Windows 8 on early Pentium 4?

[sedrosken]

My Windows 8 Pro DVD doesn't boot on my Pentium 4 1.9 GHz, on an ASUS P4B motherboard. It has the i845 chipset, not the i845m or whatever it is that adds USB 2.0. It's one of the earlier ones, predating DDR RAM by about a year (sticker on case says August 2002.) It uses the 4 x 100 MHz FSB. It has 1 GB RAM.

I just feel like torturing it by running 8 on it. I also wanna see how stripped down I can get it.

Do the early P4's just not have PAE and NX? I know for a fact it has SSE2; It's a Pentium 4, that was one of their main selling points.

 

[sedrosken]

I feel like an idiot now...

ONE simple Google search revealed what I wanted to know. No, it does not support PAE nor NX.

It kicks me out with the error code 0x0000005D. I looked it up and figured out that my poor old P4 just got cut a break.

 

[CougTek]

Congratulations for your new coffee table.

 

[sedrosken]

Congratulations for your new coffee table.

Hehe, not quite. Not yet, at least:

I have updated my BIOS to the latest version. I'm going to see if I can find some option in it that lets me enable/disable NX. My CPU supports it, but my mobo... might not. Ima give it a whirl and post the results.

 

[sedrosken]

Well, that was fast. And disappointing.

I could find no such option in the BIOS.

Crap. Well, It was fun trying, anyway. Maybe I'll have a bit of fun with my main when I get a new one, make it run Windows 9 or whatever they come up with next.

 

[timwhit]

You could run Lubuntu or Xubuntu on it.

 

[Chewy509]

If it's an original socket 478 Willamette based Intel Pentium 4 @ 1.9GHz, then most likely Windows 8 will not run as the CPU is missing the CMPXCHG16B CPU instruction and doesn't support the NX bit... (This CMPXCHG16B instruction was introduced with the x86-64, and IIRC the earliest x86 CPU to support the NX bit were the AMD Athlon 64's (ClawHammer and SledgeHammer cores)).

PS. Prescott P4's have the NX bit, but a lot of motherboards for the Prescott lacked support for it...

Also be aware, 1GB of RAM is not sufficient for Win8 in the real world... (and Win7 for that matter). My advise, use a real operating system like Linux or Solaris 10 on the box...

 

[Chewy509]

ONE simple Google search revealed what I wanted to know. No, it does not support PAE nor NX.

Umm... Every Intel x86 CPU since the Pentium Pro supported PAE?

 

[Chewy509]

... lets me enable/disable NX. My CPU supports it, ...

Our of interest, how did you confirm it supports the NX bit?

It's just that every piece of literature I have, says the first Intel x86 CPU to support the NX bit was the Intel Pentium 4 based on the Prescott core...

 

[sedrosken]

It doesn't. Also, the only OSes that support my wireless card that I can feasibly run are Windows 2000 and XP. Unless, that is, Solaris supports a Dynex Enhanced G Wireless Desktop Card. Doesn't even have a model number, it's so cheap-y.

 

[Chewy509]

Doubtful Solaris does, but A quick Google search shows modern Linux distro's do...

 

[timwhit]

Just boot a Live CD or Live USB stick with Ubuntu (or a derivative) and see if it works.

 

[sedrosken]

I don't have the kind of bandwidth required to download something without being absolutely sure that it will work.

Ubuntu, I know for a fact doesn't support my wireless. Nether does Debian. Or Mint. I might as well take a card out of my computer --

You know what, I will. I have a USB one that's based on the Atheros 9000 series chipset, which I know for a fact will work with Ubuntu (I use the card with my main: I don't ever have both on at once) from the time I had it on my main for a brief stint. I dunno if I want to use Ubuntu though... Maybe Debian with gnome.

 

[Tannin]

I don't have the kind of bandwidth required to download something without being absolutely sure that it will work.

everythinglinux.com.au will post you any Linux disto you like on DVD for $10. Doubtless somewhere close to you offers the same service.

 

[timwhit]

For a low memory system I would stick with something running LXDE or XFCE, which is why I recommended Xubuntu or Lubuntu. I run Xubuntu on 3 of my systems.

 

[sedrosken]

I put Lubuntu on it. I'm actually posting from it: I am very impressed with how much more snap this thing has with it. Installing programs isn't too difficult either! For a system that pre-dates DDR RAM and USB 2.0 by mere months, the ability to view YouTube videos in 720p (provided one allows them to buffer, of course) is an astonishing feat. Thanks for the advice guys.

 

[Tea]

I am about to try it on a Sempron 3000 with 512MB and a 500GB hard drive. Obviously, I'll stick some more RAM in it first, 2GB is probably its limit and ought to be enough.

 

[LiamC]

I went through all of this when Windows 8 Consumer Preview (I think) came out-could have been the developer preview. You can actually get the Consumer Preview to run on a chip without NX bit support, but the .NET framework falls over, and you'd be surprised how much .NET code there is in a plain vanilla install of Windows 8.

