All Activity

Well, the standard "TLS 1.3" was published in 2018. The last official updates for Windows 2000 are from 2016. The last updates for Windows XP are from 2017 (I think). However, there were still updates published for Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 back in 2018. Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 is based on Windows XP and therefore is somewhat compatible with Windows 2000. So it would make sense to check whether there is an update for Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 which adds support for TLS 1.3. It would be a start to work on a solution for Windows 2000. If there is no such update, then it would be nice to know, when and how Microsoft added support for TLS 1.3 to Windows/Internet Explorer for a version as close to what we have in Windows 2000 as possible. Adding support for TLS 1.3 support in principle is one thing. A clean integration into the operating system is another thing. For example being able to activate/deactive support through the internet options like with the other standards would be nice, too. However, it adds more work to the undertaking.

... Well, this isn't a very reassuring answer, you do realise that ... Don't know ; perhaps @user57 is on the right track on this (or even @cmalex, safe may he be, knows more ); the question to be asked is why did it magically appear in the latest yt-dlp WinXP compiles, whereas it wasn't present (needed?) all that time before? ... Can't tell; my AV solution gave it a "clean bill of health" ; you can try to see if the WinXP packages launch and function OK WITHOUT it, then take the necessary steps to remove it altogether; I'm not being paranoid (I think ), but I'd rather not have it there, if it isn't indispensable... Best festive wishes ...

Yeah I remember years ago, I used to be very against using old OSs such as XP because of security update issues. Then I relaxed on it, but over the time morphing my stance to just include Vista and up. Now, with my fully ditching any trace of Vista or older, I stick to JUST keeping Windows 8 going. I don't care about the security updates so much. It's just that I like how Windows 8 looks and feels vs Windows 10. However, I've really started to see Windows XP as archaic. It's odd for me to think that in 2025, Windows XP has ANY place on a running PC, but this time around, I'm not really worried about how others feel about my expressing that opinion. It just is what it is. When I made a comment in one of Roytam1's threads about using Betterbird vs MailNews or Interlink, I was reminded that the goal was to have a client running on XP or higher. My first thought was, "Oh yeah - that!" It feels more like an irritation that won't go away, rather than a goal to aspire to.

fileextd.dll its a old rare file that provide some functions that xp useally dont have - it can be seen as kernel extender i dont know its origin either some say its from the xbox and a official file while other say its a handmade file by someone maybe we get some more information about it what i know is that it is shown as used library on microsofts website: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/nf-winbase-getfileinformationbyhandleex then "Kernel32.lib; FileExtd.lib on Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP"

I am on GitHub. But... You won't like this answer. I technically no longer subscribe to "keep XP alive" or "keep 7 alive". The endeavor is a great endeavor, don't get me wrong. But what we end up with instead is spoon-feeding a sect of society that *CAN* afford a newer mode of internetting (and most even confess HAVING NEWER) but think that they are somehow "entitled" to the rest of the world keeping their XP or 7 capable of "everything".

This is not my question there but thanks in any case.

Why would I upvote something that doesn't work with yahoo and paypal? Never heard before! This topic caster helped ne a lot. I want to upvote him, sorry you're not happy with it. I'll give you a like for agreeing with an obvious statement though. If you're on github, if you like this browser, help us to reconvince the creator.

Very sharp observation. 👍️ I have no idea how that might have happened... The build environment is still the same Python 3.11 from @cmalex. What is that file supposed to do. Can it do any harm?

I cannot reply in your Russian forum but you are mistaken regarding IFSMGR.VXD 2227, it was Q301540.EXE and not 302540. How can you ignore it!

Another thing I wanted to mention to you @nicolaasjan is that in both the latest "WinXP" packages: https://github.com/nicolaasjan/yt-dlp/releases/download/2025.11.25.144622/yt-dlp_x86_winXP.exe https://github.com/nicolaasjan/yt-dlp/releases/download/2025.11.25.144622/yt-dlp_x86_winXP.zip a new DLL appears to have infiltrated, "fileextd.dll", which wasn't there in all of your previous "WinXP" releases, e.g. in https://github.com/nicolaasjan/yt-dlp/releases/download/2025.11.12.051143/yt-dlp_x86_winXP.exe https://github.com/nicolaasjan/yt-dlp/releases/download/2025.11.12.051143/yt-dlp_x86_winXP.zip Was that an inadvertent inclusion?

Ditto that...

