Pentium III users knocked out of Win7 patches

Topic

New Reply

If you have a Pentium III, Win7 may have just entered end-of-life, 18 months early. Post coming in Computerworld.
[See the full post at: Pentium III users knocked out of Win7 patches]

5 users thanked author for this post.

walker, geekdom, lmacri, Elly

Reply | Quote

Replies

Why does Microsoft seem to hate Windows users by working against them? Support through 2020 should be just that. People need to start testing Linux Mint, or Chromebooks, and move away from Windows altogether. Companies won’t have it so easy. Consumers will.

GreatAndPowerfulTech

8 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, Elly, MrJimPhelps, lanceboil, RDRguy, lurks about, CADesertRat, Rick Corbett

Reply | Quote

Do they hate Windows users or is this an “oops” moment? It’s broken so how do you fix it? Windows 10. Evil plot….

Reply | Quote

But will Windows 10 even run on those?  I’d be surprised if it did.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

Reply | Quote

Break it so you have to toss it and buy new. Why upgrade when the old one still works?

Reply | Quote

I find it hard to believe anyone would be complacent enough to run a P3 in 2018.
A Raspberry Pi would be an upgrade; heck, the computer inside a smart refrigerator would be an upgrade at this point.

The last Windows OS that is a P3 is close to meeting the system requirements for is Vista, which had a minimum of 512 MB of RAM. 7’s lowest is 1 GB. Being that a P3 did not support more than 512 MB, acting like MS is doing something wrong here is absurd.

I don’t even know if you could run Xubuntu or Lubuntu on a P3 but either of those would be a better option for something that still gets security updates than Windows of any flavor.

6 users thanked author for this post.

johnf, MrJimPhelps, HiFlyer, RDRguy, Bob99, Microfix

Reply | Quote

More then enough embedded stuff that runs 7… It’s also about the principle. Microsoft became a company of lies and cheats. Consumers will remember that very well. Especially in the near future, where computing will be at a turning point at its history. The choice for Windows will for sure not be an automatic one anymore. It already isn’t for more and more people in fact.

10 users thanked author for this post.

lanceboil, HiFlyer, RDRguy, OscarCP, mindwarp, lurks about, Rick Corbett, Elly, pruntytech, woody

Reply | Quote

Exactly, it’s about the principle.

I think you would be surprised as to what is actually still being used. I just worked on a system with a Pentium III running XP and the user only uses it for one specific program and only about 40-50 hours a year. It’s never been connected to the internet and it’s not even plugged in when not in use. Didn’t want to buy a new computer unless that was the only option. Ended up putting a new video card in, but the user didn’t know anything about the hardware. Bottom line was it was still running.

That was pretty much all I was saying. Most people don’t really know, or care, what’s inside as long as it works. And if it still works, why buy new? Old, non-supported OS and all.

2 users thanked author for this post.

anita.yk, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Embedded POSReady 7 came out in 2011 which means it came out at the tail end of the Core 2 architecture. Those are the only “principles” that matter.

Quit acting like “MS is so bad, they sold it with Pentium 3’s and now I can’t update.” Pentium 3’s were long gone, as were Pentium 4’s and Pentium D’s. It’s not supported, it never was supported, stop pretending like it was just to fit your narrative.

Furthermore, any PC not connected to the internet, “never updated” is out of the equation anyway. I have customers with routers run by PC’s running Win95 on beige boxes in dusty garages with no WAN connection either. I wouldn’t expect those things to run Win7 or be eligible for updates on Win7 either.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Jan K.

Reply | Quote

Okay, you’re missing the point and I’m not going to argue.

Take care.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Norio, anita.yk, CADesertRat, Elly

Reply | Quote

No, I get the point. It’s a witch hunt, and you’re just picking up your very own pitchfork.

I guess tomorrow’s hot article from Woody will be a complaint about Windows 10 not installing on a Commodore 64. SMH

I’m not against MS bashing, where valid; the problem is, it’s not valid here.

I guess I expected more from this site…time for me to move on, I suppose.

Reply | Quote

I don’t think that would qualify as hot….

The problem isn’t with Microsoft discontinuing Win7 support for Pentium IIIs. If they had simply stated, plainly, that they weren’t going to support P IIIs because it’s too expensive to support them — possibly offering some explanation, apology, or maybe a discount coupon for something or another — I’d be fine with that.

What happened is entirely different. We got an obfuscated reference and retroactive gaming of the documents.

People tell me that Microsoft has changed, and I should change with it. Admittedly, demonstrably, Microsoft has changed. But some parts of Microsoft didn’t get the memo. This kind of incident is exactly what I would’ve expected from Microsoft a decade or two ago — lie and cover up. MS doesn’t need to do that any more.

14 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, Norio, Robert S., walker, johnf, lanceboil, AlexEiffel, anita.yk, Mele20, HiFlyer, Elly, JohnW, lurks about

Reply | Quote

I have noticed that MS is still doing OK in routine matters, at least those that I expect them to take care regularly for me. For example, with the exception of the March Spectre/Meltdown patch apocalypse, I have not had any real problems with my Office 2010 and Win 7, Group B security and E11 updates, for quite a while now.

On the other hand, when it comes to trying to deal with a new big problem, or to start doing some big new thing, such as the already mentioned patching in March to vaccinate the OS against the Intel’s Spectre/Meltdown problem, or first introducing and now”upgrading” (“ascending”?) Win 10 as Service into the Cloud, or dealing with this Pentium III situation, MS has been doing, consistently, a really poor job and even a reprehensibly bad one. It could be insufficient allocation of resources to take care of Windows, or some psychological disturbance, or perhaps even IQ problems, at the top of the company, or an unnecessarily nasty way to get rid of what management has finally decided are unwanted customers. But, whatever the reason in each case, there is a pattern here, and it is not a good one. Not good for us users and, maybe, not even good for MS itself.

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

6 users thanked author for this post.

walker, anita.yk, Mele20, HiFlyer, mindwarp, JohnW

Reply | Quote

woody wrote:

People tell me that Microsoft has changed, and I should change with it.  Admittedly, demonstrably, Microsoft has changed. But some parts of Microsoft didn’t get the memo. This kind of incident is exactly what I would’ve expected from Microsoft a decade or two ago — lie and cover up. MS doesn’t need to do that any more.

Could not agree more on the “didn’t get the memo” part.  It certainly describes the Windows portion of MS to a T, and that happens to be the only part of MS I care about.  I don’t think you need to change anything… you’re not calling Microsoft out for their misbehavior because you are harboring some old grudge.  You’re calling them on what they are doing right now, and that’s not a bad thing.

There was a time that Microsoft would never have used the Windows Update system to deliver adware, let alone deceptive adware that used dark patterns to try to trick people into upgrading to a version of Windows that tries to take over your computer and press it into servitude to Microsoft.  There was a time that MS would not have thought of distributing what can only be considered to be a Trojan horse in an update that is supposed to be for increasing security, but whose payload is meant to disable security updates on perfectly functional Windows installations just because they were installed against the dictates of Microsoft’s marketing plan (which says that new CPUs must have 10, regardless of what their owners wish).

There was a time that intentionally making Microsoft’s own customers vulnerable to malware to try to force them to accept a product that they don’t want would have been unthinkable.  In contrast, the “old” Microsoft extended support for XP for two extra years because it was so popular approaching its scheduled EOL, which must have cost a king’s ransom, with no chance there would ever be any return on that expenditure.  They will nearly certainly be in that situation again in less than two years, but do you think they will extend Windows 7 support for two years?

Microsoft has used every bit of its monopoly power to force people to accept a product they would ordinarily have rejected, which is something they didn’t do when they were the “old” Microsoft.  When Vista failed, MS could have used the same tricks it’s using now to force people to accept it whether they wanted to or not.  They could have sabotaged Windows XP installations that were done on Core 2 Duo and newer systems, giving people a choice between malware exposure or a product they hate, but they didn’t.  They could have monetized their customers mercilessly as they are now, plying them with ads, putting unrequested software on their computers (repeatedly), using them to beta test the software they paid for, among many other things, but they never did that with the “old” Microsoft.

I will always resent Microsoft for what they did to Netscape, and the way that they blended IE with Windows just to be able to later claim it couldn’t be removed (which Bill Gates did say before Congress… even though many of us were running IE-free Windows 98 even then, thanks to 98Lite or Mozilla’s Revenge).  It was a blatant lie, under oath, and he got away with it.  Gotta give him credit for predicting that the demands to separate IE were coming, though, and thinking of a way to head that off before it happened.

Still, for most of the XP era that followed, MS managed to deliver a solid OS that was meant to give the customers what they wanted, and that is a big part of how I remember the “old” Microsoft.  XP had a UI that reflected how its customers use the OS (mouse or other discrete pointing device and keyboard, same as now!), and it didn’t force the users into settings that benefit Microsoft but harm themselves.  Its biggest flaw was still that IE was embedded, to the point that it also performed the Windows Updates, but otherwise, XP remains my favorite Windows of all time.

Vista was released before it was ready, but that failure led to the immensely popular Windows 7, which is what Vista would probably have been if the marketing department didn’t get control over the release date.  They thought that further delaying an already long overdue release would be worse than releasing an unfinished product, and I think world+dog would now agree that they made the wrong call.  MS fixed what people hated about Vista, even though they had the power to force them to take it Vista as it was.

If that’s the “old” Microsoft, I want it back.  The “old” Microsoft gave us Win2K, XP, and 7; the “new” Microsoft gave us 10, WaaS, forced updates, telemetry that can’t be turned all the way off, Candy Crush Soda Saga, ads, GWX, using consumers as beta testers…

As far as the lying and deception goes, I don’t see a change.  MS FUDded Windows 7’s security (which they are still responsible for maintaining).  MS told us that the resetting of people’s telemetry settings back to full blabbermouth mode was “a bug,” and they’ve pulled the “aw shucks” thing (as you aptly called it) so many times that by now everyone must roll their eyes when they hear it.  They told us that they “do not support” Windows 7 or 8.1 being installed on Kaby Lake or Ryzen because those chips have new features that only 10 can support, and they won’t run properly on any other Windows.  We soon learned that was just another lie.  That was when we learned that “do not support” means “will sabotage.”

In GWX, MS used a trick (not having a cancel button) to get people to click “upgrade later,” which no person would reasonably think was going to do what it did.  Once people learned how to cancel the thing without a “Cancel” button, they switched it up so that clicking X now meant the exact opposite that it had before.  GWX was deception from stem to stern.

People from outside of a Windows perspective may have different ideas about MS than I do.  They see MS embracing platforms like Android and Linux like never before, and to some of them, the days of embrace, extend, extinguish seem long gone.  MS is playing nice with competitors, not ruthlessly trying to destroy them.

It’s a shame that all of this new Microsoft niceness isn’t on offer to Windows users.  What we’re seeing looks a lot like the embrace, extend, extinguish of the past, but now it’s their own product that is in the crosshairs.  WaaS looks a lot like “extend” to me.

Now that MS is a cloud company, makers of other platforms aren’t competitors anymore… they are potential customers.  Now the Windows users are the competition, so to speak.  Not with a product, per se, but with Microsoft’s desire to be a cloud services company without the Windows baggage.

 

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

17 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, lurks about, walker, Karlston, JCCWsusser, Demeter, CADesertRat, AlexEiffel, anita.yk, JohnW, wdburt1, HiFlyer, David F, Microfix, Noel Carboni, Elly, Carl D

Reply | Quote

Great post, Ascaris.

In regards to Windows Update being blocked on newer processors, I’ve been running Windows 7 on Kaby Lake for nearly a year now – fully up to date with Windows Updates (there’s at least 2 ways of getting around MS’s block). No problems with drivers for Windows 7 either, they came on the motherboard disc (they’ve since been updated on the Gigabyte website). Runs perfectly with no problems whatsoever.

And, while we’re on the subject of MS’s shenanigans, let’s not forget the “eternal wait for Windows 7 updates” saga which, strangely enough, started happening just after the release of Windows 10. I still believe that was another deliberate action by MS to get people off 7 and onto 10 despite claims of “update supersedence” or whatever.

