98SE

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "OS crust" or whether this is a good thing or bad thing. I'll assume "OS crust" to be a good thing in a case of a nice home baked pie. The crust part is the best. Now using a Ramdrive is a nice feature as I described in my scenario. It's not the perfect use of a Ramdrive but one of the many I employ from time to time. When cutting a video file and using the output destination to Ramdrive rather than using the same source drive as the destination the file is written much more quickly and then after I inspect the video file and then make any fine tune adjustments and recopy the end result back to the source drive. Sometimes I use the Ramdrive because I ran out of hard drive space and I recorded a TV channel and let it continuously record so I have to edit out that TV show out and get the space back. Say you were recording for 5 hours. Usually 8GB per hour in HD. 40GB file to deal with. 0 bytes left on Recording drive. Use my video cutter and output just the 1 hour TV show to the Ramdrive. Inspect the time duration is accurate and then delete the original source file. Then move the newly cut 1 hour video file back to my Source drive that had 40GB freed up now being filled up with the 8GB cut file and I have 32GB free afterwards. I continue this process as many times as I need to free up space from recordings that went on too long or I decided I only want so and so footage extracted and purge the rest. Doing this strictly on the same hard drive or even an SSD would be much slower and painfully slow. However doing comparisons between XP and W7 because USB 3.0 is currently only possible on W7 there is a tremendous boost in transferring the files back and forth from Ramdrive. If only a proper USB 3.0 driver for XP could be achieved it would actually make XP a beast of an OS combined with a > 3.2GB memory patch so more base memory could be used for individual programs. Especially useful in my situation since I multitask a lot. The only thing missing would be a nice thing to have one day is DX12.0 and W7 software compatibility. But that would be a huge project for someone to even achieve. I'd rather just keep with XP and W7 with DX12.0 patched and skip W10 altogether. While specifically trying to hammer down if X memory is installed you should only use X amount for the Ramdrive is interesting. Even though XP SP3 freaks out around 1.5GB in Firefox where it slows to a crawl or freezes up and you end the task, you can still open up other browsers like Opera or SeaMonkey to spread the memory usage around. This was one way of getting around some of the issues where the Firefox Browser just didn't or couldn't use more memory despite whatever pagefile size you have set.

It is a useful feature to have on XP. Especially when before the Ramdrive could use the memory range above 3.2GB instead of just sitting there untapped. It hurts to see 16GB or 32GB sitting in your computer running XP SP3. You're thinking I got 3 Memory modules just sitting there sucking up power doing nothing. That's the reason I kept digging for the ultimate tool to make use of it. Even the first 8GB module you feel cheapened using only half of it. That's when the Ramdrive comes to save the day and make XP quite useful. I would say that the pagefile placed on the Ramdrive is a necessity for me. Running 8 DVR windows and Browsing at the same time it creeps in another 2GB on top of the 3.2GB. But you can probably use a 4.8GB pagefile and not require much more than that the OS will tap into from normal usage. So 24GB left over of Ramdrive space is still useful for most other things and there are many instead of the Ram just sitting there looking nice with all your memory slots filled.

