If you're staying offline, you could probably even get away with using SP1. I've heard XP RTM isn't that good though.

There can be a few SP3 minimum games which deliberately do this to deter the "sp2 pirates". since SP3 had mandatory WGA.

leileilol wrote:

There can be a few SP3 minimum games which deliberately do this to deter the "sp2 pirates". since SP3 had mandatory WGA.

Which games are those? And didn't WGA get replaced in a later XP update by Windows Activation Technologies anyway?

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

If you're staying offline, you could probably even get away with using SP1. I've heard XP RTM isn't that good though.

I would use SP2 as minium.. Cause SP2 fixes LBA-48 problem.. So bigger harddisks beyond 137GB can be fully accessed.

This should not be in the Windows games forum. Marvin would be a better fit for such an old OS.

^ Why not? The description for this forum reads "Getting old Windows games working." Marvin is about hardware.

As for XP games that matter (that really has to use XP for proper EAX or because of compatibility issues), two examples FEAR (2005) and BioShock (2007) requires only XP SP2 (or Vista SP1 at most). SP3 itself was released in 2008. With later games (Mass Effect 2, BioShock 2) I'm not sure EAX was really supported or not.

Yes, but at the time the subforum descriptions for DOS and Windows in The Guide were written... the overall name of the forum was and still is VOGONS. "Very Old Games On New Systems".

The meaning of "New Systems" hasn't changed, rather, it's expanded. Back in 2002 "New Systems" was considered operating systems of Windows 2000 and Windows XP (mainly XP). And Old Games was considered to be MS-DOS games and games designed for Windows 3.1, 95, 98, or Windows Me.

So... it's debatable. I will say that this forum isn't really for getting era-appropriate games designed for XP working on retro XP rigs.

buckeye wrote:

all is running fine so far.

That's your answer! Nope, not necessary at all.
if it aint broke...