Leaderboard

@XP-x64-Lover has reuploaded te post, so check here for new info: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I found the link to this post in the through the google cache and got the page in the internet archive. Figured it was valuable. http://web.archive.org/web/20180312193738/https://msfn.org/board/topic/177547-xp-x64-sabertooth-x99-drivers/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ These drivers are derived directly from my Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (Volume License) install on my ASUS SABERTOOTH X99 Workstation. None of the drivers have been modified. They've been tested to work successfully on the ASUS SABERTOOTH X99 Motherboard. The download link is below! Please open the read me file for more information and what to expect; before proceeding with any driver installation. Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?1noclu654luf9 (Make sure to have 7-Zip so you can open the archive.) Enjoy!! - XP-x64-Lover

As for me, I'm interested in finding out what the most recent XP and XP64-friendly AMD hardware is, ideally something with DDR4. Last August there was some discussion on Guru3D about Ryzen's compatiblity with XP. Don't know about XP64 yet, though, and wading through the thread there means dealing with the irritating "XP? Why would you want to run that pathetic obsolete piece of junk?" smuggery. Best part is someone pointing out VM is not an option for some older games, then getting told "Just use a VM" in reply. https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/installing-windows-xp-on-am4-ryzen-7.414683/page-2 I'll highlight the interesting bits so you don't have to deal with the FUD and BS: "ASRock X370 Killer SLI, Ryzen5 1600, and the EVGA 980Ti SC+/Xtreme IV qualify for the necessary components for a good chance to install XP natively." "Drivers exist for 900 series. It has been tested on an Intel Z270 chipset. The most important would be video and audio. Even on the High end you could use GeForce GTX 980 Ti or GeForce GTX Titan X. For other hardware a USB card could be installed to support any USB device." "I've installed XP on a KabyLake it's a no brainer. Fully working video, audio, network, and USB. But for laptops I'd avoid since you can't install your own graphics card internally. Chipset drivers aren't necessary to install XP. What is important is a proper SATA driver which can be modified to work to get the installation to start." "I can confirm that XP are running even on Z370 - at least my Gigabyte MB z370 has ACPI compatible problem, so you need install it in no ACPI mode (MPS multiprocessor PC HAL) and USB and PS2 not working after 1st reboot - you need enable remote desktop for 1st login and detect network card running setup - nlite is your friend." Unrelated to the "Will it support XP/XP64" question, this amuses me to no end: "I managed to get Windows98Se on X99, maybe it will work even on Z370.." We got some kindred spirits there!

https://msfn.org/board/topic/177564-recovered-post-xp-x64-sabertooth-x99-drivers/ There's his post.

Not happened here (XP). This is the area that is untouched by me, since I use about:blank as starting page and I'm just not care about how about:newtab page is.

I've been running the v28 Sneak Peak (not the last release, but the one before). It was the last one to show the old newtab page without the search bar. Is there any way to resotre this page on the upcoming beta? It uses smaller thumbnails, and I prefer it. Also I find YouTube vids only work if I stop the video (during the load process) and play it again. Otherwise, it just keeps loading. Great work Roytam!

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE LIST FOR JUNE 29, 2018: Updated Yandex Browser entry to v17.4.1.1026 as the last version for Vista (previous entry contained an older version). Updated Cocoon entry to Cocoon 52.1.x, as this will more than likely be the final major release for Windows Vista, with the release of Firefox 52.9 ESR. Updated Mozilla Firefox 52.x ESR entry to Mozilla Firefox 52.9.x, as this will be the final major release for Windows Vista, with minor (security) updates being released until August 2018. Updated Tor Browser entry to Tor Browser 7.5.x, as this will more than likely be the final major release for Windows Vista, with the release of Firefox 52.9 ESR. Removed PDF X-Change Viewer entries, as the software has been discontinued in favor of PDF X-Change Editor. Added PDF X-Change Editor to "PDF Viewers/Editors" section. Added link to tutorial on how to get the latest version of ShareX running in Windows Vista. Added @UCyborg's modified version of Rufus 3.1.132 (UNS) to "Bootable USB Flash Drive Creation Tools" section, along with the link to his post containing the download.

I do consider myself a "Swiftie", and my company helped to promote her "Redemption" album.

New build of post-deprecated basilisk/moebius for XP! * Notice: This repo will not be built on regular schedule, and changes are experimental as usual. ** Current moebius patch level should be on par with 52.8, but some security patches can not be applied/ported due to source milestone differences between versions. Test binary: Win32 http://o.rthost.cf/basilisk/basilisk55-win32-git-20180630-cbc95b111-xpmod.7z Win64 http://o.rthost.cf/basilisk/basilisk55-win64-git-20180630-cbc95b111-xpmod.7z Repo changes: - pref: enable layout.css.moz-document.content.enabled by default, fixes stylish (81899e574) - AddonUpdateChecker: repalce with UXP one, add preprocessing and defines (7042385da) - cherry-picked mozilla upstream changes: bug1338064, bug1339204, bug1338032 and tried to restore Vista MF support by reverting bug1329547 and bug1324183 (cbc95b111)

I don't know what happened to XP64 Lover, it seems that when MSFN went down all my recent correspondence I had including a number of topics and recent posts vanished. However, when I asked XP64 Lover about hardware known to work with XP64, I was linked to this one: https://www.amazon.com/Asus-SABERTOOTH-X99-LGA2011-V3-Motherboard/dp/B00VUK54F0 Asus TUF SABERTOOTH X99 LGA2011-V3 DDR4 M.2 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 Type A Intel X99 ATX Motherboard, 2015 vintage. Unfortunately, because all my private messages with XP64 Lover are gone, any information on what to do in order to get the system running on one of these has vanished. I'd be interested in finding an AMD-based motherboard though, since it's been said that AMD-based hardware is immune to two of the three variants of the Meltdown/Spectre exploits. This seems rather unhelpful. Like showing someone a haystack that might have a needle in it and saying "go look for yourself." I think knowing what hardware supports XP and XP64 is at least as important as knowing what latest versions of software support them, and we've certainly got threads dedicated to that.

Please note that with the release of Adobe Flash Player 30, SSE processors are no longer supported. Adobe Flash Player 29 (29.0.0.171) is the final version for SSE processors. I have moved the final SSE installers here: http://sdfox7.com/xp/sp3/EOL/flash_sse_29.0.0.171/

Here's one: I've been using an ASUS M5 A97 R2.0 with XP. I have a FX-8370 as the CPU. Compatibility with XP x86 and x64. Also, I use two Intel DQ35JOE's one with a Core 2 Quad, one with a Core 2 Duo. Compatibility With XP x86 and x64. Those are the only Desktop boards I have newer than Pentium 4.

Windows 95 says when the subsystem version in executable file's header is higher than OS version that this program expects a newer Windows version, but NT systems say that it's not a valid application. I wonder why is that. Maybe due to the fact that NT could/can historically run on different CPU architectures and they just put the same error regardless whether it's just version mismatch or CPU for which the EXE was compiled for.

I had been otherwise occupied all day long, so only recently skimmed through the numerous MSFN e-mail notifications on this subject... My input: Moonchild wrote: Really? English is not my mother tongue, but doesn't "should continue" imply they are currently able to run on Vista? This is the furthest thing from the truth! Lots of places inside their forum; I did a quick search and I came up, amongst others, with: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15806 This was when Moebius/UXP-T1 was forked from a Mozilla Platform 53.0a1 code snapshot; that snapshot was already devoid of any residual XP/Vista OS support, as the good () guys over at Mozilla had already excised all relevant code... MC team did absolutely nothing to restore at least partial Vista support... https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=114825#p114825 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=18253 (Basilisk and Windows Vista; I urge you to read the entire thread , but I've selected the following part:) Officially released Basilisk 55.x.x.x was never compatible with Vista; by pure luck (or negligence on their part), the compiler flags were such that lowering the subsystem value of the executables (6.1 -> 6.0) would allow for them to run on the Vista kernel, but OS integration was suboptimal; non-existing code targeting Vista resulted in WMF (and possibly other parts, e.g. EME, aka Widevine DRM plugin) being broken! https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=132054#p132054 And when in the start of spring this year they ditched Moebius in favour of UXP-T2 (now just UXP), they forked a Mozilla 52 ESR platform with full XP+Vista support and what was the first thing they did? Meticulously removed all that support (as it's always easier to delete existing code than write new one...). Are we to believe that MC has just now had a sudden change of heart and he's willing to devote precious coding time to undoing the Vista massacre? I'm not that gullible... What's worse, in official Basilisk 52 + Pale Moon 28, they have amended their compiler flags/optimisations to fully ignore NT 6.0 (Vista/Server 2008); this has been already documented previously in this thread by esteemed member @WinClient5270, but it was also the result of my own tests weeks ago, when the first official builds were publicly released... Unfortunately, it's more than those... Inspecting latest (official) PaleMoon_unstable-28.0.0b1.en-US.win32[buildID=20180625093249] package with dependency walker, I am disheartened; focusing on just xul.dll module, this has calls to 6 missing functions in kernel32.dll GetCurrentProcessorNumberEx K32EnumProcessModules K32GetModuleFileNameExW K32GetProcessImageFileNameW K32GetProcessMemoryInfo K32QueryWorkingSet and to 2 missing functions in shell32.dll SHGetPropertyStoreForWindow SetCurrentProcessExplicitAppUserModelID Main executable (palemoon.exe) has lesser issues, of course I wasn't bothered to check other DLLs... Similar results are obtained with official Bk52 releases... And I emphasise again, it isn't only compilation configuration that needs to be changed to target Vista, it's actual browser code that needs to be rewritten to accommodate a fully functional, Vista compatible, application... Will Moonchild deliver? I think not... (and until PM 28 "stable" gets released in the final quarter of 2018, Vista user-base will have dropped even lower to merit his support considerations...) @WinClient5270, if memory serves right, I recollect you having registered previously in the Pale Moon forums (about an issue with Visual Studio 2013 dlls affecting PM 64-bit, that I had identified for you...); perhaps the best way to clear the FUD once and for all would be to post in the linked thread (by Jody) and ask plain and simple what MC's definitive decisions are; not his thoughts/intentions, but if he's actually determined to support Vista in PM28 (at least in the same level he supported Vista in PM27); please don't hesitate to convey some of my reservations/points I raised here ; full WMF+MSE support on both 32-bit/64-bit Vista architectures would be a must; UXP (unlike Tycho) is suitable for that, if they're willing to undo the damage they did to it concerning Vista; these days, noone wants a browser that won't play back embedded audio-visual content... Here's hoping...

Because he couldn't care less. Then again, we have @roytam1's PM mods already, which do work fine, and he's committed to keep 'em coming and to give 'em support... reason enough, IMO, for us all to ignore moonchild, instead of caring for what he thinks/wants/will actually do. My 2¢, of course.

If just K32* functions are needed for Pale Moon to launch on Vista, then PSAPI_VERSION=1 should be added to Preprocessor Definitions and the Minimum Required Version setting value changed to 6.00 or just deleted since Vista should still be the Visual Studio's default target.

I've already been using New Moon on my Windows 2000 and XP machines. As I demonstrated recently, Windows 2000 will run it as long as you have Service Pack 4, the Security Rollup Package (SRP), and UURollup/Kernel Ex:

I think it is no worth to do so since they're going to nuke legacy XUL externsions in AMO in near future.