Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
Dibya

please help me finding MSI Z170A Gaming M7 driver for XP 32bit

Recommended Posts

Personally I hate look of XP but too much cosmatic modification like replacing resoarce of shell32 and few themes making me not to leave it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Dibya said:

Yesterday I bought a mobo with few spares and a gennuine XP sealed Package but I am facing problem finding drivers

please any one help me please.

My specs ::

Processor:: Intel Core i7-6700k

Motherboard:: MSI Z170A Gaming 7

RAM :: Cosair Vengeance(2x8GB) CMK -8GX4M1A2400C14R

HDD:: WD WD30EZRX 3TB (No problem I will manage it trought RAID5)

SSD:: SAMSUNG 850 PRO 256GB

GFX CARD:: MSI NVDIA GTX 980TI GAMING 6G

SOUNDCARD::ASUS XONAR D2X7.1

gUYS/gals please help me I have spent lot of my money in it, My three month isalary was spent.

Please help me

Dibya I double checked your MSI MB

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130872

I see two USB 2.0 ports below the PS2 keyboard port.

Are these the only ones that work in XP without modification?  These are Intel USB 2.0 ports?

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 98SE said:

Dibya I double checked your MSI MB

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130872

I see two USB 2.0 ports below the PS2 keyboard port.

Are these the only ones that work in XP without modification?  These are Intel USB 2.0 ports?

yes . other one also . I have used a modded bios from some where that allowed me get usb 3 ports working at usb 2 port like Z77 . I cannot remember may be HW Bot forum . 

you can ask here http://forum.hwbot.org/forumdisplay.php?s=c8dffd714d6b792210925ac1b9c9db11&f=159

if they can mod your bios .

Edited by Dibya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dibya said:

yes . other one also . I have used a modded bios from some where that allowed me get usb 3 ports working at usb 2 port like Z77 . I cannot remember may be HW Bot forum . 

you can ask here http://forum.hwbot.org/forumdisplay.php?s=c8dffd714d6b792210925ac1b9c9db11&f=159

if they can mod your bios .

Ahh... so without the modified BIOS the USB 2.0 ports would not have worked?  Did you use regular Intel Chipset drivers or the Intel USB 3.0 drivers for Windows 7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 98SE said:

Ahh... so without the modified BIOS the USB 2.0 ports would not have worked?  Did you use regular Intel Chipset drivers or the Intel USB 3.0 drivers for Windows 7?

For this MSI one i have used intel chipset plus Intel management engine . MSI one use to run super solid with XP . Really a great MOBO no doubt but new asus seems to cause problem , i will use  this board only . Local Shop owner seem to mail me two weak back that they got back the mobo but i have not checked mail . I will grab it from them when i return .:)

for Asus Z170 A i have used 7 driver with mod of kernel .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Dibya said:

Personally I hate look of XP but too much cosmatic modification like replacing resoarce of shell32 and few themes making me not to leave it.

Default XP is not pretty as Vista theme.  But Windows Classic mode is the best.  Looks like 98 and 2000 and very fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 98SE said:

Default XP is not pretty as Vista theme.  But Windows Classic mode is the best.  Looks like 98 and 2000 and very fast.

That time I am not a die hard and after trying everything from 2000 to 10 I came to conclusion that nothing is better than XP 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dibya said:

That time I am not a die hard and after trying everything from 2000 to 10 I came to conclusion that nothing is better than XP

How many years did you use daily, for work, each of the mentioned Operating Systems? :dubbio:

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jaclaz said:

How many years did you use daily, for work, each of the mentioned Operating Systems? :dubbio:

jaclaz
 

How many years did you use for each OS jaclaz?

I used DOS the longest, 95/98 third, 2K fourth, XP second, Vista fifth tied with Windows 3.1 for now, W7 sixth, W10 seventh, ME, OS/2, NT 4.0, Mac OS, and Mac OS X+ eighth.

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 98SE said:

How many years did you use for each OS jaclaz?


 

I just (april 2017) put into retirement  (not that there was any actual *need* to retire them, they were both just fine, it was mostly due to a few changes in the programs - some web based - that must be run on them) a couple machines, one running NT 4.00 (since 2003, 24/7) and one running Windows 2000 (since 2003. on 24/7) [*], "new" machines are running 7.

I ran NT on my personal machine since 1995 up to 2001, and 2000 from 2001 up to 2009, XP since 2009.

JFYI:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157061-xp-is-2000-plus-the-fancy-theme-youre-wrong/?do=findComment&comment=1001379

jaclaz


 

[*] One fanless, the other with a fan, with NO downtime whatever, only shutdown for maintenance and for replacement of parts (a couple disks and quite a few power supplies, respectively 3 and 2, if I recall correctly) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaclaz said:

I just (april 2017) put into retirement  (not that there was any actual *need* to retire them, they were both just fine, it was mostly due to a few changes in the programs - some web based - that must be run on them) a couple machines, one running NT 4.00 (since 2003, 24/7) and one running Windows 2000 (since 2003. on 24/7) [*], "new" machines are running 7.