I think you totally missed everything I said. First off your assumption I said he was Chinese is a negative. I actually like the fact he was Chinese because a program name like "Gavotte" you may think he might be Italian or other but definitely not Chinese. I was referring to the translation barrier since that site linked I cannot read easily and you have no idea what my race is to make any negative assumption as I could be of the same. As for any whining, I didn't whine I am merely pointing out that I am using a better Ramdisk program for XP and even if an inferior or not as robust program is free that doesn't mean I'll use it because it is "free". I will gladly use a free program that is superior to one that you have to pay for after thoroughly testing it. I did the research years ago and tested plenty of Ramdrives including the free one mentioned which I did not like at the time probably in the early stages of my research where it could not tap into the unused memory above 3.2GB on XP at the time before settling on the one that I preferred. If the free one actually performed and was easier to use and manipulate in all categories I would be stating such. Even if the one I'm using was free and written by a Chinese programmer as well I would still pick it over the Gavotte. I was using Ramdrives back in the old DOS days as well so this Ramdrive issue you have or assumption I picked the wrong one is false. You may be upset that I didn't choose a free Ramdisk program as my finalist but that doesn't mean everyone will choose a program based on cost but on usability, performance, and overall function for what they are trying to achieve with it. As for a free program to mess around with I welcome that but I see it more useful if an equivalent was written for DOS and 98SE. The program I'm using already has XP-W10 covered and performs better in every way possible that I require. As for your buddies that use Macs. I actually helped plenty of people who purposely bought overpriced Macs thinking they were easy to use and perhaps stylish compared to a PC. One owned a colorful iMAC with an all in one body case that only had one memory slot for expansion and one stick of 256KB as default installed memory. What happened is over the years was guaranteed obsolescence. Apple knew one memory slot was limiting and they also knew if they couldn't screw you with the limited memory slots they would get you down the road by forcing a MAC OS minimum to use certain programs or even limited what MAC OS you could upgrade to based on your model. I didn't know him at the time he bought the iMAC but he spent quite a bundle for it from what I was told and he complained it was getting so slow doing things like Finale and browsing after he updated the MAC OS later years ago. I researched the max memory that system could handle, ordered it, and installed it for him and was able to get it to 1GB. 8 times the memory jump of what he originally had. He noticed it booted faster and loaded programs much quicker. I thought he was good to go for many years but I was mistaken. Another hurdle loomed not even a year later. The browser started requiring a certain MAC OS minimum in order to install and use it or else he was stranded once again. Digging much older versions of browser alternatives to Safari only stalled this issue momentarily. He could still use Firefox on the much older MAC OS and even then there were even limits on what MAC OS he can upgrade to due to his model. Now even an equivalent spec performing PC on XP doesn't have this limitation. You can go back to a Pentium 4 and still run XP today and hop on the internet browsing still with many options and not need to upgrade the OS or the computer. You can still use a browser such as Firefox or Opera and many others on the internet still and not be limited by an OS issue like on the MAC. If you're honestly telling me you would prefer to be spending your money on a MAC vs an equivalent performing PC and not think it was not a wise decision? It's all about the money when it comes to Apple. You choose a MAC it's for the preloaded OS and software, the stylish all in one look, and easy to use one button mouse. Not to mention the limited expansion capabilities and even memory isn't always maxed out according to the chipset. I compared multiple MacBooks and PC laptops of the "same generation" and what did I find? Macbooks usually capped out at 8GB whereas the PC equivalent could go up to 16GB? Same generation Intel CPU should have the same limits. They aren't using a Motorola or some Apple CPU so why limit it? You tell me why you'd want to limit yourself to a machine that you will pay more for and get less? Most of these modern MACs don't even use socketed Intel CPUs anymore so even upgrading one isn't possible that way anymore. There were a few of the Mac Minis years ago you could still upgrade them that way. If you're trying to tell me you think most MAC users appreciate this pattern of paying a lot for something that cannot run a browser which doesn't require that much performance anyhow and only because of their MAC OS version? Again you may find maybe a few MAC users who actually are as hardcore and into their machines as PC users but probably a small fraction of those exist today but most PC users that build hackintoshes probably started with the PC first and not the other way around. All Macs now can run Windows so it's much easier to do it that way than the other way around to make a hackintosh. It's all about marketing for Apple to suck in the gullible with big wallets. If Apple didn't do such a good job appealing to those types of people no one would buy them. I remember back then in school Apple computer would donate old Apple ][s and B/W Macs computers to schools and libraries as a way to snag interest among kids and the parents would end up buying them for home. So your experiences may be due to location but here where Apple started not far from me is how things are. "While you are at it, you could also tell me how Hasselblads are overrated as professional photo cameras and that there is much more value per buck in (say) Nikons, and I may even agree with you, still all the professional photographers I know use Hasselblads (and Macs) this is only a reported fact in my experience." I don't deal with digital SLRs or cameras of that sort. I mainly edit video footage caught for film or TV and edit it post. IF they can afford such high quality cameras it's no wonder they bought an expensive MAC. IF someone told them hey I can buy you a MAC for $3,000 or build you a hackintosh double the performance specs for $2500 do you honestly think they would not go with the later deal? I'm sure no self respecting Hasselblad owner would turn such a deal down if the software they used worked for both MAC and WIN PC and why wouldn't it today since MACs are now Intel CPU based so there is no reason why a software company today would purposely limit its product or features specifically for MAC or WIN PC due to this unless they were biased in some way or had some shady agreement with Apple.

