burd Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 14 hours ago, Mcinwwl said: For Vista, 1,09% in September 2016, 1,06% in December 2016. not bad i suppose for vista Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc333 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Why would NT share rise? NT 4.0 is more decrepit than even 95 (at least 95 has PnP), so I'm a bit perplexed. However, NT 4, at its core, is purely 32-bit, so I guess there's that. c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 5 hours ago, cc333 said: Why would NT share rise? NT 4.0 is more decrepit than even 95 (at least 95 has PnP), so I'm a bit perplexed. However, NT 4, at its core, is purely 32-bit, so I guess there's that. c Naah, any variations within 1-2% are within the (lack of) "precision" of the sampling. jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caliber Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 On 3/1/2017 at 3:36 AM, NoelC said: I ran XP x64 for several years, and it truly was rid of many of the issues that plagued me with trying to do big things with XP Pro 32 bit. XP 64 is absolutely garbage. I get a BSOD very often when it doesn't support installed software I don't even have the time to read the BSOD error number because the computer does reboot quickly without any delay. during the restart I can feel like hard drive spinning is going up as if it were off (XP 32 has never had this issue and I rarely got a BSOD) I'm glad to know that XP is still surviving but the real problem comes from the internet browsers Chrome latest version is no longer supporting XP and some sites cannot be seen while Firefox can load all them with no problem. hopefully these browsers don't become unusable like IE.6 othwerise we will have to switch over and leave XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 6 hours ago, caliber said: XP 64 is absolutely garbage. I get a BSOD very often when it doesn't support installed software I don't even have the time to read the BSOD error number because the computer does reboot quickly without any delay. during the restart I can feel like hard drive spinning is going up as if it were off (XP 32 has never had this issue and I rarely got a BSOD) XP64 (for the good and for the bad) is very similar (please read as "is essentially") Server 2003 x64, like most server editions it does need good, suitable hardware (particularly suitable drivers) AND a number of desktop programs may have issues. About the BSOd reboot, simply disable the automatic reboot: http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/229/ jaclaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwestlife Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 0:12 AM, cc333 said: Why would NT share rise? NT 4.0 is more decrepit than even 95 (at least 95 has PnP), so I'm a bit perplexed. However, NT 4, at its core, is purely 32-bit, so I guess there's that. c Any Windows NT-family OS (all the way up to Windows 10) whose version cannot be detected gets counted as "Windows NT". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jody Thornton Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 21 hours ago, caliber said: XP 64 is absolutely garbage. I get a BSOD very often when it doesn't support installed software I don't even have the time to read the BSOD error number because the computer does reboot quickly without any delay. during the restart I can feel like hard drive spinning is going up as if it were off (XP 32 has never had this issue and I rarely got a BSOD) I'd be inclined to seriously disagree. Yes Windows XP x64 Edition really needed to be mated with appropriate machinery to shine. But if you had a fully compatible machine, x64 Edition was a dream to work with. I'd say so much so that it redefined how I would look at using XP. If I had to go back and use it, I would ONLY use the x64 version. It was remarkably stable on my HP xw8200. You were lucky to never have a BSOD on the x86 version, though I admit I had very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 XPx64 is rock solid under proper hardware . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc333 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I concur. In fact, I'm using it now, on my Mac Pro (arguably best machines you can find for XP x64, in my opinion). I do like that XP-32 is more well supported, though (XP-64 is this weird thing that sits somewhere between XP-32, w2k3-64 and Vista-64, being relatively compatible with all three (thus being capable of running 90%+ of all software written for them), yet barely supported by anyone). This makes it a bit of a challenge to get it working just right, but not impossible. c 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jody Thornton Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 On your Mac Pro, eh? Hmmmmm - does it run bare metal (I know that Macs run on Intels now), but is it really quick? Any compromises to be aware of? I admit, this sounds like a pet project right up my alley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc333 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 7 hours ago, JodyT said: On your Mac Pro, eh? Yup! 7 hours ago, JodyT said: does it run bare metal It does!! 7 hours ago, JodyT said: is it really quick? It is fairly quick. Not super lightening fast, but it's better than 7 on the same hardware. 7 hours ago, JodyT said: Any compromises to be aware of? Sort of. Apples Boot Camp drivers don't support installation on XP x64 (they never have), so you have to unpack and install each driver manually. You also don't have the nice control panel (unless one can figure out a way to spoof the Windows version and/or hack the .msi to install), but it works 100% otherwise. 7 hours ago, JodyT said: I admit, this sounds like a pet project right up my alley. Are you going to get yourself a Mac Pro? If you're going to get yourself an Apple, the 2006-2012 Mac Pros are perhaps the best, most expandable modern Macs you'll find. c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitroshift Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 On 29/12/2016 at 3:48 PM, Dibya said: [...]hardware firewall of my router is there to protect me.[/...] May I ask what router is that and what firmware is it running (official or open source)? nitroshift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 6 hours ago, nitroshift said: May I ask what router is that and what firmware is it running (official or open source)? nitroshift official Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 7 hours ago, nitroshift said: May I ask what router is that and what firmware is it running (official or open source)? nitroshift 43 minutes ago, Dibya said: official OK. But what router (== maker and model) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 What are you thinking about, dencorso? That the router could be compromised? I always believe in and have multiple levels of protection, but I admit that I have long wondered whether common home routers, whose software rarely gets patches, could be compromised, and if so, how most folks could even tell. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts