All Activity

Sotwe.com is working fine here in the UK on Supermium 132.0.6834.224 on XP.

Hello! Firstly, thanks for this awesome software! I am seeing a niggling issue with the display of jump list icons for Microsoft Terminal when SAB Enhanced Classic Taskbar is enabled. Comparison between with and without SAB Enhanced Classic Taskbar enabled respectively: The "Windows PowerShell", "PowerShell" and "PowerShell (Admin)" profiles are using icons from the Terminal app's manifest (specified using ms-appx:// protocol path) - all the rest are using simple file system links to .ico or .png files - it seems to be these that are problematic and only the app's default icon is displayed rather than the custom icon specified in the profile. Here are two of the profile configurations showing the difference in the icon configurations resulting in this behaviour: { "commandline": "%SystemRoot%\\System32\\cmd.exe /f:off /k c:\\cmdtools\\cmdprompt.cmd", "guid": "{0caa0dad-35be-5f56-a8ff-afceeeaa6101}", "hidden": false, "icon": "C:\\CmdTools\\clink\\clink_purple.ico", "name": "Shell" }, { "colorScheme": "Campbell Admin", "commandline": "\"C:\\Program Files\\PowerShell\\7\\pwsh.exe\" -NoLogo -NoExit -f c:\\cmdtools\\pwsh_prompt.ps1", "elevate": true, "guid": "{1b06313f-f69d-4627-9e4c-5cf543917c87}", "hidden": false, "icon": "ms-appx:///ProfileIcons/pwsh.png", "name": "PowerShell (Admin)", "startingDirectory": "%USERPROFILE%" } Seeing this across multiple PCs. Just in case, I did try deleting SAB's cache as well as the recents custom destinations db/cache (%AppData%\Microsoft\Windows\Recent\CustomDestinations) but the issue persists when the caches are recreated. Let me know if you need any more information. Thanks!

The site is still blocked on the DNS level in some countries like Canada. Obtained the latest 132 copy from Github. Now I get this.

Supermium's advapi misses this api. How do you run it, then?

is someone making that test spoken of ? like j7n did with server 2003 x32 bit´s (its a XP based OS) someone has to disable the pagefile (because theoretical windows can also pass the 4 GB using a pagefile, a pagefile is just data on a harddrive/HDD/SSD) then someone has to use up more then 4 GB of ram, it would be a good indicator, but perfect would be to look of the pages are really in the upper 4 GB ram i meant to turn off the pagefile quite often - but then it didnt do that anyways the pagefile was still not offline maybe daniel k. should say something about this he wrote in a other post that in his opinion both ntoskrnl and hal has to be changed to make xp able to do the 64 GB (dibya said the oposite for example) - who knows who is right daniel k.writes that he modified hal and ntoskrnl (that suggest that that ntoskrnl´s and hal.dll are patched) also he mention symbol files - that also suggest that a ntoskrnl version and a hal version was used to do so you cant just select the patched ntoskrnl.exe and hal.dll by a symbol file searcher you have to figure out what version that ntoskrnl and hal are... then you have to force the disassembler to use the file from the non patched version the filecompare tool will find the changes if you have the right ntoskrnl and hal therefore also daniel k. wrote that he used the free space method for doing the patch this can be risky because some codes only access some free space sometimes, or on certain conditions (this often makes random crashes) a better solution is to add a section or increase a section - you have to know what you do here but - you quickly can kill the files like that if you dont know what you are doing are there more then 3 versions to do so ? its gambling around like "dibya´s" "the russian one" and the "daniel k. one"

@Dietmar A CSMWrap version has been released, which allows you to use the BIOS video from the disk from EFI\Boot\vgabios.bin https://github.com/FlyGoat/CSMWrap/issues/37#issuecomment-3030297746 Compiled bins: https://github.com/FlyGoat/CSMWrap/actions/runs/16040013218 Thanks to this, WinXP boot OK on iGPU using ntldr as on a normal Legacy machine - I tested CoffeeLake, Haswell, SandyBridge: CSM Disabled, iGPU VBIOS extracted from motherboard bios. Now - I don't have to use SeaVGABIOS and Longhorn bootmgr 5472 loader.

Yes; the page could've been clearer on exactly how "modern" your browser's Javascript needed to be. At any rate, UXP does seem up to the task, albeit inefficiently. There are many reasons that might have caused me to get the "denied" page, but it wasn't worth the effort to track it down. I was just wondering what kind of nonsense we WWW users have to deal with now, and why. My curiosity is "mostly" satisfied now.

