All Activity

This thread has run its course, and has just set off a lot of bickering with no good purpose. Now locked.

Good afternoon. Excuse my English, but I'm using Google Translate. I use your application quite a lot here in my repair shop and congratulations on the quick, simple and functional solution. I noticed an error in this new version: when I use the function in "Modifications - Disable User Account Control" in Windows 11 25h2, it gives an XML error, but when I use the old version it works normally (on the same machine). I noticed this because I always used the same XML and the same diskpart script.

Hello, On Windows 11 Explorer, enabling the legacy command infrastructure (via StartAllBack or Open-Shell) causes Explorer to permanently instantiate a top command surface. Once this happens, reverting to stock Win11 binaries does not remove the bar — Explorer continues to allocate the command host, which is then rendered using the Win11 WinUI CommandBar. Key observations: The bar is not drawn by StartAllBack or Open-Shell Swapping Win10 explorerframe.dll breaks the nav pane but does not remove the bar shellstyle.dll hacks (height=0) no longer apply This confirms the surface exists independently of explorerframe and classic theming I’m not trying to stop legacy commands from being registered — I’m looking for a way to suppress or collapse the WinUI CommandBar host (height/visibility/layout), even if the surface itself still exists. Does anyone know: which component owns the WinUI CommandBar layout for Explorer? or whether it’s possible to force-collapse it (analogous to shellstyle hacks in Win7–10)? Any pointers (symbols, classes, binaries) would be appreciated.

Huh?

Wondering ... as an enduser, whats the differance between this version over Gorhills latest? Differant types, but, what makes one better then the other?

74.1.3 is the best version so far, for me. uBlock wont update past version 1.67, newer states "Firefox minimum version to 115". That said, version I currently have works fine, very fast, smooth, stable!!!

considering the situation a build in User Agent changer would be an option, there might be some already around but if supermium run out of upgrades it would be better to have it now, instead later on in just not having it

https://msfn.org/board/topic/186768-bug-fix-vmmvxd-on-handling-4gib-addresses-and-description-of-problems-with-resource-manager-on-newer-bioses/ Carefully read this manual (you really referenced it right in this topic). 4G wall (which is solved by patch) is smaller problem from two. SMM hole is bigger. WHAT? PCI Level Interrupt emulation over PCI-E Link is the basis in PCI-E specification. When MSI are disabled on HDA Controller (and CSM have to do exactly this) its behaviour should not differ from usual PCI device. P.S. Try to disable PCI Interrupt Steering too.

Right now I'm trying to focus on basic Functionality and Compatibility. Eventually I do intend to connect up the input streams as well and improve everything as much as possible under the limitations imposed by Windows 9x and the HD Audio spec. There will be no EAX support or 24-bit Dolby Atmos, and I can't use the lower latency WavePCI miniport because user mode programs can't respect the required 128 byte alignment. The latest committed version on Github that ignores outputs marked as No Connection by the pin config verbs now works quite well on an Intel 915g chipset with ALC880 codec. Still have a less severe version of the garbled audio problem on a Wyse Rx0 thin client with AMD SB600 chipset and Realtek ALC272. The issue with garbled sound seems to depend more on the controller than the codec. Also I am having a very hard time getting Win98 to work without using QuickInstall on 2010 and newer motherboards for testing. Even with the memory size patches I get issues with Configmg or repeated freezes during hardware detection. Is there a guide I should be looking at besides Omores's videos?

Are you intending to work with input, as well?

I'm trying to enable as many output paths as possible so that's why you might get sound on Line-In if there is a path in the codec from a DAC to that pin to support re-tasking as an output. For the next version I am printing the color of the connector associated with the pin in the debug output and ignoring pins disabled in the codec Pin Config registers (need to add a Registry key to control this) Also I added a (quick, hacky) way to reprint the pin config on the Debug version so it can be seen in DbgView; Open 2 copies of the Volume Control window, enable Advanced options on one and open the bass/treble controls, then move the Volume Control slider followed by the Treble slider. The garbled sound may be caused by using the Link Position in Buffer register so I should also add a config option to use the DMA Position Buffer instead. Another possibility is that newer chipsets are trying to send Message Signaled Interrupts for the HDA controller which aren't converted properly to legacy level signaled ones but if this is the issue I am not sure how I would fix this. Still need to add separate volume controls for each type of output. For Windows 98 it is not possible to change the topology dynamically so I need to create all the Kernel Streaming topology pins in the inf and then disable ones that are not used.

