Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I have written an AHCI CD/DVD Driver for DOS. This will allow an upgraded Windows 9x Installation CD to Install on an AHCI only system.
  3. 48-bit LBA on Win2k setup

    One post in a year isn't a lot of interest. The Patch is fairly simple but making it work during Installation requires a number of files on the Installation CD to be modified. I haven't set a price for it.
  4. Today
  5. Root Certificates and Revoked Certificates for Windows XP

    @Dave-H I would be interested to know which virus scanner you use, especially since many check the certificates in an HTTPS connection. Know it yourself at Avast, if HTTPS scanning is enabled, many websites no longer work because Avast in the cross-checking of certificates on Windows falls back. Maybe there is a similar function in your virus scanner that necessarily belongs off in Windows XP. It is also known to me at Kaspersky, where the same problems occur.
  6. 48-bit LBA on Win2k setup

    I'm sure if you released it, there would be plenty of interest Who wouldn't want a continent patch? But, if you decide not to, I respect that. It's your program.
  7. 48-bit LBA on Win2k setup

    My Patch does not need the Registry to be modified. The other methods described in this thread do. I haven't seen any interest so I have not made it available.
  8. 48-bit LBA on Win2k setup

    I just read this topic and it almost gave me a headache... I wanna get a couple things straight: Windows 2000 (any version) won't allow the user to install onto partitions larger than ~120GB unless this patch is installed, right? The registry needs to be changed to enable LBA? This patch won't fix Windows 2000's capability to see large hard drives if pre-installed?
  9. Office 2000 patches after SP3

    i needed to rebump this to bring it also back from the dead, there is still many things i am unsure of on what to do, "Sceleron's" list of updates helped out in the sense that it's supposed to be more concise, excluding any obsolete updates or excess updates, however, it's still unclear on how accurate it is, if other updates still need to be installed, and other things. for one, i noticed that some of the updates listed, specifically did not include windows 98 or windows 95 in the "supported" list. i have checked all the updates that sceleron had posted, a few of them do not have w95 listed in the support list. i understand the tested systems were only xp and vista, but i did want to mention that this can make it confusing, for one, i have not been able to have a windows 95 system in order to even test any of those updates mentioned. i went ahead and googled myself office 2000 updates for windows 95, and i acquired several updates pop up directly from microsoft that list windows 95 as supported, it is unclear whether these updates are superseded or not by the ones mentioned by sceleron. it's possible to compares files to see if one update has a newer file than another, which i've tried doing here and there but there are simply too many files and it's far too unfeasible to do, at least for me, i did however exclude kB818798 and KB920822 as they seem to be superseded by newer updates listed by sceleron. i've stopped for now from going top to bottom on problemchyld's list, specifically at "OFFICE2000-KB946979-FULLFILE-ENU.EXE", due to being burned out and my brain hurting from trying to search every d*** update manually from waybackmachine, it's unclear whether or not kb835220 installs on windows 95, i have not found any document that says specifically that it does. one weird issue i also have is that the sr1 update i have has a different name than the one mentioned in the other thread below - specifically it says "o2ksr1adl.exe" for the filename, however the filename i have used on my w95 system is "o2ksr1dl.exe", i checked the readme of both updates and they weren't really any different, i skimmed very quickly, the file sizes were only a small incremental difference. and lastly, other than the existing complications i have with what updates to add, keep, etc, i was wondering if i still need the existing updates i currently have used on my w95 systems in the past for office 2000 ( may or may not be in order ), also forgot to mention that these updates i use were compiled along with sp1 and sp3 from a website that was specific for windows 95 systems, so i was confused why there were so many updates left out, but i think it was probably because the article was at a time where some updates didn't even exist - Olk0901 kb824936 kb824993 kb830347 kb830349
  10. Couple 3D logos

    I'm a bit of a newbie to this, but I had a bunch of fun modifying Windows logos with Paint.NET ^_^
  11. Yesterday
  12. Looks like it may be related to single vs dual monitors. Watermark appears on single monitors but not dual. I use dual. Haven't tested myself though.
  13. Windows 10 Slow Boot

    Thanks Jaclaz for coming in In the meantime, I have done few things but they are not giving any clue 1) Tried MSCONFIG tool with settings like: - Selective Startup, only enabled all MS services while all non MS services disabled. rebooted, same results, screen 4 appears and takes lot of time 2) Created a fresh VMWare virtual machine guest as windows 10 x64 1803 with only Win 10 installation (my Host is actually on 1607). booted many times this VM, here also same screen 4 appears and stuck a while. so same result. pushed 1803 to update to latest version within VMWare. successful. Even after that Slow boot and all that behavior happens in VM too exactly like my Physical machine. 3) Tried MSCONFIG settings with VMWare machine but same results 4) disconnected all extra hardware from my physical machine and kept only system HDD and bare minimum of thing, rebooted, slow boot and same behaviour 5) I got hold of Windows Performance Kit for 1803. installed in in my VM, captured a boot trace in VM. Trace included CPU, HDD, I/O and GPU etc.. after rebooting I got ETL file. I opened this file in Windows performance Analayser, but I could not make much sense of it. what I can make sense is boot phase 3 and phase 4 are taking more time. ( showing much longer bar). Can you explain how to interpret ETL file I captured for my boot problem in question? Please at least tell me the boot phases that occur during windows 10 boot up and their approx time they take. I searched everywhere on net. Although file is large enough 1.7 GB so will be difficult to upload. secondly I myself want to learn how use ETL file to diagnose this issue. then after that I can do same with my physical machine. If you like I can upload the exported package file .wpapk of my VM to somewhere. I believe if problem can be diagnosed in VM then I can do same on physical machine. both are showing exact same behavior. Can't afford to mess up with my actual physical machine. Thanks again
  14. Tihiy's tools

