Intel Pro/1000 PT is 32 bit XP, 7 64bit and 10 64bit supported, can run 10, 100 as well, available in x1 with one port. I bought this specially to relieve the TCP/IP processing overhead, called "IP offload" for my XP C2D E8600 Dell optiplex 780, saw about 15% to 25% faster when loading websites and helped me to save up for a year to get HP Z220 that I'm using now.

Since then, bought few more of Pro/1000 PT cards for my computers. Plan to get few more.

Cheers,

I remember having one of these cards back in the day! It was very reliable and worked quite well under Linux and XP. Must have lost it somewhere unfortunately.

There is one problem to use Ivy as retro PC. Such PC should work for longer than common. While those CPU have thermopaste under the cover (unlike 2xxx) which dry out, and the temperature should rise in performance tasks as games. Ivy is not significantly better in the performance, so 2600/2600k seem as better choice for such PC.

Tertz wrote on 2020-02-14, 22:39:

There is one problem to use Ivy as retro PC. Such PC should work for longer than common. While those CPU have thermopaste under the cover (unlike 2xxx) which dry out, and the temperature should rise in performance tasks as games. Ivy is not significantly better in the performance, so 2600/2600k seem as better choice for such PC.

I do agree. In my case I did delid the 3770K to apply Coolaboratory, with some very good results. But indeed the 2600K is an excellent CPU for XP.

The best you could build for XP overkill would probably a 2600K on Z68 and a GTX 780 TI (Faster than the 960, but also higher power draw and slightly older)
Those should be the fastest with proper driver support.

I like the idea of an all-in-one build, it keeps the room from overflowing on rigs (unless that is what you want), but somehow feels wrong to me not having atleaast one build per decade 😉
Aaaaand, that is pretty close to my daily driver.

He chose Haswell which is a fine choice (unless you need the built-in graphics, only a unofficiel driver for XP Embedded works), and a GTX 960. The motherboard he picked sports LPT and COM ports (not bracket needed) which is nice too.

I found out a reason not to choose Haswell is poorer 16-bit (NTVDM) compatibility leading to crashes when executing 16-bit software that uses the FPU.

Okay, we looked into this. Unfortunately for you, you actually have a different problem caused by your CPU. Basically your CPU is too new for your old software.

The problem is that Intel decided that they wouldn't store segment information for the last instruction/data pointer that's part of the FPU state. When a floating-point exception occurs, Windows (WIN87EM.DLL) wants to examine the instruction causing the fault, but because the segments are zeroed, it will crash. It is highly likely that if you installed 32-bit Windows on the host system directly, you'd have the same problem (if not, we'd like to hear about it).

It's currently not clear what, if anything, we can do about this. At any rate, it'd require some engineering effort and won't happen immediately.

For your reference, this is indicated by CPUID.(EAX=07H,ECX=0H):EBX[bit 13] = 1. Bit 13 is documented as "Deprecates FPU CS and FPU DS values if 1." in Intel manuals. Details are in Vol. 1 section 8.1.8, "x87 FPU Instruction and Data (Operand) Pointers".

If you want a short-term solution, get a CPU which is compatible with your software. Ivy Bridge or older Intels will do, any AMD probably as well.

See: https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f … =59741&start=30

I thought this place was only for retro PCs and not for the modern ones. My main pc is still 4770k with 1080ti. It had 780ti when I built it in 2013 and I would just have to switch the old video card back to have something close to same.
Can you play some older games on that kind of pc that you can't using a newer windows 7 pc?

Interesting and well thought out choice of parts there. In several ways similar to the setups which I have at home and at the office. But instead of Z77 these are Gigabyte Z68 models. These come with Etrontech USB 3.0 chip, which is also functional in Windows XP. These Z68 boards are Ivy Bridge CPU compatible, with a BIOS update, and most systems are now using i5-3550 CPUs. I did not know about the thermal paste concern.

About the intel HD drivers for Windows XP. I had issues with the last release. It has less options in the configuration dialog, but more importantly it seemingly assigns less memory to the GPU. Intel driver 6.14.10.5384 works better.
Though in a desktop I always add an NVidia or AMD graphics card, if only because they have more useful options in the driver.

