All Activity

Moving a folder tree on the same volume should retain creation and modification dates. Moving to another volume is a copy/delete operation and the OS will give all items new creation dates. This could be post-processed by modifying the directory entries with low-level calls. Otherwise the system date and time would need to be temporarily changed as each item is moved.

4.62 on 98 is the only combo I currently have. I recall having the same issue with 9 and 16 on 98se. I've downloaded some earlier versions (along with the source) and will test them on 98.

In comparison to Mypal 68.14.8b, I have executed the two JavaScript commands again in Mypal 68.14.7b: JavaScript commands: parseInt(Services.appinfo.platformVersion); Output: 68 parseInt(Services.appinfo.version); Output: 68 In any case, there is a clear version specification in the previous release.

Sorry but unfortunately, I have to disagree when it comes to Windows XP -> Windows NT 5.1 and Mypal 68. I have tested all possible Firefox version numbers by a SSUAO in Mypal 68.14.8b, and 128 was definitely the minimum to get rid of the yellow message box. Any version lower than 128 failed. Greetings, AstroSkipper

... Respectfully, I beg to disagree ... While 128 is the currently supported Firefox ESR version, the previous ESR (Firefox 115) is also supported, for the sake of Win7/8/8.1 users (support will end, supposedly, next September); the minimum Fx version supported by AMO, is, thus, 115 ... FirefoxESR-115 has the same User Agent String as the release channel Fx-115 had, which was (e.g., on Win7 SP1 32-bit): Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0 For Firefox versions 110-119, the "rv:" value was frozen to 109, due to a Mozilla bug ... Below is r3dfoxESR-115.13.0 (a FirefoxESR-115 fork that is able to run under Vista SP2) with a SSUAO of: general.useragent.override.addons.mozilla.org;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0 visiting https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/traduzir-paginas-web/ : When the above SSUAO is "lowered" to Fx-114, general.useragent.override.addons.mozilla.org;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/114.0 ... the issue you reported occurs: So, probably until the end of Sep 2025, Firefox 115 is now the minimum... Kindest regards.

I would like to find a program that graphically shows the space occupied by the starting sector, the FAT table, the copy of this with the reserved sectors and the location of the data area. With file defragmers I can see the area occupied by the MFT in NTFS, but there is no information about FAT. Do you know any program that shows this data graphically specifying the size they occupy and in what sectors are they? Edit: I'd also find a program that compiles a columnar list indicating the contents of the physical sectors helpful. For example: Sector 0 --> Boot Sector Sector 1-63 --> Empty Sector 64-2048 --> FAT Table Sector 2048-4000 --> Copy FAT Table I guess showing the fragmented location of each file in a list would be too much...

Sorry, that I have not explained well. I know Windows XP can work as data disk with hard drives with 4K physical sector and logical sector 512E (not for booting). My question is whether Windows XP can work with hard drives with 4K physical sector and also 4KN logical sector. The majority of hard drives that exceed the 2 TIB are 4K-512E, but some are 4K-4KN which would supposedly imply breaking the 2 Tib barrier of the Master Boot Record and also of GPT with the Windows 2003 drivers. Does any user have a 4K-4KN hard disk? how to recognize a hard disk before buying.... https://support-en.wd.com/app/answers/detailweb/a_id/20968/

maybe it is time that someone look the published codes from microsoft for example the WRK so we could tell why i had left open my fault saying 4 times 512 = 4 k, but that isnt right - it is 8 times however only cixert fixed that one up if FAT32ex on xp can access that 2 TB limit and set a sector size, it might be possible if not its not hard to write a loop that actually parse 512 bytes 8 times on the other hand it would raise question to that classical saying "32 bit are limited to 4 gb" according to this logic 32 bit cant address a HDD bigger then 4 gb the overlappend structure just use two dwords (aka 32 bit * 2) if i continue to talk like this i can only make speculations but lets say it would be able to pass the size of a dword it would not mean that it can pass the 512 sector as we know it can make 512 sectors with 4 gb (aka 2 tb data) but such things you can read out of the microsoft code/either disassembled/debugged or the published code - it is certainly some work - if someone actually know what the problem is it would be faster then just gambling around i actually wrote data to the disc on i/o level but that memory is far to old to get it back, it actually lack like the most part of it, i just remember a few I/O ports like 1f4 and the writes they are either dword (32 bit) word (16 bit) byte (8 bit) this is not a problem as you just give it a loop to write if you have lets say 1024 bits to write you use for the 32 bit writes (1024/3 = downrounded 33 times) 33 * 32 = 1000 then you still have to write 32 bytes , you can either do this with 8 bit writes or one 16 bit write and one 8 bit write 24 / 16 = 1 after that you have the last byte 8 / 8 = 1 the hardware actually transfer that code into a "next code" this next code dont really care if it was 33 + 1 + 1 writes, it rather finds the data that wants to be progressed to get this information out you need time it took 2 weeks just to compile chrome up another 2 weeks for getting the things around that that makes at least 4 weeks to dig into this - what time i dont have at the moment sorry maybe thats the right spot ? it definatly has low and high parts https://wiki.osdev.org/ATA_PIO_Mode#Registers quote: ";ATA PI0 33bit singletasking disk read function (up to 64K sectors, using 48bit mode)" quote2: "Note on the "magic bits" sent to port 0x1f6: Bit 6 (value = 0x40) is the LBA bit. This must be set for either LBA28 or LBA48 transfers." quote3: " An example: Send 0x40 for the "master" or 0x50 for the "slave" to port 0x1F6: outb(0x1F6, 0x40 | (slavebit << 4)) outb (0x1F2, sectorcount high byte) outb (0x1F3, LBA4) outb (0x1F4, LBA5) outb (0x1F5, LBA6) outb (0x1F2, sectorcount low byte) outb (0x1F3, LBA1) outb (0x1F4, LBA2) outb (0x1F5, LBA3) " it is written in assembly to me it seems to have 3 words that address a 48 bit offset (aka LBA48 / 16+16+16=48) if it is like that it isnt hard either you probaly have to set the right settings and address the 48 bits , its different from the paging mechanism (for ram) what actually has 4k pages, 4 megabyte pages and 64 bit entrys (that can be done on 32 bit, one example is that CMPXCHG command in 32 bit mode it can set 64 bit at once (atomic), ) another atmoic way to store 64 bit in 32 bit mode would would be to use the FPU unit the FPU unit can store 64 bits in an offset - to do so you could just put the two 32 bit values to an offset and storing those on the FPU , from the FPU you then store that value to the requied offset (aka where ther PTE´s and PDE´s are but jumping around from one project to a other just kills not only 1 project it kills both of projects, you guys are on the point

Hi, I'm wondering why DOS-based systems, especially Windows 98, can't use more than one CPU core or thread at a time. I know it's due to limitations in the DOS-based kernel, but the issue doesn't end when I find out there was a dual GPU, which was fully optimized for Windows 98 and Me (on NT-based systems like XP, it was only detected as one), which was the ATI Rage Fury Maxx. From what I've seen in videos and screenshots of this dual GPU, you can see two display drivers listed in the Device Manager, as is the case with more modern dual GPUs like the GeForce Titan, the GTX 590, or the 690. How did ATI overcome this limitation?

Here are some facts about versions inside Mypal 68.14.8b: JavaScript commands: parseInt(Services.appinfo.platformVersion); Output: 74 parseInt(Services.appinfo.version); Output: 68 ------------------------------------------ Some preferences in about:config: browser.migration.version: 94 extensions.lastAppVersion: 68.14.8 ------------------------------------------ General user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/88.0 Mypal/68.14.8 68, 74, 88, 94 Neither fish nor meat (German saying). Or, neither fish nor fowl. The problem with this is that there have been some significant changes in the Firefox versions from 69 to 72. If an extension receives the wrong Firefox version at a certain point, this can of course lead to malfunctions. And that's exactly what I think might be the case with the Custom Buttons extension. The other theory, that something elementary has been removed, of course remains. Strangely enough, a few typical error messages relating to the cbeditor.xml file have completely disappeared. Maybe, this file can't be correctly processed now. Possibly due to @feodor2's remove of XBL?

I find this thread interesting from a theoretical point of view. As I was saying: I know for a fact that such SML can be managed with Linux. Assuming it were possible to run a GTX 1050 in XP (irrespective of whether it would allow H/A or not), it would then be possible to dual boot (or Xen-parallely run) XP and Linux, so that with one single setup, with only one card, one could enjoy both the XP tweaked shell, interface and software dear to us, and the rush of training a deep learning SLM, even if with a tiny llama of 2b parameters. Personally it does not affect me: I have an RTX 3060 (now almost in my hands, yay!). Professionally and XPly I care a lot about it. There are XP systems I built running in some of the darkest places of the world, and a well trained, even if very small, SLM could potentially run in such systems. From that perspective, even a slightly more expensive 1070 would make me very happy. Cheers!

Ok. This issue seems to belong to all old browsers. To get rid off this yellow message box, you need an updated user agent. Firefox 128 is now the minimum: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

@feodor2 Due to the changes in Mypal 68.14.8b, the Firefox Add-ons page shows the yellow message box even with compatible extensions "You need an updated version of Firefox for this extension". Here, for example, is the extension TWP - Translate Web Pages whose latest version 10.1.1.1 has a minimum version of 64: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/traduzir-paginas-web/ TBH, this message is now displayed on all extension pages, and it doesn't matter whether the extension is compatible or not. So, what's going on here? Somehow, your browser seems to have become versionless.

Empty 'Restore Session' also happens on current NM28XP builds.

I see, but how any of this is related to 1050 Ti and its inability to use drivers under XP?

Booting from such a drive, no. Storing allegedly pirated content, such as films, games and 2160p WebRips, on an external drive with 4Kn sectors, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Format

Im using some external HDs (WD) larger than 4TB in XP x64... and works perfectly. The only drawback is that you have to wait about a minute to the computer recognize the attached HD... then the drive works perfectly

Thanks for the update! Unfortunately Win+D still breaks the taskbar

According to Microsoft specifications, native 4K drives with logical sectors of 4096 bytes (not 512e) are only supported starting with Windows Eight. However, if I'm currently working with MBR +2 TiB hard drives with USB adapters that convert the logical sector from 512e to 4096 bytes, why won't Windows XP read native 4K drives as SATA-connected data drives? I understand that the BIOS will have to be prepared to recognize them, but otherwise, I don't understand the problem. Although it is true that GPT drives with the Paragon driver report logical sectors as 512 bytes and physical sectors as 512 bytes, even though their physical sectors are 4096 bytes. Official Microsoft info: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/backup-and-storage/support-policy-4k-sector-hard-drives I also have to say that in theory FAT16x was supported by Windows NT 4.0 with logical sectors up to 8192 bytes to increase its capacity up to 16 GiB

Nah, this was back in the mid 2010s. All FF browsers post ff 51 or so dropped H/A. 1050 was nor around.

Tested last version sse version on my Athlon XP: works perfectly.

A lot of evidence on youtube. With 1050??? Which driver?

@feodor2 Thanks for your new release Mypal 68.14.8b! I am currently testing this version more closely. Due to the complete removal of XUL and XBL, a lot has changed. I have already reported about it here. Similar to version Mypal 68.14.5b, the legacy Custom Buttons extension is no longer fully functional. The internal code editor is totally broken and therefore has become unusable. You can no longer access, view or edit the code with the extension. New custom buttons can't be created, either. The legacy Custom Buttons extension should actually also work in higher Firefox versions. It has corresponding XHTML files and compatible code that is made available via appVersion queries. It could be that an incorrect version is being determined, as version 68 or version 74 is displayed in Mypal 68.14.8b depending on the corresponding command. I checked that in the Browser Console. BTW, I really miss the Scratchpad which is also gone in your new release. Another guess I have is that you have removed something important that requires the legacy Custom Buttons extension. As you know, in Mypal 68.14.7b, the legacy Custom Buttons extension still worked. Maybe, you can take a look at it. BTW, what is the current level of JavaScript and CSS in Mypal 68.14.8b?

StartAllBack 3.9.8

Maybe can use this: https://github.com/FlyGoat/csmwrap/tree/main