Interesting old thread but the one I'm using can handle up to 1TB and usable also on W7 and W10 and can be altered on the fly change image size without rebooting. I do have one system that has an issue where it can't recognize all 4 Ram slots so 16GB was limiting since the Ramdrive was around 13GB. However a 28.7GB one on the 32GB I'm using is actually a good chunk and more useful. In time 128GB will be normal soon enough. Tweaking the registry just to get this to work might be good for a one time permanent setting but I prefer something that can be adjusted quickly. Looks like the programmer is Chinese so that's going to be tough seeing if there will be an updated version or source code to manipulate and hard to say if it is still being updated for other OS. This might be good for playing around with if it were made for use in Win98 or a DOS version for a huge RAM drive. Recent chipsets have crippled the high memory region.

I tried that a long time ago. That does not tap into the memory above 3.2GB on standard XP SP3. Unless it has been updated to do so recently? Or are you referring to using that on the 128GB memory mod? I doubt that the Gavotte Ramdisk will work with memory above 3.2GB without that 128GB patch.

Not just for video editing. Anything that can store a file or files that large. I also use it to install software onto the Ramdrive so it will run faster with almost no delay if any. Ramdrives are not limited to use for just video editing I was just listing one example of where it would be useful to store a video file and edit it off the Ramdrive temporarily. Using it as a temp folder and browser temp location is the primary use for it which anyone can make use of right away. 32GB is not a lot of memory and if you do think it is a lot then I find that strange since that capacity has been set since Sandy Bridge over 5 years ago. If you look at Windows 7 it uses about 8GB minimum to function correctly and even then it wants more memory. As for Macintosh / Hackintosh I don't believe those are the best machines to video edit. Perhaps for people who don't know how to use a computer or modify one and prefer buying machines preloaded with the OS and all software ready to go. Or they go for the aesthetics of it and feel better using one. Most Macintosh now cannot be upgraded easily and all integrated. Lots are soldered CPU chips and come with proprietary motherboard power supply inputs instead of standard ATX. It would be much easier if they made standard motherboards with CPU sockets and ATX power supply connectors. Just because you see a bunch of professionals or media users only on Macs it doesn't mean the Windows equivalent software is inferior. They are paying more because they want a dumbed down system that is easy to use. A prime example of that is the iPhone. Compare that to a Galaxy Note and you will see how much more you can do with it. I think there are some situations where MAC cannot compete with Windows. I've yet to find someone on the same level of expertise on a MAC as I would be on a PC. If I could find someone like this I would trade tips to see if it could be done on a MAC. The amount of refinement and tweaking on a PC I don't think is possible on a MAC. And for those to even venture to making a Hackintosh it isn't an easy project and most likely they are PC users who are doing it not genuine regular MAC users trying to save money.

@Windows 2000 I took a look at that thread. It looks like you had to deal with BWC Windows 2000 Files in order to use it. So I suppose there was no way you could use it with regular Windows 2000 SP4? What was BWC trying to do with Windows 2000? Was he trying to make it run appear like it was XP to programs being installed or run on it? If that's what he was doing I'm still not sure why all that work to keep Windows 2000 alive instead of just making Windows XP his primary OS which already runs everything Windows 2000 does or finding ways to use some XP OS files copied to the Windows 2000 instead to see which ones can work without modifying since they are closely related maybe that would be easier?

Dibya you got GTX 1060 XP driver working? You tried GTX 1050 Ti and it didn't work? Let me try your GTX 1060 XP driver to see what happens.

