burd
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by burd
-
-
35 minutes ago, 98SE said:
Yup but you're going to have to live within the limitations of Vista which is acceptable for most people as long as the software you are using works fine. So far almost 1 year unactivated Vista Ultimate 64-Bit still hasn't shut down and doesn't nag like Windows 10 does within the 1st month. 3rd Party USB 3.0 drivers are fast enough for video editing. The only real deal killer would be some vital software which only works in Windows 7 for some reason and not Vista. Blu-ray software players won't work which actually is a negative for Vista. Office 2016 only for Windows 7 and Windows 10 and Tax Act 2017 don't work any more which a year prior worked fine for XP and Vista. So this might force some newbie users to upgrade out of necessity. I just set up a dummy basic Windows 7 boot up install for that and return back to Vista.
The only way I would use Windows 7 in a permanent situation would be if those features which mimicked XP that Vista also does could be done.
But in the end you can only hold out for so long. I think a higher Windows XP and 7 combined tally would be more useful to battle Windows 10 from gaining any more ground than a Vista tally which doesn't show up any more in significant numbers. The longer XP and 7 holds out and more people downgrade back will Windows 10 suffer its own fate. Windows 8 and 8.1 already demonstrated major rejection probably worse than Vista experienced. Imagine if Windows 10 was never offered for free and MS didn't trick Windows 7 users into force upgrading they'd probably be at the same levels as Windows 8 and 8.1 usage. You find a way to backport DX12 and add W7 compatibility Vista will kill Windows 10 in a heartbeat.
DX12 isnt needed,you have vulkan which is really good, though the official drivers DO include beta vulkan drivers,im unsure if it works or not,unless someone can test it, also if it doesnt work a backport would be nice because a vulkan backport had already been released for XP which is really sad and happy at the same time.
0 -
Hello,Please Enjoy While On These Forums,If you have any doubts regarding any topic please inform me or any of the members regarding it we would be happy to help you in anyway we can
0 -
15 minutes ago, 98SE said:
Well it's confusing since it's hard to say whether Intel called their USB ports on their boxes NEC USB 3.0 ports or Intel USB 3.0 ports. I never bought any Intel motherboards so I can't comment on that. I used a lot of 3rd party motherboards over the years and many were not boxed.
I checked a bunch of Z68 boards and it looks like there were no "real" Intel USB 3.0 ports on Asus/Asrock which used Asmedia 3rd Party controllers and Intel USB 2.0 ports mixture.
This links seems to confirm the 7 Series Panther Point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0
Intel released its first chipset with integrated USB 3.0 ports in 2012 with the release of the Panther Point chipset. Some industry analysts have claimed that Intel was slow to integrate USB 3.0 into the chipset, thus slowing mainstream adoption.[31] These delays may be due to problems in the CMOS manufacturing process,[32] a focus to advance the Nehalem platform,[33] a wait to mature all the 3.0 connections standards (USB 3.0, PCIe 3.0, SATA 3.0) before developing a new chipset,[34][35] or a tactic by Intel to favor its new Thunderbolt interface.[36] Apple, Inc. announced laptops with USB 3.0 ports on 11 June 2012, nearly four years after USB 3.0 was finalized.
However during the Z68 Intel was still making motherboards and then they suddenly quit with the DX79. The Z68 I found did have Intel USB ports but they were from NEC. I didn't look hard enough but to find any others but looking at this driver link it shows some compatible Intel boards using the NEC USB 3.0.
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/19880/USB-3-0-Renesas-Electronics-USB-3-0-Driver
Now I took the time to double check my Z77 MB specs running Vista 64-Bit and they do have a mix of USB 3.1 Gen1 ports by Intel® Z77 and USB 3.1 Gen1 ports by Etron.
In the Device Manager the Intel 7 Series USB Enhanced Host Controller is listed. This is the Intel USB 3.0 ports acting as USB 2.0 ports. Only in Windows 7 is it identified as xHCI because it's using a proper xHCI driver. So like I said on XP the Intel USB 3.0 ports will act like USB 2.0 ports and in my tests even in Vista they operate at USB 2.0 speeds.
