XP 64-bit installer not recognising SSD!

[airdata]

xp 64 has horrible driver support. I tried running it back when vista was first coming out and found this out first hand.

 

[taltamir]

I gather that. But again obviously 100% performance isn't needed or he wouldn't be installing Win XP 64. My point was that Trim not saying it isn't awesome, just it isn't the end all be all of technologies that no machine can live without. A SSD spending most of it's life at 85-90% is still better then a HDD running at 100%. I get what you are saying about the GC being crap on most consumer drives, I have notated either in this thread or others that you want to get a drive with a known good GC and probably target the ones used in enterprise set ups where RAID/no Trim is expected.

The Amplification I haven't delved to much into, but even then I am not sure that is as big a problem as one would need to worry about. There is already proof that the NAND chips and wear leveling have made the drives last way longer then expected.

The big point is that TRIM does good work, but with a good drive, lessens the need for TRIM and would allow it to work well inside a machine without it, in which there are many. For a lot of people, putting on Win 7 also nearly doubles the cost of the upgrade.

Alright, put this way I can agree with your points.
That being said

xp 64 has horrible driver support. I tried running it back when vista was first coming out and found this out first hand.

Yes... You know in the end the reason I keep upgrading windows versions is primarily driver support. You just gotta keep moving with windows or you get left behind with no drivers.

 

[icanhascpu2]

Windows XP will feel a lot snappier than 7 if you have 7 turned up to all the eyecandy on a slowish system, but i dont know of any real tests where XP would preform faster than 7. I mean if it crunched x264 encodes 10% faster (for instance) I might consider having a duel install!

I wish you luck, XP 64 was a badly supported OS.

 

[bramke]

i don't know but i have been reading this thread and most of u guys here make me pretty angry , u come here with stuff u read over the internet benchmark tests etc
telling windows xp 64 is worse then windows 7
it isn't if u say u are ur just a newb

yes windows 7 has good stuff aswel like when the grafic card fails the pc don't need to reboot ....


but windows xp 64 edition is wayyy faster then your crappy windows 7
+ i like the mouse acceleration in windows xp
in windows 7 the mouse acceleration sucks for me even with a mousefix

u guys better test something before u come lure with crap uve read like benchmarks etc

windows xp 64 is just plain better period

ok it has no dx 11...but thats abt all said


when windows xp came out the wheel spinned , everything was possible , windows vista and 7 and probaly 8 are just stuff that slows the wheel down because the wheel was already spinning

ok maybe they made an improvement on file copying and faster booting even tho surfing thru the computer and internet is slower

 

[bbhaag]

No, XP does support USB FDD, but only *certain* chipsets / USB IDs. Apparently, the USB VID/SVIDs are hardcoded into the text-mode setup routines. So if you have a supported USB floppy drive, then it will work.

I've done this personally, to get a laptop working that wasn't otherwise supported out-of-the-box with XP drivers.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/916196

My wifes Toshiba laptop is like this. Everytime I wipe the drive I have to go dig out that old usb to floppy drive so I can load the drivers first.
Even recently when I installed Win7 I still had to load the drivers first before it would recognize the drive and then allocate it.