Baoran wrote on 2020-02-25, 16:39:

I thought this place was only for retro PCs and not for the modern ones. My main pc is still 4770k with 1080ti. It had 780ti when I built it in 2013 and I would just have to switch the old video card back to have something close to same.
Can you play some older games on that kind of pc that you can't using a newer windows 7 pc?

That is a question I ask myself rather often. At what point can a game be simply run on a more recent system with a more recent OS.
For example Doom 1&2 or Unreal (Gold) run perfectly fine on a modern machine. For Doom it needs a modern sourceport, but Unreal runs pretty much natively.
I don't see a point in having a machine for each year in history, but having more than one might mean enjoying games the way they were meant to be, especially with stuff that just isn't supported or supported properly anymore (Glide, EAX, SecuROM, CRTs, PS/2, etc)

lordmogul wrote on 2020-02-25, 17:39:

That is a question I ask myself rather often. At what point can a game be simply run on a more recent system with a more recent […]
Show full quote

Baoran wrote on 2020-02-25, 16:39:

I thought this place was only for retro PCs and not for the modern ones. My main pc is still 4770k with 1080ti. It had 780ti when I built it in 2013 and I would just have to switch the old video card back to have something close to same.
Can you play some older games on that kind of pc that you can't using a newer windows 7 pc?

That is a question I ask myself rather often. At what point can a game be simply run on a more recent system with a more recent OS.
For example Doom 1&2 or Unreal (Gold) run perfectly fine on a modern machine. For Doom it needs a modern sourceport, but Unreal runs pretty much natively.
I don't see a point in having a machine for each year in history, but having more than one might mean enjoying games the way they were meant to be, especially with stuff that just isn't supported or supported properly anymore (Glide, EAX, SecuROM, CRTs, PS/2, etc)

I agree, it is a completely legitimate question.

One game that I had trouble with in the past is Bioshock (not Bioshock Remaster which I believe came out in 2016). Basically when running the original Bioshock on Windows 7, many sounds were simply gone making the game a lot less enjoyable. See for example https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/78 … nd-in-windows-7 . At the time I tried all workarounds and the only one that worked was to plug in a microphone. Now the Remastered edition has no such problem on Windows 7, but it feels wrong to pay for the game again to have a bug fixed.

Another game that is showing problems on anything newer than Windows XP is the original CD version of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. It required an anti-copy scheme that installed a kernel driver, something that does not work on Windows 7 x64. These days I only buy games from GOG, so I don't run into this problem, but to play the original SC:CT I need XP. Do I need the very fastest PC to do so? Obviously not, but it's still nice to being able to play a whole range of games from the early 2000's to now without needing multiple PCs.

cde wrote on 2020-02-25, 20:16:

I agree, it is a completely legitimate question. […]
Show full quote

lordmogul wrote on 2020-02-25, 17:39:

That is a question I ask myself rather often. At what point can a game be simply run on a more recent system with a more recent […]
Show full quote

Baoran wrote on 2020-02-25, 16:39:

I thought this place was only for retro PCs and not for the modern ones. My main pc is still 4770k with 1080ti. It had 780ti when I built it in 2013 and I would just have to switch the old video card back to have something close to same.
Can you play some older games on that kind of pc that you can't using a newer windows 7 pc?

That is a question I ask myself rather often. At what point can a game be simply run on a more recent system with a more recent OS.
For example Doom 1&2 or Unreal (Gold) run perfectly fine on a modern machine. For Doom it needs a modern sourceport, but Unreal runs pretty much natively.
I don't see a point in having a machine for each year in history, but having more than one might mean enjoying games the way they were meant to be, especially with stuff that just isn't supported or supported properly anymore (Glide, EAX, SecuROM, CRTs, PS/2, etc)

I agree, it is a completely legitimate question.

One game that I had trouble with in the past is Bioshock (not Bioshock Remaster which I believe came out in 2016). Basically when running the original Bioshock on Windows 7, many sounds were simply gone making the game a lot less enjoyable. See for example https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/78 … nd-in-windows-7 . At the time I tried all workarounds and the only one that worked was to plug in a microphone. Now the Remastered edition has no such problem on Windows 7, but it feels wrong to pay for the game again to have a bug fixed.

