All Activity

And I wish other drivers to be edited https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/tool-xp2esd-create-modern-windows-xp-installer-v1-6-2.82935/page-134#post-1810919

Due to @George King abolished xp2esd 1.7 project,I tried to edit the driver by myself.I firstly tried TPM_6.1.7601.24564(tpm 2.0),I used winhex to edit ntoskrnl.exe to ntoskrn8.sys and edit Wdfldr.sys to wdfld8.sys in tpm.sys and tried on my xp vm.However it still missing some function in ntoskrn8.sys and failed to be installed in virtualbox vm.So could anyone to help me edit again? https://i.ibb.co/HTGc6Z6B/IMG-20251205-220839.jpg https://i.ibb.co/JFqVMftm/IMG-20251205-220809.jpg

... It would appear "someone" is reading this thread ; disregard above link (it now 404s), here's the new one: https://github.com/3dyd/pyinstaller-builds/releases/tag/latest (with previous releases (6.16.0) reinstated )

@Goodwin @roytam1 I'm not a professional, I just compile Mozilla based browsers for my personal use and hope for the best. For instance, I'm trying to compile Firefox 13+ with Windows 2000 compatibility. One thing that sometimes (but not always) causes runtime execution failure is clicking on tools -> options -> applications which can cause an error in MSVCR71.DLL. Also, after reverting the commit that broke Windows 2000 compatibility, I had a minor problem that is caused by opening a new tab, and the message displayed on the new tab page was relating to an invalid address. That annoyance was caused by the commit for Mozilla bug 728429, which mandated ASLR on Windows. In order to find that, I had to cherry-pick a range of commits between the one that broke Windows 2000 compatibility, and the one mandating ASLR, then compile the source code a few times to narrow down my search. The point is, if a problem does not exist in one of roytam1's browser builds, then exists on a later browser version, the right thing to do is find out what the last good version, and the first bad version is, then it would be easier to find when the problem started, and what commit caused it. Also, it is possible a bug might not affect everybody.

Those builds are originally for my private use and they are released because of my goodwill that I think they may help others. This bug doesn't affect me and so I don't have big intention on hunting and fixing it. If you want this to be fixed you at least need to find when the problem started to occur. and last but not least, stop gaslighting.

<del, nwi>

<del, nwi>

New 6.17.0 releases by 3dyd (and it's a shame every new release overwrites the previous one ; not a good practice if "things" break and one needs to revert ) : https://3dyd.github.io/pyinstaller-builds/

I'm not a developer. If roytam1 is a professional, he should look for the causes of the bug and the browser version himself, not send users who do not understand many technical issues to do it. It would be very funny if when reporting a bug in firefox, mozilla would say "you look for the problem yourself, we don't know anything".

Hello Start Me Up, Thank you for your feedback ! KB3055973 is already included in KernelEx (v31lM): E:\Winnt\SYSTEM32\schannel.dll VALUE "CompanyName", "Microsoft Corporation" VALUE "FileDescription", "TLS / SSL Security Provider" VALUE "FileVersion", "5.1.2600.7567 (xpsp_sp3_qfe.180905-0605)" VALUE "InternalName", "schannel.dll" VALUE "LegalCopyright", "© Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When visiting with IE6 the following website https://www.howsmyssl.com/ the results are: Given Cipher Suites The cipher suites your client said it supports, in the order it sent them, are: TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_RC4_56_SHA TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA TLS_DHE_DSS_EXPORT1024_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ These TLS 1.2 Cipher Suites are not supported: TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 If these TLS 1.2 Supported Cipher Suites could be added to KernelEx,it probably would be beneficial.