I ended up running 32-bit Windows 7 on a Pentium !!!-S 1.4 with 1.5GB and a Radeon X1650 Pro. The interface was a little slow, but otherwise usable. As I said in another thread, I think anything that isn't PCI-e/dual core isn't worth persevering with these days, even Linux as the video decode requirements can't easily be met with a single core. It seems everyone want to view Youtube videos.

LinuxMint with MATE is my go-to for low end systems these days. Having a decent amount of memory is the key, if you can scrounge it.

 

[Tannin]

Microsoft just shot themselves in the head. They made a secretive change to Windows 8.1 and 8.1 will not install or run on a whole swag of powerful modern CPUs manufactured one a few years ago. (Windows 8.0 was fine on them.) These include the very capable Athlon X2 series, and Intel chips of similarly recent vintage.

This is the most stupid move I can imagine - and to think that they did it the same month that Windows 8.x sales dropped below Windows 7 sales!

Needless to say, my previous policy to sell Windows 8.x and teach customers that, with Classic Shell, it isn't as bad as they have heard, is now history. I'm looking at any number of upgrades over the next few months as people migrate off XP, now none of those are going to be Windows 8.

Truly, this is the most stupid company I have ever, ever heard of.

 

[mubs]

So what are you going to give them? Win 7? How long is Win 7 going to be available before they pull the plug on it (sales) and make Tannin even madder?

 

[Mercutio]

Since I can still buy a Windows 2000 license if I really, really want one, I wouldn't be worried about availability.

I do think that there are some consumer-friendly forms of Linux that make every bit as much sense as a move to OSX. Install Firefox/Chrome and VLC and you're probably just about set, except the Linux machine will probably already have an Office Suite replacement and the Mac will be stuck puttering around until either blowing $20 on Pages or installing LibreOffice.

Younger people really like Windows 8 and the chunky icons. The next version of Windows will be something like Windows 8.1.1 but apparently Windows 2015 is supposed to be an even-more-unified interface. I suspect there will be another big UI change at that point.

 

[sedrosken]

Pfft, what is this "buy" you speak of? When I want to experiment with an old version of Windows I just download an ISO from winworldpc.com. It also has abandonware applications and serials for everything they host in the forums.

I'd also reccommend Vetusware and OldApps.com (for applications), but I can't figure out how to download anything from Vetusware. Emuparadise has an impressive collection of DOS games, if you're willing to dig for it. DOSBox is cross-platform.

But you're right - - if you want it bad enough, you can find basically any version of Windows, fully genuine, online. Be prepared for a bit of sticker shock, though.

Support is not an issue. Windows 7 will, according to Microsoft, be supported until 2020. According to what I've read, that is.

 

[Mercutio]

.ISO files aren't really a problem, though Microsoft can no longer legally distribute Windows 98, ME or 2000 because they shipped with Microsoft's unauthorized Java interpreter, but some of us ARE bound by an obligation to provide legal copies of software to our employers and customers.

 

[ddrueding]

I have a 3" tall stack of 3.5" disks that are Win 3.1 somewhere....

 

[Howell]

Or more likely office 3.5.

 

[Tannin]

Support is not an issue. Windows 7 will, according to Microsoft, be supported until 2020. According to what I've read, that is.

Oh but it is.

All those poor sods that Microsoft tricked into upgrading to Windows 8 who CAN'T upgrade to 8.1 'coz Microsoft stealth-introduced a secret new hardware compatibility restriction. Their support cuts out in 2015.

 

[Handruin]

Microsoft just shot themselves in the head. They made a secretive change to Windows 8.1 and 8.1 will not install or run on a whole swag of powerful modern CPUs manufactured one a few years ago. (Windows 8.0 was fine on them.) These include the very capable Athlon X2 series, and Intel chips of similarly recent vintage.

This is the most stupid move I can imagine - and to think that they did it the same month that Windows 8.x sales dropped below Windows 7 sales!

Needless to say, my previous policy to sell Windows 8.x and teach customers that, with Classic Shell, it isn't as bad as they have heard, is now history. I'm looking at any number of upgrades over the next few months as people migrate off XP, now none of those are going to be Windows 8.

Truly, this is the most stupid company I have ever, ever heard of.

Where did you find the list of hardware that was secretively excluded from support? I'd be interested to know what it covers.

 

[Chewy509]

I'm also interested to know what new hardware restriction is in Win8.1, and not in Win8.0. All official documentation indicate the same hardware requirements. (SSE2, NX bit and PAE, etc as denoted here: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-au/windows-8/system-requirements ).

 

[Chewy509]

I think I found it: It's in the link I posted:

New hardware requirements : for 64bit systems a CPU that supports CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF.

