TrevMUN

Oh hey, I haven't given compiling this for XP64 a shot yet, but there was something I was curious about before I do attempt it: Is this compatible with the other compatibility projects like OneCore API and XomPie?

Oh, that explains a lot, then. It's not a matter of .inf modding, is it? Either way, it would be a better bet to follow the guide from Matt's Repository, since that opens up the newer drivers (up until nVidia discontinued XP/XP64 support) and provides more opportunities to find a driver that works best for our machines.

I wanted to know what metric you were using. You could have meant cards manufactured by companies with a reputation for poor quality, for instance. If you meant "low end" as in cards of the 9xx line which aren't considered "high-end" or "enthusiast," though, doesn't that counteract saying the driver will work problem free with the 900 series? Check Wikipedia's article on the 900 series. There, the GTX 950 and 960 are listed as "mid-range," GTX 970 and 980 as "high-end," and GTX 980 Ti and TITAN X as "enthusiast." That's where I've been getting my metrics. Really? I thought I was being rather civil here. Are you sure you're not reading hostility into my words?

Except that the example you gave does not list the GTX 980 TI or GTX Titan X in the .inf. The 980 Ti is an enthusiast-grade card not to be confused with the GTX 980. Note that in Matt's Repository, the device IDs for the cards which have to have support modded into the .inf are listed as follows: NVIDIA_DEV.13C2 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970" NVIDIA_DEV.13C0 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980" NVIDIA_DEV.17C8 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti" NVIDIA_DEV.17C2 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X" NVIDIA_DEV.17F0 = "NVIDIA Quadro M6000" I'll admit that your driver does list the 970 and 980, but the 980 Ti, TITAN X, and Quadro are not among the list you provided. (Quadro is of course a different line from the 9xx series, but the M6000 is noted to be a near-cousin of the TITAN X and based on the Maxwell architecutre.) Also, you provided the device IDs for the TITAN Black and the original TITAN, which as I understand it are 7xx cards that are part of the Kepler architecture. What do you mean, specifically, by "cheap/low end 900 series cards?" Shouldn't the drivers work with any 9xx card, if they are problem free as you say? By the way, why does @D.Draker upvote and/or like every single one of your posts? I'm curious. Oh, also: It looks like this might be the same driver @ragnargd called attention to in his pinned thread from April last year. However, as he notes there: "only exactly ONE driver supports GTX 970 and GTX 980. Other GTX 9x0 / Titans were mentioned in later drivers, but were not in the inf files."

Well, I'm not going to download that driver. It's 344.11, and I've got 368.81, which I did have to inf-mod as per Matt's Repository in order to install. His article was written when 359.06 was the current driver.

See, that's the thing though ... nVidia didn't intend the high-end and enthusiast 9xx cards, TITAN X included, to work with the Windows XP family. Or rather said, they're not officially supported. A bit of futzing with the .inf files allows people to use those cards. So in a way, it's already happened. It's not the same thing as writing entirely new drivers, but perhaps it will come eventually. Especially when considering ReactOS' aim to be a clean room reverse engineering of Windows NT, with XP as the target. I've seen people excited that this might mean any drivers/APIs/general infrastructure written for ReactOS could be backported to XP, or Vista. And as I said before: as a multimedia designer, the TITAN X has more value to me than just gaming. It's got the muscle to help with audio/visual production, 3D rendering and modelling, and so forth. Certainly not like the latest RTX cards (good luck buying those though) but in terms of what is currently capable of working with XP, it's the absolute top end; whether or not it has CSAA or raytracing is only really important for real-time rendering. Heck, as recent as a year or two ago Linus Tech Tips' video editors were using the CPU I bought for my girl's overhaul, a i7-6950X. So I don't feel too disadvantaged from what the pros are currently using. I haven't experimented with using the Titan on Vista, admittedly; in fact, I haven't really used Vista ever. Even from a workplace/educational standpoint, it seemed like it was either XP or 7 when it came to what was in use.

Well, honestly, that just circles back to my initial point: enthusiasts of older OSes like us will want to look into either finding ways to get support for newer hardware or develop it ourselves. AMD doesn't support the XP family or Vista anymore, either, from a quick check on their KB (though I might be wrong). By the way, the TITAN X I'm using isn't the Pascal (10xx) version, it's the Maxwell (9xx). Specifically, it's the EVGA GeForce GTX TITAN X Superclocked. I don't know why nVidia chose to use the same name twice.

None of the Maxwell cards support CSAA, but they do support Multi-Frame Sampled Anti-Aliasing (MFAA) and that helps make up the difference. 16x CSAA, as I've heard it, was equivalent to 4x MSAA but with improved coverage sampling to provide image equality on par with/better than 8x MSAA at a lower performance cost. As I understand it, MFAA effectively doubles the anti-aliasing quality of in-game settings.

