It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Dark_art_: The most important question is: can we play DX12 Cyberpunk on XP? Or it is too old like Win7 was?
If you're talking about Cyberpunk 2077 then no - it requires a 64-bit OS. You might, if you're willing to experiment, be able to run it on XP64 - or run other 32-bit Dirext10-12 games on WinXP.

A Russian group, LWGame, put together a combined DirectX9-12 installer which is supposed to work on Windows versions XP onwards. The page where you could obtain this disappeared in what appears to have been a website reshuffle, but is still available on the Internet Archive.

For some background on the group, see:
https://www.raymond.cc/blog/easily-install-and-download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/

The page itself can be found at (you will need to copy/paste this since GOG's forum can't handle Archive links):
http://web.archive.org/web/20180409020126/http://lwgame.net/news/2012-04-29-11266

and the file itself at (cut and paste link again):
https://web.archive.org/web/20170318030941/http://lwgame.net/files/dxinst.zip

I've not yet investigated this so can't vouch for its effectiveness, and would strongly recommend you take a full system backup before trying to install it. VirusTotal gives it a clean bill of health - see:

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/96d729b97c4ae123f811d6ab09b7af4713241884dc0f0463d9d75f68352e72fa/summary

but that still gives plenty of room for mishaps.
Meh. A decade ago i kept it around for one game, Gothic 3. I had an EAX-sound capable card and it just sounded better there. Then I got bored of playing that one game and keeping around a dual boot for it.

Now I hope the unscrupulous won't take advantage of the leaked source code (hahahah, as if that's going to happen).
avatar
aCyborg: I mean sure... but Windows XP is really outdated and slow. I had to install and use it for a project, even on a computer that I had that is really old I couldn't find drivers for audio...
avatar
AstralWanderer: If your computer was "really old" then that was probably the issue - try installing Windows 7+ on it and see how much slower it gets. As long as it is properly set up and properly secured (that means a decent firewall and process protection software) WinXP should run like a charm.

As for drivers, there are bucketloads of sites offering them. Unless you have a really, really out-of-the-ordinary sound card, I'd suggest you didn't look hard enough.
avatar
aCyborg: The best OS to revive old computers is linux, where you can make the UI however you want.
avatar
AstralWanderer: That depends on the distro - Mint gives you any colour you want as long as it's green or grey...

And you lose out on security - Linux has only one application-level firewall (which is a fork of a fork and still a work in progress) compared to the dozen plus available on Windows, and no interactive process control/protection software allowing you to control what runs and what it can do on your system.
You don't lose out on security. 🙄 There's only one firewall application because there only needs to be one. It handles thing at the lowest level it can, even requiring superuser or root access. As for the matter of process control I suppose the K.I.S.S. principle isn't known in your mindspace.


B u t while I'm rolling the ball right into your lamb fries, allow me to also state that there are further ways to harden Linux if you insist on being a paranoid whackoo, IN ADDITION to the already heavily scrutinized security built into the kernel itself, there are things like SELinux.
Attachments:
avatar
Johnathanamz: There is already a unofficial Windows XP Service Pack 4, not sure if it is on Source Code, but I been following that project since like 2014 or something like that.
Any good?
Sorry for this bad joke:

Everyone needs to take a leak now and then...
avatar
toxicTom: No. Because while I celebrate the leak from a point of "freedom of information", it's actually a catastrophe for many sectors.
XP on private and corporate PCs are one thing, but XP also runs on many machines like ATMs, industrial machinery, medical equipment. ...
Security through obscurity is known not to be security at all.
avatar
mqstout: Security through obscurity is known not to be security at all.
That's true in principle, but not helpful in the current situation.

The only thing one can hope for is that people learn not to entrust their infrastructure to closed source software getting obsolete over time.
It's a very slim hope though, because the people making these kinds of decisions are most of the time not the people with their heads on the block when the shit hit the fan.
avatar
Darvond: ...There's only one firewall application because there only needs to be one. It handles thing at the lowest level it can, even requiring superuser or root access.
You're talking about iptables, right? Then that's a fail on your part - I was talking about OpenSnitch, which once it is complete and working, looks to be the best application-level firewall available for Linux.

And that wouldn't even provide the level of security and control that Windows users have enjoyed since 1998 when WRQ released its AtGuard firewall.
avatar
Darvond: As for the matter of process control I suppose
the K.I.S.S. principle isn't known in your mindspace.
Process control means being able to set rules to allow or prevent processes from carrying out certain actions like:
* terminating other processes;
* modifying other processes;
* setting hooks to intercept keyboard, mouse or IPC traffic;
* making major changes to system setup (e.g. modifying what runs on startup, loading library order, etc).

Your first link is for a process viewer - very pretty but no more functional than Windows' Task Manager and far behind the likes of Process Hacker, Process Explorer or TaskInfo on Windows. The second link has no security relevance whatsoever. This suggests that you are completely missing the point I am trying to make.
avatar
Darvond: ...allow me to also state that there are further ways to harden Linux if you insist on being a paranoid whackoo, IN ADDITION to the already heavily scrutinized security built into the kernel itself, there are things like SELinux.
I have already posted about the impracticality of SELinux for most users, and the fact that so few distros implement it (and those that do, only for a few applications) rather supports my point.