The thing that finally convinced me that this was deliberate was when Windows 8.1 started having the same issue some time later. I actually installed 8.1 a couple of times 2 years back… the first time I installed it the initial check for updates took a few minutes. Within the space of a few months the initial check for updates started taking hours just like it was for Windows 7.

I’m sure MS only finally “fixed” the update issue for Windows 7 after countless numbers of people (especially businesses) complained.

 

PC1: Gigabyte B560M D2V Motherboard, Intel i5 11400 CPU, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Graphics Card, 1x Samsung 870 EVO 250GB SSD, 1x Samsung 860 EVO 250GB SSD, Windows 10 Professional 22H2 64bit.
PC2: Asus H81M-PLUS Motherboard, Intel i3-4160 CPU, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Graphics Card, 1x Samsung 870 EVO 250GB SSD, 1x Samsung 860 EVO 250GB SSD, Windows 10 Home 22H2 64bit.

6 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Bill C., Demeter, Cybertooth, HiFlyer, Ascaris

Reply | Quote

@Ascaris, Agreed 100%.

-lehnerus2000

Reply | Quote

zero2dash wrote:

No, I get the point. It’s a witch hunt, and you’re just picking up your very own pitchfork. I guess tomorrow’s hot article from Woody will be a complaint about Windows 10 not installing on a Commodore 64. SMH I’m not against MS bashing, where valid; the problem is, it’s not valid here. I guess I expected more from this site…time for me to move on, I suppose.

OK, your opinion has been noted…

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

1 user thanked author for this post.

lanceboil

Reply | Quote

A Pentium III is not limited to 512MB of RAM, but can use up to 1.5GB on most boards.

Reply | Quote

In fact it can use as much as the PAE 36-bit address space extension, which is built into the CPU, allows for — and that is 64 GB of RAM. The only limitation is the chipset and the memory slots of the motherboard.

Reply | Quote

I have an Abit VP6 with Dual Pentium III’s @ 1ghz, 2gb ram and 4 x 500gb WD Caviar RAID ZERO runnin ATA100 being all new old stock theres plenty of life in PIII for windows 7 which i stopped using for vista due to windows 7’s inability to prevent itself patching unsupported patches.

Reply | Quote

“But will Windows 10 even run on those?  I’d be surprised if it did”

No W10 will not run on a P 3. I have an old P4 ( built with XP in 2003 ) with W7 Pro 32 bit and W10 wouldn’t install on it. For one thing it has an AGP video card, have you looked for new drivers for an AGP card lately? So far my saving grace evidently ( since MS decided to change all their support policy’s ) is that the P4 has SSE 2.

Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
All W10 Pro at 22H2,(2 Desktops, 1 Laptop).

Reply | Quote

Win7 runs just fine on ole PIII’s. Mind you it is the 32 bit version and is really not much good except for simple email and Internet browsing. But, that is all the vast majority of such owners want or care about anyway.

CT

Reply | Quote

Microsoft is helping you move on!

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/

linux architecture when you need it!

Reply | Quote

Microsoft’s customer care is legendary… ?

2 users thanked author for this post.

johnf, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Microsoft has not been user friendly for a long time, but I’d cut them some slack here. The P3 only supports up to 512mb of Ram, and is 32 bit only. Most Linux distros either have dropped support for 32 bit systems, or are in the process of doing so…and most of them now suggest at least 1 gig of ram or better.

The real question is why you would run Windows 7 on that machine! Most P3’s ran either DOS or Windows 95/98 (or possibly Win2k). Running anything later was a massive pain, and I’m not sure I could tolerate how slow Windows would run on those PC’s.

Interesting tidbit from Wikipedia…the P3 had an “identifying number”, so it could be tracked online. The EU didn’t take kindly to that, so MS had to remove it in later processors.

3 users thanked author for this post.

b, HiFlyer, zero2dash

Reply | Quote

Wouldn’t it be Intel who removed the tracking numbers?

3 users thanked author for this post.

RDRguy, OscarCP, Microfix

Reply | Quote

You’re correct, Intel  did…that was a typo.

Reply | Quote

I do not believe they actually removed the number, they just disabled it by default after a major outcry. It was still present, but disabled, on the Intel Pentium 4 and some later Intel CPUs.

I do not know when or if the capability was actually removed from the CPU. One “reason” it was added, was that businesses and enterprise purportedly could use it for remote inventory purposes.

Reply | Quote

Agreed. I get the general hate for MS, but I think this is an easy pass to give.
7 is barely tolerable on 1 GB of RAM; I can’t imagine trying to run it on 1/2 that.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

ALL Pentium 3s are non-SSE2 compliant. hence the Win7 updates from Jan. 2018 (KB4056894) and later will crash with BSODs on those ancient CPUs.

Reply | Quote

My sentiments exactly – a PIII???

I was unwilling to even try Win7 on my P4 machine based upon what they said were the minimum system requirements (mainly memory). If I remember correctly, was there not a Windows 7 version called “Starter” or “Basic” that was preinstalled on low end budget devices in the pre-SP1 days? I believe it was for netbooks. I do not think is was a retail SKU.

When I bought my ASUS netbook, i was surprised it had Win7Pro-64_SP1, but I later found out it was not a formal netbook as it had 4GB of RAM. It is now running Ubuntu 16.04 LTS on an SSD with NO problems.

Reply | Quote

Completely agree.  The only reason I can see wanting to run Win7+ on a PIII is if you need a space heater.

Reply | Quote

There are Dual Pentium III computers that have 4GB of RAM. …
http://forums.atomicmpc.com.au/index.php/topic/43523-pentium-4-or-dual-pentium-3/

1 user thanked author for this post.

DAVe3283

Reply | Quote

The Pentium III got PAE 36-bit built-in, so it can address up to 64 GB of rAM in a server board. Even 32-bit CPUs without PAE can address 4 GB of RAM natively, but mostly all Intel CPUs since the Pentium Pro got PAE 36-bit built-in, so 64 GB is the hard limit for them.

Reply | Quote

According to M$ Memory limits for the different Operating Systems

The limit that these versions impose is the highest permitted physical RAM address, not the size of the IO space. That means PAE-aware drivers can actually use physical space above 4 GB if they want. For example, drivers could map the “lost” memory regions located above 4 GB and expose this memory as a RAM disk.[.quote]

so, my question would be where could we find suitable (free?) ram-disk software to utilize the excess memory unassigned by the OS? Surely dormant memory allocations can be used with certain hardware criteria PIII CPU’s and the OS.

Reply | Quote

So which version of Windows does MS want Pentium III owners to use?

Reply | Quote

Perhaps as recent as Win 98 or ME? But with considerable limitations as to what can be done these days with them. Times have changed and, as someone has already pointed out here, browsing Web sites these days is a much more computing-intensive operation that it was back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. Streaming video, when possible, will be at low resolution.

But zero2dash #198779 has written here something that suggests it might be possible to run Win xp in such a machine, or even Vista — as long as there is the maximum amount of memory installed in the machine that these old CPUs were designed to handle

 

 

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

You can run XP on a PIII system, I used to have an old bench PC with an 800mhz processor and 192mb of RAM.  It actually ran pretty OK with SP2.  Even ran dual monitors and I could do Youtube at 720p (barely).  SP3 was too much overhead, especially if you were doing Internet.  This was about 5 years ago now.

Reply | Quote

I got several Pentium III PCs here, some with fully outfitted Windows XP installations, meaning all the programs I would ever want or need, like Photoshop or MS Office 2010. One got Windows Server 2003 installed, also fully outfitted, and another one Windows 7 Ultimate, ditto with all imaginable programs. There is literally no limit to what you can do with it.

Reply | Quote

I’m really not that surprised given the age/ speed of the technology 450MHz Slot 1 Katmai to 1.4GHz FCPGA Tualatin (Windows 2000/ ME/ XP era)

Still have fond memories of ramping up a stock Celeron 300A to 450MHz without extra cooling that lasted for years until the motherboard died.

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

Reply | Quote

Microfix wrote:

I’m really not that surprised given the age/ speed of the technology 450MHz Slot 1 Katmai

I still have one of those, and its matching motherboard.  I haven’t run them in ages, but I still have them.  I’m a pack rat when it comes to computer gear.  I can’t discard something that still works, even if it is obsolete!

 

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

Reply | Quote

I have some old tech but mostly CPU’s which all worked prior to removal in a nice untidy spares chest within ESD packaging and boxes. Last AMD cpu I bought and used was the AMD Athlon XP Barton 3200MHz (400MHz) but alas no more motherboard. I love the old tech and like yourself can’t bring myself to trash it.

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

Reply | Quote

That is… what? three users world wide that got lost there?

Find it almost impossible to imagine anyone is running that +17 years old junk…

2 users thanked author for this post.

RDRguy, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

I miss the days of Windows 3.1, Word 2.0 and Excel 6.0 on my 386-33. No updates, no malware, the occasional “Unrecoverable (sic) Application Error” otherwise everything just worked.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

And no pedestrians crossing streets in heavy traffic with their eyes and hands glued to their smartphones.

Wasn’t that also before Lite beer?

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

4 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, RDRguy, wdburt1, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Hated Win 3.1… ran Dos 6.3 with a documenthandler written in Pascal. Worked perfectly fine in the office! 😀

And was a big fan of WordPerfect…

Didn’t jump on the Windows wagon until Windows 95.

Happy days.

1 user thanked author for this post.

anita.yk

Reply | Quote

Windows 3.1 was excellent for running multiple DOS sessions all at the same time.

You will probably enjoy reading this:
http://www.wordplace.com/ap/almostperfect.pdf

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

Hey, talking about +17 year old junk …

Though I’ve long recycled my “was still working” Commodore 64 over a decade ago, I still occasionally power-up my trusty old Compaq Armada M300 w/ Mobile Expansion Unit, Pentium II – 333Mhz, 128MB Ram, 4.3GB Hard Drive running Windows 98SE & MS Office 2000 Professional and except for the battery, it still runs great.

Totally in “Group W” with this one as there’s no longer any web activity on it … almost no useful websites work with IE6 or Firefox 2.0 and there are no Windows security or current antivirus updates available.

Surprisingly, believe it or not, the HP support site still has full support with everything available for download at:

https://support.hp.com/us-en/drivers/selfservice/compaq-armada-m300-notebook-pc-series/96234

You can also get the Armada M300 Maintenance & Service Guide here:

http://tim.id.au/laptops/hp/compaq%20armada%20m300.pdf

And if you don’t have the Mobile Expansion Unit (MEU) P/N 140382-001 with CD/DVD, you can still get one at a tremendous 98% discount here:

http://www.getpartsonline.com/coarm3moexun1.html … $9.99
https://www.impactcomputers.com/140382-001.html … $19.99

Though, other than verifying it’s still alive, it’s getting really hard to find a real meaningful use for it anymore. I guess I, like several others it seems, just can’t seem to part with stuff that still works.

Now … if only we can get MS to follow in HP’s footsteps & provide support for products well beyond their expected lifetime 😉

Win7 - PRO & Ultimate, x64 & x86
Win8.1 - PRO, x64 & x86
Groups A, B & ABS

2 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, Elly

Reply | Quote

That sure brings back some memories.  My first company issued laptop in the late 90’s was an early PII Compaq Armada running Win95.  The really crazy thing was that these laptops cost around $3000 or more.  That would be almost $4400 in today’s dollars, adjusted for inflation!

Then we were switched to Dell Latitudes with Win2k, followed by replacements with WinXP.

Hard to believe I bought a new laptop with a Core i5, 4GB RAM, and a 500GB HDD running Windows 8.1 for a little over $300 a few years ago!  🙂

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

Reply | Quote

For a surprising number of people, that is all they need, and it works just fine.

CT

Reply | Quote

I wonder about machines that old (or with CPUs that old) still being used and running Windows 7. That said, ending support before the official commitment to an EOL in January of 2020 strikes me as an outright breach of contract — unless the EULA wording gives MS the leeway to do that, or its lawyers the leeway to argue that it does and, in so doing, drag proceedings long enough to discourage all but the most obstinate from trying to pursue effective legal action. Or the wording forces users to resort to arbitration, with an MS-friendly arbitrator, of course. Also this brings up the question: is the term “Pentium III” being used expansively by MS to include Celeron and Xeon chips?

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

3 users thanked author for this post.

anita.yk, HiFlyer, GreatAndPowerfulTech

Reply | Quote

It should include all processors that don’t support SSE2.  I think most of the later “PIII” era Xeons do, but Celerons definitely won’t.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

And of course the real question is — Who’s next?

5 users thanked author for this post.

TheSuffering, RDRguy, Elly, OscarCP, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Has someone who has a intel atom I fear for the future

Reply | Quote

The Suffering: I have several Atom-based netbooks. They work like a charm. Very reliable. Secret: Do NOT do any Microsoft backups at all.

CT

Reply | Quote

@CT Could you please explain your secret of not doing any Microsoft backups?

Reply | Quote

DrBonzo, Sure.

First let me make it clear that my clients are all home situations, not businesses.

Set Windows Update to Never
Install BitDefender Antivirus +
IE is not in use under normal circumstances
Chrome is the default browser
Uninstall Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Java
Apps that portend to make the computer run better or any other AV product are prohibited
Occasional use of ADWcleaner
I run diagnostics about once per year including Hard drive manufacturers tests
Replace laptop HDs at 5 years, Desktops at 7 or 8 years

Virtually all clients use MSOffice, but the latest version is 2010

You can read my WU strategy in detail (complete with links) at:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-update/windows-7-updating-in-2018/291a9582-17a7-4942-8145-8d9f68265189?messageId=2f46cef5-da27-431d-8c6f-b5e7b2b89246

CT

3 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, DrBonzo

Reply | Quote

Thanks CT. I take care of an Atom Netbook for someone and do most of what you mention, although I haven’t replaced the hard drive and still run MS Security Essentials.

I was really interested in your “no Microsoft backups” comment. I’ve used the Win 7 utilities for backup and haven’t had any issues with it, so I’m wondering if I’ve been doing something stupid, living lucky, or …

DB

Reply | Quote

I did not say no MS backups. I strongly encourage all my clients to do regular backups. To my knowledge, none of them use MS backup software. They use external hard drives and simply copy data.

In my 16 years of experience, I have had too many experiences in which MS backup failed me.

I must add, that in spite of my very strong admonishments, the vast majority of my clients seldom if ever do backups.

CT

2 users thanked author for this post.

walker, DrBonzo

Reply | Quote

The Suffering: I have several Atom-based netbooks. They work like a charm. Very reliable. Secret: Do NOT do any Microsoft backups at all.

Actually you did say “no MS backups”.

However I suspected you meant no updates.

-lehnerus2000

Reply | Quote

Sorry. Typing error. I meant no microsoft updates

CT

1 user thanked author for this post.

walker

Reply | Quote

I could see Pre-2010-ish Atoms coming up for death soon, especially since the original atoms were near PIII-era capabilities.  2012+ I can’t see them cutting support yet; Win10 has a 32-bit version still, and Atoms moved to 64-bit back in 2014? I think?

Quick check of Wikipedia, it seems even the Atoms launched in 2008 could support 64-bit and later instruction sets, but many of the original boards probably did not.  This means that Atom support will probably be more dependent on when the unit was designed rather than the CPU itself.

Reply | Quote

Atom tablets: some have already been cut off from Win10 support due to Intel dropping support of a 3rd-party GPU that was used. Since pretty much all other Atoms are “legacy” support items at Intel, and Intel has stopped updating 32-bit driver sets, I’m sure we can expect MS to pull the plug on all Atom tablets pretty soon. While mine got (and seems to be working OK with) the 1803 update, I predict that it’s the last one that will arrive, which means the end of all support (including security) will be some time in 2019.

Note what I said about the end of support above. Win10 changed the whole support policy. Up through 8.1, theoretical support was 5 years full, 5 years extended (security only). As we see here, MS has reinterpreted that and broke the implied contract – anybody suing? – for Win7. But in 10 there’s not even that level of commitment – instead, support is provided for 18 months after a feature update release, period. If for some reason you can’t or don’t update, the device is then EOL. So staying on W7 was a good move for some people – longer support – unless as we see here MS decides to just break your device so you don’t get any more updates.

To be fair, as others have said, P3’s were not really suitable for Win7. I did have one that ran XP well, but was using a Pentium D by the time 7 came out (and it ran 32-bit Win7, in 2GB RAM, quite well). Currently using a Core2 Extreme with Win10, and it’s the best Win10 box in the house (runs better than any of 2 more modern laptops or the tablet). Though I’m expecting MS to pull the Win10 plug on it some time soon, perhaps because Intel decided not to do Spectre microcode for it. Any excuse to force you to buy a new computer…

Reply | Quote

Different anonymous, responding only to your additional note regarding Win10 EoL. Which itself is off topic in this thread.
The questionable benefit of the Windows 10 Update Facilitation Service was discussed a couple of weeks ago. It could help if you feel left behind.
It does not guarantee that old hardware will magically work with new software. But it does set aside the artifice of premature EoL dictated by the rapid evolution cycle. Microsoft describes it as suitable for 1507 and up.
Your description of Choosing to not update means you dictated EoL, not Windows.
More info and download available here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4056254/windows-10-update-facilitation-service

Reply | Quote

I can’t imagine using 7 on a machine that old.  I have an AMD Turion laptop that originally came with a 1.6 GHz CPU (single core), and I upgraded it to a 2.2 GHz years ago.  Still has 1GB of RAM, though (and 128MB of that is dedicated to the integrated GPU, which in those days meant integrated with the chipset, not the CPU), and when I did my test to see if it would run Windows 10 (it did), it clearly felt like it wanted more RAM.  Windows worked surprisingly well, but loading any application dragged it down badly.  If I just wanted to use Windows and nothing else, it would have been slow but somewhat usable, but what is the point of that?

From what I understand, 8.x had a lower hardware profile than 7, and 10 was either the same or better than 8.x, supposedly (though there have also been reports of 10 being slow after an upgrade, I think that’s probably about something having gone wrong), so if 10 ran that slow, 7 would be worse.  And that’s on a CPU that is faster than the P3, and with twice the ram that the P3 could use.

Other than that test, I never tried to use Windows newer than XP on that laptop.  It currently runs Mint Xfce 32-bit, with XP available in a dual boot if I feel nostalgic (but I would not go online with it).  It’s a 64-bit CPU, so it can run the 64-bit edition of Mint if it needs to, though there’s not much reason to with 1GB (as long as I can still get the 32-bit).  I’ve pondered upgrading it to the maximum 2GB just because I can and I like upgrading stuff, but I really don’t use it as it is.

Not long ago, I had that old laptop running 24 hour call-blocker duty on my landline via its built-in dial-up modem (which used to be a must on all laptops!) and a call blocking program in XP, since I get tons of calls from scammers and telemarkers.  I think the bill collectors looking for some people I never heard of got angry after 5 years of unanswered calls, and somehow submitted my number to some kind of scam site or something, since the collector calls tapered down just as the scam calls ramped up.  I’ve had “Microsoft” call me about my virus-infected PC several times, among others.

Now I have a cordless phone that handles that, so the 12 year old laptop can take a break.

 

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

3 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, HiFlyer, Bill C.

Reply | Quote

Ascaris wrote:

From what I understand, 8.x had a lower hardware profile than 7

I have a Windows 7-32 VM and a Windows 8.1-32 VM running on my Linux Mint machine. The machine has 4GB of RAM. I have allocated 2GB of RAM to the 8.1 VM. I haven’t touched the RAM settings on the 7 VM.

My 7 VM runs pretty fast, but my 8.1 VM is not so fast. If I take special steps to assist the 8.1 VM, it is not so bad. For example, if I am going to edit a video in Microsoft Movie Maker (in the 8.1 VM), if I first copy the video to the 8.1 VMs local hard drive, then open it in Movie Maker, it works well. However, if I try to edit it straight off of the shared drive, it is terrible. Accessing the shared drive via File Explorer works well in the 7 VM, but very slowly in the 8.1 VM. I conclude from the above that 7 had a lower hardware profile than 8.1.

On my old eMachines computer, Windows 8.0 ran extremely well; but Windows 8.1 ran terribly. I conclude from that that 8.0 had a lower hardware profile than 8.1.

I haven’t compared 7 with 8.0. I could do that if I would install 8.0 in a VM, then compare it with the 7 VM. Problem is, I used my one 8.0 license key to install 8.1; so the test would have to be short-term, without activating 8.0 in the VM.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

Reply | Quote

though the next question for woody: would AMD Athlon XPs be next on Win7’s non-supported list before Jan 2020? those old AMD processors from early 2000s are also non-SSE2 capable and are 32bit/x86 only.

2 users thanked author for this post.

BobbyB, Microfix

Reply | Quote

Good question. I have no idea.

Reply | Quote

AMD provided SSE2 support in its Sempron, Phenom and Athlon 64 processor models but not Athlon XP CPU’s.

So it looks like Athlon XP’s will be hit as well as the PIII’s

Any testers for Athlon XP and W7?…didn’t think so. LOL

 

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

Reply | Quote

Microfix wrote:

AMD provided SSE2 support in its Sempron, Phenom and Athlon 64 processor models but not Athlon XP CPU’s. So it looks like Athlon XP’s will be hit as well as the PIII’s Any testers for Athlon XP and W7?…didn’t think so. LOL

AMD Athlon XPs are failing to boot since the February patch. Confirmed by multiple users and by myself as well.

Reply | Quote

@EP Well on my, Ahem, Heritage Machine sitting in the Corner just installed the June Crop of M$ updates albeit a little prematurely not only no “ill effects” but surprisingly quick this time round. Its an Old XP machine and will only run Win2k and Win7 pro with out issue. Despite being an XP Box it never ran it with what I would call performance. It was earmarked for the “Penguin Club” when EOL comes around. I have no doubt it’ll be joining the M$ “list of shame” for Processors in the near future. However not this time Phew 😉 see attached for Specs (and virtual “Cob Webs”) and no worries with the latest Win7 KB4284826, he says fingers crossed 😉
PS almost without issue it forgot the Network Password

1 user thanked author for this post.

Microfix

Reply | Quote

I thought I was bad about not throwing away working stuff.  🙂

Actually, my first thought is all of these old PCs would be a natural for a lightweight 32-bit Linux distro if it is just an e-mail or browsing machine.

2 users thanked author for this post.

RDRguy, Elly

Reply | Quote

My oldest PC is one that was obsolete when I bought it 27 years ago– a Compaq Portable, with an 8088 cpu, upon which I ran a BBS.  I’d wanted to do that since I visited one for the first time some five or six years earlier, and I am glad I got to do so before BBSs passed into obsolescence with the mainstreaming of the internet.

I am not sure how light web browsing is anymore, with pages bloated beyond belief by tons of tracking and analytics scripts that are recording every page visited, how long you linger on any one page, where the mouse arrow is moved (if using a device that has one), and all kinds of other stuff we’d rather they don’t.  This site is a lightweight one as they go, but I’ve seen some with over a hundred third party domains being contacted, and nearly all for ads and tracking.  Adblockers help, but even then the pages are far heavier than they ever were during the days when a P3-450 was a decent setup.

 

 

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

And I would say: forget about streaming video at anything but the lowest resolution, if that much.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Ascaris wrote:

I am not sure how light web browsing is anymore, with pages bloated beyond belief by tons of tracking and analytics scripts that are recording every page visited, how long you linger on any one page, where the mouse arrow is moved (if using a device that has one), and all kinds of other stuff we’d rather they don’t.

On my old eMachines computer, if I run a script blocker, such as NoScript, I can browse pretty well with Firefox on most pages. YouTube videos are not too bad. But Facebook is a bloated site and runs horrible on the old computer, even with most scripts blocked, and even with running Elementary OS, a very lightweight distro of Linux.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

Reply | Quote

Does Chrome run on a 8088 PC?

Reply | Quote

Chrome on a PC with an early ‘nineties, eight-bit, 1 Mb max. memory, 5  – 8 MHz CPU?

A joke? You are joking, right?

Oh! Someone might be running Chrome in one of those and getting something actually done! That would be absolutely amazing!

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Ascaris wrote:

My oldest PC is one that was obsolete when I bought it 27 years ago– a Compaq Portable, with an 8088 cpu, upon which I ran a BBS. I’d wanted to do that since I visited one for the first time some five or six years earlier, and I am glad I got to do so before BBSs passed into obsolescence with the mainstreaming of the internet. I am not sure how light web browsing is anymore, with pages bloated beyond belief by tons of tracking and analytics scripts that are recording every page visited, how long you linger on any one page, where the mouse arrow is moved (if using a device that has one), and all kinds of other stuff we’d rather they don’t. This site is a lightweight one as they go, but I’ve seen some with over a hundred third party domains being contacted, and nearly all for ads and tracking. Adblockers help, but even then the pages are far heavier than they ever were during the days when a P3-450 was a decent setup.

@Ascaris:  My bolding and italics.  Actually, that is one critical aspect I had totally forgotten about.  I find when I am on a machine that does not have Firefox with HTTPS everywhere, a good adblocker, possibly noScript, and a privacy extension, I really dislike it.

A friend on a metered connection (for real, not because of Win10) said he really gained a lot more browsing time before he hit his limits once he added those 3 estensions (not noScript).

Reply | Quote

“I really dislike it”

LOL!

Sometimes I disable my AdGuard just for the fun of it… that anyone can accept the flashing, blinking, dancing and otherwise deeply annoying ads is far beyond my comprehension.

Looking on the status page, it says I’ve saved 16 Gb bandwidth and… 640.000 ads!

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Don’t even get me started on the auto-play video ads etc (eg Computerworld).  Or the malware that can be spread thanks to it.

I went to a webcomic recently and I’m fairly certain the ads’ weight was at least double the rest of the site combined.

Reply | Quote

I’m going to have to try these other extensions. I’ve been running only NoScript and have been happy with it, because it is so easy to block and allow scripts, as well as to see what is trying to run. But some websites simply won’t work, even though I’ve allowed basically everything but Google and a few other such scripts.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

Reply | Quote

I was a die-hard NoScript user for years, but because I used both Firefox and Chrome, I was never satisfied with alternatives offered for Chrome.

I ended my search when I ran across uMatrix, which is available as cross-browser plugin.  In addition, after an initial learning curve, I appreciated the approach taken by the dev to allow 1st party scripts by default, plus all CSS and images.

So at least the basic web page view usually renders by default, without totally breaking it.  then you can access the matrix, and allow additional 3rd party script elements as desired.  And any additional 3rd party scripts that you permit only apply to that site.  The additional 3rd party is not whitelisted globally.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/umatrix/ogfcmafjalglgifnmanfmnieipoejdcf

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

2 users thanked author for this post.

MrJimPhelps, Elly

Reply | Quote

If the systems in question were sold by an OEM with Windows 7 pre-installed, then Microsoft has the legal obligation to support those systems until W7 is officially EOL. Otherwise, it is a breach of contract.

On the other hand, to even consider taking Microsoft to court/arbitration (as well as the OEM) is pure folly and the lawyers know that. No doubt there is not enough owners of these systems to make a class action suit viable – the lawyers know that too.

If the user can prove that the OEM sold the system with W7 pre-installed (receipts, COA, OEM registration) then they have a claim. I think a syrupy letter praising Microsoft, Windows and Dear-Leader-Nadella would go a lot further than a threatening/angry one. They will want to keep that user with the Borg. I would not be surprised if the user was offered a W10 Home license for free (I’m not kidding) in lieu of a monetary payout. The OEM is not liable as they only support the hardware (not the software) for 18 months from sale.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, anita.yk

Reply | Quote

Nobody sold a PIII in 2009…

3 users thanked author for this post.

RDRguy, zero2dash, Microfix

Reply | Quote

The PIII era (1999-2003):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III

Even my P4’s (2000-2008) were showing their age by 2009.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4

I think everybody was jumping on the Core2 Duo (2006-2011) by then…  🙂

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

1 user thanked author for this post.

RDRguy

Reply | Quote

Pentium 3’s have never met the lowest system requirements for Win7; Vista did, barely.
No OEM sold a refurbished PC with a P3 and a Win7 install; for all intents and purposes, it’s not possible. 7 requires 1GB of RAM, P3’s only supported 512 MB at max. You can’t put a square peg in a round hole.

5 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, johnf, Ascaris, RDRguy, JohnW

Reply | Quote

If you want to check if your CPU is SSe2 etc compatible check out this Web Page. apparently the old Win7 X86 in the Corner passes muster.

There’s other useful stuff in the Tabs, the BIOS update links tend to steer you towards a Driver updates checking page you know the ones everyone steers clear of, however you Bench Mark, Stress CPU and other stuff as well.

1 user thanked author for this post.

RDRguy

Reply | Quote

Have a look at this link — dated 2015 — French airport still using windows version 3. https://news.vice.com/article/windows-31-is-still-alive-and-it-just-killed-a-french-airport

mbhelwig

3 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, HiFlyer, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

“Retroactively fudged documentation” was the phrase that jumped out to me. It describes the what they are doing over the what they are doing it to.
It is a deplorable method that Woody has called out. Rightfully so. It should be discussed when they do it to an absurdly outdated chip family. So that when they come for your favorite chip set they must be more open about it. Creeping normality with a nod to Niemöller’s powerful poem.
I applaud the effort to force Microsoft to do business in a respectable way.

3 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, anita.yk, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

The problem is not ending support early for some ancient hardware but the manner in which it was done. It is really a customer relations issue and in these cases it is much better to be honest with the customer than to play games with them. The customer may not be thrilled by the action but if treated honestly and with respect might cut MS some slack. Playing games with the customer is always a good way to lose a customer.

A salesman I once knew told me the hardest thing to do is to get a new customer. It is much better to keep customers happy and not give them a reason to test the waters. These antics of MS are giving customers a reason to test the waters and many will find something better.

 

8 users thanked author for this post.

AthlonXPUser, Karlston, HiFlyer, anita.yk, Ascaris, Elly, RDRguy, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Well, that’s the end of it for me with my 32bit  12 year old HP laptop running Windows 7 on an Intel T2050 @ 1.60Ghz and 2GB RAM.

This doesn’t support SSE2 and I’ve been holding off patching for the past few months waiting for MS to fix the problem. Well, they’ve just made it easy for me as I said in a previous post a few days back:

“Out comes the Windows 7 SSD and in goes the Linux Mint one – for good this time”.

And, I still believe this is a deliberate move by MS in their ongoing crusade to kill off Windows 7 early. I’m waiting with bated breath to see their next move. But, I might be watching it from an all Linux/Android environment hopefully.

PC1: Gigabyte B560M D2V Motherboard, Intel i5 11400 CPU, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Graphics Card, 1x Samsung 870 EVO 250GB SSD, 1x Samsung 860 EVO 250GB SSD, Windows 10 Professional 22H2 64bit.
PC2: Asus H81M-PLUS Motherboard, Intel i3-4160 CPU, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Graphics Card, 1x Samsung 870 EVO 250GB SSD, 1x Samsung 860 EVO 250GB SSD, Windows 10 Home 22H2 64bit.

Reply | Quote

I have a 12 year old, late 2006, XP-era Acer Aspire 5611 with an Intel Core Duo T2050 1.6GHz processor, which based on your description above, may be the same as yours(?) and it is successfully running the W7 (and W8.1) security only and IE updates through to the latest June 2018 offerrings – see

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/june-2018-patch-tuesday-is-upon-us/#post-197753

I suppose the HP electronics/firmware around your CPU may be different to my Acer equivalents, but if the restrictions are in the CPU itself, then it may be worth your while investigating a little further before abandoning W7.

I believe that the Linux developers are in the process of abandoning 32 bit processors (some distros have already, others have announced their last 32 bit versions etc.), so changing to Linux is unlikely to be a long term solution for either of our machines. (BTW: In the past I have found Xubuntu to work best on this aged, slow PC.) This is why I have been looking at W8.1 32 bit to keep the PC going into the 2020s.

HTH. Garbo.

PS: I even have W10 1709 through to the May 2018 updates running on this laptop (on a different disk drive – just out of curiosity) and apart from being a bit slower (particularly at start-up) this does function OK (after stripping out much of the bloatware, disabling unnecessary services etc.).

1 user thanked author for this post.

Carl D

Reply | Quote

My HP laptop is a 5203TU which originally came with Windows XP Professional, 512MB RAM and a 60GB ‘spinner’ hard drive.

Over the years I’ve upgraded it to the maximum 2GB RAM and a solid state drive with Windows 7 Home Premium. Surprised it is still working after all these years but I do look after my computers. The other thing I’ve always liked about this laptop is that things like the hard drive, wireless card, RAM and even the button battery for keeping the BIOS settings are easy to get to. Unlike most new laptops these days.

Well, I’ve put the Linux Mint 18.3 SSD back in (I’m typing this reply from the laptop with Mint right now) and I’ve wiped the Windows 7 SSD and put it away as a spare.

At least Mint 18.3 is supported until 2021 which is one year more than Windows 7 was supposed to be. Might try 19 on another SSD when it is released shortly.

PC1: Gigabyte B560M D2V Motherboard, Intel i5 11400 CPU, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Graphics Card, 1x Samsung 870 EVO 250GB SSD, 1x Samsung 860 EVO 250GB SSD, Windows 10 Professional 22H2 64bit.
PC2: Asus H81M-PLUS Motherboard, Intel i3-4160 CPU, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Graphics Card, 1x Samsung 870 EVO 250GB SSD, 1x Samsung 860 EVO 250GB SSD, Windows 10 Home 22H2 64bit.

Reply | Quote

The phasing out of 32-bit Linux will limit your choices, but I don’t think it is soon going to disappear completely.  If any even somewhat significant group of people are still using 32-bit CPUs, someone will have a distro that works with them, even if the big guys cut it off to save money.  In addition, the existing 32-bit LTS releases of Ubuntu, Mint, etc., will still be supported for years to come (five years from date of release).

The availability of software to run on that distro may become a problem if all of the vendors follow Google’s lead and drop 32-bit support as they did with Chrome, but in the open-source world, someone with the know-how can always grab the source code (always available for open-source software, as the name says!) and compile it himself.  We can’t really predict how that’s going to go, but I wouldn’t throw in the towel until it’s really over.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

1 user thanked author for this post.

JohnW

Reply | Quote

Another option would be to trade up to a slightly newer (used) Core 2 Duo PC.  Wouldn’t have to go far, as the 64-bit architecture was released the following year.  That way you could be future proofed for Linux, at least.  A quick glance at eBay shows quite a few on the market for cheap.  Some from top rated resellers as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core#Core_2_Duo

 

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ascaris

Reply | Quote

JohnW wrote:

Another option would be to trade up to a slightly newer (used) Core 2 Duo PC. Wouldn’t have to go far, as the 64-bit architecture was released the following year. That way you could be future proofed for Linux, at least. A quick glance at eBay shows quite a few on the market for cheap. Some from top rated resellers as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core#Core_2_Duo

The Core 2 Duo is still a surprisingly capable platform for modern Windows, despite its age.  My C2D laptop with an SSD (though only via SATA 2, so the max transfer rate is capped at 283 MB/s) is still a very usable PC for browsing and older games.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

1 user thanked author for this post.

JohnW

Reply | Quote

In my stable of supported PCs: At least 10 are Pentium. About 15 are Core2. They run very well. The Core2 Duo 8600s run extremely well. In fact, significantly better than many of the brand new core i3 x000’s do.

CT

Reply | Quote

I don’t think that having only SATA 2 is a real reason to not upgrade to SSD.  I am running an Ivy Bridge 3rd gen Core i3, and that motherboard just missed the SATA 3 release.

But the performance boost that SSD gives that machine, even with the SATA 2 throughput cap, is like having a machine that runs 10 times faster. It was so good that my jaw hit the floor.

I believe that the biggest difference is in the SSD random access speeds vs HDD. I get between 24-213 MB/s (ranging from single thread/single queue to multi thread/queue) on my SSD vs. 0.5-1.0 MB/s on my HDD.

Sequential read speed for my SSD of 285 MB/s vs.160 MB/s on HDD is also not exactly slacking!  🙂

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Your Ivy Bridge motherboard doesn’t have SATA 3?  My Sandy Bridge boards are one generation older, and they do SATA 3!  If I want to use the Intel SATA, I have to use the first two SATA ports for SATA 3 (the rest of the Intel ports are SATA 2), but my board also comes with a Marvell SATA host adapter with another (I think) six SATA 3 ports.  I have two SSDs, so they get the two native SATA 3 ports, while the conventional hard drive does fine with a SATA 2.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

It’s a budget Asus uATX board, https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/H61MAUSB3/ and the version I got had 4 native SATA ports, but did not include SATA3.  It used the Intel H61 Express (Cougar Point – launched Q1’11) chipset.  I opted for a board that included USB3.  I wasn’t building a game machine, or a media monster, just looking for a cheap stable build.  So that extra internal disk performance wasn’t really a consideration for me at the time back in 2014.  But I do appreciate the USB3 speed for my external backup drives now! 🙂

 

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

@anonymous – There are some Linux distros that are geared to providing a current Linux release for aging hardware including 32 bit CPUs. They tend to be more obscure than the better known Ubuntu or Linux Mint which are more geared to more common and recent hardware. Wikipedia has an article on ‘Light-weight Linux distributions’ with 25 listing 2017 or 2018 as the latest release. One current distro is listed as being suitable for PIIs in the table.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

@lurks about  Re:  Post #198998

“Wikipedia has an article on ‘Light-weight Linux distributions’ with 25 listing 2017 or 2018 as the latest release.”

How ’bout a link?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Microfix

Reply | Quote

@HiFlyer I’ll bite! 🙂 found it within seconds…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-weight_Linux_distribution

Some decent ones for older PC’s too.

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Whenever I have looked at Linux distros in the past my starting point has been “Distro Watch” – see

https://distrowatch.com/

On opening this site a newcomer might be overwhelmed by the home page, but what is particularly useful is the “Page Hit Ranking” column part way down the right hand side which lists the current “Top 100” distros (yes 100 – I kid you not!) e.g. the popular Linux Mint is currently ranked at number 2 here.

Click on a Distro of interest and there is page containing a lot of details about it. From here you can compare possible candidates side-by-side with details presented in similar format for all. At the bottom of each page are some review comments and an average “out of 10” rating which might be useful (the popular Mint currently rates at 8.8 based on 522 reviews, the less popular, but slim-line Xubuntu which ran well on my T2050 PC the last time I tried it ranks at 31, with an average rating of 9.1 out of 80 reviews). These pages also contain links to the specific pages where the installation .iso for a particular distro can be downloaded.

HTH. Garbo.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Jan K., columbia2011

Reply | Quote

Not all Linux distros will abandon 32-bit. Some distros are designed to run on old hardware, so that you can keep using the old hardware. So there will always be some distros which will run on old hardware.

I’m anxious to try out Elementary OS on an old laptop which I forgot I had, but which I found in storage a few months ago. It is running Windows 95, and it still works! I just need to figure out how to get it onto the computer, because I don’t think there’s even a CD drive on the laptop.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

Reply | Quote

If you have a spare USB Flash memory stick and your old laptop has a USB port and its BIOS allows you to boot from a USB connected device, you could try converting the downloaded Linux Live/Installation .iso file into a bootable format on the USB stick using something like Rufus.

To convince myself that this idea might be a runner I converted a Xubuntu .iso which I have on my PC into such a bootable USB stick using the portable version of Rufus – see

https://downloads.pcauthority.com.au/article/33161-rufus_portable.

By temporarily adjusting the boot order of the PC I was able to boot and reach the screen which gives the choice to “try” it or “install” it. I chose “try” (I’m not ready to “install” at present) and it did what I would have expected if I had booted from a Linux Live CD.

Rufus did inform me that it needed to download 2 files when creating the USB stick, so I needed to allow it outgoing internet access through my firewall. I don’t know where those files are now – maybe it deleted them after use? I don’t know if this method would have allowed installation, but this may get you started.

HTH. Garbo.

PS: I did try using EasyBCD to setup a Bootable option to the .iso on my PC HDD as suggested to me in a different context by the AskWoody Lounger “ielson” a few weeks ago – see

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/there-goes-another-excuse-for-not-backing-up/#post-192400

This started the boot sequence, but it eventually came to a command prompt and I did not know how to continue or if it was even possible to continue. This may be a “feature” of the Xubuntu .iso only or some more generic problem. It might work for your .iso, but the USB method looks more reliable to me.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

My mistake. Two separate versions of the 2 files “ldlinux.bss” and “ldlinux.sys” which Rufus needed to download are actually in a “rufus_files\syslinux-6.03” sub-folder and a “20171017” sub-sub-folder of the folder from where I ran Rufus Portable. I missed this earlier – see 4th paragraph above. There is nothing suspicious here – just my inability “to see the wood for the trees”.

Garbo.

Reply | Quote

For completeness I swapped my old T2050 PC’s main disk with its original 80GB disk which I use every few months to look at the latest Windows 10 (W10) – just out of curiosity. I used Aomei Partition Master to reduce the size of the W10 partition by 10GB and moved it away from the faster, outer edge of the HDD to free up 10GB in the primary partition position on the HDD for Linux.

I successfully installed Xubuntu from the bootable USB stick created using Rufus as described above. The PC now boots up into the Linux Grub 2 mechanism 1st with Xubuntu as default and “Windows 8” as another option. (It states “Windows 8”, but selecting this does go to the BCD boot mechanism in the W10 partition and W10 does start. Based on my past problems with Linux booting, possibly caused by my own tweaks, I’m not going to try to correct this label from “8” to “10”. I intend to avoid all unessential Linux boot changes. In my experience Linux booting is quite fragile.) Running W10 I used EasyBCD to delete and add back the other options previously present for the Macrium Reflect backup/restore .iso and the Aomei Partition .iso because I assumed that the old settings would now be obsolete with the new Xubuntu partition in place. I was able to boot into the Macrium .iso to make a backup later.

Aomei tells me that 1.1GB (out of 10GB) is used by Xubuntu, but Macrium states about 5GB. I do not know why there is this mismatch. From memory I believe that Linux has some sort of “swap space” (something like the Pagefile in Windows???), so maybe that accounts for the discrepancy? BTW: At the end of this exercise I did create a Macrium image of this new Xubuntu partition, but I do not know if this would successfully restore – an exercise for another time, on yet another disk.

I did not have time to do much with this newly installed Xubuntu:

1) I partially setup Firefox in the visible Options page, but not things I normally tweak in “about:config” (I use “MozBackup” to copy Firefox settings between Windows PCs). If there is a means of copying these settings from a Windows profile to a Linux profile, I would appreciate a link to some info’ 🙂 I installed the uBlockOrigin extension and imported my previously saved Windows settings into it using the uBO options import mechanism.

2) Xubuntu comes with (part of?) Libre Office, but in Windows I normally use Softmaker Office, so I successfully installed the Linux Debian based .deb installer version of Softmaker FreeOffice 2018 which is their free, cut-down version of the latest Softmaker Office. This was just to make sure that I could install proprietary Linux based software not directly available in the Xubuntu software installer tool.

3) In order to activate the FreeOffice (see 2) above) I needed a license number which Softmaker e-mailed me, so I needed to setup Thunderbird. (I have now swapped disks back again, but from memory Xubuntu had another mail client by default. I use T’bird in Windows, so set that up in Xubuntu.) I did this manually – I don’t know if there is a means of copying a Windows T’bird profile into a corresponding Linux profile.

4) Ideally, to maximise privacy, I would like to setup the Linux firewall to block all outgoing accesses except for programs which depend on outgoing access e.g. browser, mail client… but I do not know how to do that – links to info’ anyone? There are probably other firewall tweaks to be made another time, when I have a clearer head. I vaguely remember making incoming access “stealthy” in the past, but do not have my notes to hand.

So my old 80GB HDD now allows me to look at both W10 and Xubuntu when I have some time and enthusiasm to do so.

HTH. Garbo.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

? says:

to enable firewall:

sudo ufw enable

to check status:

sudo ufw status verbose

see exceptions:

sudo ufw show raw

from:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UFW

Reply | Quote

Thanks “?”. Just the sort of thing I wanted.

BTW: The “Enable Ping” section half way down the linked page, or in my case the Disable Ping setting, describes the change I vaguely remember making when I last tried some Linux distros a few years ago, to make incoming access attempts “stealthy” (see my earlier comment 4) above). I remember using Steve Gibson’s “SheildsUP!” test at his http://www.grc.com site to test this setting.

Thanks again. Garbo.

Reply | Quote

Firewalling is probably worthy of its own topic. But here is a shot at a brief 101.

In years past I used Gibson’s “Shields Up” test to check my Zone Alarm firewall when I was still using dial-up networking on my Windows PC.  When you dial up the internet, your ISP assigns you a public IP address for that session.

Using Gibson’s server to ping your IP address was a good way of knowing exactly what ports you were exposing to the outside world.  Having your firewall set to not respond to any pings or port scans was referred to as “stealth” mode.  Knock, knock … nobody home.

I think it is absolutely essential to be running a well configured software firewall if you are running a server, or using a laptop computer on public networks with untrusted computers attached, like in the case of wifi hotspots.

But it gets more complicated when you are running on a private network at your home or office.  Most folks are now on broadband internet of some kind that provides private IP addresses (vs. a direct connection to public IP addresses with a dial up modem). Broadband modems or routers usually use a technique called NAT (Network Address Translation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation

NAT remaps the public IP address space to a private IP address space.  That is why you will usually see a computer at home showing its current IP address in the range of “192.168.xx.xxx”.  But if you go to any website that can display your public IP, you will see a completely different address assigned by your ISP.  So in this mode your private IP address cannot be seen or directly accessed by a public addressed computer.  So NAT creates a virtual hardware firewall by default.  In general only packets that you send to an internet IP address can be responded to directly.  So unsolicited packets will not be allowed inbound through the router by default.

Your router may provide additional hardware firewall features or packet inspection.  They also allow you to punch holes in your router defenses such as port forwarding, so that you can make an internal server accessible to the outside world.  Better know what you are doing if you attempt this.

So realize that if you are testing a software firewall on your computer by using a public web server to probe your defenses, that the results are only going to display your broadband router’s defenses, not the software firewall you are trying to configure while running on a private network.  Those probes will never reach your computer in that configuration.

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Ascaris, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

? says:

you are welcome. hopefully, you can get it the way you want it. i had to wait  three iterations of routers from my isp before i could pass steve’s test. they finally came up with one that had a “stealth,” function…

Reply | Quote

Thanks JohnW.

My PCs normally connect to the internet via a router which in turn connects to the internet via the cable modem supplied by my ISP. As you write the router is setup steathily and would show my PC’s ports as stealthy in the GRC ShieldsUP tests.

However these are laptops and occasionally used elsewhere so I also setup the firewalls in the laptops themselves to be stealthy and test these by temporarily connecting the PC internet cable directly to the cable modem (and restarting everything), bypassing the router, so that the internet and the ShieldsUP test sees the laptop directly. So 99% of the time I have stealthy firewalls in both router and PC (“belt and braces” as they say), the occasional 1% of the time when the laptop is used elsewhere (possibly) just the stealthy firewall in the laptop itself so that needs to be secure enough.

It is a few years since I last looked at Linux and I have lost my notes from that time, so if I am going to look at Linux again now I will need to re-discover what I knew then (and more) including Linux firewall settings 🙂

Cheers. Garbo.

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

However these are laptops and occasionally used elsewhere so I also setup the firewalls in the laptops themselves to be stealthy and test these by temporarily connecting the PC internet cable directly to the cable modem (and restarting everything), bypassing the router, so that the internet and the ShieldsUP test sees the laptop directly. So 99% of the time I have stealthy firewalls in both router and PC (“belt and braces” as they say), the occasional 1% of the time when the laptop is used elsewhere (possibly) just the stealthy firewall in the laptop itself so that needs to be secure enough. It is a few years since I last looked at Linux and I have lost my notes from that time, so if I am going to look at Linux again now I will need to re-discover what I knew then (and more) including Linux firewall settings ? Cheers. Garbo.

I always use a software firewall in addition to my router at home.  My laptop is configured the same, so that when I travel and connect it to a public network, in a hotel or whatever, the Windows firewall is active as soon as I boot up, so none of the other “unknown” devices on that shared open network can ping me.  Then I fire up my VPN to make sure everything gets encrypted over that network.  That works for wifi hotspots with/without security.

I have only used Linux on a private secured network behind a router, so have never needed to focus on setting the Linux firewall up.  But it’s definitely something that needs to be configured on a laptop.  Not sure if the default setting is deny all, or allow all, inbound packets.  That should be something to check.  https://help.ubuntu.com/community/IptablesHowTo

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

Reply | Quote

To complete my experiments with Linux – see

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/pentium-iii-users-knocked-out-of-win7-patches/#post-199520

I tried restoring to a 2nd spare disk the Macrium Reflect image I made earlier on the 1st spare disk. This was successful and to my great surprise Xubuntu booted up successfully 1st time with no further tweaking by me.

In the past after copying Linux partitions from one disk to another using a “partition manager” type of tool, there has always been an issue with the UUID checking performed by the Linux boot mechanism. (UUID is basically a long magic number which identifies a disk or partition on a disk and the UUID for the old disk would not work with the new disk.) I needed to manually change the UUID temporarily (by selecting ‘e’ for edit at the Grub screen) to match the new disk in order to boot into Linux. Then it was necessary to rebuild the Grub data to include the new disk’s UUID to avoid the need for this temporary fix on the next boot.

This was all messy, but I found a work-around to avoid UUID checking by editing the Grub configuration, allowing easier copying between disks. However I suspect that my Grub work-around eventually conflicted with later Grub configuration updates from the Linux developers which meant that I could not boot into Linux at all and I abandoned that Linux partition.

If this issue is no longer present either as a result of a later Linux/Grub change or because Macrium Reflect image restore compensates for it somehow, then this removes one reason for not using Linux – its boot mechanism after disk copying (via Macrium Reflect imaging/restore at least) is more robust than it was a few years ago!

HTH. Garbo.

Reply | Quote

This may be relevant to your T2050 PC not supporting SSE2, when my T2050 PC does?

From memory according to the Microsoft “W8.1 upgrade assistant” (or whatever it was called) I was not able to install W8/W8.1 on this old laptop. After some online searching, I found that I needed to add an extra line to the BCD boot data of the system partition.

Again from memory this was added from the command prompt run as administrator using something like “bcdedit /set {current} nx OptIn” which adds the line “nx OptIn” to the BCD data for the default system partition. I needed to reboot the PC. (The option may have been “AlwaysOn” rather than “OptIn” – I suggest you check elsewhere. It is currently set to “OptIn”, but I may have changed that later. Unfortuanately I have mislaid my notes about this issue.)

The reason that I make this point is that it appears that “nx” and “SSE2” are related. This BCD command enabled “nx” which I needed to install W8 and POSSIBLY it also enabled “SSE2” on my PC as a side-effect at the same time? Maybe this is what you need to do to enable SSE2 on your T2050 based PC to match mine?

HTH. Garbo.

Edit: Removal of CPUZ html

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

My guess above was wrong!

After reminding myself of the “bcdedit” commands, I deleted the “nx” entry from my BCD settings for the {current} system partition entry (using the “bcdedit /deletevalue nx” instruction in a command window run as administrator), rebooted the PC, ran just “bcdedit” to confirm “nx” was no longer present and then used the CPU-Z tool (referenced a few posts above) to check the CPU Instructions and it still showed my Intel Core Duo T2050 supporting SSE2 (plus MMX, SSE and SSE3). So my guess about this being a side-effect of the nx bcdedit setting seems to be wrong.

Sorry for any confusion my incorrect guess above may have caused.

Garbo.

PS: I have tried dual-booting several Linux distros (with W7 as the default/primary OS) in previous years and most of these have initially run OK (only recent Ubuntu proved too slow to be tolerable). However I found that after a few Linux updates each Linux so far would eventually fail to boot and I would abandon it, deleting its partition and BCD entry. Maybe if I was running Linux as the default/primary OS or the only OS (abandoning dual-booting) it would reliably start up after every update every time? An experiment for another time (on a different disk – both W7 and W8.1 are working fine for me now, so I do not want to abandon them on my main disk just yet).

Reply | Quote

Our most recent posts crossed 🙂

My 80GB T2050 laptop had XP Media Centre Edition (MCE) which from memory was XP Pro which some extra “media” bits (which I never used). I upgraded to W7 in 2011 and also added the maximum 3GB of RAM. I have increased the HDD size over the years. I’ve not looked at a SSD for it because I considered it so old that it would not have the necessary electronics or driver software to make full use of SSD capabilities. It just keeps going 🙂

 

Reply | Quote

Is this just a once off thing for a redundant hardware or are we going to see this escalated  in Windows 10 as a service?

2 users thanked author for this post.

BobbyB, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

The Pentium III will indeed support more than 512MB of RAM. I have two separate P3 systems (I know, I know), both of which have more than 512MB. The “main” one is a 1999-era machine I use to run legacy games on a CRT, running Windows 98, with 768MB of RAM.

The other is the machine in question, an ASUS CUV4X-DLS running dual Tualatin P3’s (on adapters), and has 3GB of RAM. It will not POST with 4GB and the AGP GPU with 512MB of VRAM, so I make do with 3GB 😛

It runs Windows 7 remarkably well, and actually gets used frequently. It lives in my garage, and is used to stream internet radio and look up service manuals for my cars. I set this up after my first-gen Raspberry Pi died due to the heat in the garage. But the P3 keeps on kicking! I will probably migrate it to Linux after a while, but for now, it will live dangerously without patches until I get some free time to swap OSes.

There are certainly better PCs to use for this, but I get some amusement out of running a (previously) fully patched & supported Windows 7 on hardware that is 15+ years old. Since that support appears to be gone, it does lose some luster in my eyes. Oh well, it was amusing (to me) while it lasted!

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, anita.yk, radosuaf, Ascaris

Reply | Quote

If anyone cares, here are the specs and some screenshots from that Pentium III. Due to the ASUS CUV4X-DLS not officially supporting Tualatin P3’s, it shows them as P2’s during POST:

Windows has no issue recognizing the P3’s, though it rates quite low on the Windows Experience Index. It has a SSD on a SATA to IDE adapter, which is why the disk rates disproportionately high.

9 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, satrow, columbia2011, Karlston, Jan K., radosuaf, Ascaris, RDRguy, Microfix

Reply | Quote

OK, I’m jealous … way to go creating your own custom “I’ll make it work” system  😉

 

Win7 - PRO & Ultimate, x64 & x86
Win8.1 - PRO, x64 & x86
Groups A, B & ABS

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, DAVe3283

Reply | Quote

An excellent effort to keep the system operational. Used to have a tualatin based system, Asus TUSL2C iirc Great mobo and CPU at the time. Credit to you, shame on MS!

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, DAVe3283

Reply | Quote

… it rates quite low on the Windows Experience Index.

Understatement of the Century! 😀

Reply | Quote

Since even just the patches since December 2017 introduce EGREGIOUS new slowdowns, I’m left to wonder… Why would you want to patch the Windows OS running on such an old, slow system?

That being said, Windows 7 never required SSE2 as far as I can remember (and being too lazy to do 15 minutes of research to verify). I believe Win 8 was the first to require SSE2.

-Noel

Reply | Quote

Oh, and a new desktop computer with more, well, everything than an old P3 system can be had for just a couple of hundred $$$, which will be the amount saved on the power bill in a year or two….

-Noel

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Jan K.

Reply | Quote

If I left this system on 24/7 I would absolutely go to something newer. I like the Qotom fanless mini-PCs for that kind of purpose, and have several. But in this case, I only have the PC on while I am in the garage working on projects, and with a 250W power supply in it, I actually think the TV & stereo use more power than it does. I bet this PC costs me less than $2 per year in electricity.

It is easy to forget how low-power older CPUs were (in both meanings of the phrase). They are only rated at 32 watts each, so 64 watts total. That’s less than a single i7.

Reply | Quote

Noel Carboni wrote:

Since even just the patches since December 2017 introduce EGREGIOUS new slowdowns, I’m left to wonder… Why would you want to patch the Windows OS running on such an old, slow system? That being said, Windows 7 never required SSE2 as far as I can remember (and being too lazy to do 15 minutes of research to verify). I believe Win 8 was the first to require SSE2. -Noel

Frankly, because I could. And Windows 7 never did require SSE2, until now :/

Firefox started requiring SSE2 with version 49, so I ran Firefox 45 ESR to get a few more months of updates.

Really, though, if I get a virus and they start mining Bitcoin, the joke’s on them! 😀

6 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Karlston, Jan K., JohnW, anita.yk, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

DAVe3283 wrote:

The other is the machine in question, an ASUS CUV4X-DLS running dual Tualatin P3’s (on adapters), and has 3GB of RAM. It will not POST with 4GB and the AGP GPU with 512MB of VRAM, so I make do with 3GB.  It runs Windows 7 remarkably well, and actually gets used frequently. It lives in my garage, and is used to stream internet radio and look up service manuals for my cars.

That’s fascinating!  The official documentation for the Tualatin does indeed list 512MB as the max (I looked it up when I saw others stating this… it was not anything I remembered offhand), but this won’t be the first time I’ve seen them misstate their own product’s max ram.  My Core 2 Duo laptop with the Intel PM965 chipset has a max RAM listed as 4GB, though it chugs along flawlessly right now with 8GB installed.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

I suspect when CPU & Chipset designs get initially spec’ed out, they’re usually designed to accommodate next generation memory (think increased density in same family type). But because the memory doesn’t yet exist, the actual released specs depict what was available at the time of memory validation by the OEM vendors.

Both Intel & ASUS spec the i7-990x on a X58 chipset board at 24GB MAX but it runs 48GB just fine … except for an actual memory swap, no need to modify BIOS or anything else.

Win7 - PRO & Ultimate, x64 & x86
Win8.1 - PRO, x64 & x86
Groups A, B & ABS

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

AFAIK, the RAM limit depends on the Motherboard, ie the number of memory slots available. For the Pentium III, each slot could only accommodate a maximum of 256MB of (pre-DDR)RAM.

Dual Pentium III 32bit Motherboards might max out at 4GB = 16 slots. Hard-drive was IDE, ie not SATA.

Reply | Quote

If I recall correctly, the 512MB max was a limitation of the northbridge on motherboards and  not specifically due to the PIII.  I had an old motherboard that could do both SDRAM and DDR.  I think it was a Coppermine era, SDRAM could do 1.5 GB while DDR could technically do 2GB, but thanks to a manufacturer defect it could only do 768MB without crashing.  I think that without extended page tables, the largest amount of RAM possible was 4GB since at least P2.

Checking Wikipedia and I see different RAM packages were in use by different eras of PIII.  Pretty sure RAM wasn’t on-die until after P4.  From a quick Google, looks like the integrated memory controller didn’t occur until 2008 (First gen Core-i7 series)
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2594/11

Reply | Quote

For those stating PIIIs don’t support more than 512MB RAM – that is wrong. The chipset (which holds the memory controller) handles that and the BIOS will also play a part. Also remember that the first Xeons were PIII based.

The following Intel chipsets support more than 512MB RAM and were used with PIII CPUs:

• the 440BX (with PIIX4 South Bridge) supports up to 1GB ECC
• the 440GX (with PIIX4E South Bridge) supports up to 2GB
• the 440NX (with PIIX4E South Bridge) supports up to 8GB
• the 820 (with ICH South Bridge) supports up to 1GB
• the 820E (with ICH2 South Bridge) supports up to 1GB
• the 840 (with ICH South Bridge) supports up to 4GB
• the 830M/830MP/830MG (with ICH3M South Bridge) supports up to 1GB

There are chipsets used with the PII that can also reach the memory requirement, such 440BX listed above, and just need an AGP slot with an appropriate card to meet the graphics requirement for Windows 7.

Here’s a theory on what happened – someone compiled one or more of the updates without setting the compiler flags correctly to not use SSE2 instructions. They rolled out the update and discovered the mistake. Instead of redoing it, they figure no one with that vintage CPU would or should be running Windows 7, and to gloss over things.

4 users thanked author for this post.

columbia2011, HiFlyer, satrow, radosuaf

Reply | Quote

I wonder if they forgot to set compiler flags, or if it was more deliberate? Microsoft might have written some direct assembly code using SSE2 instructions to optimize some part of the kernel in an attempt to help mitigate the performance hit of the Spectre/Meltdown protections. Old Microsoft would have produced a hotfix for people running non-SSE2 processors that would contain the old, slower code, but at least it would work.

If they had a hotfix to bypass the new SSE2 code path, I would install it, because I am missing out on one patch I care about: the Remote Desktop CredSSP upgrade. So now whenever I want to connect to this machine (admittedly not often), I have to set the Group Policy to allow legacy crypto before connecting, then remember to set it back to secure afterwards.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Hi DAVe3283.

Can you try to install the KB4074598 Feb. 2018 update on your P3 Win7 system to see if that one works?

Reply | Quote

woody wrote:

If you have a Pentium III, Win7 may have just entered end-of-life, 18 months early.

I’d already been forced to assume this was the case for my Athlon XP3200+ (which doesn’t have SSE2) which is kept around for playing a few old games I still like. It’s had to remain frozen at December 2017 patch level as updates past that point cause it to blackscreen. Nor does MSE update work any more, so no AV updates. This is a machine which comfortably exceeded Windows 7 minimum system requirements and worked perfectly well until the January updates hit.

It’s all a bit shabby. I bought my copy of Win7 on the understanding it was supported though to January 2020.

TBH, I feel it’s symptomatic of modern Microsoft’s obvious lack of interest in properly QC testing. They rely on Home users via telemetry to act as beta testers for the hideously buggy Windows 10, so what hope have the rest of us?

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ascaris, HiFlyer, DAVe3283

Reply | Quote

Well Robert S, the last cumulative update I had on a 32bit Win7 with an AMD Athlon XP 3200 2.2Ghz CPU was KB4074598, which seemed to work without crashing into a blue screen error. That was back in late February of this year – though a month later the motherboard died and I had to replace the board and the AMD CPU.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Robert S.

Reply | Quote

Most likely explainable by whatever differences exist between your old mobo and my ASRock K7S41Gx. Note that I said ‘blackscreen’ rather than bluescreen, as in total failure to load the OS on boot. There were a sizeable subset of systems reported to have that issue, Jan – March, thread here and on the MS support forum. Regardless, the new SSE2 requirement would have killed support for that cpu anyway.

Reply | Quote

I am so tempted when I read so many stories about Windows updating not working. I am so tempted to say, actually you are better off, if you will just stop updating altogether. I do not say this lightly. I have intensely investigated and have 130 Win7 systems that have not had a single update since May 2017. The result is so stunning! Not a single issue. They run extremely well.

I must add that along with that policy goes a very good AV product, Chrome (not IE) and the uninstallation of Adobe Flash, Reader and Java.

There is no reason why these systems will not run for years to come, other than the hardware itself failing.

CT

5 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, walker, The Surfing Pensioner, Demeter, CADesertRat

Reply | Quote

I’m all for validating patches before installing them, but there’s enough exploits coming out that it’s worth keeping them up-to-date.  AV helps but it can’t stop everything, and may not be able to deal with all variations of an attack.  If you’re not going to do official Windows patch maybe consider checking out the 0patch system.  Otherwise just do a review every 3 months to find out what the last stable release was, and bring it up to that if newer than the one you have.

Reply | Quote

DAVe3283 wrote:

Noel Carboni wrote:

Since even just the patches since December 2017 introduce EGREGIOUS new slowdowns, I’m left to wonder… Why would you want to patch the Windows OS running on such an old, slow system? That being said, Windows 7 never required SSE2 as far as I can remember (and being too lazy to do 15 minutes of research to verify). I believe Win 8 was the first to require SSE2. -Noel

Frankly, because I could. And Windows 7 never did require SSE2, until now :/ Firefox started requiring SSE2 with version 49, so I ran Firefox 45 ESR to get a few more months of updates. Really, though, if I get a virus and they start mining Bitcoin, the joke’s on them! ?

Now that last line gave me a big laugh!  Good one!

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

Reply | Quote

DAVe3283, you’ve been namechecked by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols!

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3283328/microsoft-windows/is-microsoft-already-killing-off-windows-7.html

1 user thanked author for this post.

DAVe3283

Reply | Quote

Even the number of the article in the url is a match!

1 user thanked author for this post.

JohnW

Reply | Quote

Eventually, there will be lack of support for enough processors that Windows 7 operating system will cease to work for all computer configurations.

Carpe Diem {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1778 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox114.0b8 MicrosoftDefender

Reply | Quote

That’s a misleading statement. There is nothing stopping these systems from working. The only thing is that you cannot get Microsoft “Support”. That support is of very questionable value.

It is true that eventually basic things like the Chrome browser will not work, but there is so much continued use of Win7 that most support (outside of MS) will continue to be provided.

CT

4 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Noel Carboni, walker, The Surfing Pensioner

Reply | Quote

From Woody’s Computerworld article regarding patches:

“Sure enough, DAVe3283 confirms:

I got the chance to test the new patches on my Pentium III. After installing just KB4093108 (2018-04 Security Only update), it wouldn’t boot– though I don’t get the BSOD mentioned in the KB article. This could just be a BSOD before the GPU driver loaded fully? This was to determine if the BSOD was intermittent, or reproducible. It is very reproducible.

After a quick restore from backup, I tried installing all the updates April through June (up to KB4284867)) in one go, but got the same no-boot.”

Patches are a part of support. Which patch will tank your Windows 7 operating system?

Carpe Diem {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1778 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox114.0b8 MicrosoftDefender

Reply | Quote

There is nothing stopping these systems from working. The only thing is that you cannot get Microsoft “Support”.

Really no need for citation marks.

It is after all for a reason named “Microsoft Support” and not “Microsoft User Support”… 😀

And btw. saying it again: the only threats my system has ever experienced – either crashing it or bringing it to a crawling speed – all came from Microsoft Support. Just look through the countless threads here on AskWoody, they’re all about “fighting” with Microsoft.

So getting no more support may actually be a good thing…

3 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Noel Carboni, Canadian Tech

Reply | Quote

I agree that running old versions of Windows which are no longer supported by MS is a viable option so long as the 3rd party software you need is still available for the OS and not a security threat i.e. there are up to date web browsers and security software in particular.

I remember that Comodo continued supporting XP long after MS dropped it in 2014 and just checking on their website I see that their Internet Security (AV plus Firewall) product still includes XP in their OS requirement list 4 years after MS dropped XP. Similarly the Comodo IceDragon (a Firefox clone) and Dragon (a Chrome clone) also include XP in their OS lists. (Other clones may be similar – I have not checked.) So if they adopt the same approach with W7 and W8.1 and you are prepared to go “full Comodo” (pun intended) this may be a way of continuing after 2020 and 2023 respectively. It remains to be seen what happens in practice.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

I’m using Firefox ESR and Avast on my XPs.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

I run the same on my XP 32-bit VM.  Options are getting slim, but those do work!

Also the freeware beta version of Malwarebytes Anti-exploit still works on XP too!  Anti-exploit is now a part of the Malwarebytes Premium product, but they test the cutting edge tech in this rolling standalone beta.

You can get it here.  This is an old post but the OP was edited with the latest release.  Last edit was a week ago.

Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Beta 1.12 Build 90.

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/205865-malwarebytes-anti-exploit-112-build-90-released/

A related article (old version, but has screen shots):

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/malwarebytes-anti-exploit/

“Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit is a security program that protects you from zero-day exploits that target browser and application vulnerabilities. This program is meant to run alongside your traditional anti-virus or anti-malware products and provides extra protection against software and Windows vulnerabilities that are discovered, but do not have a patch available to fix them”

Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Features:

.Protects Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, and Opera browsers
.Protects browser add-ons, including Java.
.Defends against drive-by download attacks
.Protects PDF Readers, Office, media players, and custom shields.
.Blocks unknown and common exploit kits
.Is compatible with most common anti-malware and antivirus products
.Doesn’t use a signature database—no need for constant updating

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

Reply | Quote

Spybot S&D v1.6 is still getting definitions – works as well.

Reply | Quote

Spybot still around?

It’s not going to provide the same anti-exploit defense as Malwarebytes though…

Malwarebytes Anti-exploit is not an anti-malware or antivirus program.  It’s entirely another animal.  More EMET-like in capabilities, but you install and forget it.  No config required.

It can stop an unknown zero-day attacker without relying on signatures, because most exploits use predictable vulnerabilities.  MBAE is not designed to detect malware, rather to block certain attempts to exploit the browser or other internet facing applications.

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

Reply | Quote

The point I was trying to make is that there is not an immediate cliff-edge situation when MS stops supporting a particular OS and it is possible to keep a PC secure to some extent for some time using up to date browsers and security s/w even after MS have given up that OS.

I used Comodo as an example because I remembered it and because it gave me an opportunity to make my “full commando” joke 🙂

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

It looks like Microsoft did not change MS KB article 4090450 (the “Spectre” patch for Windows Server 2008 SP2 systems), where installing KB4090450 on non-SSE2 systems will cause a blue screen error.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Ascaris wrote:

the “old” Microsoft extended support for XP for two extra years because it was so popular approaching its scheduled EOL, which must have cost a king’s ransom, with no chance there would ever be any return on that expenditure.

Actually, they bought a lot of good will with that move, which could have been worth a lot, but before they could cash in they chucked it right in the dumpster with the GWX tricks.

Ascaris wrote:

They will nearly certainly be in that situation again in less than two years, but do you think they will extend Windows 7 support for two years?

ROFL, we already see them trying to find suit-proof ways to cut it short.

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Ascaris

Reply | Quote

Anyone or organization who does not heed the warnings about what MS is trying to do, from both MS itself and tech-savvy experts, and fails to develop a personal or corporate strategy, deserves their outcome.

They have sent shot after shot over the bows of the users, both enterprise and individual users.

Accept assimilation or begin to test and migrate to another OS.  There will be no middle road for many, especially the individual.  Waiting until the last minute and then moaning and crying is not an option.

Remember:

“Si vis pacem, para bellum” or “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

For PC users, the operative word is PREPARE.  It is implied that that means in advance.

Do your research, explore every program you use and see if there is a non-Windows option, and try it out.  There are lots and lots of working PCs discarded each day.  The best time to find one is in the fall when last years devices are jettisoned by returning students in favor of newer devices.  Or look for refurbs.  Then try an iMac or try a Linux distro.

Come Win7 EOL there will be lots of media hysteria, learn now before the media fuzz and FUD.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Jan K.

Reply | Quote

Agreed!

The W10W group (Windows 10 Whiners 😀 ) are getting exactly, what they signed up for. Thinking Microsoft will change it’s course is really naive. WaaS as we’ve seen it implemented is here to stay.

So carry on, brave W10W – or plan for alternatives.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Manjaro Linux Discussion continued: Here

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

3 users thanked author for this post.

Jan K., JohnW, johnf

Reply | Quote

Kind of makes you doubt the need to continue with Windows. They haven’t been good at what they’re doing for a while now.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Ever thought about running Linux Mint as your host OS, with Windows in a VM for those things you must have Windows for?

There isn’t much I need Windows for. Just a few things on occasion. I’m in Linux 90% of the time.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

Reply | Quote

Pentium III  knocked out of Windows 7 patches? What is Pentium III ?
🙂
Serious – that thing was introduced 19 years ago. Even me will not attack MS for stopping support for something that old.

Reply | Quote

The concern is that this premature ending of Windows 7 support for some systems that (like all other Windows 7 systems) were promised such support until 2020, if left unopposed will give Microsoft a foot in the door to similarly violate the terms of the support deal for increasing numbers of users before the official expiration date in 2020.

Better to fight them on the water and on the beaches than to let them come ashore without complaint, even if it’s only a tiny sliver of territory.  🙂

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

3 users thanked author for this post.

AthlonXPUser, Ascaris, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

For anybody with a PIII ready to throw in the towel on Microsoft, and is ready to move on to Linux, there are a couple of options.  First, you could just download a Linux distro and be on your way…

Or take a look at the Raspberry Pi 3…

A complete Raspberry Pi 3 starter kit available for $74.99 and comes pre-loaded with Raspbian (a Debian Linux distro compiled for this CPU architecture).  https://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/raspbian/

CanaKit Raspberry Pi 3 Complete Starter Kit – 32 GB Edition

https://www.amazon.com/CanaKit-Raspberry-Complete-Starter-Kit/dp/B01C6Q2GSY

All you need to bring is your mouse, keyboard and monitor.  🙂

-Raspberry Pi 3 (RPi3) Model B Quad-Core 1.2 GHz 1 GB RAM
-On-board WiFi and Bluetooth Connectivity
-32 GB Micro SD Card (Class 10) – Raspberry Pi Recommended Micro SD Card pre-loaded with NOOBS, USB MicroSD Card Reader
-CanaKit 2.5A USB Power Supply with Micro USB Cable and Noise Filter – Specially designed for the Raspberry Pi 3 (UL Listed)
-High Quality Raspberry Pi 3 Case, Premium Quality HDMI Cable, 2 x Heat Sinks, GPIO -Quick Reference Card, CanaKit Full Color Quick-Start Guide

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Try Elementary OS (Linux) on your Pentium III. It is a very lightweight version of Linux. It is the only distro of Linux which both runs well on my old eMachines computer and is relatively bug-free.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Looks like Adobe software also will require SSE2

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2500620

1 user thanked author for this post.

walker

Reply | Quote

@anonymous:  I don’t even know what the heck this SSE2 thing is.   There are so many acronyms out there most “computer illiterate” users are absolutely “lost”.   Then the references to the numerous other “flavors” of computers (e.g. Linux, Macs, etc.) make it even more interesting.   Thank you for sharing your experiences with us.   🙂

Reply | Quote

There’s now a Neowin article about this related change:
https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-leaves-systems-lacking-sse2-support-high-and-dry-for-ongoing-windows-updates

read all the comments below by the Neowin-ers there. heehee 🙂

Reply | Quote

What strikes me in this thread is the number of folks who can still get usefulness out of a computer with a tiny fraction of the capability of a current top-end computer’s power.

We’re starting to get used to hearing such messages as “you need more than a few hundred GB” and “a machine older than Haswell is so out of date it might not get microcode updates“, and “that xxxxx Lake system can’t run the older OS” yet here we are still seeing anecdotes of folks running computers that actually work and don’t happen to be made earlier this year.

My own current machine of choice is a 5 year old dual Xeon workstation that has high end components from the time, and has been maxed out in pretty much every way possible. Too old to get microcode updates from Dell, yet an enviably viable system that really delivers where it counts.

Microsoft wants high tech to move faster because of course they want everyone to send them more money, but the reality is that many (most?) of us DON’T really need to buy new computer hardware (which is, by the way, apparently is decidedly not being built for future YEARS of service).

Don’t let the hype sway you.

-Noel

6 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Bill C., Sessh, HiFlyer, walker, JohnW

Reply | Quote

I built two desktops 4 years ago (2014) using the same Ivy Bridge microarchitecture (3rd gen Intel Core), that was released by Intel 6 years ago (2012).

The two motherboards I selected were made by Asus in 2013.  The most current BIOS available is dated in 2014.  The board was marketed as “Windows 8.1 ready”.

I run Windows 7 Pro on one PC and Windows 10 Pro on the other.  With a 3.4GHz Core i3 CPU they both can still handle any of the latest software I throw at them.  I put a SSD in the Win10 box and it boots in under 30 secs, and apps open almost instantly.

I can see no reason to replace this “old” hardware any time soon… 🙂

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

5 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Bill C., Sessh, HiFlyer, Noel Carboni

Reply | Quote

I agree. I’ve got a 5 year old Dell Optiples desktop with 4 GB Ram, 500 GB hard drive and 3rd gen core i5 running Win 7 Pro sp1 64 bit. So, nothing fancy. It’s the sweetest computer I’ve ever had. I don’t know how it would do with serious number crunching, but it boots and is ready to go in about 15 seconds, and programs open almost instantaneously. It’s far more responsive than my 2 year old Dell laptop (running the same as the OptiPlex but with a 5 the gen core i3) and even my 9 month old iMac.

Reply | Quote

walker wrote:

@anonymous: I don’t even know what the heck this SSE2 thing is. There are so many acronyms out there most “computer illiterate” users are absolutely “lost”.

Hope this helps…

What is an SSE2 processor?

https://itstillworks.com/sse2-processor-7554658.html

So when somebody says an operating system like Windows, or an application program needs SSE2, that would imply the need for a Pentium 4 or newer CPU to run it.  That makes the Pentium III incapable of running that software, because it lacks that SSE2 instruction set in the CPU.

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

2 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly

Reply | Quote

@JohnW:  Thank you so much for the explanation, and the link!   Appreciate your help with understanding more of what I read.   It’s very difficult when one is as “computer illiterate” as I am.      🙂

1 user thanked author for this post.

JohnW

Reply | Quote

The problem is not that they dropped this support, the problem is the umderhanded, unprofessional and dangerous way they did it.

Reply | Quote

well, well – more stories about Microsoft quietly dropping Win7 support on Pentium 3s are being listed on many different web sites recently:

https://www.windowscentral.com/windows-7-ending-support-old-pcs-old-pentium-iii-processors

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-unexpectedly-drops-windows-7-support-for-some-ancient-cpus/

https://www.onmsft.com/news/microsoft-is-dropping-windows-7-support-on-some-pcs-with-pentium-iii-cpus

I gave up using Intel Pentium 3s for good back in 2014 (last P3 CPU I used was a Pentium 3 Tualatin 1.2Ghz processor) and this past March 2018 I stopped using AMD Athlon XPs due to a motherboard failure. It was simply time to let go and move forward (and of course, SO MANY modern programs require SSE2 capable processors). A long time childhood friend of mine gave me some of his old PCs a few years ago that have SSE2 capable CPUs so I have no more non-SSE2 CPUs left to use.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

It is not just Pentium 3 users, but Athlon XP users too. I’m a victim also. And it is not the March update but the February one. I skipped the January update because of the news about the issues regarding Spectre/Meltdown fix for AMD users. Then I installed the 2018-02 cumulative security patch with the usual patch Tuesday. Next time I (wanted to) reboot, Windows didn’t boot anymore (black screen, you cannot do anything, not even safe mode). I know somebody who has a dual Athlon XP computer, that is 2×2,3GHz, with 4GB RAM and with a video card with 128MB RAM. It wasn’t slow at all, it gave a decent performance to just use usual things like browsing, watching videos, etc. I have a 2GHz Athlon XP, and it was usable as well, VLC could even play back HD videos. Now I switched to Lubuntu because it runs well on my Athlon XP and also still receives security updates.

Somebody said even a Raspberry would be an upgrade, no, it wouldn’t be.

I think Woody, you are in the position to write an open letter to Microsoft after every patch Tuesday to ask if SSE2 computers are still supported or not, is it safe to install the patch or not, or maybe SSE4 is the new minimum system requirement, just Microsoft forgot to mention it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

I think there is a lot more Athlon XP users than P3 users. The last Athlon XPs were released in 2004 December, while the latest P3 is from 2001 April. So the Athlon XP is 3.5 years younger. “Only” 14 years old, while Windows 7 was released 8 years ago in July 2009, so the Athlon XP is only about 4 years older than Windows 7.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

Here’s an interesting Computerworld article from 2009 which discusses how lame a computer can be and still run Windows 7:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2526658/operating-systems/windows-7–how-low-can-you-go-.html

One guy successfully ran Windows 7 on a Pentium II with 96mb of RAM!

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

1 user thanked author for this post.

BobbyB

Reply | Quote

I think where this is the biggest problem is in embedded situations – particularly anything that original manufacturer actually moved from one of the embedded XP variants to 7.

The PIII was produced until at least 2003 having a few mobile – ultra low voltage variants made that year.

Reply | Quote

Microfix wrote:

AMD provided SSE2 support in its Sempron, Phenom and Athlon 64 processor models but not Athlon XP CPU’s. So it looks like Athlon XP’s will be hit as well as the PIII’s Any testers for Athlon XP and W7?…didn’t think so. LOL

I have an old computer with an AMD Athlon XP CPU that I built in 2002. It included:

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25 GHz), Socket A (462)
RAM: Corsair CMC2GX1M2A400C3 (2x1GB) DDR PC3200
MBD: ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe (NVIDIA NFORCE2 Ultra 400)
GPU: PNY VCGFX59APB (GeForce FX5900)

I updated it to Windows 7 Home in 2011. It worked OK with Windows 7 but was rather slow. I haven’t used it for a couple years. Since the CPU does not have SSE2 I guess it would be a waste to ever boot it again because after it updated it would probably blue screen.

I guess if I don’t want to retire it, I could either put Windows XP back on it or install Linux. Would using Windows XP on it be even worth it now?

Reply | Quote

You can install the cumulative package 2017-12, but any later update will cause black (not blue) screen on next reboot. If you don’t update your system, you cannot receive security updates anymore. If you install Windows XP, it is even worse, the amount of malware you can get in 1 hour is huge. You could try installing Win98, maybe there are no viruses for that today, ha-ha. But it has only Internet Explorer 5.0 and it doesn’t support TLS 3 and therefore you won’t be able to open most of the webpages. The same for Windows XP and IE 6. Your only choice left is Lubuntu 18 with Firefox ESR 52, but it is only supported until September, after that only Firefox 60 ESR will be updated which – you can guess – will require SSE2. Chrome requires SSE2 since ages. Other web browsers too. There was an SSE only version for the Pale Moon browser but there won’t be any new versions of it (it was just announced 2 weeks before: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=19416).

You can still use Lynx, a character mode web browser. Have fun with it 😀

Reply | Quote

Curiosity on this article got the better of me so I thought I would wade in and add my little blurp.
I would find running Windows 7 32 bit on a ole P3 hardcore in relations to getting it set up and running effectively without the dreaded BSOD biting one on many occasions.
Let alone still finding a good Motherboard for one that hopefully was made in Japan with good quality capacitors / resistors and other IC`s in good order plus a reasonable BIOS to work with so i would not have to dig out the trusty magnifying glass and base soldering iron by the way which I have had to on many occasions with the more modern motherboards and PCI-E graphics cards where resistors and capacitors have failed drastically.
That being said no doubt that it can be done as from what I have seen on this post.
(It’s amazing what one can buy from JayCar to keep older systems running).
I myself still have a selection of early DXs / P3s / early Athlons / a great variety of P4s / Intel Pentium Ds / Core 2 dual and quads / and of course the more modern i7`s.
I have numerous old computers with P4`s / AGP / ATA / DDR that run Windows 7 Pro 32 bit without problems albeit at a slower clip but still very effective and reasonably quick providing you are not multitasking with many pages open as well as closing / shutting down anything that is not required to run the system.
(The P4`s will eventually have some form of LINUX Distro installed on them).
These are all computers that I have built from some where around 1990 and parts that I have collected / bought and scavenged over the years as it’s one of my hobbies.
All quite interesting to what we can keep running even if its only for nostalgia`s sake.
Cheers all.

EDIT html to text

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

Well, I found this out a bit late, but from Steve Gibson’s Security Now it seems the new Specter and Meltdown patches are creating stop errors on CPUs that don’t support SSE2:

A stop error occurs on computers that don’t support Streaming Single Instructions Multiple Data (SIMD) Extensions 2 (SSE2).

Source: https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-668-Notes.pdf

Micro$oft might not be interested in spending the resources to fix this, so it’s easier to knock out Pentium III from the list of supported hardware.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote