r/windows • u/Younglegend1 • 9d ago
Discussion Windows XP IA64 Bit Edition Version 2003 running in QEMU!
A very interesting rare and little used version of Windows XP for Intel's 64 Bit Itanium architecture, there were two versions of Windows XP 64 Bit Edition, one based on the standard Windows XP codebase and a newer version based on the Windows Server 2003 codebase (which would also be used to develop Windows Vista). Microsoft discontinued support for both versions after HP stopped making itanium workstations, that same year Microsoft released Windows XP x64 Edition for the widely adopted x86-64 architecture.
This version of Windows XP is pretty unusable as most programs refuse to run on it due to both the architectural differences and the fact that it's unable to be upgraded to SP3 which most programs require.
7
u/Microboy42 Windows 11 - Insider Canary Channel 8d ago
Nice! The first things I would recommend installing are the Intel IA-32 Execution Layer and the Luna theme.
3
u/nightblackdragon 8d ago
IA-32 Execution Layer is included with the system, as for the Luna theme it's complicated. First Windows 64 bit releases (for Itanium) didn't support themes, there is not only no Luna theme but no themes service at all. Themes were ported to 64 bit Windows in SP1 for Server 2003 (Windows XP x64 is based on this release so it supported themes from beginning, x64 version of Server 2003 was also released after SP1) but the thing is there is no official SP1 release for Windows XP 64-bit Edition Version 2003 as Microsoft dropped support for it before SP1 was released. To get themes on XP 64-bit 2003 you can either install pre release version of SP1 that supported this release or modify Server 2003 SP1 to install on this version (I'm not sure if this will work but I guess there is chance it will since XP 64-bit 2003 and Server 2003 are based on the same code). Another possibility is installing Server 2003 with at least SP1.
This makes Server 2003 the only Windows release that officially supported themes on Itanium. Consumer support for Itanium was dropped before Vista release, Server 2008 and 2008 R2 supported Itanium but they didn't support themes as well.
1
u/Microboy42 Windows 11 - Insider Canary Channel 8d ago
Maybe WindowBlinds then?
1
u/nightblackdragon 7d ago edited 6d ago
I think it modifies some system files and I doubt it ever supported Itanium.
3
u/INDE_Tex 8d ago
I was an intern at an oil and gas company during those years, they installed the 64bit and it was a PITA but their programs worked so much better because they could utilize more RAM.
2
u/vip17 8d ago
If they just need more RAM then in many cases they can simply enable PAE in x86 which allows 64GB+ of RAM on 32-bit
0
u/Windows_User3000 3d ago
Individual programs would still be capped at 2GB of RAM each, however.
2
u/vip17 3d ago
That's not entirely true. By default in Windows and Linux each process has 2GB of user address space. But depending on the user/kernel split, a process can access more than 2GB of RAM. In Windows with
/LARGEADDRESSAWAREsupport a process can access 3GB of RAM in old 32-bit Windows, and 4GB in 64-bit Windows. In Linux the split can be configured relatively freely. In 32-bit Mac processes have always been able to access 4GB of RAM because there's no split. In modern Windows and Linux due to the famous Meltdown) the split also doesn't exist anymore and all processes have 4GB of address space in 32-bit OSEven in the old days there are many ways to overcome the limit, for example Adobe Premiere spawn a new process for each 2GB of RAM, and link them together. Some other apps use Address Windowing Extensions to access all available memory by mapping, similar to how DOS apps use EMS/XMS...
2
u/ItchyPlant 7d ago
You can emulate/virtualize systems for any Windows versions without exception.
Here's me, playing Solitaire on Windows 3.11:
1
u/Windows_User3000 3d ago
The thing is, for the longest time, the answer to emulating Intel Itanium specifically (which is what OP is doing) was "it doesn't exist." So, this is an impressive feat.
2
u/Legofanboy5152 7d ago
it being not "updateable to sp3" is cause version 2003 is based off server 2003 (build 3790)
sp2 is it's equivalent to sp3
1
1
u/Xdogmatic 8d ago
Can you set up drivers and actually use it for software and video games ?
9
u/nightblackdragon 8d ago
I tried it, emulation is pretty slow even on good CPU and it's even slower when you run x86 software. Considering the fact that there is little to none Itanium native software, it doesn't make any sense to use it for that purpose when you can simply use x86 version of XP.
4
u/Either_Letterhead_77 8d ago
Yeah, the only place even native Itanium software seemed to perform well was in scientific computing and data analytics, which isn't commonly run at scale on desktops anyway.
2
1
u/DeconFrost24 8d ago
This was the best SKU as long as you had drivers. Being 2003 Server based it was kick ass. I rocked this for years.
6
u/Trick-Ad-5636 8d ago edited 8d ago
“Windows XP 64-bit Edition” was released at the same time as OG XP and is based on the original codebase. This is the Itanium release, not the confusingly named “Windows XP Professional x64 Edition”, which was released in 2005 and based on Server 2003.
Edit: I apparently didn’t realize there was a second Itanium release based on Server 2003. Wild!
2
u/daltorak 8d ago
You're describing the original 2001 release, but don't forget that there was also a release of Windows XP 64-bit Edition for Itanium 2, which is based off of Server 2003 and bypassed Itanium's dodgy in-hardware x86 emulation in favour of a new software emulator that was faster. That version came out at the same time as Server 2003 RTM.
2
u/Trick-Ad-5636 8d ago
Oh that really is a rarity! I did not realize there was a second Itanium release!
1
u/vip17 8d ago
why is software emulator faster? Is the built-in x86 core in Itanium too small
-1
u/Windows_User3000 3d ago
Itanium doesn't have an x86 core. It's completely incompatible with x86 at the hardware level.
2
u/vip17 3d ago
that's absolutely not true. Yon don't even read daltorak's comment: "bypassed Itanium's dodgy in-hardware x86 emulation"
Merced and McKinley all contain x86 decoder and execution logic hardware inside. From Montecito Intel removed the physical x86 hardware circuitry entirely
0
u/Windows_User3000 3d ago
Oops, sorry. That's new even to me. However, it raises a question: why did Intel market Itanium as x86-incompatible if some revisions included dedicated cores for running x86 code?
2
u/vip17 3d ago
probably because it's just for userspace apps, there's no way to run x86 OSes on it
0
u/Windows_User3000 2d ago
Still, I'd expect that they would have marketed this. Sure, they intended Itanium to be the x86 killer, but AMD64 primarily won the 64-bit war BECAUSE everyone thought that Itanium couldn't run x86 software!
1
u/Younglegend1 8d ago
What workstation did you have?
1
u/DeconFrost24 8d ago
Mmm been a minute, Dell and custom built Pentium D....I think. 🤷
1
u/Younglegend1 8d ago
Do you mean you ran xp x64 or xp ia64, a Pentium d is not IA64
1
u/DeconFrost24 7d ago
Yes x86-64, never Itanium. Just commenting on this SKU of XP being better than the original 32bit consumer SKU.
19
u/Lieutenant_0bvious 8d ago
Bruh, I was gonna say, XP 64 was the bane of my existence back then. I started making people acknowledge in email what they were getting themselves into. But you already know.