From personal experience? Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, Metro 2033, Final Fantasy XIV. Particularly any online game where you can have a lot of people in the same place (e.g. 32, 64 and even 128-player matches in Chivalry, alliance raids in FFXIV) the TITAN X handles it like a champ. I imagine I'd also see a huge benefit with Verdun with the TITAN X compared to when I played it last on the older setup. Hawken also really benefited, even after accounting for the graphics optimization they did. If you do a lot of modding in games like Skyrim, especially if you're shooting for photorealism, you'll also see a massive benefit. Even when it comes to games that a GTX 680 can handle at 1080p and 60+ FPS on maximum settings, the TITAN X can do it without the fans so much as ramping up. Mind you, I didn't get a TITAN X just for gaming. As I'd mentioned in other threads, I do multimedia production with my rig. It's the primary reason why I was willing to go all out; I found that the TITAN X outperforms even having an older versions of the FirePro and Quadro lines.

The irony of my enthusiasm for Windows XP is that, originally, I didn't want to use a XP machine as a personal computer. I was still in high school and the family computer ran 98; I did a lot of DOS gaming back then and so I fretted over losing the ability to play games and use programs I liked by switching to XP. On the other hand, I personally had the roughest OS experience with 98, though that's likely because, being a family computer, I shared the 98 machine with people a lot more careless than me when it comes to computer security. (I've hung onto the family's first IBM-PC, a Gateway P5-120 running Windows 95, so I can still enjoy DOS gaming and run DOS and 16-bit programs.) However, I wound up getting a Gateway XP machine as a graduation present. I quickly grew to like XP for the simple fact that I rarely ever had any software-related BSoDs. In all my years of using XP (and then XP64) the vast majority of BSoDs and system issues I've encountered have been due to failing hardware and not an issue with the operating system. For the most part, the times XP did go off the rails, it's because of something I know I did. And for the most part, I've been able to fix those mistakes without resorting to a wipe-and-reinstall. Similar to my concerns over losing the ability to run DOS programs, I was resistant to upgrading to Vista. In fact, I deliberately sought out and purchased an OEM installation disc for XP64 on Newegg back in 2008, when an aforementioned hardware failure necessitated overhauling my computer entirely. I figured going XP64 (and yeah, I was already aware of XP64's reputation for lack of software/driver support) would future-proof my machine once computing truly moved to the 64-bit era. (Alas, I didn't account for APIs ...) Also, having a 64-bit operating system that used less memory than Vista and future Windows OSes (XP64 needs at minimum 256 MB; Vista, 512 MB but 1 GB recommended) meant that I had more memory for multi-tasking and the sort of memory-intensive work that I do, namely multimedia production. XP64's rep for lack of driver/software support hasn't really been an issue for me. There's only been two notable exceptions, both games: Civilization 4 and Phantasy Star Online 2; in the latter case, Sega seemed to *specifically* deny XP64 the ability to run any PSO2- related executable. But out of over a decade's use of XP64, those have been the only issues with programs during XP's support cycle. (Of course, programs made after support ended are another story.) The good folks here at MSFN have really helped in keeping XP64 viable in these post-support days. I'm especially grateful for guys like @Sampei.Nihira who have called to attention vulnerabilities and security threats and how to protect against them; it was through him I found out about NoVirusThanks' OSArmor, which I now use on all of my machines, XP and not. In recent years, following hardware failure in the 2008 setup, my girl got an overhaul using some of the best hardware available to a SABERTOOTH X99-based system, thanks to @XP-x64-Lover's efforts in sourcing drivers. (She's now got maxed out with 128 GB of RAM, by the way, which are XP64's natural limits as well as that of the X99 chipset.) And according to one of my friends ... my enthusiasm/stubbornness over using XP has a Steve Jobs-like "reality distortion field" that's been enticing others to do the same!

If the projects to extend the XP family's kernel and APIs have any success, you will be seeing increased interest in running games developed after XP's support cycle. Getting bona fide DirectX 10 support on XP has been a holy grail for anyone who's wanted to use XP for gaming, whatever their reasons. OneCore API's site (I'm not sure if I can even link to it, given the comments made in the discussion I linked to) shows promise in that regard, as they have some evidence of games running in DX10 mode. Suffice to say, that's definitely going to pique interest in newer GPUs. And anyway, speaking as someone who specifically got the GTX TITAN X because it's the most powerful nVidia card supported by the last known XP-compatible drivers, I can tell you there are XP-friendly games out there which will benefit from that kind of horsepower. And anyway, I think it's a good idea to try and find or develop compatibility for XP with newer hardware. I don't think we can expect hardware natively compatible with XP to be in supply whenever we want it, the further away we get from the 2000's~2010's. Old parts get destroyed or recycled, or succumb to the capacitor plague. I'm not saying that there won't be any XP-friendly hardware in the foreseeable future, just that for an XP enthusiast, it will become a pain in the butt sourcing them. Especially if you want something specific. This has been an increasing problem for the Windows 9X gang, and as evidenced by this thread, there's a lot of obstacles to getting 9X working on modern hardware.

