Windows XP

>>247773

Oh and the motherboard will most likely be a Z170 piece or equivalent motherboard that can house i5 and i7 processors.

>>247773
no reason it shouldn't.
but why would you other than muh nostalgia or to run the most legacy of software?

File: cyclops old wall.jpg (312KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 800x600px

>>247788

Thanks and to be honest anon, I'm kind of being a lazy ass in terms of transferring all my stuff, program to program to a Windows 7-10 or Linux drive.

Basically all my internet listings, tabs, sessions, unfinished projects, etc are all on this XP thing.

I was thinking of just using a brand new Linux or Windows 7-10 installation on a new master/slave drive and referring to it when I need the really heavy work/games done.

But you do have a point...I am actually planning on making a legitimately "Nostalgia Rich" drive based on the old compaq I had from 1999 that ran on Win98! I still retain files stored on an external that has all 3gb of information I had from those years.

Remember old shit like the wallpapers for the first X-Men movie? Yeah....

>>247773
>Master or Slave
>implying drive is IDE
No, modern motherboards does not come with IDE/PATA ports.

The issue is driver support. Most new hardware just doesn't have XP drivers available. Having said that, I have a Sandy Bridge i7 machine running at 3.4 that runs XP

>>247921

Yes but don't they have numbered slot connectors which are basically like saying which one is boss, subordinate 1, subordinate 2.

File: ide-drive-to-sata-adapter-plug-image-2[1].jpg (79KB, 800x813px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x813px

>>247921
Yeah, that problem seems insurmountable.

Sorry, OP, tripfag says you can't do it.

>>247972
Many of those adapters are dubious in quality, and in worse-case scenarios can damage a new motherboard. Not worth the risk, better buying off a second-hand Core 2 Duo machine for the same price and extract data there.

File: 4L_OrZIP2h1.jpg (16KB, 314x195px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 314x195px

>>248103
>can damage the motherboard
I think you're underestimating the "worst case": in the worst case, they can leap out the PC, kill you and all your family, use the corpses to summon Satan, and drag the entire Earth down into the abyss.

Meanwhile, in reality, they cost $5 and work just fine and you're salty you didn't know about them.

File: 1480657547270.png (144KB, 392x324px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 392x324px

>>248159
>salty you didn't know about them
I have seen one killing the motherboard. Some do not do permanent damage but are DOA. Perhaps you are salty about the problematic one you are using right now.

>>248169
And I saw one summon satan, 'member?

Pics or it didn't happen.

>>248174
Yes, I remembered, you are the S-Video shill from a former thread. I never took a picture, so it didn't happen.
No pics for you, but read these yourself:
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B000RK89M4/ref=acr_dpx_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&showViewpoints=0


>but no pics they are lying!!1!!
Just use your Satan-to-S-Video converter to see it for yourself, shall you?

>>248181
Persecution complex much?

Doncha think it's funny how the only people having problems are the ones that write like retards and don't really know how ATA works?

Maybe you can relate?

>>248184
I said "Worse-case scenarios", brush up your comprehension skills.
You did not even come up with a proper argument but instead rely on Ad Hominem and false dichotomy to back up your non-existent rebuttal. You are also insinuating that OP--who is planning to use XP on modern computers--is an ATA expert. Now I totally understand why you were butthurt in the last thread.
>Persecution complex much?
Oh come on, merely cropping that exact picture "damage control" posted on the last thread isn't enough to disguise yourself. Maybe expand your vocabulary perhaps?

File: image.jpg (165KB, 490x540px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 490x540px

>>248187
So here's the thing: if the point you were making was in any way relevant to OP's problem, you'd have got a reply along the lines of "the 'worst case scenario' of leaving the house is that you get abducted, gang-raped, vivisected, and buried at sea; yet everyone leaves the house every day, because they know that the 'worst case scenario' isn't going to happen, and everyone they know that leaves their house does just fine, and leaving their house brings them a practical benifit that they wouldn't get if they didn't leave their house".

But your point wasn't relevant, it was nothing to do with OP, it was just you grasping at straws to save face because you were shown to be wrong.

This is why we don't use names here: so we don't have to use insane arguments to defend absurd assertions, and can instead just say "oh, I had no idea those were a thing". When you've got no face, you don't need to scrabble about saving face.

>>248420
>shown to be wrong.
You clearly didn't. I have shown you how many people have problems with that thing, and all you did is to claim they are of low intelligence with little to back up. All I wrote in my first comment is that modern motherboards does not come with IDE, which can mean simply as the HDD cannot be directly connected to the motherboard. You are the one who projected to think that I wrote the setup won't work.
The worse case scenario is not the main problem here--the more common problem is, which is it simply does not work.
Also, did you notice calling others namefagging and summoning-Satan shenanigans is even more irrelevant to the OP's problem? Blatant pot calling kettle black.
>grasping at straws
Are you talking about yourself since you cannot refute my evidence? I think you do.
>no face
I can change the name anytime? Or did you think this is Reddit?

