Advice on a 64bit system upgrade

[Dave-H]

Strange that CPU-Z and the MS Windows 8 compatibility program don't seem to be recognising this.

I will have to ask Supermicro whether the option is off by default, and if so, how to enable it!

[dencorso]

It may well be because you're on XP SP3 with PAE activate but DEP deactivated.

I just checked my other machine, an Asus P8Z68-V LX having a Core i7 3770K, and CPU-Z 1.69 didn't find the NX bit...

Later today I'll reboot it on 7 x64 and run CPU-Z again, then report back.

My 7 x64 sure has DEP activated (I doubt one can deactivate it on Win x64, BTW).

[submix8c]

FWIW, NX also goes by (AFAICR) two other acronyms in various BIOS.

[Dave-H]

Thanks.

The only even vaguely relevant entry I can see in the BIOS settings is this one -

 

Execute Disable Bit (Available if supported by the CPU & the OS.)
Set to Enabled to enable Execute Disable Bit and allow the processor to classify
areas in memory where an application code can execute and where it cannot, and
thus preventing a worm or a virus from inserting and creating a flood of codes to
overwhelm the processor or damage the system during an attack. The options are
Enabled and Disabled. (Note: For more information regarding hardware/software
support for this function, please refer to Intel's and Microsoft's web sites.)

 

Is that the NX bit?

If it is, it's already enabled, which is the default setting.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Dave-H

[dencorso]

Yes, it is!

 

Turs out CPU-Z does not find (or even care to look for!) the NX bit eve when on 7 ultimate x64!

Hence, let's move on to the Flounder: try  CPUID Explorer.

I bet it'll find the NX bit in your processor.

[Dave-H]

Thanks Den!

When I finally worked out how to run the thing, CPUID Explorer didn't actually mention NX specifically anywhere in its analysis results, but in one tab "CPUID(0x80000001)" in the "EDX" section it does display "Execute Disable Available" in green with a green "1" above it.

Is that it?

[dencorso]

Sure!

[Dave-H]

Sounds confirmed then, that's good!

I have asked Supermicro about it too.

I still have this horrible dread that I'll try and install Windows 8 and the installer will still say "no", as the compatibility checker did!

 

What I may do is try first using the Windows 8 Pro install disk that I already have. I do have a 64 bit disk as well as a 32 bit one.

I'm sure it won't work completely because I've already installed from the 32 bit disk onto my netbook so it will probably reject the serial number, but hopefully it will get far enough at least to tell me that it's happy with the hardware.

[dencorso]

Sure it will. But, as I said, were I you, I'd stick to 7 ultimate x64, especially if you're contemplating buying a new FPP unit intended for the machine. And take care of installing to a separate HDD, with the current ones disconnected, or your trial install will become a big disaster, because the 7 and 8 installs do like to mess up with all partitions. Careful planing beforehand avoids mammoth headaches afterwards, you know!

[Dave-H]

Thanks, but I think if I can confirm that it will indeed install on the system, I will still go for Windows 8.1.

I am intending to fit another SSD to the system, and install Windows 8.1 onto that as a completely self contained install, although I do of course still want to have the multi-boot choices when I boot up to go to that or Windows XP or Windows 98.

 

Whether this is possible I don't know. I know there are potential problems with drive configurations, both with Windows 7 and 8/8.1 installs, IIRC they will only install on a drive C, and not on any other drive letter, which is a bit of a pain, as at the moment Windows 98 is on my drive C, with all the multi-boot files!

 

I'm going to look into whether I can get Windows 98 to function better than it is now, as that will ultimately decide on whether I actually decide to keep it or not.

If I do decide to finally dump it,  I will have Windows 8.1 on drive C and keep Windows XP on drive D where it is now.

I know that configuration works as that's what I have on my netbook.

[dencorso]

You can have Win 8.1 on C:, XP on C: and 98SE on C: !!!

Once you create the 98SE setup and give any data partitions their letters, you can then disconnect that drive and any others and install XP in a seconde drive, then disconnect that drive and install 8.1 on a third drive. After that is done, and you confirm all three boot well standalone, you add Grub4DOS to the 98SE partition and create a multiboot setup. Since both XP and 8.1 allow one to set the letters of every partition except the boot disc (which remains C:), you then set all the data partitions to the same letters as they were on 98SE, and then give the partitions having XP and 8.1 the last letters, after the CD/DVD reader/burner. If both XP and 8.1 are on NTFS partitions, they won't be seen from 98SE, but you may have XP on FAT32, and if so it'll probably get D:, so that you may set the 98SE to D: on XP and on 8.1, so as to be able to reproduce, under XP or 8.1, the same letters for the data partitions.

[jaclaz]

It is rare the occasion to disagree with Dencorso, so I'll take it swiftly .

 

Sooner or later, if you give different drive letters to same volumes (under different OS) or same drive letters to different volumes you will delete or overwrite the "wrong" file (actually the "right" file, but on the "wrong" volume).

 

There is NO requirement WHATEVER for XP (and I believe for later Windows as well) to have C: (as a matter of fact NT based systems were designed to NOT reside on a primary partition.

 

MS (as often happens) has it "reversed".when it calls the volumes "boot" and "system":

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html

 

And even Windows 9x can be installed on an extended with a couple tricks, the only "real" requisite is that the DOS system files are on an active primary partition on first disk, which will be "C:" under Windows 9x, and to which you would normally have the NTLDR/BOOT.INI/NTDETECT.COM and/or the BOOTMGR/\boot\BCD. (and while it is a nice thing to have and very handy, there is no real *need* for grub4dos in a simple double or triple boot setup).

 

jaclaz

[Dave-H]

Thanks jaclaz, there's some very interesting stuff on that link!

I really don't want a system where the drive letters don't always refer to the same partitions, I think that's very messy and dangerous.

This happened on my netbook, where I originally installed Windows XP on the C: drive, and then tried to add Windows 8 to what was the D: drive.

I was very put out when I found that the Windows 8 install had reversed the drive letters, so both Windows XP and Windows 8 now looked as if they were on the C: drive when they were running, with the other OS on the D: drive!

This looked extremely messy to me, so I went back and did it all again, this time installing Windows 8 first, and then Windows XP, which this time installed onto and stayed on the D: drive.

I don't want this happening with the "big" system.

[yuhong]

Den, you are a genius!

All I did was change the switches in boot.ini to what you suggested, and my 16 bit programs started working again!

So simple when you know.

That file is the exact version you stated BTW.

I noticed this bug (which only repros with full screen sessions) and provided repro steps to secure@microsoft.com at the end of last year (OptIn also don't repro this bug). MS hasn't released a new version of ntoskrnl for XP (or Server 2003 for that matter) since then sadly.

Edited October 27, 2014 by yuhong

[Dave-H]

They were never going to address it on XP with end of support so close, and certainly won't now of course!

If it's causing issues with POSReady systems they might, But I think that's extremely unlikely.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Dave-H