Another game that is showing problems on anything newer than Windows XP is the original CD version of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. It required an anti-copy scheme that installed a kernel driver, something that does not work on Windows 7 x64. These days I only buy games from GOG, so I don't run into this problem, but to play the original SC:CT I need XP. Do I need the very fastest PC to do so? Obviously not, but it's still nice to being able to play a whole range of games from the early 2000's to now without needing multiple PCs.

Would love to have a list of windows xp games or other software that don't work on windows 7 to get an idea of what having a windows xp retro system would be useful for.

Are we talking "not working at all, under no circumstances" or "needs tweaks to make work properly " or "works with limitations"?

• Stuff like EAX runs in hardware on XP, but can only be emulated in Vista and up, requiring either a software wrapper or need to be played without. That means any game that is best played with EAX would fall into "with limitations"
• Then there is something like C&C 3 which uses SecuROM for copy protection (only when starting the game though, you can eject the disk afterwards and even use it to start the game on another machine) that would fall under "needs tweaks" to either re-enable the SecuROM driver (on Vista/7/8, not possible on Win 10) or a no-CD fix (grey area). The "official" solution from the publisher is to buy the game again in their digital store.
• Aquanox uses SafeDisc, so the same issue as with C&C 3 (steam/GOG version doesn't need the disc, so those are fine), it also has issues with high DPI/ high polling rate mice (so mostly an issue with "gaming mice",
• Many games do not that well with widescreen, stuff like stretched menus. Those would be "needs odd tweaks" depending on if they can be put to custom resolutions (like 1440x1080 on todays common screens), some only allow "common" resolutions, limited to stuff like 1024x768, 1280x1024 or 1600x1200
• The whole DirectInput/Xinput thing. Older games mostly used DirectInput, newer ones go with the XInput standard coming form the Xbox 360. Depending in the game and controller used, one might need one controller for each or use some wrapper to make games using one standard work with the other.
• Most will probably know about the protection in common system folders (Windows folder, Programs folder, etc) Many older games put their config files, and often also savegames, into the game folder itself. For those to properly work they would need to be either run with admin rights or be installed in a different place.
• games using DX8 or older are basically run in some sort of software emulation layer. Some games got modern renderers (like Unreal/UT99) which goes around that. But for many other games no such renderer or wrapper exists, so the only way to run them is basically by brute forcing with much faster hardware. (I vaguely remember a thread here where someone did test some older games and a Geforce 7800 GS beat a HD 7950 is basically all of them, despite the later card being much, much more powerful) Those games would either be "needs tweaks to make workproperly " or "works with limitations"

In terms of hardware, I think there is some sort of overlapping area between late XP games and early 7/8/10 games. Hardware that supports both platforms properly and games that run on both around equally well.
Parts around 2008-2014

So Core 2, Phenom, 1st-3rd Gen Core-i, Geforce 8-500, Radeon HD 4000-7000, everything that doesn't need more than 4 GB RAM, etc.
Basically stuff that already makes use of multicore CPUs, but doesn't require any modern instructions (SSE4, AVX?), that runs on DX9 (even if it offers a DX10/11 renderer)

Could almost say the entire lifetime of Vista, early on people stayed with XP and used their DX10 cards there, later on they moved onto newer systems, mostly when games started to benefit from 64-bit, used more than 4 GB of RAM or required DX11.

In terms of games, the first one that benefited from a modern, 64-bit, DX<9 platform is maybe Crysis from 2007 (the highest settings were officially only available on DX10, but most of it could also be manually tweaked under XP/DX9), anything before that (and many afterwards) still ran fine under XP.

The latest would be AAA titles around the end of XPs support around 2014, smaller/indie titles often still do well on XP and recent hardware required 7/8/10 anyway to properly function, with the latest step around 2017 with hardware that offered no drivers for anything below Windows 8.1

Same btw applies to the 98/XP transition, with games from around 98-04 that do well on both, neither relying on the DOS base of 98 nor specifically needing XP and it's NT core to function

Ivy Bridge is now retro?? I am still using my trusty 2600k as my daily driver - on an Asus P67EVO coupled with 16gb of RAM and a GTX660TI and runs Windows 7 and everything I throw at it just fine! I have a GTX960 boxed that I used only once - bought specifically because it is the last nVidia card with official Windows XP drivers.
In my opinion LGA775 can now be considered retro but LGA115X and newer are not really retro.