All Activity

For example, this page here:

What page? Any post's Recently Browsing and the Online Users page (grayed when Hidden) work as expected for me. I don't see AstroSkipper in either place. If you've toggled it several times in testing, that might have fixed any glitch.

I can't see your username. It's hidden.

Not working for me. My setting was 'Hidden" for years. But as of today, I can suddenly see my username. That has never happened before.

Yep I decided to update WUD as it just wasn't compatible with MS's new WU servers. As to your two questions, 1) Are you sure you didn't change the download folder before installing the new version of WUD? Uninstall WUD and then reinstall v2.50 and then after v4.80 without changing the download folder. 2) Unfortunately due to the changes made to the new version of WUD, the change download folder option can no longer be changed and is completely removed in the BETA version going forward.

Working for me. I just now changed my Online Status from Visible to Hidden to Visible; Recently Browsing on a refreshed page correctly tracked each change.

As of today, I can see my username right at the bottom of the relevant page, even though I’ve disabled this in my account settings. What on earth is going on now, apart from the MSFN outages that have been going on for over a week? Is this supposed to be a new feature, or has the forum software gone completely haywire?

Weren't both menu bar and Windows 7 command bar deprecated at some point in time with one of the 25H2 updates?

STEVE: I must have missed the memo, I didn't know about the new WUD. Wow been using the 2.50 version since I started shaving, LOL. Great work. I installed the stable version and the files downloaded flawlessly. However the changelog says they are supposed to download to the Documents\Windows Updates Downloader folder? That folder was not created under my documents folder. Did I do something wrong or interpret incorrectly? I don't know where the downloaded files went. Also it it possible to bring back the ability to download the files to a folder of our choosing (Browse). regards....

@Dave-H As you haven’t said anything about the suggestion I put forward so far, I’d like to know whether that’s an option for you, or whether limiting the online updates isn’t an option. You can always restore the cache folder once Panda support gets back to you, though I don’t really expect that to happen.

How convenient for them "we are unable to investigate or provide support". Let them drink damage with Windows 11.

I don't believe you'll be able to install NT4.0 from USB, even XP cannot be done this way, it has to be from a CD-ROM disk. I hope you make it work.

I got a response from Watchguard technical support. "At this time, we have not received any official communication indicating that Windows XP support for Panda Dome has been discontinued. Based on the information currently available, Windows XP continues to be listed as a supported operating system for the legacy Panda Dome version referenced on the Panda website. Based on the information you have provided, this issue appears to be related to **Panda Dome**, which is a consumer (home) product. While we understand your concerns regarding the recent crashes of **PSANHost.exe** on Windows XP, we are unable to investigate or provide support for Panda Dome through WatchGuard Technical Support." So it appears that they only deal with professional business customers at Watchguard support, and they can't help private domestic customers. I would have to use the domestic support channels for Panda support, which I've already done, of course! The guys at AnyTech365 have promised to let me know if they hear anything about the status of XP support from Panda, so all I can do is wait.

Hi everyone, hi @Dietmar, I'm a retrocomputing enthusiast and I've been following this thread with great interest. I'd like to ask for some help from the community. Would anyone be able to share a complete collection of all the modified x64 acpi.sys builds released so far for Windows XP x64? I've only been able to piece together a partial version history across various threads, and I'd like to test them systematically on two machines: - ASUS F540LJ-XX028T — Intel Core i3-4005U (Haswell, 4th gen), 4GB DDR3L, Intel HD Graphics 4400 + NVIDIA GT 920M - Lenovo ThinkCentre M73 Tiny — Intel Core i7-4765T (Haswell, 4th gen) Which modified x64 acpi.sys build is currently considered best/most stable for 4th generation Intel (Haswell) hardware? I've seen references to the 5048 series, the 7777.x revisions, and some "A5x11+A5x03" variants, but I haven't found a clear recommendation specifically for Haswell. On Windows XP x86, I had good success on the same ASUS Haswell laptop with two builds: "5048 - 2019.11.1 - diderius6" and "5.1.2600.6666 - 23.10.2020". I'd like to replicate similar results on x64 now. I'm also aware from this thread that the modified intelppm.sys can cause a measurable performance drop on some CPUs (saw the report on Broadwell) — happy to benchmark this on my Haswell hardware too if that data point is useful. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help — happy to share test results/logs from both machines.

Mozilla will provide security updates for Firefox 115 ESR until March 2027. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-users-windows-7-8-and-81-moving-extended-support It is a good news for Windows 7 or 8 users.

I'm using Office 2010 on XP.

@UsefulAGKHelper I used a Dell 3040 to test the eMMC driver and it worked, but the computer has poor parameters to use it for anything specific , so I don't care about I2C support. I'm basically not interested in laptops and unusual mini-computers. Besides, my goal was to add UEFI, NVMe, USB3 and ACPI support to WinXP 64-bit and I managed to achieve it, so overall the goal was achieved. I think I've had enough and don't want to continue patching - anyway, there's a lack of testers and too little interest I've done a lot anyway: I added UEFI boot support I added basic UEFI NVRAM Boot Menu editing support I added restart from OS to UEFI firmware I patched kdcom.dll and bootvid.dll to easy debugging I patched hal.dll for restart working I successfully tested booting from the eMMC disk I have my favorite modern desktop WinXP 64-bit computer with all working devices (full drivers) - 8 Gen CPU, 16 GB RAM, an NVMe drive from which it boots in 18 seconds + PCIe graphics card with working 3D and a large 2K monitor, sound, network. The motherboard in this computer does not limit me like a laptop or some unusual mini-computer with soldered CPU, RAM or eMMC disk: I decide which keyboard and mouse I will use - PS/2 or USB I decide whether I will use a SATA or NVMe drive I decide which graphics, sound and network card I will use - PCI or PCIe I decide what processor and how much RAM I will use I have COM ports for debugging

