All Activity

All revisions (ALPHA/I386/MIPS/PPC) Windows NT 4.0 (Windows NT 3.51) has issue with maximum possible total mode count limit and it is around 296 modes. Windows 2000 and later does not have such issue. Any mode provided by driver above 296 will be cutted down. It is not depended on driver issue, this bug is inside Windows NT system itself. Here is a patch for Windows NT 4.0 (I386, any SP/edition, language) for SYSTEM32\WIN32K.SYS : Change 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x00 0x00 0x6A to 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x03 0x00 0x6A Change 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x00 0x00 0xFF to 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x03 0x00 0xFF Recalculate checksum, f.e. EDITBIN.EXE WIN32K.SYS /RELEASE Here is a patch for Windows NT 3.51 (I386, any SP/edition, language) for SYSTEM32\WINSRV.DLL : Change 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x00 0x00 0xA1 to 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x03 0x00 0xA1 Change 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x00 0x00 0xFF to 0x68 0xB8 0x00 0xFF 0x03 0x00 0xFF Recalculate checksum, f.e. EDITBIN.EXE WINSRV.DLL /RELEASE This will increase limit to 1190 total modes. Below are results in screenshots, before and after.

@VistaLover I have uploaded an updated Vista+ compatible PyInstaller here. Could you test if the yt-dlp built with it works well on your Vista system?

With version 3.6.0 new functionality has been added (3.6.1 is mainly a security release):

Google has its own captcha!

Your post is being viewed as having an AGENDA and as a PERSONAL ATTACK. Some form of GOTCHA GAME. Moderators, please take note.

You need to read the full post or not read it at all. So I'll repeat the part that you didn't take into account with your BIASED post above... Excluding VM browsers (primarily Roytam releases) which get hit with Cloudflare, clears itself in 24 hours, then gets hit again, but clears itself in 24 hours.

https://weather.com/weather/today/l/20398:4:US Here the above URL with the latest NM28 - from Germany:

I do live in a "business district" (so close to work that I walk or peddle bike). My IP Block is possibly clustered in with those businesses (not the company that I work for, but I cannot speak for other surrounding businesses).

EXTREMELY SURPRISING (at least to me)! I *can* log into my water sewage billpay in Iron v109! No Cloudflare BS. I may have to see if all of my other "needed" web sites are okay with v109.

Interesting. The only Cloudflare captcha I'm ever hit with is my water sewage billpay web site. First encountered last November and the only fix was to upgrade Chrome from v136 to v138 (but laned on v140 due to other nuances). I was hit with it again just a couple of weeks ago and the only fix was to upgrade from Chrome v140 to v141 (but landed on v144 due to other nuances). I cannot list the URL because it reveals the city that I live in. That one web site is my only Cloudflare headache. Excluding VM browsers (primarily Roytam releases) which get hit with Cloudflare, clears itself in 24 hours, then gets hit again, but clears itself in 24 hours.

My primary system for general browsing is still on Windows 7, so that may not be correct. The three browsers I am running surely cannot be anywhere close to being modern by this point: Iron 109.0.5550.0 Chrome 109.0.5414.120 Firefox 115.32.0esr (this one actually does still update actually)

Of course it is! They are different sessions, different cookies. I'm failing to understand the obsession. I'm done here, I really do not need the obsession.

It's different on the same (your) screengrab, upper left image.

Redirect link and tracking link are two different matters. The garbage you see after = is a unique tracking stamp. Most likely contains your IP, PC specs obtained via GetOEMCP ans so on. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnls/nf-winnls-getoemcp

The tracker will be different with each browsing session. Google is tracking your searches, not your browser. I never said that the tracker will be "identical". It is generated BY GOOGLE each and every first visit per COOKIE. Delete the cookie and you get a new "tracker". First cookie: Delete first cookie, let Google set second cookie:

In NM the redirect link appears only after clicking on the link (or copying). Of course the HTML is different coming from the server, the anchor element contains different parameters. I am sending a Firefox/140 agent to get the full page from Google instead of a simplified version. It was a surprise to me that the page still isn't completely full doing this. I don't think is needed to jump in and "defend" either browser.

Where are these OpenSSL DLLs usable in apart from a YouTube downloader? Legacy applications that I have all depend on libeay32 and ssleay32. And do they support new algorithms to justify their much bigger size?

Joined you favourite upvoter Karla and gave you the much desired likes. Nevertheless, the link above is generated by the browser. It differs from the link below, on your screen.

I don't think that it is regional advertising causing that error. I get that error in most recent B/S 52, B/S 55, and PM/NM 28. Only one of the three (brand new profiles, first run on all three) gave a geolocation warning (which was denied), but I forget which one of the three. I have to assume that the other two simply allowed the location-reveal, but I did not verify.

For example, regional advertisement, but i don't see anything.

Don't know what the problem is then unless it's regional because even with a brand new profile and no addons I get that error. If you go to directly to this link using 55 basilisk I get an error after 3 to 5 seconds: https://weather.com/weather/today/l/20398:4:US So we'll see if anyone else is experiencing it, my luck it;s just me. :--)

Many thanks for your follow-up , which actually sets the record straight ; and thanks for the re-upload ! Best regards.

You're right. I take it back what I said earlier. I have actually changed the build_openssl3() function locally to automate the process of creating the shared- as well as the static-release. And in the process I forgot to strip both dlls. The filesizes are now identical to what you ended up with. I re-uploaded 'openssl-3.6.1-win32-shared-dev-xpmod-sse.7z'.

Found this - https://www.topendsports.com/sport/betting-tools/spread-calculator.htm This answers most of my curiousity. A local team has been VASTLY OVER-RATED and (admittedly) it has become FUN ENTERTAINMENT to watch them NOT live up to that over-rated hype! Sure, it's nice that they've been WINNING, but they have NOT been winning by the double-digit margins of the "betting lines". On a "standard VIG" [ie, -110] (no clue what that is, kind of doesn't matter for sake of example), we can "back-date" FIVE wins by this team but FOUR of those wins DID NOT BEAT THE SPREAD. Game 1 >>> spread of -18.5 (ie, if they don't win by 19 points or more, then they lose in terms of the bet) Game 2 >>> spread of -16.5 Game 3 >>> spread of -8.5 Game 4 >>> spread of -14.5 Game 5 >>> spread of -12.5 The team won all five of these games, but did NOT cover the spread of games 1, 2, 4, and 5. My FUN ENTERTAINMENT was "gentleman's bets" with a coworker. For "bragging rights". My "working theory" to my coworker was that our local team would NOT cover DOUBLE-DIGIT SPREADS. So we were technically "betting, but no money, just bragging rights", on only games 1, 2, 4, and 5. I *won* but she now mocks me for there being no "money" on the line. So if the VIG is always -110 "standard", the spread calculator link posted above would have paid out in this manner if $100 was bet on game 1, the winnings then bet on game 2, the winnings then bet on game 4, then the winnings bet on game 5. Game 1 >>> $100 bet, payout would have been $190.91 Game 2 >>> $190.91 bet, payout would have been $364.56 Game 4 >>> $364.56 bet, payout would have been $695.98 Game 5 >>> $695.98 bet, payout would have been $1,328.69