Image Map Image Map
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Can WinXP be considered "vintage"?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    30,345
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    As someone said, "Kid, I've got socks older than you."

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    As someone said, "Kid, I've got socks older than you."
    Maybe this spring cleaning you should work on your dresser.
    -- Brian

    Working Systems: Apple IIe/II+/Mac+/Mac 512k, Atari 800/520STFM, Commodore 64/Amiga 3000/SX-64, IBM PS/1 2121-B82, Kaypro II, Tandy 1000 SX, TI-99/4A, TRS-80 Model 4 GA
    Project Systems: Amstrad PCW 8256, Kaypro 2/84 (Bad Chips: 81-194, 81-189).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    30,345
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Once one gets to be a certain age, it seems that everything is an antique.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbbert View Post
    I upgraded all my XP machines and spare XP HDs to the last officially-working firefox, that being 52.9esr (edit: seems 60.2 exists), and it worked quite well. I don't think there's any reason to use an older version.

    For specifically playing DOS games under windows, that being Doom, Wolfenstein-3D and others of that type, I have a nice Windows 98SE running on a 500MHz Compaq and it works very well.

    For networking, I did a number of experiments and found that WFW 3.11, NT 4.0, W2K, W98SE and XP will all happily talk to each other via TCP/IP.
    You can get 60.2 to work on XP?

  5. #25

    Default

    I have a Windows XP machine that I still use as a daily driver and my attitude is this, I'm not driving through the red light district on the internet so I think I should be okay.
    Daniel P. Cayea - The Lyon Mountain Company - Plattsburgh, New York 12901
    Vintage Equipment: IBM 5150 * IBM 5161 * ThinkPad 770ED
    Modern Equipment: MacBook Pro 13 * Alienware M15R3

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    3,859
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lyonadmiral View Post
    You can get 60.2 to work on XP?
    From what I know, what limits you is the your mobo features, and more specifically, your CPU. I do have XP-64 Pro setup on a dual boot board with a AMD 955 chip. I'll try to run some browsers on it tonight and see what happens.
    Surely not everyone was Kung-fu fighting

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    30,345
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    One of those oddities--my AMD Socket 754 system runs recent browsers just fine, but my (supposedly later) Socket 939 does not. From what I've read it seems that the 754 implements SSE2, but the 939 doesn't. Go figure.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    3,859
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    One of those oddities--my AMD Socket 754 system runs recent browsers just fine, but my (supposedly later) Socket 939 does not. From what I've read it seems that the 754 implements SSE2, but the 939 doesn't. Go figure.
    AMD socket 939 chips should support SSE2/3. Generally, all Intel chips from Pentium 4 up and AMD Anthlon 64 up support SSE2.
    Surely not everyone was Kung-fu fighting

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    30,345
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Orange View Post
    AMD socket 939 chips should support SSE2/3. Generally, all Intel chips from Pentium 4 up and AMD Anthlon 64 up support SSE2.
    Well, there's something strange about it--latest versions of FF x64/Ubuntu refuse to install, saying my CPU isn't compatible. For an "old" CPU, Socket 939 are stupid expensive, so not worth the trouble.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    30,345
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Nope--I dropped a bit--I was thinking of my Socket A board (now long retired); my 939 had the Ubuntu issue that it didn't support virtualization (i.e. VirtualBox). But the 754 CPU that I have does with no problem--and [b]that's[b] what hit me as being peculiar.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •