> That’s right. If SSE2 is reported, KiTryForceEnableNx does nothing. How does that make sense? I don’t know. It is true that all AMD processors which have SSE2

> That’s right. If SSE2 is reported, KiTryForceEnableNx does nothing. How does that make sense? I don’t know. It is true that all AMD processors which have SSE2 also have NX (and it can’t be disabled). But all Intel Pentium 4 CPUs made before late 2004 (and some made after) have SSE2 yet no NX. This is an odd choice, and from the sound of it -- they're only checking SSE2, assuming its presence means that NX can be enabled, enabling it and ... nasal demons of some kind. I'm guessing someone didn't read the specs carefully enough on the Intel processor side, but at the end of the day it ended up being a "Won't Fix" simply because they explicitly list both SSE2 and NX as required[0]. It's not great to fail with what I assume is some error message that doesn't simply say "Your processor is not supported, see our 6-page requirements document online on another computer". It'd be ideal if the OS could accurately check its minimums. I think of the application's I've built (nothing deployed widely), it's rare that I've had to do operating environment validation (the need for it in the applications I write is minimal beyond "can I allocate a little memory"), and from some brief reading, it sounds like there's a more than a few edge cases involved. If my experience as a user (who buys AMD products, usually) is any indication ... No Man's Sky and a 3D program who's name escapes me both required SSSE3[1]. Both blew nasal demons. [0] Section 3.1 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-8.1-and-8/dn482072(v=win.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/i... [1] I seem to recall it was something like SSSE4.2 or some oddness, but I couldn't find a reference to it ... only SSSE3, which had the same problem of having an extra "S", confounding Google. edit: and grammar and speling.