Breaking the "Impossible"? Windows XP on 80486 Platform w/ 25 MHz Pentium OverDrive
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2014
- Die shots & more: www.cpumuseum.jimdo.com/
Running XP on 486 platform is made possible by the Intel Pentium OverDrive for socket 3 designed to upgrade 486 platforms with 5th generation CPUs. Thus it is not a big deal but just a very time consuming thing to get that to work. The installation was first made on Windows 2000 Professional since I was a bit lazy to write boot diskettes for Windows XP. A big mistake because the W2K installation took at least 10 hours (1 PM to 2 AM next day) and the XP installation ran from 9 AM to 1 AM the next day. At least not a single error occured during the installation and it worked really smooth.
I'm sorry that I still didn't manage to get a serial mouse and did the whole video only with a keyboard. Next time I will definitely run systems with a mouse.
The system configuration looked pretty much the same compared to my SX-25 video using the following components:
- Intel Pentium OverDrive 83 MHz limited to 25 MHz FSB speed thank to this guide: winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini.htm
- 64 MB RAM
- M921 Socket 3 PCI ISA 486/AT compatible motherboard
- Quantum HDD, changed to Seagate for Windows 3.11
- Cirrus Logic VGA compatible video card
This is clearly neither a record nor a show off video but just a demonstration that everyone else can do when he/she has time to.
Music: Heart of Fire by BrunuhVille
Write what you think of this video in the comment field down below. Be sure to hit the subscribe button when you want to see more. An upcoming video showing a real 486 attempting to run XP among others you will expect from subscribing ;-)
www.cpumuseum.jimdo.com/ 
Наука
"Get the free upgrade to Windows 10"
TheKillerPL ...?
TheKillerPL windows 10 sucks
yeah, i know
Windows 10 sucks if you use it as an upgrade for earlier versions of Windows. I got weird compatibility issues. However, I found no problems with it as a straightforward install. I returned my old computer to Windows 7, with a straightforward Windows 10 install on my new one. No problems on either system.
Stephen Clementson i tried two types of installations: upgrade and fresh install
Much faster than my school computers
lol? cool MA'AM
vista has the same requirements as windows 7
People still live back in 2006 LoL
@A survivor Vista is fast as hell if your PC isn't this.
Its funny because its probably true.
Cyrix 5x86 chips (with voltage adapter) were able to do this with Socket 1 and 2 motherboards if you really want to push what can run XP. Did this as a child in a pre-RUclips era on a Gateway 4DX-33 with 64mb parity (36-bit) RAM.
Ran surprisingly well with write-back cache enabled.
Next up on HARDWARECOP: Running Windows 10 on a toaster.
no a cat
it would be impossible
on 386?
All toasters toast win 10
Actual toasters are faster thsn this
early in the morning I am as slow as this computer
>:v
awesome video man, thanks for uploading this! i love seeing vintage tech
oh god imagine the windows xp tour on this 😢😢😢
0.000000001 fps
1fph (frames per hour)
25 MHz external and 75 MHz internal ?
I've got an Overdrive clocked at 83 MHz...
+Marco Franceschini No, I've reduced the internal clock to the 25 MHz external clock. So instead of a multiplier of x3 the CPU is running at 25 MHz (x1) bus speed. The CPU itself is a 83 MHz version. It would normally have a bus speed of 33 MHz. I made it into a 75 MHz though with jumper settings. I could've used a 75 MHz instead, but the 75 MHz ones are quite rare among collectors.
Greeeeattt....
Now my little beauty have an AMD Turbochip 133 MHz...inside...made by Kingston.
+Marco Franceschini Thats really cool! The one you got should be an Am5x86-P133 by AMD internally on an adapter sold by Kingston all together as Turbochip. I have a similar one for socket 7 that upgrades to an AMD K6-II by adapter. Sadly I need to replace some dead capacitors to get it back to work.
Yep...an AMD Am5x586-133...motherobard it`s an old very old Genoa with 256 kB second level external cache memory.
ma che è questo overdrive?