The problem is, the same happens with multiple types of SSD, on multiple HP z210 CMT workstations. The users reported significantly longer boot times when compared to other computers. To be more precise, users reported computer malfunctions. When compared to standard HDD, computers with SSD took much more time to go through the blank (black) screen phase. Since other computers were faster in the same boot phase, the assumptiom was made the workstation with SSD were faulty, so workers started to power off the workastation with SSDs to fix the problem. After investigation, it came to light, the workstations with SSD took about a minute of black screen time, when workstations with HDD did the same in less than 10 seconds. After informing the workers about the extended wait time, the power cycling and computer failure reports stopped. All workstations have the same specifications, except hard drives, and monitors. The system partitions were cloned, so they do have the same drivers. After cloning system it is visible the HDD boot is longer (3m 22s). But with each sequential boot the time goes shorter. On the other hand SSD is faster first (1m 42s) but the time does not improve significantly, after that. All workstations are not using Microsoft Account. In any case, both SSD and HDD workstations would take the same time with the MSA and OneDrive, probably. There is no domain logging, as well. It all came to light with SSD and HDD mixed enviroment. In a different location all workstations are fitted with SSD, so there is no time difference between them. So workers assumed long boot time is normal behavior, probably. I will have to check how they are performing on boot, when I have an opportunity to be there.

I still build on XP the old fashioned way: python -m pip install -U "setuptools>=71.0.2,<81" pip wheel pip install -U -r requirements.txt python -m pip install pyinstaller==5.13.2 python devscripts/update-version.py -c "nicolaasjan/yt-dlp" -r "nicolaasjan/yt-dlp" "2025.11.25.144622" python -m bundle.pyinstaller --onedir Where `requirements.txt` is: mutagen pycryptodomex brotli; implementation_name=='cpython' certifi requests>=2.32.2,<3 urllib3>=2.0.2,<3 websockets>=13.0 yt-dlp-ejs I have tested building with PyInstaller 6.16.0 from 3dyd (waiting for 6.17.0 now...) It can be done and it works, but it also requires a reinstall, because of the totally different contents of the zip file (link)... (and then also the ugly presence of `psapi.dll` in the root directory to make it work) TL;DR; as long as it works the old fashioned way, I'm hesitant to build with the "modern" PyInstaller on XP. 🤔 It's annoying that yt-dlp always wants the latest and "greatest". 😠

When using dark magic sharp corners and a custom msstyles after restarting the computer the highlight over the start button is rounded.

that all are working on xp ? it would make sence to use a dll file for each of these pieces

Makes sense; if Z was the last to have been loaded in the tab when that tab was closed, why do you expect otherwise? After all, the browser feature is called "Recently Closed Tabs", not "Recently Visited Sites" ; however, a closed-tab's history isn't being deleted (it's saved in session data); re-open the tab with site Z on it, then use the back button once to revisit site Y (or twice for site X, etc.) ...

I use Supermium now exclusively, but had this issue in "new" Opera before. I see now one way it differs from history. If I had visited X,Y,Z in the same tab, I can only see Z on the list. There is no way to recall X or Y without opening history.

@nicolaasjan: Sunday is Nov 30th, 2025, thus I believe you'll be having a "hot potato" in your hands : https://github.com/pyinstaller/pyinstaller/issues/9149#issuecomment-3036991021 [build] Bump PyInstaller minimum version requirement to 6.17.0 https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/commit/280165026886a1f1614ab527c34c66d71faa5d69 For the Vista+(aka Win7) builds, your PyInstaller fork v6.17 came just in time : https://github.com/nicolaasjan/pyinstaller-builds/releases/tag/6.17.0 ... but what about those WinXP "onedir" packages which, IIANM, are still using PyInstaller-5.13.2 due to this ? (you can always revert 2801650 prior to the onedir compilation for XP, but how practical would that be in the long run? ...)

roytam1 why are you ignoring my question? Link

RegCool x32 v3.0.0.1 Portable XP https://kurtzimmermann.com/downrc_en.html A brief attempt to bring RegCool v3.0.0.1 to Windows XP. Warning, The Updater.exe has not been touched, and since RegCool.exe was little tested, make a backup copy of the Registry before making modifications. Windows XP Fix Download: https://www.upload.ee/files/18849687/RegCool_x32_v3.0.0.1_Portable_XP.zip.html http://www.kurtzimmermann.com/updates/regcoolversion.ini https://kurtzimmermann.com/files/RegCoolXP.zip

Firefox 115.30ESR officially, or there is the firefox-for-windows-7 fork on github, that allows for 147 nightly on 7 and 8.x. As of now, the latest stable Steam version has been ported to at least work on 8 and 8.1 without extended kernel, but a few more DLLs need to be patched for 7

I had already commented that you cannot get past the captcha: "We could not the security challenge" , despite passing validation (green tick).

Nope. I run v140 (OT to Supermium but you did specifically call out "all Chrome variants", so it seems this time that OT = On Topic) and the Recently Closed Tabs is dead-on accurate. I've never had to use the Hamburger for the purpose of recent history.

The 'recently closed' list has always seemed to be reasonably accurate for me, although I have seen occasional anomalies where something which should be there isn't.

Why is it that the Recently Closed Tabs feature under the down-arrow and the address bar don't show me the last addresses I visited? This is probably so in all Chrome variants and Google is employing some "wisdom". If I open Hamburger -> History -> History, the last entries are not the same as shown under Recently Closed Tabs. The way I see it, this recent exists to save me from using the Hamburger menu. Also, if I have visited example.com/a example.com/b example.com/c in this order, A may persistently show in the address bar auto-complete even though I haven't opened it for some time.