bluebolt

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

Feb 20, 2019 beta release working fine on Chrome Portable 49.0.2623.112:

And they're making it up as they go...

At least it was a straight-up response, like it or not. In this day and age, that's like seeing a unicorn.

Unchartered but well traveled, for years now. Today was an unprecedented disaster courtesy of Microsoft. I've never had to do such a thing in my life...until today. Humiliating.

Rather unfriendly batch of updates lobbed our way, quite a few pieces down here. Time to go to work

No one's posted the Version Information window for half-a-year; instead it's been a right-click on that general area. Here's a post with the empty window... https://msfn.org/board/topic/174085-newest-adobe-flash-and-shockwave-and-java-too/?do=findComment&comment=1152000 ...and a few posts later where it was discussed: https://msfn.org/board/topic/174085-newest-adobe-flash-and-shockwave-and-java-too/?do=findComment&comment=1153203

Wow. They finally fixed it.

I ran a new test with hyperthreading enabled during OS installation, but to no effect: it remains that this driver/NVMe combination boots normally with hyperthreading disabled, but unreliably with hyperthreading enabled. The NVMe driver was built for Windows Server 2003, so maybe this characteristic arises because... https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/932370/the-number-of-physical-hyperthreading-enabled-processors-or-the-number ...not that it matters:

Looks like this may be solved... First off, in Event Viewer neither /Application nor /System showed any problems (except for the expected hangs owing to the molasses-in-wintertime mode the machine was "running" in). Task Manager showed the usual System Idle Process 99. I ran CrystalDiskMark, which took a very long time -- I expected terrible readings, but instead the top-line read and write marks were 1607/2325. In other words, the read mark was about half-speed, and the write mark was up to spec. Based on that, the machine should still have been lightning fast. For some reason the half-speed mark made me think of hyper-threading, so I turned off hyper-threading in the BIOS -- and the machine booted up and ran normally. The internet said if you don't install Server 2003 with hyper-threading turned on, it won't run right if you turn it on after the fact. I never knew of such a thing. This is really my Windows 2000 Professional machine (where I don't use hyper-threading), so I think I had hyper-threading off when I installed XP x64, then enabled it later without realizing the consequences. So the next test will be a new installation of XP x64 with hyper-threading enabled during OS installation.

@TrevMUN I've only used SATA III Intel SSDs and the Intel SSD Toolbox, so this is new to me. Schtrom tested on a Samsung, so I thought it the best chance for success, and the 970 Pro very fast for the price. Have to consider the driver experimental -- XP x64 can't even format the NVMe. And for some reason, when the driver is integrated into the installation CD using nLite, setup still can't see the NVMe drive (hence use of the clone method). Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it will work on the Sabertooth, probably a lot better chance as a secondary drive... After booting and running fine initially, I turned mine on yesterday and waited 20 minutes for the desktop, with the system barely moving after that. And when I say barely moving, I mean glacial, which is frustrating because of the time it will take to work things out...half the morning today just to check Task Manager, Event Viewer and such. I've tried some things outside of Windows, such as running the clone process over again, but so far that first time was the charm.

I installed the Windows XP Professional x64 operating system on a Samsung 970 Pro NVME SSD drive using an ASRock X99 Extreme4 motherboard. Really easy the second time. Download Kai Schtrom's driver here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/nvme-for-windows-2003-server/files/ Download KB932755 here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11619 Download AOMEI Backupper Standard here: https://www.aomeitech.com/download.html Use diskpart in Windows 7 x64 to create the aligned partition on, and format, the NVMe drive (the Windows 7 OS must have an NVMe driver installed, or diskpart will not be able to see the NVMe drive). Use Device Manager in XP x64 to install Schtrom's driver, which makes the NVMe SSD available as a storage drive -- and the XP x64 operating system as such now includes the NVMe driver. Run the storport hotfix. Use AOMEI Backupper to clone the XP x64 disk to the NVMe disk (remember to align the partition). Reboot into the BIOS and set the NVMe drive to boot first. I don't know whether Kai Schtrom had Windows XP 64-bit in mind when he wrote his driver, but for those of you running that OS it does present the potential for significant performance improvement, to say the least.

I tested "Community OFA NVMe 1.5 Storport Miniport for Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2" by Kai Schtrom, using Samsung 970 PRO M.2 2280 512GB PCIe Gen3. X4 NVMe 1.3 64L V-NAND 2-bit MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) MZ-V7P512BW as secondary (storage) drive: I don't know XP x64 very well, and know nothing about Windows Server 2003, except that the internet says they are structurally similar. Kai Schtrom's test involved Windows Server 2003 x86 rather than x64; however, his files include a 64-bit version as well, which was used here.