Interesting. That is a Sandy Bridge chipset. Did you document what you did to get everything working on Windows 2000? Did you use SATA AHCI mode or SATA IDE mode for installing Windows 2000? What hardware devices on board did you get to function under Windows 2000? Were you able to get these to function -> Intel HD Graphics, Onboard Audio, and Onboard Ethernet. What about ACPI? Standby mode or Shutdown have any issues? http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/h61m-dgs/#osXP32 H61M-DGS http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/h61m-dgs/

@Jaclaz Too funny. Dream Big! Well Big within the limits of the OS code available. If W10 could do beyond 2TB I would state that but I doubt the person doing the modding can create code from scratch but just copy and paste or hexedit it. I would prefer a hexedit method but if MS intentionally limited W10 to 2TB and didn't write memory routines to go beyond that I doubt Dibya could perform a miracle unless he had the W10 source code and the XP source code to do some tinkering and recompile a newer build. But back in the day Bill Gates used to think 640KB was enough memory... As for real world... 4GB yes this is common only on laptops but a majority of them now have 8GB and 16GB. Desktops usually had 8TB a few years back. 16TB and 32TB quite common now due to cheap DDR3 memory and DDR4 memory has now 16GB memory modules so you only need 4 of them for 64GB DDR4 glory. Server class doubles to 128GB DDR4. Those use ECC Registered memory which is the most expensive. Don't drool or fall out of your seat but 128GB may not be so small after all. http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/samsung-128gb-ddr4-server-datacenter/ Do we need that much memory? Not the normal computer user but I use it for a large ramdrive to do video editing. It's not good to wear down a SSD drive doing this. Does every one of my machines have 32GB nope. Some only have 4GB like you said since they run fine in XP. But when the memory goes on sale I try to grab them at a discount before they get discontinued and skyrocket. Where are you located? - Ah profile says Italy - no wonder! Perhaps it may take a few years for the prices to drop in your region?

Ahh, just reread the message. Tried W10 not a huge fan of it but I will say I will also disable the memory dump on that. I think that was a peeve of mine if XP crashed you had to wait for a long dump. I disable memory dump on XP all the time during installs and not even the mini dump is enabled. I also disable auto reboot in case I need to snap a photo of the BSOD screen for troubleshooting. I also disable system restore, hibernation, and set the pagefile to a 28GB Ramdrive. Maybe with Dibya's patch may or may not conflict with my Ramdrive software that uses the > 3.2GB memory range. We shall see. But if Dibya's limit patch increases the OS usable memory than I can use a standard Ramdrive. Currently W7 has a 192TB limit and W10 has a 2TB limit on both their high end line up. I would like Dibya if he already knows how to future proof the memory limit beyond 128GB. I know 192GB is attainable on server class, 2TB might also be as well on some really high end Amazon servers. I'm only dealing with consumer class which is limited to 64GB at the moment which is disappointing. Reminds me of the early 386 / 486 days when we had 1MB, 4MB, 8MB, 16MB, 32MB, 64MB ---> now 64GB. We will get there in the same manner in GB/TB just 30 years later. I would say within 5 years we should be at 256GB on consumer class motherboards and maybe 2TB in 10 years and 10TB for servers.

Thanks Dibya lots of good stuff there reading now. Can you limit how much memory set aside for OS so XP doesn't hog all the memory? Say you want only 16GB for the Windows OS and reserve the rest as memory to be used by a Ramdrive. Can you tweak the memory limit patch to go up to 192GB to match Windows 7 or 2TB to match Windows 10 yet? Do you have a write up of how you modified the files and which files are XP original, W2K3S original, and which modified by you?

For XP I prefer using either XP standard running natively not in a virtual environment and no special kernel mod but I can also use XP SP3 as well for the tests. Usually it should not matter if you are using XP without service pack or with service pack for the normal nVidia Hdmi Display and Hdmi Audio driver to work. Are you able to create a standard XP display driver for nVidia GTX 1050 Ti? I will test it. I can restore XP image if corruption occurs so no worries it will only take a few seconds to restore XP back in case I cannot get back into XP. The last working nVidia was GTX 960 with native XP driver support.

What motherboard were you using Windows 2000 on? Same computer?

Given your username are you still using Windows 2000? Do you have a working Windows 2000 SATA AHCI driver? Or how are you running Windows 2000 on your current system? The only way I have done it is using SATA IDE Compatibility mode. What motherboard are you using?

So you tried inf Device Hardware ID changing the last known XP driver and it failed correct? I would like to see this backport Win 7 Driver to XP. I have a 1050 Ti to test it out on.

Dibya, Where can I get this patch you did? How much RAM can the game or software use in Windows XP SP3? I thought the limit was 64GB in Windows 2003 Server 32-bit? Will a 32-bit CPU access the 128GB or only 64-bit CPU?