>>248428
Yeah, but you don't want to, because you derive self-worth from your name having a reputation for being correct.

Thus when you're shown to be saying something that's not correct (you've said it's difficult or impossible for OP to connect his disk), you need to find some way to make reality conform to what you said, rather than just say "oh, I had no idea you could get an adapter for $5, I guess I was wrong".

You've had to invent a story about people's motherboards going on fire just to make it look like you already knew about these things when it's clear you didn't.

You'd rather OP went for an expensive and shit solution (give up on his retro-rocket XP machine and just buy an ancient XP machine), instead of a cheap and effective solution, because you're getting satisfaction from you being right, rather than from OP getting helped.

It's pathetic.

Just say you didn't know. No-one's expected to know about everything.

File: 818.gif (1022KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 640x480px

>>248463
>>248463
>self-worth
ROFL reputation isn't a thing on this site-- you need to lurk more.
>(you've said it's difficult or impossible for OP to connect his disk)
You made that up in your mind-- you didn't even bother to read my previous post. I knew such an adapter exists, and I also know how unreliable they could be. Furthermore, youare the one who hold the burden of proof when you say that I did not know such an item exists.
>invent a story
Personal experience, it is up to you to believe it or not, and I won't care whether you believe it or not--you are neither the OP nor OP's wife's son. Sneakily keeping quiet about the link ,since it holds evidence to prove my point, is just going to further prove that your points don't hold any water.
>Just say you didn't know. No-one's expected to know about everything.
Such philosophical words from the guy who is using caustic words right from the start.
>Pathetic
Yeah that's you alright, since all you do is to try to mock at others all day, creating negativity in a question thread and do damage control through hollow insults and 'big-talk' when you are outright proven incorrect. I have shown you proof, it is high-time you show me some...oh wait, you can't.
Anyway, I understand that you despise namefags with a passion and is desperately trying to spread your gospel, hence my best route of action would definitely be to continue with my namefagging. Have a good day.

>>248465
>you hold the burden of proof when you say that I did not know such an item exists.
>>248468
>you hold the burden of proof when you claim that I did not know such an item exists.

SO flustered you had to delete and reword?

Anyway, here goes:

>>247773
>Is it even possible to use Windows XP
>>247921
>No, modern motherboards does not come with IDE/PATA ports
>>247921
>No

"Is it possible?"
>"No, because you don't have an IDE port".

If you had know, the answer would have been
>Yes, but you need an adapter
, or
>Not really, because you need an adapter, and that will set your motherboard on fire

My, that was easy. That's the thing about the archives: you can't change history. Anyone that wants to can just look up what you said.

>>248470
>Furthermore, youare
Maybe you should delete your post again and have another go?

Fourth time's the charm?

>>248471
>implying I was answering /that/ question.
You are not allistic are you

>>248472
Nah, I had to delete because of other problematic wording errors that may go into the grey areas of the site rules. Can't be bothered to do that anymore, boo hoo.

>>248473
Well, it's the only question OP asked, and the only question that
>"modern motherboards does(sic) not come with IDE/PATA ports"
can possibly be clarifying an answer to.

>allistic
My goodness, your jimmies are rustled. I bet your hands are quivering in incandescent rage.

>>248474
You know all your drafts went into the archive, right?

Anyone that's interested can just go look and see that "problematic wording errors that may go into the grey areas of the site rules" is just you talking shite.

>>248475
4chan comprehension skills 101:"
>implying drive is IDE
No, modern motherboards does not come with IDE/PATA ports."

The "no" is a reference to the above "implying drive is IDE" statement, not answering OP's question.
>>248475
>quivering in incandescent rage
Well your jimmies are definitely rustled as well. Oh boy.

>>248477
In the archive:
I accused you of "trying to flame”. Rule 3 global.
Your turn.

>>248478
>The "no" is a reference to the above "implying drive is IDE" statement, not answering OP's question.
That's not how English works, anon.

Once again, you are trying to contort the past, desperately searching for any interpretation of what was written, no matter how tenuous, that can make you seem to not have been wrong.

If "a reference to the above "implying drive is IDE" statement" was what you meant, then you would just have responded to >>247972 with "no, I meant OP probably doesn't have IDE because modern motherboards".

It must truly annoy you that you can't just edit away your errors, instead of owning up to them.

>>248483
That is how communication works here, if you are not accustomed to it, that's too bad for you because the rest of us can actually understand.

Also, you have yet to prove any of your points, right from the beginning. Maybe you should own up to some errors too? I will consider it if you do.

>>248481
That only explains one of your drafts. It's all in the archive.

>>248485
>the rest of us can actually understand.
[citation needed]

>>248493
The first time was forgetting the image, oopsie dasies. Then I proceeded to edit the post as well because why not. Anyway, you are "grasping on straws", and have yet to address your claims, this is the nth time I am telling you this.
>[citation needed]
An example of internet language that does not entirely conform to linguistic standards:
http://i.imgur.com/GwDGd.png
And before you try bashing the picture above, try to speak for your own arguments first, as you have none.

File: GwDGd.png (599KB, 780x841px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 780x841px

>>248499
>An example of internet language that does not entirely conform to linguistic standards
If there is in fact a point you're trying to make, please just state it.

>>248502
Nah, I no longer want to feed someone who is incapable of even backing up their own assertions. It is my mistake for falling for your obvious bait. Anyways, have a nice day and goodbye.

>>247773
Now he's finally gone:

>the motherboard will most likely be a Z170 piece
This is an issue, because Skylake only has an xHCI controller, and XP doesn't have xHCI drivers. If you want USB, you'll need to add in an EHCI card.

>-4gb gpu?
Not unless you're using XP-64bit, which is even hoarier than XP. In any case, there's no way to upgrade from 32 to 64, so you're going to be stuck with 32 if you want to keep all your nostalgic install.

>I'm going to plug in an old Windows XP harddrive
Member to boot it on the old machine first and change all the storage controllers to "Standard Whatever Whatever controller", or when you swap the drives XP won't boot. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/09/how-to-install-a-new-motherboard-without-reinstalling-windows/ . Also member that XP can't boot AHCI until you install an AHCI driver.

You might be better off using VMWare Converter to make a virtual machine out of your XP machine, and running it inside VMWare Player. It wouldn't be as retro-chic, but it would be a lot easier to live with.

File: helium.png (147KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1920x1080px

Just btw, XP is still used for 2d benchmark records (or old 3d up to 3dmark06).
This horrible piece of software just will not fucking die.

>>247773
And if you do need to adapt the drive:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-PATA-IDE-TO-Serial-ATA-SATA-Interface-Hard-Drive-HDD-DVD-Adapter-Converter-/171829231183

966 sold, not one single feedback saying "my computer went on fire".

>>248505
>-4gb gpu?
>Not unless you're using XP-64bit, which is even hoarier than XP.

VRAM is private to the card, the 32bit OS problem does not have anything to do with that. This will not limit him in any way.
I agree on the rest though, XP is quite the bitch with new hardware and using a VM is a great idea.

>>248509
It still has to be mapped into the virtual address space, though, no?

Happy to admit I've not tried a 4GB card on 32-bit, but on a 4GB 32-bit system, my 1GB card limited the available RAM to 3GB.

File: 3d06ln2.jpg (219KB, 1245x836px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1245x836px

>>248516
Seems fine to me. I never checked too deeply but I'm pretty sure that was the case.

Anyway, I can't think of any load on an XP system which would fill even 2GB, and XP is still faster on any 3d-benchmark that can run on it (due to the dx9 limitation), so it should not be an issue even if I'm wrong.

>>248532
Eh, me again, I'm too fucking tired and forgot my original point between posts:
XP and his hardware both support PAE and memory remapping, so other than a very small amount of a few 100mb, the size of the VRAM is completely irrelevant and has no connection to the 3.2GB of main RAM.
I really need to load up jane nash, masturbate elegantly, then sleep. Saged.

>>248544
I thought they disabled PAE in SP2, or was that just the letting-you-have-more-than-4GB bit of PAE?

>>248569
I can only say I'm fairly certain the memory remapping works with a normal sp3 installation.
I'm from a competitive benchmarker background and we test every possible combination/version for best scores.
Something like remapping being disabled would have fucked scores, and people would have definitely noticed and used that fact.

A consistent 1% improvement in efficency is already considered a strong tweak, so something like that would have made some waves.

File: nerd-46422.jpg (52KB, 495x375px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 495x375px

Pic Related: It's me when I realize that I need to stop holding on to Win98, 2000, and XP and start playing catch up.

>>247921
The XP HD is a Sata hitachi so I'll just use the 1,2,3 port.

>>248505
>>248508
>>248507
Thank you for the feedback. It just seemed a pain to redo and transfer the hundreds of programs/games/links onto a new HD with different OS. This is in addition to Windows10 going onto the spying trend that comes out of Alex Jone's worst nightmare. But right now, I might as well do the fine tuned precision transfer that worried me earlier, or better yet, your VMWare idea.

I didn't get the motherboard yet but I might go to AMD instead of Intel due to pricing.

>>248599
If you want to go to AMD, wait for the next generation. The NDAs are still in place, but I can say that you would not do yourself a favor by buying their old generations right now.

>>248603

I was going to go with AMD FX-9590 or AMD FX-8350.

I'm not much of an overclock fag and the most abuse I'll do to the machine itself is SW Battlefront, high quality video editing, rendering programs, and maybe Shadows of Mordor...maybe...

>>248618
That would be a stupid idea. Even a used Sandy Bridge for around $100 would give you superior gaming performance.
Either go for intel, used or new, or wait for the new generation.

The FX-8350 is a bad CPU by today's standards, and the FX-9590 is the same bad CPU just overclocked so high that expensive cooling is mandatory.

>>248174
Sup. Hey, guys. From /x/ and /wsg/. Go full retard. Chromium OS.

>>248893
wat