Windows XP?

[Dave-H]

Hi, GPU-Z 2.41 won't run on Windows XP.
When I run it, nothing happens.
2.40 seems to be fine.
Has XP support been dropped, I can't see anything in the changelog for 2.41 to that effect?
Thanks, Dave.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Hi, GPU-Z 2.41 won't run on Windows XP.
When I run it, nothing happens.
2.40 seems to be fine.
Has XP support been dropped, I can't see anything in the changelog for 2.41 to that effect?
Thanks, Dave.

XP support has been dropped. No real need for continued XP support as no hardware supporting XP has been released in a few years. So if you need to run GPUZ on XP, just stick with an older version and call it good.

 

[eidairaman1]

Use older version

 

[W1zzard]

Has XP support been dropped, I can't see anything in the changelog for 2.41 to that effect?

GPU-Z fully supports Windows XP and will continue to do so for as long as possible.

Just to confirm, 2.40 works fine, 2.41 does not?

 

[pavle]

I tested it and v2.41 starts and dies (as observed in Task Manager). In Windows XP Pro of course.

 

[qubit]

I tested it and v2.41 starts and dies (as observed in Task Manager).

Which operating system did you try it on?

 

[P4-630]

XP support has been dropped.

Better say nothing if you don't know....

 

[Dave-H]

I unpacked the 2.41 file with Universal Extractor, and when I run the unpacked version I get the message "The helper module .NET Framework 4.6 could not be found" so I guess that's the problem. I don't think .NET 4.6 is available for XP.
Also I'm getting in the Windows System Event Log "Application popup: GPU-Z 2.41.0_unpacked.exe - Entry Point Not Found : The procedure entry point AcquireSRWLockExclusive could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.DLL."

 

[lexluthermiester]

GPU-Z fully supports Windows XP and will continue to do so for as long as possible.

Just to confirm, 2.40 works fine, 2.41 does not?

Wow, really? Ok. My bad.

Better say nothing if you don't know....

To be fair, I tried running the latest version on my install of XP and it wouldn't run either. It's not unreasonable to conclude that XP support had been dropped as new hardware support for same doesn't exist anymore.

 

[W1zzard]

AcquireSRWLockExclusive

Grrrr .. all I did was update my Visual Studio 2019 version to the latest, without touching the compiler (still using v141_xp). But apparently they made some change that uses this API call, which isn't available on Windows XP. Will search for a solution

 

[lexluthermiester]

Grrrr .. all I did was update my Visual Studio 2019 version to the latest, without touching the compiler (still using v141_xp). But apparently they made some change that uses this API call, which isn't available on Windows XP. Will search for a solution

Wait, microsoft pulled a sneaky? What a shock...

 

[W1zzard]

Blaming STL/stl/src/primitives.hpp at c76042bb32ecc838f40eac4374fc412b4c7374ef · microsoft/STL

MSVC's implementation of the C++ Standard Library. - Blaming STL/stl/src/primitives.hpp at c76042bb32ecc838f40eac4374fc412b4c7374ef · microsoft/STL

github.com

there's the problem

 

[lexluthermiester]

Blaming STL/stl/src/primitives.hpp at c76042bb32ecc838f40eac4374fc412b4c7374ef · microsoft/STL

MSVC's implementation of the C++ Standard Library. - Blaming STL/stl/src/primitives.hpp at c76042bb32ecc838f40eac4374fc412b4c7374ef · microsoft/STL

github.com

there's the problem

So does this force your hand or is there a workaround? Let's be fair though, there's not much point in supporting XP going forward.. It's not for a lack of users, but for a lack of new hardware.

 

[pavle]

Classic systems are good to have around, lightweight and working. Microsoft and their primitives can go fly a kite.

 

[Audioave10]

Classic systems are good to have around, lightweight and working. Microsoft and their primitives can go fly a kite.

I swear, my offline XP 32bit PC is quicker to load than my Windows 10 Pro main PC.

 

[Naki]

I swear, my offline XP 32bit PC is quicker to load than my Windows 10 Pro main PC.

SSD for both?

 

[Audioave10]

SSD for both?

WD 640GB Black for the XP........WD 2TB Gold for the W10 Pro
no SSD for either of these

 

[pavle]

Sweet - classic fast and industrial disks - I use such meself. Good stuff.

 

[Naki]

WD 640GB Black for the XP........WD 2TB Gold for the W10 Pro
no SSD for either of these

Horrible! Lousy comparison too.
Get a proper SSD, even a medium priced SATA 3 SSD will be MUCH better/faster than any "Enterprise HDD", be that 15K RPM, 20K RPM or even 30 (if those existed).
Then compare the loading time of WinXP in MBR mode with loading Windows 10 64-bit in UEFI mode on your new PC. You should see a big improvement.

IF you had an enterprise SSD then I would be really impressed, as those cost a fortune and the mobo+CPU to support them also do.
But a HDD as main drive!? -- this is bad use in the 21st century, not impressed.
You are using your new PC the wrong way.

NOTE: I am not against HDDs. Some folks switched to only SSDs for internal drives.
I don't do that, all my PCs + laptop here have at least ONE SSD on them, as well as at least ONE HDD (often, several of them except on laptop, for understandable laptop limitation reasons) .

 

[Audioave10]

Horrible! Lousy comparison too.
Get a proper SSD, even a medium priced SATA 3 SSD will be MUCH better/faster than any "Enterprise HDD", be that 15K RPM, 20K RPM or even 30 (if those existed).
Then compare the loading time of WinXP in MBR mode with loading Windows 10 64-bit in UEFI mode on your new PC. You should see a big improvement.

IF you had an enterprise SSD then I would be really impressed, as those cost a fortune and the mobo+CPU to support them also do.
But a HDD as main drive!? -- this is bad use in the 21st century, not impressed.
You are using your new PC the wrong way.

NOTE: I am not against HDDs. Some folks switched to only SSDs for internal drives.
I don't do that, all my PCs + laptop here have at least ONE SSD on them, as well as at least ONE HDD (often, several of them except on laptop, for understandable laptop limitation reasons) .

I was implying that a modern MS OS has so much junk & telemetry it sometimes starts slower. Both PC's are plenty fast enough. This is a Hobby for me.

 

[Naki]

This is work & hobby for me too. I am a disk drive maniac, I probably have 3-4 times the disk space I really need (across several PCs of mine)...
(Don't forget external storage, I have plenty of that too - USB 2.0/3.0 enclosures, USB 3.0 docking stations of various sizes & port numbers, USB flash drives ranging from very old 1 GB Corsair up to 512 GB expensive Kingston HyperX Savage, and lots more in between).

Lacking an SSD is an issue, especially on the new PC -- SSD in UEFI mode will be very faster to boot Windows 10 OS, compared with the 2 TB WD Gold HDD you use now.
And you can always put the HDD, or several HDDs as secondary drives.
You will find that SSD prices have went considerably down since 5-6 years, or even 10 years ago.

 

[Dave-H]

Grrrr .. all I did was update my Visual Studio 2019 version to the latest, without touching the compiler (still using v141_xp). But apparently they made some change that uses this API call, which isn't available on Windows XP. Will search for a solution

I don't know if this will be of any help.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/182888-how-vs-makes-working-code-still-incompatible/
It's obviously a problem that others trying to keep things XP compatible have run into!

 

[W1zzard]

Yeah this is exactly the issue, no solution in that thread though. Worst case is I go back to the last working version of the CRT library

 

[GerKNG]

Sweet - classic fast and industrial disks - I use such meself. Good stuff.

yeah who doesn't love boot times counted in minutes and an overall barely useable system

 

[R-T-B]

yeah who doesn't love boot times counted in minutes and an overall barely useable system

I mean I boot in less than 15 seconds but who counts anymore.