So the original reason to upgrade to Windows 7 was just the Intel USB 3.0 speeds but if you have a 3rd Party onboard ports or USB 3.0 cards that might of held you off from upgrading but now that a lot software simply won't run or drivers only supports Windows 7 this makes it more likely it will be Hasta La Vista. If you can add Quick Launch back and Clear Desktop Icon the way it is in XP/Vista that solves most of the user interface issues making Windows 7 more user friendly. Get back the old XP search interface then I would say Windows 7 would be usable and no more need for Vista.
Vista is Vista any Editing to Windows 7 will never make it the real deal as Vista, You Cant Really Compare.
1 -
My Dad used to use ME, he said Me was rock solid and a stable O/S and his most favourite O/S at the time. Many times like Windows 8,Vista And Me Most of the negativity spreads from people who never used the o/s and just read some random guy commenting that "Windows 8 is Bad" "Windows Vista Laggs and Sucks" and so on.
In real
Windows 8 is decent if you ever used it
Windows Vista SP2 Probably Faster than Win7
Windows ME Better than Win2k? Not As Unstable as people say but it did lack a few features from 98SE0 -
58 minutes ago, 2008WindowsVista said:
Braswell is essentially a variant of Haswell. Neither have Intel HD Graphics or Intel USB 3.0 drivers for Vista, unfortunately. I've already tried modifying Windows 7 drivers (swapping out 7's NT version number [6.1] for Vista's NT version number [6.0] in the INF files), but it doesn't work. I received a Code 39 error when attempting to install them. As burd pointed out, this most likely happens due to missing APIs/functions in Vista that were introduced in Windows 7, which the drivers rely on to work correctly. While Vista and 7 do have similar driver models, they're not quite the same.
If you really want to run Vista today, you should swap your machine for something from either the Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge era, as those are the last platforms to support Windows Vista. They are a few years old by now but are still more than enough for the average user, and the higher end Sandy/Ivy Bridge Core i5/i7 CPUs provide more than enough power if you do more resource-intensive tasks. Although Intel didn't release any USB 3.0 drivers for Vista with Ivy Bridge, this can be worked around by using a Sandy Bridge-era motherboard paired with an Ivy Bridge CPU. Chipset and Intel HD Graphics drivers for Vista on Ivy Bridge were in fact released, however, Sandy's Intel USB 3.0 supports Vista fine, and most Sandy Bridge motherboards are able to support Ivy Bridge CPUs through a BIOS upgrade, so that shouldn't be an issue. View my guide here for more information.
If you are unable to replace your hardware or simply don't want to go through the trouble, you can reskin or "transform" Windows 7 to make it look and feel nearly the same as Windows Vista. I made several tutorials here which will show you how to perform the process (WinClient5270 is my YouTube channel name).Good luck, and welcome to MSFN!
Wait,Are you saying despite Intel not supporting USB 3.0 it still works on sandy bridge? If so i think i have an old machine which i can use vista on.
Also i wanted to ask you if you can test vulkan support on the 372.70 drivers,im not really sure if they work or not because im working on getting my 1060gtx to work at some extent currently(which did happen one random time and fps was super good)0 -
38 minutes ago, IceFairyAmy said:
Hi,
I have an Acer Aspire ES1-531 and would like to run Windows Vista on it, since I prefer it over 7 for some reasons. ^_^ I noticed that there aren't USB 3.0 drivers or Intel HD Graphics drivers for my machine, running Celeron N3050 (Braswell) however the Windows 7 drivers for them work perfectly fine with the system. Hoping some sort of tweaks can be done to the INFs to work with Vista ^^
Thanks for any help!
--Amy
I Dont think this is possible,there are either missing features in vista or an artificial block has been placed, simply modding the infs wont work,its been tried and tested a few times according to me, i had a haswell and wanted vista on that aswell but there werent any drivers for it sadly
Unless Someone Creates an extended kernel or something i dont see vista surviving any longer with modern hardware1 -
-
On 10/4/2017 at 7:32 AM, 2008WindowsVista said:
You might try reinstalling your display drivers, since the crashes are related to NVIDIA DLLs. Use Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) to uninstall them, and then reinstall them and see if the problem still persists. If that doesn't fix the issue, you might need to reinstall Windows Vista (I hate suggesting that but sometimes that's what it comes down to).
Reinstalled Vista, Same issue allover again.
0 -
1 hour ago, 2008WindowsVista said:
Anything is better than Windows 10, lol.
Yes, the animations are much smoother in Vista compared with 7. The animations in 7 aren't necessarily slower, just more... I don't know, jagged? Rough around the edges? It's hard to put into words since as you pointed out, it's a minor thing. I'm not the only one who's noticed this though so at least I know I'm not crazy, lol.
What you pointed out regarding DWM's footprint is a nice improvement, but that's really only an issue on lower-end hardware. If you have enough RAM and a powerful video card, this shouldn't be an issue unless you open a crap ton of windows.
Regarding TRIM, yeah I forgot to mention that as an advantage for 7 in my last post, forgive me. But even then, Windows 8.1 triumphs over Windows 7 because 7 doesn't support TRIM for NVME SSDs, whereas 8.1 does. As for using Vista on SSDs, I actually happen to use Windows Vista on a Samsung 840 EVO SSD (and have done so since April 2014, nearly 4 years ago), and I have turned off automatic defragging, disabled search indexing, superfetch, and installed the Samsung Magician software, which provides the TRIM command for Windows XP and Vista for Samsung SSDs: http://prntscr.com/gu5t25
Thanks to Samsung Magician, my SSD's performance has not decreased at all over time and has kept in TRIM. Other SSD manufacturers have also provided tools of this nature, such as Corsair's SSD Toolbox and there are other third party tools available which send TRIM under XP/Vista such as Diskeeper 12 and SSD Tweaker.Wont the systems performance drop with superfetch disabled? Or does this not apply with ssd's
0 -
30 minutes ago, Dibya said:
It is not needed in modern SSD more over intel ahci driver do it for you .
Ok,but i have fernando's modded driver not intel,will that also do?
0 -
2 hours ago, Dibya said:
Dx9 is far faster than dx11 regards of performance . Donot believe? Do some benchmark
You believe on stupid words of ms. Anyway modern ssd do trim at their chipset level so no need of such stupid features anymore. After one year when I ran trim command on my ssd how long it has run? Any one can guess. Less than 10 second yes man I am not joking.
can xp and vista have inbuilt trim support with modification? is it possible?
0 -
3 hours ago, 98SE said:
Not that you should rely on me as what you guys did would be similar to what I would be doing. It's just a lot of work comparing driver files and then testing them. But I understand a little more now how driver files are structured so I do a lot of trimming down of the actual file so it's much easier to digest and analyze. If you examine enough driver files you'll see a pattern. A lot of sh!t inside the driver files are just copying the same code over and over and altering a few characters here and there. Once you recognize the pattern you can trim it down to its basic structure then do some testing of what driver files are essential for it to work properly.
As an example if you look closely at the nVidia drivers there's a bunch of duplicate unnecessary language files. If you can recognize which are not English versions of the same file you can modify it so it's all English based and reduce the amount of clutter. Intel and AMD also have the same problem.
I tested a few legacy 2000 and XP drivers and had some success on some newer graphics cards but not all newer graphics cards will work with really old drivers. So you're basically like Edison trying every driver and mod change to see what happens. It helps if you can image a clean state of your OS before testing so you always start with a clean OS that won't revert back to a previously installed driver.
Anyhow it's very boring stuff and you'd be just as bored. Not to dissuade you but anyone with an unlimited amount of time and persistence could probably figure it out eventually. How many filaments did Edison test before he found the right one for a light bulb. This is exactly how this feels as you don't know if you'll ever find it.
The Windows 7 to Vista driver ports are going to be harder to do. Someone like Dibya would probably have a better grasp of that than me since he uses the right tools but both him and I are totally exhausted and he's the young one so that should tell you something. I was only working on trying to get XP drivers to work in Windows 2000 by comparing them but it consumes so much time and most often the end result is another failure. So this process can be quite demoralizing.
Idk man,Dibya doesnt seem interested so it comes down to the other guys like you and few others who have some knowledge unlike people like me
0 -
45 minutes ago, 98SE said:
The = Icon I'm not seeing anything but two numbers above two numbers in a domino.
You might need to spell it out or is that a picture of something?
But anything Haswell/Broadwell you can eliminate since I haven't tested that and for good reason.
The last Two SkyLake and Kaby Lake you'd have to get their entire hardware configuration and OS configuration and detail it so I can examine what they used in their test.
Unless you have a particular game title that has a demo version to download and test that constantly crashes or has problems I'll test it out on my system when I get a chance to see if it occurs. That's the best I can do unless they had the exact same hardware and software and method used to install everything I can't say for certain it's conclusive.
If there were 1000 people with my exact same hardware build and OS version I used and the same exact problem for 90% of them I would be more inclined to believe the result is conclusive and even give it a test myself to confirm and add to the tally.
But how many users total are we talking about here realistically with Vista issues on Z170 and Z270 and using Vista 64-Bit Ultimate SP2 with DX 11.0?
Narrow that list down first.
But if Vista isn't really a necessity and Windows 7 64-Bit Ultimate SP1 works fine on the same exact system just move on would be my suggestion even though I think Vista is a great but I also thought the same of Windows 2000 until XP gained favor just like 7 has. The same thing happening to Vista has happened to 2000.
And now that Windows 10 is trying hard to dominate over Windows 7 I would concentrate my efforts to keep Windows 7 64-bit SP1 staying alive as long as possible to avoid a Windows 10 dominance. If no one cares about DX11 we will be seeing Windows 7 64-Bit alive in 2029 which I hope puts a dagger in Microsoft's back.
How about you give us some hope porting win7 drivers would be really kind and generous of you(ofcouse if possible),i think many people would want to return to vista if drivers would work
eg. gfx,usb network cards?0 -
9 minutes ago, 98SE said:
You're welcome to continue using high end GPUs you paid for but anything above nVidia GT 730 is beyond the needs of what Vista requires and any card above the AMD Radeon HD 6450 is the equivalent. Mid level gaming kicks in around GTX 750 Maxwell so anything like GTX 950 as you stated owning is already capable of gaming at mid range settings. GTX 960 and up would be geared to high level detail.
you said this sentence 2 times was this a mistake or on purpose to point it out a second time?
0 -
Just now, 11ryanc said:
How I feel reading this thread right now0 -
36 minutes ago, 98SE said:
Any chance you can pick up Vista 64-Bit Ultimate non service pack version instead of using Vista Business? This is the version I'd consider using to weed out any problems and match the OS build. You can add the official SP2 manually on the desktop. This is how clean I'd start testing. If I remember the original Vista had bugs and problems which plagued it which didn't help that it was already running on hardware that couldn't handle Vista at the time making Vista seem horrible, slow, and buggy. It wasn't until SP2 was released that it was actually pretty stable and more so than Windows 7 from my experience.
Have you tried any other browsers like FireFox? I avoid IE like the plague ever since IE6 due to the easy malware infections but another alternate browser is SeaMonkey. I do a lot of multitabs in the several hundreds so I'd say if you can keep Firefox memory consumption under 1GB in the Task Manager it won't go haywire and freeze up or crash. Most people are probably good with 5 tabs open or closing out their tabs when done and won't experience problems.
cant do that for 2 reasons
I have the iso of ultimate SP2 only
Also I need to boot Uefi alongside Windows 7 which means i need a minimum of Vista SP1
Yes Firefox 52.4.0 x64 works without crashes but i want to use palemoon i find it quite good, palemoon crashes whilst in the middle of browsing
0 -
3 minutes ago, 2008WindowsVista said:
You're not understanding my point at all. The issue I'm describing has NOTHING to do with graphics cards.
