It's just a matter of whether hyperthread mode boots and runs at normal speed (which is to say, very fast), or hundreds of times slower. I hope to test a new setup with a different NVMe drive in a few weeks.

I don't know the solution, but I also have noticed this.

Online installers for AVG Free and Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit worked fine just now. Both appear to be running nicely.

Correct, but I did test the link before I posted, and it still works. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the 64-bit links; I have just worked my way backwards through version 43, and none of those work.

Direct link: https://sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/Google Chrome Portable/GoogleChromePortable_49.0.2623.112_online.paf.exe/download Et al.: https://sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/Google Chrome Portable/

I'm just talking about the last version that worked on XP, which I've had since it came out. I didn't even realize it was no longer available. By the way, here's where the pepperflash swap-to-update information begins: https://msfn.org/board/topic/174085-newest-adobe-flash-and-shockwave-and-java-too/?do=findComment&comment=1123602 I still download the latest Flash (or Flash Beta) Player, install it on an old offline machine I have with a regular Google Chrome installation, pull the pepperflash .dll from there, and use it to update my portable installation.

With your help, that's how. The "when" was over three years ago (man, times flies), and the "where" starts here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/175099-instructions-google-chrome-end-of-support-vistaxp/?do=findComment&comment=1117016