CPU usage 100% I love old computers
Useless tests with old hardware? Subbed.
It is not useless. It is for people who wonder "what if ...?" so they have to loose their time and money.
Linus tech tips made a test of 100k$ computer, is about the same in term of uselessness because no one have such a computer.
it still boots Faster than any new computer shipped with Windows 10 and a 5400rpm drive
haha hes doing these on a 20 year old processor and theres a i-7 processor box next to it
LOL
Hey, yeah, great that you noticed that!
HARDWARECOP We noticed too, that you are a German ! Bäm! Aufgeflogen!
+HARDWARECOP Gut :D
That's nothing, the world record for the lowest spec Windows XP box goes to the guys at the winhistory website who got a Pentium Overdrive underclocked to 8MHz and paired it with 20MB of RAM. It took 30 minutes to boot and the idle percentage was at 100% (that means that at idle, the background tasks on a fresh install of Windows XP used 100% of the total available computing power).
+Paul Omans
Here's the link: winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini.htm.en
Well done, you've made some work from it. Nice to see Windows XP is quite heavy in comparisation of Windows 3.11!
OMG, its slower than QEMU emulator on android...
I disagree
my phone runs xp faster
on common android qemu emulates cpu at ~pentium 90 speed
@@comptrollerchanel5705 what about the fake AF turing phone
i was like wtf then i noticed the comment was 7 years old.
I like this! Damn that OverDrive is good!
Reminds me of my old PC and how fast it ran XP. So good it's able to run 7 well.
In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."
Awesome! I always wanted to do someting like this myself, but I've never managed to get hold of a socket 3 Pentium Overdrive.... Doesn't matter much anymore since all the socket 3 boards I had are pretty much dead (leaking batteries) and the only 486 boards that still work don't support an Overdrive.
The guys over at winhistory.de did a successful installation with a Pentium Overdrive @ 8 MHz and 20 MB of RAM.
www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini.htm.en
+HappyBeezerStudios Thanks, I already wrote that in the video description. The idea to do so origins from winhistory.de. And that 8 MHz is really impressive.
I actually miss that sound of the older mechanical drives, kind of like soothing, can remember switching to classic mode to free up resources and CPU overhead
S@%t dude you bring back memories from a ton of years. Good job
I have a full height 5.25" 20 Megabyte (yes MEGA!) turbine here in my archive box. Alongside a load of other antique harddrives. One of them is a Kalok 3.5" wide, 2" high 20(or40) MB IDE drive. They were actually named after the sound the stepper motor makes...Kalokalokalok! XD
An 80486 computer, next to an Intel Core i7 processor, how ironic...
why do i feel its still a hard drive that slow everything down?
Mom can we get pentium?
Yes we have at home
Pentium at home:
Das wär ja heute unvorstellbar :D Gutes Video :)
Nice video. Ironically loading XP on my older AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ system with a ssd is very much like the part loading Win 3.1 on that system.
No it’s not 3.1 was meant for a system like this. The athlon system is from the windows vista/7 era.
Ah, the refreshing sound of a 90s hard disk spinning up.
+PikaChuChuJelly And making popcorn during I/O
I've heard that some of windows xps earlier builds will run on an un modified 486
I have read that the minimum to install is 64 Mb, but you can go lower after installing. I've seen as low as 18 Mb, but 16 Mb will not work. I'm working on a Socket 3 board right now that has 30 pin sockets. I could fill up one bank with 4x4Mb and one with 4x256k for a new RAM record of 17 Mb. :D
I did this years ago on an old IBM PS/Valuepoint with a Socket 3. Initially contained a i486 66MHz. Machine had been stepped up to 64MB for the installation, and then reduced to 16MB the minimum for which it will still boot properly. On these older AT style machines WinXP up to SP3 could run. Even Windows Server 2003 is based on the same code, only the original SP0 would run. Any service pack install will cause the an endless BSOD-Reboot loop. Windows 2003 R2 included.