There. That's it. Nail on the head. The problem is isolated to Haswell and all of its successors. If you run Vista on the Haswell platform, you'll experience this error at some point. Doesn't matter what video card you use, what onboard devices are enabled or disabled, or how you install Vista. Those have absolutely no effect.
Do forgive me, but I LOL'd when I saw that. You don't need to use a card from 2011 for Vista. The GTX 980 supports Windows Vista just fine, and you can even use the GTX 1080 with Vista thanks to unofficial drivers (you can find them on my Last versions of software for Vista list). AMD's driver support for Vista is far worse compared with NVIDIA (15.6 beta is the last version of the AMD Catalyst drivers that works with Vista which is long obsolete and limits you to AMD GPUs released prior to June 2015).
98SE, I invite you to read more about Vista on my Last versions of software for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 list. You'll find a ton of information there about the current state of Vista's third party software & driver compatibility, and it is updated almost daily so the information there is all accurate and up to date.
Btw speaking of vista,i reinstalled vista business on your recommendations,lets hope those palemoon and ie9 crashes disappear for good
0 -
27 minutes ago, 98SE said:
I'll try back porting a Windows 7 driver to Vista later to see if that can trick it but for now if you've truly tested an exhausted all the options I've given get back to me then. I'm pretty confident it's either your Motherboard, Haswell isolated, or any number of hardware related / driver issues but if you start to match the hardware I use maybe that will solve your problem.
Looking forward to that
0 -
4 hours ago, woolie said:
Hello everyone...
Old age is NOT for sissies ...
Blood Cancer has certainly slowed me down
but I'm still on Planet Earth and i am glad
you are, too
Many thanks for all you do...
RIP, Hope you get cured
0 -
1 minute ago, dork said:
I am using this HP Envy 700-074 pre-built desktop: https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c03787848
Trying to install Vista at first was completely impossible, was getting 0x00000124 blue screens just trying to load the Vista installation. Had to disable the PCI SERR# Generation option in the BIOS just to get it to work. After installing Vista (which took a couple of attempts because some times the installer would just leave me with a black screen and a cursor), the operating system was completely unstable with random services not starting up when I got to the desktop, and going to the lock or logout screen would sometimes leave me with a back screen and cursor. This was from a clean install of Vista Ultimate SP2 + Platform Update 64-bit US. Eventually when I put my PC into the lock screen I got a black screen that I couldn't get out of so I had no choice but to hard reset my computer. After that I couldn't even boot into the OS anymore, blue screened everytime with an IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL error.
quite weird i dont get any of these errors at all,not even once, though my pc cant awaken from sleep mode thats about it.
0 -
5 minutes ago, 98SE said:
Like I said I have no problems running Vista 64-bit on my Desktop and don't use Laptops (Haswell+) since no XP drivers will work on the Intel iGPU you'd have to frankenstein the thing. So if your problems with Haswell are laptop related and not desktop related that might point to some kind of Laptop compatibility issue? If I had a Haswell/Broadwell/SkyLake or Kaby Lake laptop I wouldn't use anything but Windows 7 and later due to driver issues for the onboard devices might not be available. The external dual PCIe slots adapter is the only way I'd even consider getting XP and Vista working on it as a last resort.
true but im saying that i used to have problems that @2008WindowsVista mentioned but slowly over a week or so theyre almost like auto fixed or something(fresh install),i have an old haswell aswell and i remember the bugs appearing on that and never getting fixed,but currently im using skylake and i agree the problems appear but only like a 5-10% chance, such a small chance isnt worth paying tonnes of bucks to get a egpu and a 980 :/
Been using vista 64 business since november 2016 its not as bad as it seems0 -
3 minutes ago, 98SE said:
I never said 10 series have Mobile read up. 600M was the last Mobile series at least for XP and Vista.