Secondly, distros do not consist of a kernel alone - you have a windowing system (mostly XOrg, with Wayland being a new contender), dozens of window managers and hundreds of applications. To have a secure environment, you either need to ensure that all these are completely secure (and most distros can't even get everything working together properly, let alone figure out the security implications) or have OS-level security software to mitigate against application-level vulnerabilities.

For Windows XP, you have a wide range of firewalls, process protection software (App/RegDefend, System Safety Monitor, Process Guard), specialised anti-keylogger/anti-snooping software (SnoopFree, SpyShelter, Zemana AntiLogger) and plenty of others.

The security ecosystem for Linux is almost a desert in comparison - for application-level firewalls you have a few (mostly unfinished) projects like OpenSnitch, TuxGuardian and Douane. For process control you have GrSecurity, AppAmor and SELinux, none of which offer interactive setup meaning that you have to configure (and debug) policies in advance, a process that could take days per application rather than the minutes an interactive program would typically require. FireJail has a similar problem in that the effort required to build a whitelisting profile makes it as impractical as SELinux.

And please don't bash on again about how Linux isn't exploited - Android is a pretty big counter-example, and there have been several high-profile (or low profile and long-lasting) exploits which would have been trivially detectable by proper (and properly configured) security software on Windows:

* Spammers using Unix/Linux boxes as DNS/HTTP relays for 10 years+ (GOG's forum can't handle Internet Archive links, so cut-and-paste will be needed here):
https://web.archive.org/web/20150226085527/http://spamtrackers.eu/wiki/index.php/My_Canadian_Pharmacy#The_tirqd_Unix_infection
Engadget (Feb 2016): Hackers compromised Linux Mint's install files (updated)
DrHack.Net (June 2017): Indian Government/Military Linux Systems Hacked
LinuxUprising.com (May 2018): Malware Found In the Ubuntu Snap Store
-- plus related Slashdot discussion
Sophos.com (June 2018): Linux distro hacked on GitHub, 'all code considered compromised'
Blackberry.com (April 2020): BlackBerry Report Examines Compromise of Linux Servers by APTs

So whatever version of Linux you run, security is still very much a concern - it is not (and has never been) "hack proof" and far from being a "paranoid whackoo" (as you choose to describe it) those seeking to harden their systems are showing prudence and caution compared to your post's complacency and ignorance (edit: a particularly relevant article to anyone who shares similar views is Sophos.com (Feb 2011): FLAMING RETORT: Cooling the friction when Linux meets anti-virus).

And finally, open source code only provides a genuine security benefit if it is (a) fully audited and (b) actually used in building end systems. Aside from Gentoo, I'm not aware of any distro that builds from source, so in most cases Linux users are exposed to compromises introduced by their distro maintainers (either via source code modification or use of a compromised compiler).
Post edited September 30, 2020 by AstralWanderer
avatar
Banjo_oz: This, so much. It makes me sick how companies get these almost perpetual copyrights on things, often things they had no hand in originally (look at all the stuff Disney now owns through buying up other companies). I'm 100% for supporting the artists and devs of things, but there's no way any of the original authors ever sees a cent from something like Nintendo reselling 40 year old NES games for example.
avatar
Time4Tea: This is what happens when corporations become too big and powerful. They can use their enormous resources to skew the political/legal landscape to suit themselves.

A good example of why it's a bad idea to keep feeding the likes of Microsoft, Steam, EA ...
Agreed. It's why I am baffled when people complain about things like "this game is not on Steam?! Boycott it!" Even if the other storefront is awful, competition is *good* and Steam having a total monopoly on PC games is absolutely terrible, IMO.
avatar
AstralWanderer: Sorry to be blunt, but this is utter hogwash.

MS-DOS/PC-DOS was based on QDOS which was written by Seattle Computer Products (link). Microsoft bought the full rights to QDOS legally (though before telling Tim Paterson that their end customer was IBM) and made major enhancements to it in succeeding versions of MS-DOS.

-snip-
avatar
Snickersnack: History concerning mega corporations should be taken with a grain of salt. Money distorts everything.

Though Microsoft played no part in it's creation, I would not be so quick to vouch for QDOS being a wholey original work. For many years it was widely believed to have contained code swiped from CP/M. Forensic analysis has cast significant doubt on those claims in the past 10 years or so but the actors involved were sketchy so it's still not entirely clear.

Was Microsoft's Empire Built on Stolen Code? We May Never Know

As a layman who wasn't there, I'll never know for sure and will have to take someone's word for it. I can say that I have great respect for the late Jerry Pournelle and would love to have heard Kildall's side of the story.
Well, in any case it's come to recent light that Microsoft did act in ill will to put the kibosh on DR-DOS around the time of Windows 3.1 and Project Chicago even though the two were compatible otherwise.
avatar
Time4Tea: This is what happens when corporations become too big and powerful. They can use their enormous resources to skew the political/legal landscape to suit themselves.

A good example of why it's a bad idea to keep feeding the likes of Microsoft, Steam, EA ...
avatar
Banjo_oz: Agreed. It's why I am baffled when people complain about things like "this game is not on Steam?! Boycott it!" Even if the other storefront is awful, competition is *good* and Steam having a total monopoly on PC games is absolutely terrible, IMO.
I think there was probably a real scare that Steam would become a monopoly 10 years ago. I'm glad other companies stepped up to provide alternatives, even if it took them a long time to become viable.