Dibya have you tried incorporating files from Windows 2K Server 32bit into Windows XP SP3? I believe it can do 64GB max instead of 3.2GB. This would be more useful as we are at 64GB max on consumer motherboards. Also when running Firefox there seems to be a 1.5GB limit when the program starts to freeze/stall and crash. Any ideas of how this can be fixed? I think it has something to do with an XP limit.

Good Job Dibya on porting some of these XP drivers for Haswell. Currently working on Skylake Z170. The most important drivers in my opinion for successful XP operation. Intel SATA AHCI driver for XP Intel HD Graphics HDMI video Intel HD Graphics HDMI audio Intel USB 3.0 operating as USB 2.0 Intel Wired Ethernet Intel Wireless Ethernet - optional Have you had any success porting the Intel USB 3.0 controllers? They work fine under XP as USB 2.0 controllers on Z77. No need for an internal USB card so I'm wondering if you've attempted to modify these for Haswell or Skylake? Intel 7 Series C216 Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller - 1E26 Intel 7 Series C216 Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller - 1E2D

Sorry my questions and answers are inside the quote below. Jah Nay

Hello Blackwingcat, I now understand what you meant by "inbox audio driver". You meant the built in integrated audio on the motherboard such as a Realtek Audio codec. Sorry for the confusion. I kept wondering what you meant by "inbox" probably "in the box audio driver" I would have figured it out sooner. [uSB 3.0.] I am using an Etron USB 3.0 Extensible Host Controller and Root Hub. Regarding USB 3.0 speeds on XP or Vista is that even possible? All the manufacturer USB 3.0 drivers for USB 3.0 Full Speed seems to be for Windows 7 and up. All the drivers I install seem to operate at USB 2.0 speeds on XP and Vista. I will also assume 2000 as well. I have located the nVidia driver on your page here: http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1828812.html Content: nVIDIA 331.65 WQHL Driver Filename: nvw2k33165.zip Language: Multi Last Update: 2013/11/18 Download size: 160M Version: 1.0 Requirement: Windows 2000 SP4 + Extended Kernel v22 Caution: Do not select "Change resolution" in the NVIDIA Control panel I believe this is the correct link? http://w2k.flxsrv.org/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?file=nvw2k33165.zip I am curious the version files are 2013, how can it know about the GTX 750 which was released in 2014? (You said the GTX 750 graphics driver requires extended kernel and Kernel core) Where is the link for the extended kernel? When you said Kernel core do you mean my original Windows 2000 Professional without Service Pack?

Hello again Blackwingcat, I was reading some posts that talked about how you created Windows 2000 drivers for the Radeon up to the HD 6000 Series. I saw your website that you are from Japan. I wanted to say, "Geng Kee Doh", and a big thanks for all your hard work thus far! How are you creating these graphic drivers to run under Windows 2000? Do you require XP drivers from the manufacturer in order to do this by modifying the .INF files to refer to the Hardware ID and making them for Windows 2000? Or are you doing some graphics driver programming that requires more expertise than most people here can accomplish? I would like to know how you are doing this because I would like to try and help create one for the nVidia GTX 750. I believe this will be the most popular card for legacy OS applications and gaming. This is the most power efficient card and probably the last generation from nVidia or AMD that still has XP driver support. It uses only 55 Watts MAX TDP and the best model I've found is a single rear slot bracket that has a VGA, DVI-D, and HDMI with audio connectors. GTX750-PHOC-1GD5 http://www.asus.com/jp/Graphics_Cards/GTX750PHOC1GD5/ http://www.asus.com/jp/Graphics_Cards/GTX750PHOC1GD5/gallery/ http://www.amazon.co.jp/ASUSTeK-NVIDIA-GTX750-ASUS%E3%82%AA%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B8%E3%83%8A%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%83%B3%E6%90%AD%E8%BC%89-GTX750-PHOC-1GD5/dp/B00IB9P1GK 2GB model: GTX750-PHOC-2GD5 http://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/GTX750PHOC2GD5/gallery/ Here is a link to the English XP graphics driver: us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/337.88/337.88-desktop-winxp-32bit-english.exe And the Japanese XP graphics driver: jp.download.nvidia.com/Windows/337.88/337.88-desktop-winxp-32bit-international.exe Let me know as I would like to help make this happen. "Jah Nay"

Can you tell me what you meant by the inbox audio driver? And this is for using which sound card under Windows 98SE? Where is it? And could you provide the link? As for the Universal VESA driver, I haven't tried that out but did look into it awhile back when I stumbled upon this forum. So you're saying that there is no way to program an Intel HD graphics driver to run under Windows 98SE, nor using it with the HDMI port so you can get audio as well?