https://iso.reactos.org/ Select BootCD or LiveCD folder both of these for many years take a while forever to load the page I guess browser or maybe P3 arch. Any known about:config, script, plugin that can help load the complete page faster. Ask as I did see similar situation decades ago with Firefox with similar pages and after a while loaded faster. I forget after all this time if the site, browser got a fix or it was something I read and applied to help the browser to load the page faster.

@Dave-H what is your microsoft office version on your xp? Mine is 2007. Could please add that to your panda exclusions ? Thanks When I scanned my system using panda cloud cleaner ( just wanted to make sure that it works ) I got this pop up which I did not read properly, it was almost 5 am that ms office icon was not real or something along these lines. I cancelled the cloud service before getting the results it was taking more than 5 minutes and I wanted to call it a day. Then I realised that ms office would not work along with system explorer. I do not want to jump into any conclusions but I think it might be related. PS. Very hard to access this forum since Monday

@reboot12 Just so you know feel free to fork my repository of i2cctrl (do whatever change you want there) and also ask dietmar to help with the building of new acpi files. Your controller is already turned on in your case, so you might have a chance.

Which version of WUD are you using, is it the Legacy version or the current Stable version? If it's the former, then you will need to install the new stable version I released last week. Or you can test the BETA version that's currently available here

thx steve...26H2 hot off the presses! Nothing in there. but getting ready for fall release... But for some reason the 7/14/26 update (kb5101650) (26200.8875) still fails to download (as in previous month's cumulative KB's) using WUD. frustrating. regards....

I agree. but WinXP NT 5.1 wasn't a completely rewritten kernel or user mode environment; technically it was very close to Win2000 NT 5.0. Windows 2000 was already a super stable NT system, If Microsoft had not considered marketing and business reasons, XP could have been seen more like a major service pack or extended update of Windows 2000. XP added many new functions,, and compatibility improvements while keeping the same core NT 5.x foundation. The Windows 2000 community has already ported XP's ACPI and HAL to Windows 2000, and they work, showing how similar the two systems are internally. This is not the same situation as Vista to Windows 7, where Microsoft made much deeper changes. I think yeah this is a bit offtopic, but I really enjoy these kinds of discussions about the 2000s era.

its getting off topic but you have probaly a wrong thinking about this there is a succesor system in this win2k question there was windows me - what where kinda bugged, also win9x dos direction stuff there was nt 4.0 and 5.0 - where these had a 32 bit base and no dos like 98 or ME then 5.0 was made to win2k so with XP it was about to get compatibility back and future on so in win2k you rather got a office look - it where slower then 9x aka win98 maybe me it was stable but there was also this VXD driver question a big problem there was that the go from user to supervisor mode where slow here XP could point because instead of int 2e - xp used the sysenter command (what is a lot faster) (while still can do the int 2e method too) also the entire nt 5.0 was improved - more function - while keeping compatibility - and more speed so 5.1 aka xp was the clear successor to win2k 5.2 dont really exit - its a xp they made with some server functions - its not bad but its not a real new invention then there was the vista question 6.0 slow, incompatible, parts where bugged that got fixed with 7 aka 6.1 - so 7 has more, is faster and more stable these are the successors the the subversions the most people got the code open source - if you want it for win2k you have it in your hands when i looked on firefox 110 i saw over 300 missing functions - thats basicly a lot dibya then said he want to change it "inside the code" probaly resulting in *6 the changes that being said these things are hard to make - its not like we could go there and just fix it in a few hours that e3kskoy7wqk guy has gone for that type of solution - it are really a lot of changes so what do you think ?

Sorry that I have been gone so long, I have been out of state for the past week. Anyway, when I got home I tried multiple ways to install windows NT 4.0, but all of them failed. I have a CD (sp6a preinstalled from internet archive), DVD (same as before), DVD (last MS official release), and a USB with the installer. All fail with "innaccessible boot device". I am completely lost at this point. As for your concerns about the boot loader, this is not an issue. If NT 4.0 can boot, getting it to do so from the BCD store of modern windows is trivial. The only thing that needs to be true is that NT 4.0 run ntdetect.com and load NTLDR with no issues, which I do through a real mode boot sector with grub, made easy by Easy BCD from neosmart. I really just wish that I could get the NT 4.0 installer to run, but it seems that me from 2023 knew what she was doing to download the internet archive WinWorld emulator VHD and image it to a physical partition. I cannot find any mention of a Fat16 formatted NT 4.0 install annywhere on the internet, which is dissapointing. I'm stumped. I don't want to give up, though. I was going to try 2 things: 1: convert the partition to fat 16 and see what happens. I have a program called macrium reflect that would likely be able to rebuild the broken boot table, so it's worth a shot. 2: install NT 4.0 to a VM as fat16 and then copy it to my machine. I will be going with #1 first as getting USB drivers on this thing was a nightmare, and I have my doubts a clean install would even boot since the installer doesn't. Curse the specificity of old NT operating systems! (Still love them though, even with me being born in the late 2000s)