I just use comodo in paranoid mode. I have around 3500 network intrusions a day FROM windows system files calling home to random internet 443 ips... it's insane. And of course run in metered mode on my main networks to effectively block all updates. And naturally when I did update, it broke things (and tried to update defender, but was never activated thanks to Commodo already being sufficient for windows' logic). Now the start bar is over everything instead of under, so annoying. That and I lost all of my nvidia custom resolutions and can't save when I go to try to re-add it. Thanks Microsux! Upside is, I bought a new laptop that already had admin and a user setup, so I didn't need to open a microsoft account. Naturally, being paranoid, I created a new admin user and disabled the original admin user, all w/o MS account trash. I also removed all the telemetry crap (way more than win7) and uninstalled onedrive. Only downside there is you can't use the fingerprint reader like in the past to auth w/o windows HELLo.

Does this promise anything more than has been possible in Server 2003 without patching?

at least it won't contain stupid emoticon

Members are reminded of forum rule 1a. 1a. This is not a warez site! Links/Requests to warez and/or illegal material (e.g., cracks, serials, etc.) will not be tolerated. Discussion of circumventing WGA/activation/timebombs/license restrictions, use of keygens, or any other illegal activity, including, but not limited to, requests for help where pirated software is being used or being discussed, will also not be tolerated. Offenders may be banned on first violation. It is expressly forbidden to post links to, or to discuss, any form of warez.

Yes. I was getting rather tired when I wrote that and the post to you and did not proofread the post well enough. I had originally started writing around that quoted question, but then tried to patch the SP2 HALs myself to check. Something I wanted to ask, but forgot, is: Whether it is important for you to stay on an old Windows XP Service Pack 2 level kernel? If not, you might try a newer kernel version (and other possibly other updates).

WinXPPAE 3.5 can't patch any SP2 hal version: Patching halmacpi.dll (ACPI Multiprocessor PC HAL)... Invalid file!

In case anyone is interested, here attached are the two pairs of files used on the system by daniel_k's patch (hal2.dll and ntkrnl32.exe) and the '64G' patch (hal64g.dll and ntkl64.exe). I'm afraid I don't know how to analyse them to see just how similar they are. Looking with CFF Explorer, the dlls certainly do look very similar (they are exactly the same size), although of course not identical. If anyone with the necessary skills can compare them properly, I would be very interested to know the results! RAM Patches Files.zip

Totally right, interesting observation! "It was dropped in Beta 1 (Build 5112) of Vista for all errors except boot loader errors. It can also be found (but rarely) in early builds of Windows 98, even when it was known as codename "Memphis", because these early builds have poor/broken ACPI support." https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Windows_crash_screens

Seeking a video driver. Turns out this model requires a modified ACPI to install properly? Other integrations did not work regardless of SATA driver and often froze. I just need to find a working Windows XP driver for NVIDIA GT 230, yet it doesn't seem to work and the display settings states the driver was meant for an earlier version of Windows? Strange. Hopefully GeForce Release 185 for Notebooks 185.81 works...it didn't... EDIT: 285.58 installed. It seems NVIDIA removed it from later packages. However...I'm stuck at a lower resolution opposed to 1080... EDIT: This may not be worth the hassle. Had to use powerstrip to give XP the proper 1080 resolution. Attempting to find chipset drivers for this thing only causes issues. Something is also causing the device manager to constantly break.

It's a convoluted mess... See issue #12482. You may need to provide a PO Token. That said, I didn't yet have this warning (I download 1080p avc1/mp4a videos most of the time). Related?

My impression is that there might be HAL issues or CPU errata/microcode issues on at least the SandyBridge machines. I have tested the WinXPPAE.exe 3.5.0.0 patch tool on newer HAL files than the initial Service Pack 2 version, and they are also rejected as invalid by the patcher. Perhaps the SP2 versions do not need the patch; it is possible that whatever is patched for the Service Pack 3 HALs might not be an issue on the SP2 HALs. Have you tried using the SP2 HAL with the WinXPPAE.exe 3.5.0.0 patch tool patched SP2 kernel? Regardless, you might wish to try newer SP2 HAL. The update packages that I have are all intended as the English language (United States) versions, however, I would expect the HALs should still work in another language distribution if the HAL file is specified explicitly in boot.ini. I have uploaded the HAL updates for English Windows XP with Service Pack 2 to: https://www.mediafire.com/file/5ibjk0jsnltisxa/SP2_HAL_Updates.zip/file File Name: SP2_HAL_Updates.zip Size: 7,597,675 bytes CRC32: BA5633F7 MD5: 170844F1EDE2CE551C9E5F213A283059 SHA-1: E29ADE7FE24B8C7D10CDCF1EB30D197733B57DFA SHA-256: B911093A86B272BFDADCEF9F27335DD6E677E0DE60E4D00BBFEFD83C3AC3AB54 SHA-512: E7F08887D5E1DC432C269A40CD5E977F2806FF9D14DDFBBE86B6C58BFB519A3D738F9E98665F3D110619D314A8D6E6385BED5C5520CD97559A7058F62DB55A68

