nvidia stopped supporting drivers for xp?

specifically for the 8800m gtx cards, which i have. they have new drivers for vista but for xp they are older. i am kind of worried.

 

LaptopVideo2Go still shows the new 185.xx support for the 8800M GTX for XP 32-bit

here is Nvidia Notebook OEM drivers - 185.85 for XP 32-bit
http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23937

 

I know it can be hard to let go, but you ought to consider moving on to a new OS, either _Vista or, as a better alternative, Win7, which will be out soon enough.

 

Moving onto Vista now is not worth it imo. Windows 7 is coming soon, might as well wait for that.

 

I quite agree; however, it's possible that the OP got it with _Vista, and then got a separate license for XP, in which case he might try returning to _Vista (at least for the time being) since it wouldn't involve paying for another license in that instance.

 

good time to upgrade.

 

Ding dong, the XP is ( almost) dead. Pre-order Windows 7 Premium for $49.

 

Is that opportunity ringing the door-bell?

 

It rang mine and I opened the door.

 

Wow that seems really cheap.

 

yea.

Microsoft really wants people to buy up on Win7 for exposure.

 

none of the software i have requires vista. i do not see the point in going to a slower, chuggier OS that will eat another 600 megs of ram out of my available 4 gigs (but only 3 usable gigs in a 32 bit environment and this will leave me with only 2 gigs for programs after vista consumes 1 gig) so i will be quite dissapointed if nvidia stopped support for xp right now.

i would have liked to go to 64 bit vista so that i can have the stolen ram from vista back, but some of my software is not compatible in 64 bits.

looks like i may have to go through the "black market" again for display drivers.

 

Post-SP2, _Vista is not the "slower, chuggier OS" it is portrayed as in some quarters. And without figuring out if the additional RAM is being used by superfetch, or by something else, the charge of using too much additional RAM is unfair - after all, would you prefer that expensive silicon to just be sitting around doing nothing? _Vista prefetches much more efficiently than XP ever did, and as a result will fill up a greater amount of otherwise idle RAM than XP could. That prepopulated RAM is not, however, locked away from you - if an app you fire up needs to use it, the memory manager passes it over without batting an eye.

 

i wasn't aware that vista frees up ram to help prevent hitting the swap drive. are you sure about this? how much ram is freed up then, or as in how much ram does vista really need? xp appears to be using around 350mb ram.

 

I am interested in Windows 7 but I wonder about gaming compatibility. I have already experienced issues with saints Row 2 on Windows 7 and that was the only one I tested so far.

 

I've been saying the same thing as Syster ever since day 1 of Vista. It hardly uses any extra memory compared to XP, when its needed. When maxing Photoshop CS4 x64, Vista SP1 would only take up around 420mb of RAM of my 4GB.

Might also be a great time to move to x64 when you get your copy of Win7. No reason to be running a 32-bit OS anymore.

PS, win7 is using 177MB of required system memory right now, with 2807MB used by the OS. The instant I open a game or other mem intensive app, its wiped clear and given to the app. Same as Vista does. In fact, many people are praising win7 for things that Vista has been doing for the last 2 1/2 years.

 

On halve decent spec, vista never was slow to begin with. Many OEMs are at fault for not optimising the install, instead, loading great numbers of bloatware; which even faster hardware would have to spend long time to deal with.

 

OEM's are to blame for shipping vista on machines with 512MB RAM...Of course it's going to chug.