Great video Frank! But I have a friend who ran xp on worse.I think he ran it on Intel i486 or so at 20 mhz
All hail Windows XP, the greatest, simplest, quickest and nicest OS ever made. It could be run on anything from a stick with 64mb of RAM all the way up to the latest PC or Laptop. I personally used to run it on a Compaq Presarrio laptop with a Celeron 400MHz, ATI 8MB graphics and 512mb RAM. Good times!
Next time, try using the latest boards for 486's and four 64MB ram modules (256MB was the maximun back then) instead of just 64MB. Even an Pentium 4 will be slow in Windows XP with so little ram.
It wouldn't help. At the speed that bus is running, the memory access is actually going to be slower than most hard drives. It'd be like trying to add additional cache to speed it up ... the cache itself will be slower than what the RAM's own potential max speed is, so it'll make no difference.
The one thing that would make it a little quicker is not having to go through the step of swapping in the data to RAM, but after that the read from RAM to CPU is just as slow, so it's basically like adding an extra waitstate to the memory access, nothing more.
@@gwenynorisu6883 agree, I remember the night and day difference with a IDE 7200 rpm barracuda drive (pre solid state). Disk speed does a lot to a maxed out PC of this era
@@Frontman936 though I'll admit I didn't consider the access time. You'd get some horrific thrash. Memory is much lower *latency* than disk.
But if it was running off an SSD, or even a CF card (as they're IDE native...), that might have interesting results. Swapping my old laptop's HDD for an SSD has extended its useful life massively, and I've seen similar happen with other old computers that have hit their RAM limits. They're hitting the swap file all the damn time, or frequently reloading parts of programs and the file system instead of having it in cache. If it was on even a fast HDD it'd be a noisy, frustrating crawl. With the SSD you barely notice a pause.
And, well, unless you have a very very minimalist install of XP Home, 256mb is still going to be marginal for keeping enough stuff in RAM to avoid continual swapping and reloading. It's like running Win95 with only 8 or 12mb. Sure, it's better than only having 4, but it's still not comfortable.
@@gwenynorisu6883 I remember being amazed at seeing XP run decent on a P1 233mhz with use of a brand new 7200 rpm drive. So impressed I got the same drive for the P3 still in use around 2005
@@Frontman936 raw processor speed is often unimportant for pure OS (vs application) performance, once you've got it over a certain fairly low minimum... You have to kill the bottlenecks. That's a big one. Plus having insufficient memory in the first place, high latency or otherwise slow memory itself, not enough cache, slow or overly busy bus, etc. One of the reasons why celerons were sometimes OK, sometimes godawful was those things kept wavering around vs the pentiums they were based on. The cacheless originals and those derived from the P4 (which used it like a crutch due to the long pipeline... Predict a branch wrong and you've got a LOT of input buffer to refill) were particularly horrid, especially if paired with a minimal amount of dog slow RAM (though enough of the chips ran a slower FSB anyway so couldn't use anything quicker) and a hard drive the system builder otherwise couldn't get rid of. Some dope thought it was a good money saver to buy a load of those for a past job before I got there, and I genuinely celebrated when the last of them were replaced because their performance (even at a bare desktop sometimes) was just shocking, they'd make this seem fast some days, even though their clock speed was as high or higher than the handful of full fat P4 servers (in desktop cases? Weird) from the same line whose only real difference was the chip and memory speed. And faster hard drives, but in that case even an SSD wouldn't have helped, because the actual silicon was so deadlocked it didn't even swap with any vigour and maxing the memory (2GB, where a freshly booted XP will be running entirely from RAM) made basically no difference.
But there probably would have been a measurable change if I'd ever retrofit one of the base model hard drives into a server I guess... Every time you get rid of a bottleneck, there's a new one to contend with. And the much better chosen Core 2s that followed them (stayed tolerably usable for years even with 5400rpms) definitely had it at the HDD level. Tried a couple of 7200s and considered surplus server class 10000s, but by the time we were stretching the crumbling budget it was a bit too little too late and only made a small difference (like a broken down car crawling along at 20mph instead of 15). Luckily SSDs of just enough capacity had just become affordable enough to justify experimenting with them instead of replacing the machines outright, and the difference was like night and day. Started a programme of replacing all the HDDs with them and got probably another 3+ years of entirely smooth use out of each PC... Even took them out of those that finally died or proved unequal to some new task and swapped them into the replacement machines, which were pretty nifty i5s, but hobbled with not only 5400s but budget laptop grade 2.5"s. Nightmares on arrival, utterly flew after that one change...