So does that mean USB 3.0 doesn't work at all under Windows 2000? Is there any way to get true USB 3.0 speeds on XP? I've only been able to use it at USB 2.0 speeds. Also is there any way to get USB 3.0 speeds on Vista SP2? I still prefer Vista SP2 over Windows 7 since they removed the Quick Launch and the Windows Classic look that I prefer. That is the only thing currently missing from Windows 7 preventing me from fully adopting it. The only thing I see Windows 7 can do that Vista nor XP can't at the moment is full USB 3.0 speeds. As for the Intel HD graphics under Haswell, did you ever get any of those Official or Unofficial drivers ever work under XP? And if so, could you provide the links for those? I am planning to get a Broadwell motherboard when it comes out.

I have to agree with Dencorso about this. Haswell was never going to get XP support from Intel even though it came out in 2014. Had Microsoft expanded their support till 2015 or later then things might be different now. When researching motherboards, the Sandy Bridge Z68 had Intel HD 1000 -> Intel HD 3000 IGPUs that started out with XP driver support if I recall correctly. I don't think it came at a later stage as a hindsight or backlash from user complaints. This gave me hope to try out a Sandy Bridge with their first integrated GPU inside the CPU. The original Z68 motherboard I wanted was discontinued so I tried a Z77 instead which is basically the same as a Z68 but improved and had PCIe 3.0 and USB 3.0 support for both Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs. Also the Intel HD 4000 had XP driver support which made me more inclined to jump on board. When I started to hear reports of Haswell's power efficiency I checked out the early Haswell Intel HD graphics driver for XP support and there was none. And since Z77's were about to be discontinued I grabbed over a half dozen of these motherboards as backups for my legacy support. I originally had high expectations for Haswell but why eliminate something as simple as an Intel HD graphics driver for XP? How much does it really cost to program such a driver even for basic desktop needs? Or why not disclose the source code so Haswell users could program it for themselves? Also at the time about 1/3 of all computers online were supposedly still running XP. It didn't make sense why they chose to eliminate support in their 4th generation IGPUs except to force people to upgrade to Vista, 7, and 8. Another early indication of this was the Intel HD driver did not include HDCP/COOP support which meant Blu-ray software players would not work with it. Here is a link that proves there is no XP support for Intel HD 4th generation IGPUs and the last one being the 3rd generation Intel HD 4000. http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-034343.htm However, aren't there some cheap Celeron 4th generation Haswell CPUs equipped with the very basic Intel HD 1000 IGPUs which is now called the Intel HD GT1 on Haswell? Take for example the Intel® Celeron® Processor G1820 (2M Cache, 2.70 GHz). http://ark.intel.com/products/78955/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1820-2M-Cache-2_70-GHz The specifications label it simply as: Processor Graphics ‡ Intel® HD Graphics Currently around $50 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CLeO8sGQ2r8CFeXm7AodUwoADg&Item=N82E16819116974&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-Processors+-+Desktops-_-N82E16819116974&ef_id=U4z--QAAAC7iUw@E:20140723000046:s Has anyone tried getting one of these to install under Windows XP rather than an Intel HD 4200 or higher IGPU model? If that does work then that would be a loophole in getting Windows XP IGPU support on a Haswell. According to this link Intel HD GT1 is uses 10 execution units which is fairly similar to the performance of the Intel HD 3000 with 12 execution units but according to the GFLOPS the GT1 is superior but still inferior to the Intel HD 4000 GLOPS performance. The other thing that upset me about Haswell was Intel also did not offer any SATA AHCI XP drivers so you couldn't natively install it unless you used IDE emulation mode which only some desktop BIOSes could do. I believe most laptop BIOSes don't even give you option for IDE emulation anymore.