the registry ones coming from the .inf file dont translate/expand the environment strings %SystemRoot% to like c:\windows REG_EXPAND_SZ neither do even tho they have the "expand" syntax with them when i did this look what it really do they just store the %SystemRoot% string into the registry so it must be the software that reads the environment strings out and then translate them the most KB upgrades use that "inf installer" that installer can control registry entrys and control files replacements reading out the inf information you can combine many of KB upgrades to one for this i written this code: you have to be careful because it can write to registry strings that are system based, also it can replace files (some need a reboot) - it function the same as a trusted installer (you have to know what you doing here - best would be a virtual machine you can try) a other reason for this code is that inf installers are not very fast - they are probaly made for smaller amounts of entrys this one however works very fast you also dont need to installer .net or something else first - you can directly go for the entrys you want you need to open the .dsw files what is written in visual studio 6.0 sometimes called vs6 or vc6 in the past i write something similiar the install time gone down from 12 minutes to 8 seconds - thats a lot Registry_Entrys -> contain registry entrys File_Entrys -> file replacements Registry_Key_Deletes -> deleting registry key entrys it certainly can fix your related problem too - the code is functional the syntax is a bit different HKLM,SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup,"Installation Sources",0x10000,"%24%\Support\i386" this one would go "HKLM\0,SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Setup\0, Installation Sources\0,0x10000\0,\"whatever_string_is_here\\Support\\i386\"" so you have to add a " at the beginning and at the end - for , it gets \0, - \ gets \\ if you want a " you write \" that %24% is not requied it translate a string it put to that value - you can write this string out whatever it represented custom %% are translated, %SystemRoot% and other environment strings are not you useally dont need a " with the first 4 parameters, only the last parameter (5/"whatever_string_is_here\\Support\\i386") can need " - depends installer.zip

You guys are awesome 👍🙏 Fixed Many thanks

If you ***REALLY*** want your video playback looked into, it's kind of ON YOU to do some LEGWORK in NARROWING IT DOWN. *Shoot the messenger* all you want. But that really is the reality of the situation. We (you!) need to tell roytam "playback WORKS in this month-day-year release, but it is BROKEN one week later with the month-day+7-year release".

I think blackwingcat made TLS 1.3 indirectly available to Windows 2000, already. According to Wikipedia support for TLS 1.3 was added to OpenSSL 1.1.1. This version is downloadable from https://win2k.org/wlu/wluen.htm for Windows 2000. However, OpenSSL is not the native implementation of SSL/TLS for Windows 2000. The native SSL implementation of Windows 2000 is called "Secure Channel" ("schannel.dll"). According to Wikipedia support for TLS 1.3 was added to Secure Channel for releases of Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022. Another thing I just stumbled over is an update for Windows Embedded POSReady 2009: KB3055973 It adds support for TLS 128-bit & 256-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) cipher suites. I don't know whether this helps in this context but it might.

I am using one of the latest amd graphics cards and the latest official version of the video driver for XP. Hardware acceleration doesn't work on XP and probably never did because mozilla only introduced it in vista. If it did work, the CPU utilization would be 1-5%. But that's another story, now the question is about CPU utilization.

What processor and you using a graphics card or integrated graphics? FF/browser Hardware acceleration does work in XP from what I see.

Hello dear members of MSFN, WinClassic and users of StartAllBack+! First of all, this problem is not related to vanilla Windows 11. It is about a modification that adds the Windows 7 ‘Game Explorer’ feature to Windows 11, which you can find guide from WinClassic forums here. So what is the problem? It's simple. If you are using StartAllBack+ on Windows 11, the ‘Ratings’ (or ‘Performance’) section of the Game Explorer turns into white text. Here is an example of what happens: I posted this bug back in the day on the original thread but I didn't aware that I needed to open a different thread for it because it's not related to vanilla Windows 11 installation. So If anyone is interested or willing to help fix this, your contribution would be greatly appreciated by the community! Please feel free to post here!

StartAllBack 3.9.19

Wanted to also note, that I have no idea why, but version 74.1.4 is very slow for me ... so I went back to 74.1.3, which is very fast, over all!!! My favorite version to date!!

74.1.3 version note says something about it being paired with version 102 at most, or possible 91. How do we do this? I have not ever messed with changing this ... Gorhil/uBlock's latest (1.68.0) requires version 128 or more. Hoping to be able to continue to use this product

This is a terrific software 👍 I'm having an issue running windows 11 25H2 - 26220.7271 Using explorer windows 10 style Each time I'm launching a new explorer windows i'm missing elements Then I go to taskbar manager ctrl+shift+esc and it comes back to normal Any fix?

I've never done what you are attempting, I admit, so I am only going by "educated guess". We use Acronis at work for the task you are attempting. But it's also one of those things we only need to do once every 18 months or so. We all forget the process and have to reinvent the wheel every time.

Did originally. Forgot as time went on, lol. If it were me, my next step would be to uninstall your current version of VirtualBox (which I have to assume is "new") and drop down to the 5.x branch. I'd have to research further, but you want a version that PRE-DATES hardware capabilities like "TPM". Just a hunch...

Please read my OP entirely. Been there, done that. So what's the fix?

This sounds "too easy" of a fix, but I'll go ahead and say it out loud -- have you tried booting into "safe mode"?