    Wow, thanks for this tools.
  15. You need win9x custom utility ?

    i wanted to also add in reference to what someone else mentioned, using plain old w9x apps is probably the best way to go about modifying stuff and i would agree on that in general. reason being is that i thought that it would probably be "easier" to get wsc guard 4.0 to work on windows 95 than it is to make a completely new app, although it is unclear on what functionality there would be with either, i would actually be more inclined to use the new app. at the same time, if wsc guard 4.0 needs wpa-psk / aes, and only a handful of cards are supported on w95 that also have wpa support, it would make sense to just use the completely new app that accepts older protocols and have it forwards compatible with the newer standards, which is what i mentioned earlier, like some sort of converter, so then you don't have to worry about finding newer wireless cards, you just prop in any wireless card, apply some settings here and there, and it would work fine, with a nice lovely utility with signal bars on the taskbar visible . i have been having a hard time finding the oldest or older versions of odyssey client, according to amazon, odyssey client 2.0 has windows 95 listed under the platform support list, however, i have not been able to find any documents / drivers or a physical picture of the box to see if it mentions windows 95 on it, i believe there is a 2.2 version that comes with some zyxel wireless card which did not install on windows 95, last time i tried, said it was unsupported for the application, i think there was a 2.1 version too with some random odyssey related files but i could not locate anything older than 2003. there's also wsc guard 1.0 i believe, sdfox has an available download link for it, although you can still download it from waybackmachine, "WSC WPA Assistant 1.0 Setup" is the filename. although it said to work only on windows 2000 i think, i was hoping it would work on NT4, though i doubt it work on windows 95, also, i'd suspect it would still be better to find a way to get the 4.0 version to work on NT4 / w95 if the 1.0 version limits any functionality or is more buggy. below is the amazon url of odyssey client 2.0 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000067R9N?tag=itforlife-20
  16. Thanks, I'll give that a try! I'll report back if I'm still getting the error messages after uninstalling and reinstalling it.
  17. Latest Version of Software Running on XP

    @sdfox7 Can you list me missing API with dependency Walker?
  18. Tihiy's tools

    This link is dead
  19. What Are You Listening To?

    Fleetwood Mac - Isn't It Midnight (Remastered) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd7_nntBLXI
  20. Root Certificates and Revoked Certificates for Windows XP

    I once made the effort and extracted from the file "delroots.sst" from MS (April 2018) the still chronologically valid certificates. It is clear that these certificates work with outdated and insecure encryption technology (of course, revoked certificates were not taken). With the following download I offer an installer and UnInstaller, where the installer must be reinstalled after a update of the root certificates (please use only if necessary). Download: here Password: MRt&NbJf8T41y=M1x2e!rBa8c%A3W7pQ$eH!4l1hI&Z8=zK"3WZn"kx3X?72pF?B9$
  21. Yes, that would be very useful! Just to update, I downloaded MicCerTruLisPCA_2009-04-02.crl and microsoftrootcert.crl and installed them, so I'll see if that makes any difference. FWIW MicCerTruLisPCA_2009-04-02.crl says it's effective from 13th April to 13th July, and microsoftrootcert.crl says it's effective from 6th May to 5th August, so presumably those end dates are when we should be looking for the next updates.
  22. My build of New Moon (temp. name) a.k.a. Pale Moon for XP

    Sounds good to me. Just curious, is there any reason I would want to switch to Basilisk 55? It seems beloved here, but would it not be slower than New Moon?
  23. the latest builds are already in 27.9.2 level, devs are lazy on changing numbers in main branch.
  24. Isn't there any way to transplant the (good) certificate store from the flawless XP to the one displaying the issue? Can perhaps our friend @heinoganda craft a tool for doing that? It might solve your current issue and be handy for those of us (me included) having more than one XP machine.
  25. My build of New Moon (temp. name) a.k.a. Pale Moon for XP

    Are we getting a v29.2 release (or is it v29.3 now?) (er, sorry I meant for New Moon - not Basilisk)
  26. I'm still getting error messages periodically in my Application event log, sometimes large blocks of them - Failed extract of third-party root list from auto update cab at: <http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/trustedr/en/authrootstl.cab> with error: A required certificate is not within its validity period when verifying against the current system clock or the timestamp in the signed file. I've manually downloaded the cab file, and extracted the authroot.stl file from it. Opening it, the first thing I see is "This certificate trust list is not valid. The certificate that signed the list is not valid." If I look at the Trust List in the file, the second entry, named "NO LIABILITY ACCEPTED, (c)97 VeriSign, Inc." expired in January 2004! Another entry "ApplicationCA" expired last December, and there are a few others too which are no longer valid. Is this perhaps an old version of the file? If I look at the signature, it says that "The certificate is not valid for the requested usage", and if I view the certificate it says "This certificate does not appear to be valid for the selected purpose". Any ideas anyone? Strangely this does not seem to be happening on my other XP computer, which is not showing the error messages.
  1. Load more activity
×