So the question is, now that we've solved that one for now, where's the next one?
Genau so Schnell sind unsere Computer in der Schule...
But can it run Crysis? :O
Emeraldy if you want it to explode
Omg look at my channel wallpaper! I have had that as it for years!
Emeraldy yes lol
try to run it, freeze yourself, unfreeze in 1000 years and ask your grand grand kids if it started up, and then freeze for another 1000 years cuz it didnt
@Santi12010 You must be fun at parties!
cool. I remember the days when I was sitting in front of my 486 pc listening to the whinning noise of the hdd :P
Question, how did you boot the installation CD? My IBM 330 does not boot neither Win2000 nor XP installation CD
"too much reflection" haha. its blurred anyways.
the most impressive thing about this video is not the pc running windows xp, but a quantum fireball that still works...
Windows XP uses RAM as cashe to speed things up. It needed a lot of RAM by 2001 standards of RAM capacity. Whereas 128 or 256 MB of RAM was commonplace at that time, I found that it was best to have 512 MB of RAM free for Windows, plus whatever RAM was required to support other functions.
God, I probably gave away or threw away most of this stuff 20 years ago. When I bought it, however, it was a very different and very cool time. Mom and Pop computer stores everywhere pushing the latest Cyrix, AMD and Intel x86 CPU's and checking in daily to see if anyone had the AMD 5x133 or the Cyrix 5x133. Good times.
I'd be willing to assume that even a 25Mhz P54 would be a decent amount faster than a standard 486-25 etc.
Probably more in the range of a DX-2 50-66Mhz chip. Very interesting, I'm working with a 120Mhz P54C w/ MMX which i've overclocked to 166Mhz via changing the PLL/FSB to 66 over 60Mhz, then jumping the Multiplier from 2.0x to 2.5x. Apparently there is a 3.0x multiplier, but I cannot for whatever reason find it.
I'd be curious if any decently modern Linux Distros could get running on it, albeit it only has 32MB of EDO RAM.
SCHNARCH ......Wie?......WAS? Ach das Video is zu Ende. Danke das Du mich geweckt hast.
Hohe Leistung! PESPEKT! Wie hasten das geschafft???
ein echter hardwarecop!
fireball with a post card....damn i remmeber that spin up lol
after these years of no idea, i finally know why XP cannot run on 486 processor. XP for work requires CMPXCHG8B instruction, which was first implemented in Pentium. and actually no 486 processor (no matter if it's Intel, Amd, DX2, DX4 etc) have this instruction. that's all why it don't work on them
"worked really smooth."
can you also set the speed to 8 mhz like the guy on winhistory did? or not possible with that board?
Great Video .. Taking fant from 25MHz Pentium .. Whow there Ranger youre on the edge.
OMG, what's with the Luna theme? Looks like it has turned classic!
Computer is too slow for Luna :-)
I've run it on a Pentium 100MHz with 32mb ram and a 2.5gb quantum bigfoot. Mind you it was a slipstreamed copy that has a total install size of 256mb. the iso is 92mb.
So you changed the colors of the video because you were too visible in the reflection? lmao
Ziggy Wiggy Why would I? I get that some people are camera shy, but I wouldn't change the whole video's coloration over a reflection.
Jason Lee it's called privacy
SkeleCrafter It's a public video.
LegoJKL people do that and it's his decision not wanted to be seen as it is your decision not to watch it as it is also your decision to shitpost here as is mine :+)
An error, a bad hairstyle, a grin, wearing clothes thas some children consider "funny"... everything can become a meme this days.
amazing, Xp works also into a calcultor.
shutting down a load of the services running in the background can speed it up aswell :-)
pc master race
Good video!!