I was suggesting the adapter I listed to use full size desktop graphic cards on a laptop which then you could use a GTX Titan X, 980 TI, or 980.
the option is always there to get a laptop with gtx 980 to use an egpu but i dont really see how it would help in any way other than have official vista drivers (365.19)
Also note the vista bugs are cpu related (Haswell+ cpu's)
While i do appreciate you trying to help out, i dont really see the need of getting a gfx or swapping for older material when i can already run it full fledged0 -
1 minute ago, 98SE said:
Yes you were responding after I responded to 2KWV. If the information doesn't apply to your situation then ignore it.
DDR4 you'll probably max out at 32GB if you afford the laptop RAM. Are you using the same adapter I listed? So if you're already using a graphics card externally then I would still suggest you get a 900 series Maxwell to do a stability comparison. If you're using Vista drivers that weren't official that could be the cause of your problems but if you have issues or bugs on your laptop then ignore my previous messages.
I never experienced any problems running Vista. I usually test XP, Vista, and Windows 7 on new builds.
youre misinformed, check google or something, the 10series have no mobile series, theyre all dekstop cards that are slightly underclocked for laptops(Basically inbuilt desktop card inside the laptop) i dont use any external cards
0 -
1 minute ago, 98SE said:
nVidia 600M series is the last Laptop certified drivers for XP and Vista.
XP 32-Bit
GeForce 307.83 Driver
Release Date: 2013.2.26
http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/57623/en-usVista 64-Bits
GeForce 310.90 Driver
Release Date: 2013.1.5
http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/55124/en-usYou're going to need this adapter to use a GTX 900 series desktop graphics card on it. Yes it's a cheat but it will work.
Expresscard 34 To 2 PCI Express 16x slots adapter Laptop to PCI-e 1x 4x 8x 16x
$110 total with the shipping cost.
Now I don't know your laptop specs but if it is DDR3 which I assume it might be then the most you can get is 16GB using 8GB x 2.
DDR2 I could get 8GB max using 4GB x 2. And originally it was a 4GB (2GB x2). Going from 4GB to 8GB was a huge improvement for Vista.
16GB is the lowest I'd go on a desktop but on a barebones test trying to squeeze as much RAM to a Ramdrive it looks like 6GB of untouched RAM is the bare minimum or you have slow boot up issues or the orb keeps circling non stop and won't go to the desktop. I'm not sure if you've seen this bug but this is a low memory issue. Sometimes it will boot fine but stall around for about 3mins longer than a normal boot. So 8GB would be a bare laptop minimum recommendation but this is before adding or running applications as that adds to the memory usage. For example Crysis if you added that even though it could run on 4GB total memory on a laptop it lagged so much from the swapping. 8GB it really helped but I would say 16GB is really the bare minimum which is why XP 32-bit is a better OS on Ivy Bridge laptops and occasional Vista 64-bit usage. With DDR4 laptops with two memory slots can probably max out at 32GB (16GB x 2). I really don't think they will get 32GB modules. Laptops seem to get stiffed and get half the max capacity of desktops.
DDR4, i also have a gtx 1060 which is a desktop card in a laptop,i do have the drivers aswell 372.70 which works on 1080,1070 and 1060(maybe even 1050) also im not sure why youre telling all this as i wasnt really complaining regarding vista's bugs(i barely get them at all)i think you have mistaken me for @2008WindowsVista or am i wrong?
0
Is ME really that bad?
in Windows 9x/ME
Posted
Even i didnt like vista at first and almost fell for the bait of it being a bad o/s, i later on thought about this and actually compared Vista SP1 with 7 and Vista would edge 7, Im glad i did that now i know how overhyped 7 is.