well "4 GB is the ram limit for a 32 bit operating system" is finally busted i wonder why even big company´s are still making that fault: https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/B560M-C/index.us.asp "**Due to the operating system limitation, the actual memory size may be less than 4GB for the reservation for system usage under Windows® 32-bit OS. For Windows® 64-bit OS with 64-bit CPU, there is no such limitation." to explain the selector/segment or maybe segment selector in the past like 8 bit or 16 bit (sometimes both - aka having 8 bit instructions and 16 bit data) the combination of segment + offset = "real address" also the instruction pharser that read the next opcode, automaticly use the next segment selector (for continuous flow - without chucks) - why this would not be the case for 32 bits ? (it is a cs:eip combination (cs for code segment)) you could write a code either with a selector+offset or just the offset - for "just the offset "the cpu automaticly then choosed the next one (where it then just executes the next instruction) if that isnt doing it there would be still the explained instruction codes that concretly use a selector:offset combination either way if the cpu isnt doing the next segment selector automaticly you still could write a jump at the end of the the 4GB address(or just changing the selector to the next one) https://wiki.osdev.org/Segmentation for a data allocation this would also be of use you could get a DS(data segment) + offset , and directly you would have a 4 GB chuck thats why i always (in like the past i wanted to have a virtualalloc2 function that also gives out the selector) - but me writing that info forums (including microsoft ones) where just ignored the others where already explained , like 4 mb pages (instead of 4k), PSE, PAE - PDE´s , PTE´s and why there is a chuckwise solution (and why this chuckwise solution is useable for app´s/executables/modules)

Yes, the batch script is rather defective in that it is unreasonably presumptive as to where resources or files are and can result in not finding the something it should find, finding the wrong thing (which can become a data corruption problem after write operations are performed on originals, such as boot.ini), presuming one wants to use kernel or HAL from sp3.cab, etc. However, the script does provide some level of instruction of a potential method to patch files and deploy those patched files.

Yes, with the daniel_k's solution, he is not providing a pre-patched binary of a single kernel variant version and a single HAL variant version like that "other" patch you referenced; rather, he provides a patcher that can be used on any compatible variant or HAL and any version of such. The daniel_k's solution is generally better and provides more compatibility options. I would disagree. Older PCs could have relatively large amounts of RAM. It is also important to note that it is not RAM that needs to be considered, but addressable memory (which is inclusive of RAM and other things like allocations for video card memory). A old PC system utilizing only 4 GB of RAM would still likely benefit from the PAE fix patch. Even then, there were computers with much larger amounts or RAM and addressable memory; these were often rather expensive at the time. It is also best to think of the patch as a PAE (Physical Address Extension) fix patch rather than a RAM patch; the intentions and products are different. It also seems like there is a presumption that multi-core processors must use a Muti-processor HAL; however, that presumption would not be correct. Multi-core processor can still use Uniprocessor HAL. It is a configuration I often use (one may also often take the opportunity to scale a single core well beyond where it would tend to scale in a multi-core conflagration while having the other cores turned off). Many CPU architectures since about 13 years ago have had this capability and design consideration. The daniel_k patcher provides a patch tool, while "other" patch you linked to is someone's product of patching and in a limited case.

i dont know but the name "ntkrln64g" sounds like it is a wrapper, maybe a kernel extender ? if not there like many versions of ntoskrnl´s you have to find the right version in that case the searched patches show 7 changes 138-13a is probaly the checksum, that checksum is a "elder driver signature" - if that one isnt currect the system driver (in this case the important ntoskrnl) is not loaded as you may reconized that patch did not touch that ntkrpamp.exe, you should check what ntoskrl was loaded (there are only 3, ntkrnlpa, ntoskrnl and ntkrpamp to check if it use up more then 4 gb ram you should repeat the test from page 7, there is also a page-file that actually can pass that limit you might turn that one off while doing that test

I am glad u like my proposal, but I haven't yet got an informed answer. if ur test proves right, we still do not know whether we can, and/or how we will, effectively automate it into winntsetup.exe. U got a point, though: if it cannot be pre-installed, we will keep using it on a post-install basis.

Thank you! I will give it a shot.

Bring back the Azure Screen of Indifference! Wasn't there a red screen of death in a Vista beta?