Only early single core AMD Athlion 64's are missing CMPXCHG16b... (Clawhammer/sledgehammer based CPUs).
LAHF/SAHF was introduced in 2005... AMD introduced the instructions with their Athlon 64, Opteron and Turion 64 revision D processors in March 2005 while Intel introduced the instructions with the Pentium 4 G1 stepping in December 2005.
PREFETCHW is an AMD 3DNow! instruction??? But Intel added support for it on all Intel CPUs that support VT-x, and some that don't (pretty much i-anything should have it).

So, either you're running an 8+ yr old system, or the feature detection routines in the upgrade assistant are broken...

FYI, I have Win8.1 running on an Intel Core2Quad Q9400 quite happily...

 

[Mercutio]

Or more likely office 3.5.

4.3 was the last version released on Floppies. The install set is 25 disks.

I'm pretty sure both Windows 95 and OS/2 3.0 could be installed from floppy. Both of those weighed in at around 100MB.
I also distinctly recall installing/compiling pre-1.0 Linux from a 19.2kbps serial line, which was slow enough that I thought DC2120 tape was an improvement.

 

[Handruin]

I think I found it: It's in the link I posted:

New hardware requirements : for 64bit systems a CPU that supports CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF.

Only early single core AMD Athlion 64's are missing CMPXCHG16b... (Clawhammer/sledgehammer based CPUs).
LAHF/SAHF was introduced in 2005... AMD introduced the instructions with their Athlon 64, Opteron and Turion 64 revision D processors in March 2005 while Intel introduced the instructions with the Pentium 4 G1 stepping in December 2005.
PREFETCHW is an AMD 3DNow! instruction??? But Intel added support for it on all Intel CPUs that support VT-x, and some that don't (pretty much i-anything should have it).

So, either you're running an 8+ yr old system, or the feature detection routines in the upgrade assistant are broken...

FYI, I have Win8.1 running on an Intel Core2Quad Q9400 quite happily...

Thanks Chewy. So it doesn't seem that bad if hardware that is 8+ years old is not supported. They have to draw the line somewhere for backward compatibility.

 

[Chewy509]

Thanks Chewy. So it doesn't seem that bad if hardware that is 8+ years old is not supported.

My thoughts as well... Most of the older systems would be running DDR2 RAM as well, which depending on cost would be $$$ to bring the installed RAM to an acceptable level...

From what I've read, the real issue was the requirement on the PREFECTW instruction. A lot of the "new" Pentium and Celeron models that were being sold at the same time as the i3/i5/i7 actually don't have the instruction. It only became available on the Pentium/Celeron models when those started using the same core(s) as the i-Series of Intel CPUs. (IIRC and AFAIK, PREFETCHW was only included on CPUs that supported Intel's VT-x extension or the CPU cores that went into the i3/i5/i7, hence why I've got it running on an 5yr old Q9400 (as it supports VT-x), but won't work on a 2-3yr old Pentium, since it lacks VT-x and is based on a core that doesn't include the instruction - since those initial Pentium/Celeron's didn't have the same core architecture of the i3/i5/i7 at the time).

 

[Chewy509]

They have to draw the line somewhere for backward compatibility.

And yet the Linux kernel only dropped i386 support earlier this year (kernel 3.8 officially the last kernel to support the i386), and the kernel team still support it running on 486SX systems (lacking FPU) or 486DX (with FPU).

The reasoning: there are a lot of embedded systems that run on the 486. IIRC/AFAIK Intel still make a rad-hardened version for custom orders, and there are a number of clone manufacturers who still make i486DX2-50 chips for embedded industrial applications. I remember reading an article a year or two ago, that Intel would stop manufacturing the mil-spec/rad-proof i386 (the EX model) and that users should migrate to the i486 or other SoCs as soon as possible...

 

[timwhit]

I wonder if Windows Embedded 8.1 has the same CPU requirements.

 

[Mercutio]

Probably. The place where a normal human would most likely encounter Windows Embedded as opposed to Windows Mobile or RT or some other stripped down version is in point of sale equipment. Some of the register systems I deal with now have pretty fancy dual core Atom CPUs in them for no particular reason that I'm aware of. On one hand it's an Atom but on the other hand how much horsepower does it take to run a touchscreen menu and ordering system?

 

[Tannin]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2058...uirements-strand-some-users-on-windows-8.html

 

[Tannin]

We are not talking ancient hardware here, we are talking modern, powerful dual core CPUs including very capable AMD Athlon 64 X2s and Intel Core 2 units. It is beyond stupid to do this on a point release (which is in any case utterly useless for anyone running Windows on a real computer instead of a telephone and thus not almost certainly using Metro.

 

[Stereodude]

Doesn't the 32-bit version work fine on these systems?

 

[Mercutio]

Probably, but you can't interchange Windows versions like that. If you're on the 64bit version, you can't upgrade to 32 bit.

 

[Stereodude]

Probably, but you can't interchange Windows versions like that. If you're on the 64bit version, you can't upgrade to 32 bit.

Doesn't the same key work for both? I know it would require a clean reinstall, but it's not like there's absolutely no workaround.