I suggest to install Windows XP withouth Service Packs (2002 version), that is faster in start up and requires less RAM.
SP1 came out in 2002, you're thinking of RTM from 2001
Yes, I mean Windows XP RTM version!
I wonder how faster would it be with sp1 and without service pack.
I used to have an old IBM Aptiva 486SX-25 that originally came with 4MB Ram and 120MB HD, which was upgraded to have 16MB Ram, Sound Blaster 16, 4X (Quad-speed) CD-ROM, an Overdrive CPU (was going to get the "Pentium 83 Overdrive" but apparently it was not supported so instead it was an Overdrive 63 or 67 or something.. I remember it saying 67Mhz in the BIOS or CPU check of some sort, although identified as just as DX2-66 Mhz for some reason in many programs). I always wondered what Overdrive CPU was in it, but it was definitely not as fast as a true Pentium. I guess one of the reasons was the bad graphics card (This was an older 486 with no PCI, but only ISA (VESA Local Bus?) It was a Cirrus Logic with only 512KB Ram. I always wanted to get a better graphics card, but it was hard to get ISA cards at the time, only PCI cards were sold basically then (around 1997). It was frustrating as the graphics card only supported 800x600 at 256 colors and I believe 1024x768 at 16 colors maximum. There was no support for more than 256 colors at any resolution :/
Nice video. If only the board supported more memory. I guess it would be a bit faster.
The song has been deleted from the video.Is it possible to reload the original version (before deleting the song)?
can you test windows vista on 486 computers
Will it boot faster form CompactFlash card with IDE adapter?
I think you removed the CPU fan because you underclocked it to 25Mhz.
I remember when all the sound was in the video :(
It Really does Work , I have done this too :) QC
Windows XP SP2 on a computer from 1995.
The lesson here is, if you ever time travel take a copy of XP with you and blow some mid-90s minds!
It is called Sado Mazo...
Wie haste das denn geschafft?
Wüsste net ob ich das hinkriegen würde
Kannste xp auch auf nen 386dx quälen ?
Startup time that rivals my BlackBerry
Faster than my computer before SSD.
il finale è strappalacrime
Time for video update - recently some modder made it possible. Now Windows XP can run on real 486 (not a Pentium Overdrive) processor !
i want to try this, i have 4x working 486 mainboards at home
Cool, AFAIK Windows XP needs an instruction specific to the Pentium because of a default option and turning that off in RegEdit should make it compatible with a 486. Try it out and record it
And I thought my shitty old XP machine was slow.
wow amazing
Nussa! O cara quer sofrer mesmo heim! Se ja no Win9x era lento, imagina rodando o XP.... Barbaridade!!!
uuummm... yeah
verdade
tem br ate aqui
Man, you are crazy
This is not really news. People have done this with 1 / 2 MHz before (486 with Pentium OD).
Why disabled ratings?
I ran XP on a school's Cyrix 133 computer with 32mb of ram, it was terribly slow... Then we added up to 128mb and then it became muuuuch faster, almost usable for any task for 2007 😊
Still pretty useless for 2007 though. It’d be more useful for 2007 standards with windows 98 or 2k.
still probably better than the cyrix chip I installed xp on. but that thing was socket 7.
Is it y2k compliant?!
TheSnoopyclone no, it WILL try to eat your family
Yes, it's a Pentium processor, anything older than that is not.
@@Greenfly39 it doesn't depend on the processor, it depends on the bios. I have a 386 that works.
Nobody ever claimed it was impossible on a 486 "platform" ... just on a 486 CPU.
Would this work on an overclocked AMD A5X 133MHz?
the sound is scary its like waiting to explode
На такой машинке максимум 95 винду, а лучше вообде под DOSом сидеть))) но за попытку респект
Starts up faster than Windows 10 LOL
That may be true but it also boots very quickly which the op claims it doesn't. Bash win 10 all you want but bash it for the right things, no need to make stuff up.
***** It was a joke, but Windows 10 is still slow. And I got a few. The best computer I got has these specs:
Intel Core i3-5005u CPU @ 2.00GHz
8.00 GB RAM
64-bit OS, x64 based processor
1TB Hard Drive
Windows 10 Home
733Rafael Sure as hell fucking is!
My Win10 install boots in about 20 seconds. i7 2600 @ 3.4Ghz, 16gb RAM , GeForce 1060 6GB, using a Kingston shit SDD. Anyone who says WIn10 is spyware, is probably using WIn7/8, and can't tweak and configure their OS. You're being hypocrites, as if 7/8 is any better at not being "spyware."
FusionC6 my 9300 5 10 secs when monitor is on its on login page
...and there I thought XP refused to run on anything that doesn't have MMX?!
Though really I'm stunned you got it to work in just 64mb. My experience of running XP on anything with 256mb or less is one of almost complete gridlock.
Also, you're not bigging yourself up enough. It says 22mhz there, not 25mhz. Given that the Overdrives use fractional clock multiplication (I think that "83mhz" is actually 33 x 2.5? Or more correctly 33.33 x 2.5 = 83.33...), that means a bus speed of approximately 8.3mhz? So, accounting for memory bus width and the likely efficiency of processing in the CPU itself, it's a bit like bodging in some kind of weird clock-doubled 386SX (or maybe 486SLC) to a 16.7mhz 286 motherboard... then running Windows XP on it.
Jesus. Seriously, "25mhz Pentium" is really not telling the whole story here. The speed of that 486 bus, plus it being half the width of a Pentium one, is essentially like using a 4.2mhz Pentium motherboard, and a latterday Socket 7 processor with a 5x clock multiplier... The main memory bus, in fact probably even the cache, is running slower than the data rate you'd get from continual swapping on even a slow early noughties hard drive. Maybe even equivalent to trying to use a DVD-RAM as your swap partition.
I have done something similar in the past but 486dx4 130Mhz, 64Mb EDO, FSB33Mhz, USB 1.1, PCI Graphics 8Mb, Seagate 20Gig 7200Rpm Slim form factor, It also have integrated IDE and PS2 mouse. used it for a few years too... And It ran pretty good for a 486.
I do believe your problem is that hard drive though.
My system back in the day started in about 35 - 45 seconds. Wait I still have the motherboard somewhere.
After that I up graded to Socket-7 AMD 333Mhz, then Socket-7 Again AMD 550Mhz, being able run WinXP in 2002 was a big deal back then.
Then in 2005 Last my system to run Xp that works to this day, AMD Athlon 3200 Thermal-Take Volcano for cooling, 2Gig Ram, Ati All-in-wonder 256Mb VRam 2006, 550Watt Double fan cooled PSU, for internal 100 Watt Amp, Zip, DAC tape. 4 Sata 1 Hdd's, 2 Lite-on DVD burners; yes, It has sata and Ide integrated. ASUS Mb can't recall the model.
PERMANENTLY Banned from Accessing the Internet LOL.
It starts in about 15 seconds. It runs like a dream I've been told.
"What do you mean I have to upgrade?"
and i was complaining that avast pisses me off at startup....
commodore 64 is faster.
Boi.
This is a 486. Those commodore pussies stand no chance.
Benedani but cringy version the NES has more computing power than it
OMG now can I play minesweeper at 4k msaa8x ultra settings on that?
Frame rate unit for this machine is FPM (frames per month).
Why do you have it clocked so slow? a standard 485 runs at 66-100Mhz, my over drive is set at 100mhz low and with turbo it clockes up to 166mhz
DRNEGOLICIS wrong you are thinking of overdrive 486s (not 485) they had that as standard but an untouched 486 would run ether at 25 or 33mhz and how I know this is I owned one as a kid.
that british gamer 486 DX2 50 and 66...? DX4 100?
How much closer to usable would it run with the fan operating?
As far as I remember it was still kind of slow - maybe because of fake L2 cache (I don't know if this motherboard has). But any older OS like Windows 95 flies. Even W2K works fine as long as the RAM's enough.
well, now we have proof that you can indeed install windows XP on a potato and expect it to work