yup. Win11 is 64bit only (thus requires an x64 or ARM64 CPU with at least 2-cores, that rules out single core 64bit CPUs and also requires minimum 8th gen Intel core or AMD Zen 2 [Ryzen 2xxx], maybe MS could support 6th gen & 7th gen Intel core and AMD Zen 1 [Ryzen 1xxx] CPUs later on - any older 64bit CPU than those will not make the cut) Win10 is the last version to have a 32bit/x86 edition
Only 11 edition with 32-bit support is PE. Other requirements are just M$ wanting people to get new PCs. Most older x64 computers run 11 fine.
Link can be found from this thread: https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...tomization-and-deployment.83749/#post-1672373 It is the ADK WinPE addons ISO.
Yeah it appears wytiwx's method for doctoring the 64-bit Windows 10 ISOs for running Prescott-class CPUs was scrubbed on baidu for some reason. Does anyone know if the "lopatkin" ISOs have the mods necessary to run on Prescotts? I'm interested in running 10 64-bit on a 478 and 775 64-bit Prescott. Another curiosity from that thread is that one user says you can modify the 32-bit Windows 10 ISO to run on a Pentium 2.... I wonder if it's possible with enough modding to get it possible to run on a Pentium 1.
It is really sad that we still have neither guide nor any updates for this thread... my old P4 would be glad to migrate to Win10 x32 from win 8.1, even patched...
do you really think that p4 is my only pc? but if we could use modern win10 on 20+years old pc (even with mods) - this would be a really legend. So this is my curiosity to install & try. Unfortunately, we have no instructions "how-to-do" here.
I believe we could make some simple app to do this if we had got detailed instructions for this... Can you give us a link?
There are instructions on the chinese website about him modyfing TP 10074 kernel to bypass NX, the offsets are the same in Win 10 1507, i patched the files according to those instructions and OS boots in VM, but on real hardware (P4 3.06Ghz Nortwood S478 Laptop, 2GB of RAM, SIS Chipset) the screen just stays black. I even modified PE environment to bypass these checks, and it works in VM after using "F10" to change the winload.exe arguments and adding /NOINTEGRITYCHECKS=YES + /NX=ALWAYSOFF, but still real hardware can't launch. Maybe it's just my s**tty laptop though . Patched W8 and Win 7 work without any problem, either TP patching instructions are not enough for 1507 version, or something else is missing, if anybody can test the patch instruction on the chinese website on an actual P4 desktop it would be good.
I came to a similar conclusion. On both Bochs (set to Pentium 4) and my Dell Dimension 4500, 10240 would only show the Windows logo, only to auto reboot (triple fault it seems) shortly after. I'm not even able to get to the infamous "your PC needs to restart" screen, as it crashes too early, unlike 10074, which manages to display it and likely also does so on real hardware. Patching 10240's files (to the best of my ability) made no difference. Patching 10074 might work in both cases, but I haven't tried that. I've been told that the newest that works with the provided instructions is 10120
The funny thing is that the winload signature patch does indeed work on 10240, so im assuming it's just the NX bit patch which needs more work in ntoskrnl.exe. I also tried LTSB 2016 (1607) but the winload patch is no longer applicable, so i can't even boot it. In my case, even "vanilla" 10240 can't boot, the PC just auto restarts.
Interesting, your 524 came out in 2006 so it's likely Intel patched the LAHF/SAHF in EM64T on those later produced chips despite having worse specs (who knew). The 670 was released in 2005 and I can confirm it does not boot 1809 when I tried. I suppose I can try something earlier than 1809 but I doubt that will change anything.
Okay, so something interesting that I just discovered but isn't readily distinguished anywhere. The Pentium 670 SL7Z3 *does not* have 64-bit LAHF/SAHF The Pentium 670 SL8PY *does* have 64-bit LAHF/SAHF Makes you wonder why Intel named them both "670" when that's quite the difference between the two. It just so happens I was using a SL7Z3 and didn't realize it. This also means by natural consequence the 672 has 64-bit LAHF/SAHF, however I never originally put one in my system because the BIOS doesn't support VT-x so it didn't make sense... but it certainly would have saved me the future headaches of banging my head on this issue.