From what I understand there's one in the works for the whole XP family, OneCore API. Originally @Dibya was working on ExtendedXP, but cancelled it in favor of OneCore API. I believe that OneCore API is designed so that you can compile it to work on XP64, but I'm not quite sure how far along they are. I've heard they've got Windows Server 2003 running DX10 games though. You can see the discussion about it here.

Well, at least where nVidia's concerned, the whole XP family's in the same boat. It was actually here that I learned it was possible to inf mod 368.81 so that the XP family (including XP64) can use it for the GTX TITAN X (Maxwell) and so I specifically sought that card so I could take advantage on my XP64 rig. I don't think anyone's made progress on getting any 10xx cards working with any of the XP family. It's looking like right now, if you can get a driver and a 10xx card to play nice with XP64, you're likely going to be seeing worse performance than you would with a 9xx card.

I'll have to give this a try and report back!

This is AMAZING! I should give this a try on my XP32 laptop and see what she can do. Out of curiosity, how difficult would it be to create a version of this for XP64? Is it just a matter of compiling a certain way?

My guess too. Custom theme and an extra desktop widget thrown in. Some of those these can really, really make XP look like a completely different beast. Especially with desktop widgets like Rainmeter.

If you can go with Team Red I'd recommend it from the security angle; as I understand it, AMD is not as vulnerable to Spectre/Meltdown as Intel's CPUs are. My own options were pretty limited with XP64 (not that I'm complaining, the new Broadwell-E setup is a major upgrade from my Kentsfield) but you should have better luck with XP32. From this thread I had posted observations made by people at Guru3D as to what post-EOL hardware is still XP-friendly. Though it's a Team Blue option, GIGABYTE's Z370s are observed to work without ACPI and that, generally, XP has been tested and found to work on the Z370s. This one's going for $120, and you should be able to find a CPU in the LGA1151 socket that would fit your budget. From that thread, @Dietmar found concrete evidence that XP can work on AMD's Ryzen line. Specifically, ASRock's Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 motherboard, with a little tweaking. From what I understand AMD worked in some backward/forward compatibility with the Ryzen line and so you can use newer-generation Ryzen CPUs with the older sockets to an extent. You'd need to verify whether that's the case for that socket though.

This Dell forum thread seems to indicate that the maximum resolution is 1024 x 768, and that it's a limitation of the LCD display itself. However, it looks like that model of laptop had different models of display available. If you're willing to do some hardware hunting and modding, a cursory look into the model revealed that there's a display available for that laptop model which has 1440 x 1050 native resolution. It looks like this store sells the screen you'd need.

Part of why I come to MSFN is to be aware of any discovered security vulnerabilities that might affect Windows XP/XP64 and what to do about them. Also, I get great advice on general security practices hanging out here. Through @Sampei.Nihira I learned about NoVirusThanks' OSArmor and I've been using it ever since on all my machines. I also like running Spybot Search and Destroy primarily for its Immunization tool for browsers, and the ability to route a lot of known malware sites to 0.0.0.0 via the HOSTS file, just in case I ever stumble into a trap. (I haven't yet, but I'd rather have that layer of security just in case.) As far as browsing habits go, I make sure every browser with add-on capabilities has some sort of proactive script-blocking system, such as NoScript for the Firefox-based ones, and uBlock Origin for the Chrome-based ones. I double that up with AdBlockPlus, though mainly I use that to get rid of a lot of the cruft that makes browsing YouTube such an annoyance. (This used to work much more effectively, but YouTube has been redesigned a few times since then.) I think the FUD campaign Microsoft (and tech journalists) conducted as April 2014 approached are largely responsible for the general mentality people have regarding XP. I had made my thoughts known about it back then, but both journos and Microsoft themselves really, really wanted people to believe that the moment Windows XP stopped receiving updates, anyone who didn't upgrade would find their computers a playground for zombie botnets, malware, and all sorts of nastiness. Also, from the gaming side of things, Microsoft already laid the ground for that by denying XP any newer DirectX versions with the release of Vista in 2006. Games slowly stopped providing DirectX 9 support years before, and more and more people started looking down their nose at gamers with XP machines. (Now the process is repeating with Windows 7, as I knew it would. Bleh.) More of a side note than anything, but for almost ten years now I've wanted to try making a router/firewall dedicated PC. I even planned to use the hardware my daily driver desktop, Palouser, had been using until earlier this year when I upgraded her, but her previous setup appears to have a motherboard failure that won't make the parts suitable for 24/7 usage anymore. Haven't really had the need to do so anyway, in recent years I've been renting rooms (apartments are too expensive where I currently work!) and so router management's out of my hands. Still, this is probably a good reminder that when I do eventually move somewhere and I'll have to be responsible for my own network, I should probably give the "Router/firewall in a PC" project a try. I imagine a PC running PFSense or something would be much easier to keep up to date and upgrade/mantain than a commercial router.