Hey everyone, happy new year. I just tested the latest beta version of Microsoft 365 on Windows 8.1 (v2602) and it still works although EOL was 2301! v2602 will be the last "official" version for Windows Server 2016/LTSB 2016 imgur.com/a/ZFUPSUH

And in case anyone thinks I'm hallucinating, here is a proof for my observations:

Speaking about it Club Penguin Atake worked on my vm and i've tested the Naruto (Japan) website and apparently the mini AD built on Flash actually worked... I tested it again and it somehow works. Don't tell Boo about it,he hates flash on NT 4.0

<copied from a Google search> Windows Defender was first introduced as a downloadable anti-spyware tool for Windows XP (Service Pack 2) and Windows Server 2003, then became a built-in feature starting with Windows Vista, evolving into a full antivirus suite with Windows 8, and is now part of the integrated Windows Security in Windows 10/11. </copy> If you allow/enable "Windows Updates", then it can add Windows Defender. I always disabled Windows Updates when I ran XP x64 so I am unsure if Windows Defender would have been installed via that route.

I examined the crash dump files which were created for the PSANHost.exe process after crashing. The crashes also seem to be related to the module psanrknl.exe. And they occur precisely every 60 to 65 minutes, so to say absolutely periodically. Maybe, a time bomb inside the setup file which will be activated when the version has become too old? The Panda Antivirus 21.01.00 setup file is already more than three years old. And if this theory turns out to be true, I'll be really furious and have to reconsider my opinion of Panda.

I installed Supermium, Version 138.0.7204.298 (Official Build) (32-bit) on win XP SP3 on Dell Dimension 4700 this AM. All seemed well -- it rendered even a brand new site that MyPal shows as garbage --until I entered an incorrect address and Windows Defender stepped in to protect me. WD? Where'd that come from? I thought it was part of Win 11. One reason I run only obsolete systems is to get away from the Microsoft nanny state. It's continued presence would be a deal breaker as far as daily use is concerned. So: 1. Where did this come from? Is it really part of Supremium? 2. Is there a way to turn it off? I looked at lots of options but ... way too much to comprehend and nothing labeled as 'Windows Defender.' Thanks for any help!

Everyone, sorry for all the typos, it's a dry winter here, in Canada at my location. Caught dry eyes.

Nah, not really. Just typed too fast. I edited my post but you read it before my edit went through. Regardless, the bottom line here is that Supermium users only have themselves to blame if they are "opting IN" on these 'protection services'.

I'll leave it like this until it's fully investigayed by a trusted party, which is @Dave-H in this case. The suggestion is to open up the default browser, not changed settings at all. Then try to save fake paswords or login to somewhere unimportant, see what IPs it knocks onto.

I would have to investigate further. ie, Supermium can be keeping the setting in the GUI but that doesn't technically mean that the setting "works". Doesn't really interest me further at this point. Not at v138 at least. Who knows about future releases.

On the contrary, It was said to the user that didn't think Supermium was stealing passwords. You again read wrong. That's why the bold text is now used.

No, I made a request, suggestion to the admins to check it. Read carefully what I write. Nothing is "on me". That is indeed right!!! But Supermium pretends to be Ungoogled, and Russians wrote that it exists in Ungoogled Supermium! Which can't be since the real Ungoogled has it OFF by default. So it's a lie by Supermium. No proof meeded in this case. Check the flags.

You made/forwarded/cited this so-called claim. The burden is on you to prove it. Citing two people arguing in Russian is no proof of anything. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. But technically, I AGREE WITH YOU. No skin off my back either way. Supermium couldn't log into my bank. But yeah, I did try, and yeah, I *immediately* changed my bank password after the failed login attempt. Supermium (and all Chrome forks above version 79 [December 2019]) have password data breach "protection". Personally, if you "trust these", you only INVITE man-in-the-middle and you VOLUNTEERED for your password hash to be TRANSMITTED !!! You REQUESTED it be analyzed via THIRD-PARTY to see if it exists in the wild. You ASKED for that when you opted in for the "protection". This is no different than VOLUNTEERING your local files to be SUBMITTED to antivirus firms if you allow them to be scanned by antivirus software. Technically, I AGREE WITH YOU, there *ARE* settings in Supermium (and all Chrome versions since 2019 !!!) that transmit data that I **OPT OUT OF**. But for the enduser that does "trust" the 'service', I leave that up to them to decide on their own, I would suggest they disable these "settings". But there will be just as many that claim they are "safer" having some embedded Chrome "service" acting as their "nanny" to protect themselves from themself.

Forgot to attach the translation. Several members, including this one, contradict one member that tells "no passwords and their hashes are transmitted". Another "silver" (high rep.) member gives a link to his investigation and writes "Don't make such categorical statements. I observed this activity (stealing passwords) many times."