I ran NT on my personal machine since 1995 up to 2001, and 2000 from 2001 up to 2009, XP since 2009.

JFYI:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157061-xp-is-2000-plus-the-fancy-theme-youre-wrong/?do=findComment&comment=1001379

jaclaz


 

[*] One fanless, the other with a fan, with NO downtime whatever, only shutdown for maintenance and for replacement of parts (a couple disks and quite a few power supplies, respectively 3 and 2, if I recall correctly) .

I had used Windows 2000 for as long as I could until programs said XP requirement and I needed those programs.  Sounds like you squeezed 14 years out of that OS. :)

But I don't think you used regular Windows 2000 without constantly patching?

Did you find a proper Windows 2000 Sata AHCI driver?  I tried using SATA AHCI XP driver but no luck.  I think you should consider XP and Windows 7 only for permanence.

Why did you stick with Windows 2000 for so long?  Was it to avoid needing to authenticate your copy every time you install?

I only used NT 4.0 for Dual Boot test with 98SE which later I did 98SE and 2000 for more permanent usage.  But 2000 looked to be better and more stable when opening too many Internet Explorer windows.  Windows 2000 could do near unlimited till the memory ran out.  98SE would crash and become unstable and have to reboot but I needed it for DOS programs too.

Right now on XP and completely fanless except one laptop hard drive but you can't hear it.  This one should not die for 20 years most likely or ever.  Hopefully Fanless ATX power supplies will still exist as no other components I hope will die by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naaah, the philosophy (mine) is "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "less is more" (and "everything must be as simple as possible, but not simpler").

Those systems, though actually used 24/7, are (were) used for a limited number of programs, all (or almost all) of the kind where speed is no issue at all (we like to call this "work"), basically where you need to type data in them and then print these data in some kind of ordered fashion doing some calculations on the numbers.

Just for the fun of it, do this experiment. :w00t:

Install Excel (*any* version after Office 95) and/or LibreOffice Calc (any version).

Use Excel (or Calc) to (say) keep a list of your expenses, or do whatever calculations one normally does on a spreadsheet,

Now download this:

http://www.byedesign.co.uk/

http://www.byedesign.co.uk/s32/spre32en.zip

And WITHOUT installing it (actually opening it in 7-zip and double clicking the exe will be fine) do the same activities as above.

Do you really miss a zillion senseless icons (let alone if office 2007 or later the stupid ribbon)?

How fast is loading (let alone installing) the one or the other?

Think about the value expressed as a ratio actual usefulness/size on disk (and in memory).

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaclaz said:

Naaah, the philosophy (mine) is "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "less is more" (and "everything must be as simple as possible, but not simpler").

Those systems, though actually used 24/7, are (were) used for a limited number of programs, all (or almost all) of the kind where speed is no issue at all (we like to call this "work"), basically where you need to type data in them and then print these data in some kind of ordered fashion doing some calculations on the numbers.

Just for the fun of it, do this experiment. :w00t:

Install Excel (*any* version after Office 95) and/or LibreOffice Calc (any version).

Use Excel (or Calc) to (say) keep a list of your expenses, or do whatever calculations one normally does on a spreadsheet,

Now download this:

http://www.byedesign.co.uk/

http://www.byedesign.co.uk/s32/spre32en.zip

And WITHOUT installing it (actually opening it in 7-zip and double clicking the exe will be fine) do the same activities as above.

Do you really miss a zillion senseless icons (let alone if office 2007 or later the stupid ribbon)?

How fast is loading (let alone installing) the one or the other?

Think about the value expressed as a ratio actual usefulness/size on disk (and in memory).

jaclaz
 

Heh... :D I like using older Windows 3.1 Office.  Word and Excel only... very tiny on a few floppy disks!  I used it on 95 and 98.  Even worked on 2000 and XP.

Office 97 I think is the last version before Office got too bloated and kept trying to error correct you as you typed! :angry:

You made me miss :wub: using them.  AOL IM also a favorite.  v2.0 is so tiny no junk included.  Too bad facebook and twitter killed it.

If Office > CD 650 MB time to say No!  A friend wants 2016 Pro installed on Windows 10. :blink:

We now need to create 9X/ME emulator like DOSBOX but 9XMEBOX.  9XME deathbed coffin now opening. :angel

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/06/2017 at 8:39 AM, jaclaz said:

How many years did you use daily, for work, each of the mentioned Operating Systems? :dubbio:

jaclaz
 

NT4 is perfect beast but unfortunately my pc drivers are not available. 

2000 worked great with Bwc and wild bill stuff but many xp compatible apps never worked.  Do not say me about nt6.x. They are nothing but bloated piggy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...