I've been trying the agent overrides suggested. Something else seems to be going on, I'm not sure what, but both in New Moon 27.9.1a1 (64-bit) and FF52, some videos still won't play. I get a different message, though: Test this one and see if it works for you guys? It should be a Japanese upload of Otaking's TIE fighter short film, but I get that message when trying to watch. I don't think this is related to the weird conflict with the Flash plugin and HTML5 that happens with YouTube, since it's happening with both Firefox-derived browsers and only my copy of FF52 has Flash installed.

Hey all, In the past I've sometimes perused Nicovideo if I was looking for something specific that wasn't uploaded to YouTube. Or, if I wanted to see reactions to Western content (e.g. Paul "Otaking" Johnson's TIE Fighter short film) given the unique comment system that Nicovideo uses. Recently I tried to watch a video I've seen there before, only to come up with this message: Without attempting to translate it I thought maybe that meant the video had been deleted, but this message was showing up in lieu of any video I found. Then I tried translating it: So I thought ... hey, maybe this is like what happens with Firefox on YouTube if you have the Flash plugin installed; YouTube has been randomly upgrading older videos with HTML5-only, and for some stupid reason if Flash is installed, Firefox will only attempt to use that over HTML5. My other browsers which don't have Flash (New Moon, Chrome, Advanced Chrome) still work fine on YouTube. But ... No matter which browser I tried, I still got the same error. So I looked into what this message means. Turns out, Niconico Video terminated support for Windows XP last August. Now the thing is, Advanced Chrome has usually been enough by itself to bypass any attempts to prevent Windows XP access to websites. It seems like Niconico Video is doing something different though, and not merely checking for browser version/type but operating system, too. What's a good way to get around that?

XP64 user here, my rig didn't ever have Microsoft Office installed. CTFMon's still present and running and I have the MSCTF objects. I tried turning off advanced text services; this didn't close CTFMon. Would I need to restart to verify, or can I kill the process without doing so?

Bingo. Rangarok Online had this issue last month, Gravity KR's developers lost the ability to support XP due to newer SDKs. They're using some stopgap to provide XP compatibility for iRO in the meantime, but iRO is also years behind in content. So, who can say how long that compatibility will last. This is an interesting solution! I'll have to look into this. Do we have a thread on which programs can continue to run under XP using Application Verifier? Might be useful.

*checks that statcounter* 44.6%?! From 4% in December according to OP?! As much as I find that hilarious, something's got to be off about those numbers ... What's their methodology for this data? Or their sample audience? Oh! I see now, those are the numbers for Armenia. I tried checking OP's source and compared it to this. XP's market share is 2.99% according to Netmarketshare. I assume that's global numbers ... It does, however, seem that there has been a dip in Windows 7 usage worldwide, assuming those numbers are global. Overall the market shift was in 10's favor, though.

I had been meaning to respond to this topic for a week, but I'd been so preoccupied with work and other commitments that I hadn't had the chance to ... until now! I wanted to leave a huge thank-you, @XP-x64-Lover, for all you've done in finding these drivers and allowing those of us sticking with XP64 a chance to upgrade to hardware a bit more recent. Between your drivers and the trick explained by Matt's Repository for getting XP/XP64 drivers for the nVidia 9XX series, on Memorial Day Weekend I was able to finally give my desktop the badly needed overhaul I'd been wanting to do since my first posts at MSFN back in 2014! That's 64 GB of DDR4 RAM, SABERTOOTH X99 motherboard, Intel i7-6950X CPU, and a GeForce GTX TITAN X. I wasn't able to get the SSD thing sorted out, so I wound up using the IDE method, which has worked amazingly well with my existing install. Since @bluebolt figured out a way to get an install of XP64 working on a NVMe 2.0 drive, I may skip the SSD and attempt a fresh install off of that instead, since the X99 has a bay for NVMe drives. For now, though, I'm just excited to have not only put my hardware troubles behind me for now, but that I've now got the RAM upgrade I've wanted for years!