Leaderboard

No empezarás discusiones sino que en Inglés! [Don't start threads other than in English!]

New Palemoon 27 Build! * This build is beyond official 27.9.4 build. 32bit https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.1a1.win32-git-20181117-a6bf60af2-xpmod.7z 32bit SSE https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.1a1.win32-git-20181117-a6bf60af2-xpmod-sse.7z 32bit noSSE https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.1a1.win32-git-20181117-a6bf60af2-xpmod-ia32.7z 64bit https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.1a1.win64-git-20181117-a6bf60af2-xpmod.7z source repo: https://github.com/roytam1/palemoon27 repo changes since my last build: - ported mozilla upstream changes: - Nikhil Marathe - Bug 1139665 - Check content load policy in FetchDriver. r=baku (25ded6c22f64) - Nikhil Marathe - Bug 1143857 - Add FormData serialize support to Fetch API. r=ehsan (1ff28a6f0b77) and enable fetch API in pref. (a6bf60af2)

The catalyst for revisiting Windows 98 came after experiencing Windows XP re-activation issues following hardware changes. Mostly to keep an old Windows install around to play favourite games, plus it's still a fun system to utilize. Finally completed Road Rash - lol. For retro use, Windows 98 is pretty good, although most users may now have trouble finding a printer to work on this system, if that is desired. I have three printers at home, only one has Windows 98 drivers, all work with Windows XP. Printer manufacturers appear to have made these old printer cartridges hard to find and/or very expensive to encourage the never ending upgrade cycle. Finding an old Windows 98 friendly scanner shouldn't be an issue. I recently set up two Windows 98 systems. Nostalgic, the same user experience i remember. The installer actually takes quite a while compared to a lean Linux OS, but otherwise works well. Reasonably simple and lean OS, easy to set up and manage. NO ACTIVATION REQUIRED! Occasionally a little flaky but nothing that can't be fixed with some tweaking or a reboot. Once setup, no more updates required. As i still use Windows 98 era hardware on a daily basis (800 MHz systems, BIOS dates 1999-2001, RAM 384-512 MB), my interest was setting up and running this retro OS on bare metal. To wonderful surprise, finding hardware drivers was quite simple with a little searching. I ended up hoarding quite a few graphic, audio and network drivers, including Windows 98 'driver packs'. Anyone needing drivers, it may be best to search the manufacturer's sites first, as many are still archived and available, otherwise these resources should help: * https://driverscollection.com/ * http://www.network-drivers.com/ * http://www.driverguide.com/ I spent way too much time downloading Windows 98 updates, 108 in total, including 2To4DigitDateConversionTool.exe, many 'Q' updates, several 'KB' updates, unicows and a DirectX9 patch. Unfortunately, most were obtained from non-Microsoft sources, as updates are no longer available from Microsoft servers and a roll-up pack was never released. I did not want to use one of the unofficial update packs and purposely avoided updates related to undesired (for me) software, including Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Dial Up Networking, Macromedia Flash Player, MDAC, Microsoft .NET Framework and Microsoft Virtual Machine. From recent testing, both Internet Explorer 5 and 6 are essentially non-functional with modern browsing and Windows Media Player 9 no longer provides online multimedia browsing. I just wanted to keep my install relatively default and 'official'. Feel free to contact me if you can't find a desired update. In hindsight, unsure this effort was worthwhile as Windows 98 is now essentially a retro hobby OS. If a system is experiencing a specific issue, such as shutdown hang, applying a few specific updates may be warranted. Edit 1: Thread started in 2017 but going strong for now. Note this thread pertains to running vanilla Windows 98 SE. Please do not post misleading information that may not work in a vanilla Windows 98 SE installation, such as kernel mods, DLL swaps from other OS, custom re-compiles, higher software versions that may not run in vanilla Windows 98, etc. Thank-you and enjoy. Edit 2 & 3: Updated title.

@glnz Then just be careful that your shredder does not get out of hand!

@someguy25 This requires at least KB4316682 for IE8 dated 05/30/2018 or more recent Cumulative Update for IE8! To enable TLS 1.1 and 1.2 in Internet Explorer 8, run the following code for a reg file: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\AdvancedOptions\CRYPTO\TLS1.2] "OSVersion"=- [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\AdvancedOptions\CRYPTO\TLS1.1] "OSVersion"=- [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings] "SecureProtocols"=dword:00000a80 "ShowPunycode"=dword:00000000 "EnablePunycode"=dword:00000001 "DisableIDNPrompt"=dword:00000000 "CertificateRevocation"=dword:00000000 "WarnOnPostRedirect"=dword:00000001 "WarnonBadCertRecving"=dword:00000001 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Protocols\Mailto] "UTF8Encoding"=dword:00000000 For deactivate Unsecure Ciphers, run the following code for a reg file: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Ciphers\RC4 128/128] "Enabled"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Ciphers\Triple DES 168/168] "Enabled"=dword:00000000

You may not like what I'm about to say, but just know that I mean this in the nicest of ways... First off, asking for 'instant answers and collaboration' isn't going to help anything. All this does is make you look rude and somewhat disrespectful to other members here that would maybe otherwise not mind helping you achieve what you're wanting to achieve. Please stop saying things like that when you post or you're likely just going to get ignored. Second of all, you want an unofficial update for Vista? You're not alone. There are various posts here since 2014/2015 that have been discussing a hypothetical unofficial update for Vista to bring it to par with Windows 7 in terms of software compatibility. But, guess what? In these past 4 (almost 5) years now, not a single thing has come to fruition. Need me to explain why? Windows Vista does have a cult following here (myself included) that would love to be able to do something like this. However, doing it requires years of programming experience that no one in the Vista community has. Seeing as (according to your profile) you were born in 2004, that puts you at only 14 years old, which makes me doubtful that you have the experience (if any at all) to even come close to putting something like this together. Those here that do have the knowledge and experience (most notably @blackwingcat) to pull something like this off aren't interested in doing it for Windows Vista, and I had a discussion with BWC about this last year, and he said that creating unofficial updates for 64-bit OSes would be much more difficult as the code is far more complex, which makes it even less likely that anything is going to be made for Windows Vista in the near future since this is the version of it that most people use. In conclusion, you might as well just enjoy what little life Vista has left while you can, because it's only going to get worse from here on out.

New regular/weekly KM-Goanna release: https://o.rths.cf/kmeleon/KM-Goanna-20181117.7z Changelog: Out-of-tree changes: * update Goanna3 to git e1975531d..a6bf60af2 - ported mozilla upstream changes: - Nikhil Marathe - Bug 1139665 - Check content load policy in FetchDriver. r=baku (25ded6c22f64) - Nikhil Marathe - Bug 1143857 - Add FormData serialize support to Fetch API. r=ehsan (1ff28a6f0b77) and enable fetch API in pref. (a6bf60af2) * Notice: the changelog above may not always applicable to XULRunner code which K-Meleon uses.

New build of basilisk/UXP for XP! Test binary: Win32 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.1.win32-git-20181117-c94825c86-xpmod.7z Win64 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.1.win64-git-20181117-c94825c86-xpmod.7z diff: https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/UXP-xp-gitdiff-20181110.7z PM28XP build: Win32 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.2.0a1.win32-git-20181117-c94825c86-xpmod.7z Win64 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.2.0a1.win64-git-20181117-c94825c86-xpmod.7z Official repo changes since my last build: - Don't build internal updater by default and set default update channel to an inactive one. (9d2d304a6) - [PALEMOON] Use generic application icon for external applications in about:feeds (c8d90e332) - Revert "[PALEMOON] Use generic application icon for external applications in about:feeds" (e3f4fe530) - [PALEMOON] Use generic application icon for external applications in about:feeds (81c27113a) - Revert "[PALEMOON] Focus and select the first non-collapsed text element in the bookmark properties dialog" (0cded9cf5) - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP (3438b20bd) - Issue #861 - The bookmark properties window should focus on the Name Picker text box on init (b199e3aa0) - [Pale Moon] Sync notification widget's messageImage should inherit the 'type' attribute (46a5c51bf) - [PALEMOON] Re-apply removal of unnecessary code (Findbar is no longer in the gBrowser) (16e5a6bc2) - Merge pull request #869 from FranklinDM/sync_notification-work (3c342ab20) - Split the content viewer marking function in CCUncollectable out, so a document-based marking function can be used separately. (2db00388a) - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP (d8e3bde97) - Fix build bustage. (a748fde4c) - Tell the cycle collector about nsScriptLoadRequest::mElement. (c94825c86) My changes since my last build: - update TwemojiMozilla.ttf to Twemoji-v11.2.0 base

as I stated before, some fixes of fetch API need to be backported to PM27. I'll have a closer look to the changes later to see if they can be ported.

What's annoying to me is the fact that those who rail endlessly against XP almost never mention that it is being updated and it's not a secret since people have been taking advantage of the PosReady 2009 hack for years. In the last four months I've downloaded and installed at least 22 security patches alone for this older system. Not only that but you can still get the latest virus programs, flash player, and thanks to this project an updated browser. It is an old OS and probably has holes nonetheless but it's not like it isn't getting support. I'm usually on something newer but millions use XP regularly for whatever reason and it works fine, always has. It's almost funny how some of these anti-XP internet freaks go on a rampage, as if they have something to lose. No matter what forum their heads act like they're about to explode at the mere mention of XP. The end of support for PosReady is next April so it will require extra locking down but I wonder how many malware/virus trolls even bother with it anymore, they probably moved on to Windows 10.

Extended xp don't use any files from Windows 200 kex I am developing a wrapper library like xompie . It is for those who don't like modified system files .

WinClient5270, I have Windows Vista 64-bit with SP2 and I have ACDSee Video Studio 2.0.0.588, which works fine! Classic Shell is open-source, and I have PPSSPP 1.6, which also works fine.

Reporting that behavior to the AV manufacturers do not help. After a "CLEAN" report and whitelisting the exe some come back a few days later with another false positive alert. I wrote to VirusTotal and got a list with the adresses of the AV manufacturers. It seems that it is up to date. See AV.xls

Well I don't know much about manifest files but this is quite simple, one example with the standard header, for Kernel32.dll: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?> <assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0"> <assemblyIdentity version="1.0.0.0" name="redirector" type="win32" /> <file name="kernel32.dll"> </file> </assembly> If you need redirection for more system DLLs just put similar lines below the line for Kernel32.dll. So the file should have the full name of appropriate program with extension "manifest" at the end and it should be put in program's folder. You can also make a file with the similar name but with extension "local" (content is not important, may be empty) but it seems it's not needed in XP. (In Win98 you don't need ".manifest" file but you need ".local" I think). In this way I use Kernel32.dll and some other DLLs from One-Core-Api just for certain programs, without need to install them. (If you want just to use redirection to Kernel32.dll from Extended XP it won’t work, I guess because Ntdll.dll should be loaded at the boot time and this Kernel32.dll works only with blackwingcat’s Ntdll.dll from Extended XP.)

I consider this good enough. Please notice it's the last version that works OK to this day, and updates correctly, too. there's also a great thread about MSE on the main XP forum, in case you need help (it's fallen out of the 1st page, though).

Do I Win now?:

Aggressive? How so? Because I called your statements out for what they really are? (Or rather how they come across, whether you mean them that way or not.) More like you expect US to learn to be sheeple, and remember that Microsoft knows best, and to respect their authoritah! No one has said you are not allowed to have an opinion. I even said you were welcome to your opinion. It seems you are the one who has a problem when no one else agrees with (or is persuaded by) your opinions. If you want "XP criticism," I can give you some. It's not Windows 9x. Windows has been going downhill since 98SE. But XP is still light years ahead of anything Microsoft has done since. Maybe we should move all of the "criticism" of this or that OS threads to the General Discussion section so that way no one can make the claim that we are somehow being unfair to poor Microsoft. Or maybe they need a "trigger warning..." I think this particular back-and-forth has run its course. Jody, you say you aren't trolling. Fine. But you need to realize that it frequently comes across that way whether you intend it or not. It's kind of like poking a hornets nest just to see what happens. Let's go to a product-specific forum, populated by avid users of said product, who clearly have no interest in changing their chosen product, and ask them when they think it's going to be OK for them to give up using said product because other people think they should. What kind of answers do you think you're going to get? Is there water in the ocean? Come on, man. And, aside from this, you never truly remain a "neutral commentator." You always manage to throw in some "weasel" comment such as "the future, one that XP cannot be part of because of technical limitations". While this statement may not be incorrect, it is also not an unbiased assessment. If XP has "technical limitations," this is not inherently the fault of the OS, it is the fault of Microsoft and whomever else no longer writing code for it. There is no "technical" reason why code (programs, drivers, whatever) can no longer be written for XP. Microsoft chooses in this case (and I'm not saying they don't have the right, but that's not the point) to artificially limit the capabilities of XP. This choice on their part makes the limitation, not the OS. Agreed that the petition is pointless, because we have no leverage sufficient enough to influence a corporation to make this choice or that. If Firefox were a paid product there might be some hope, but none in this case. The problem with New Moon, Basilisk, and MyPal is that they are all one-man operations, and I know from my own experience that eventually real life will come along and shut down your operation sooner or later, no matter how dedicated you are or how much you want to keep something going. Aside from this first point, all three are subsequently dependent on the whims of Moonchild Porductions, which has no love for anything "legacy." I cannot fathom how Moonchild & company have such a disconnect wherein they want to preserve something "legacy" as in the classic UI of a browser, but they don't have any respect for trying to preserve a "classic" operating system, especially when the code involved was already written to support the "classic" OS to begin with. When the code is already written for that particular OS, it's nothing but a bald-faced lie and pure laziness to claim they can't "support" it (and who even CARES if they support it, so long as they don't break it intentionally). I've been very amazed so far that they have not made some intentional change to the code to make roytam1's job more difficult. Personally I've drawn a line after Vista; not that beyond XP is really acceptable, and Vista is almost in the same boat as XP these days; but at least Vista retained the classic UI intact. Beyond Vista I will not go. There's always Linux. I finally found a Linux distribution using the Trinity Desktop Environment as its main DE. Have a look at these Q4OS & XPQ4. On a side note I'm finding this situation hilarious in a way... I can remember the days when the XP users used to harass the 9x users about upgrading and "newer is better" and "NT is better" and all that rubbish. And here I am defending XP. The irony...

I think that is very aptly put. I am going to hang to in with XP as long as I am able, much like 98SE which I liked, but eventually will have to move to Win7 for practical reasons. Luckily, all my XP progs seem to work on Win7. Figure this will be in the next year or two max. In the interim since I dual boot, it will give me time to get used to Win7. Good Luck

I see you've decided to come trolling again Jody... because what else is this really? If you no longer use XP, you no longer care about XP, and you think XP users are somehow backward, then why do you bother to come here to read the XP forum or even attempt to engage the XP users? You say you come here for "discussion" - but most of the time you're only interested in pushing the "accept change and move on" argument. You will agree or semi-agree with some minor point here and there to maintain the impression that you're having a fair discussion or that you're open-minded, but in the end your opinion never really changes. So why do you keep expecting other users minds to change? Do you just like to keep the disagreement stirred up to waste everyone's time? Why do you have such an intense interest in what operating system others choose to use if your mind is already made up about it? Why does it seem to bother you so much when other people don't just "go with the flow?" Who are you to question anyone else for their choices, or to seek "justifications" for those choices? (even if, as you claim, you mean nothing ill by it) If you really believe that something newer is always better, then you're welcome to your opinion. But that's nothing more than "chronological snobbery." The fact that something is newer does not make it better than something older. In fact, the reverse is frequently true. This attitude (prevalent most everywhere I look online these days) that it's OK to force, browbeat, insult the intelligence of, shame, chide, or in any other manner "push" users of any product to give it up for something newer just because someone else says it's better is a cancer, pure and simple. I'll bet that most people pushing this drivel would be deeply offended if say, someone told them their political views were wrong and that they should change because someone else says so. Too many people today are willing to sing the praises of freedom until that freedom applies to something they don't like. Yes, Microsoft has a right to change their products and/or change their business philosophy or whatever. But as far as I am concerned they have a moral obligation to NOT WILLFULLY make it more difficult for users of previous products to keep those products operating. Said users paid for those products, and the fact that some time has passed does not make those users somehow obligated to give up something that works perfectly well and buy something else because Microsoft says so. Don't want to support it any longer? Fine. But don't start putting roadblocks out for those older systems intentionally. This is the main root of the problem that many of us have with Microsoft and many other software/tech companies. It's not what they choose to do, but how they go about doing it. So they want to release a new operating system? Fine. Release it, and if it's really better than what users already have then people will begin to move to it of their own accord. Where the problem arises is 1)when they start pushing FUD garbage about how suddenly you will become vulnerable to this or that catastrophe simply because you haven't chosen to move on; 2)when they use their "influence" to push other companies and products to no longer support an older system; and 3)when they start "manipulating history" to remove information or files relevant to older products, thereby making it more difficult to keep the older systems running (which once again were paid for, and the fact that time has passed does not invalidate this). Very few things make me angrier than when I follow a link to Microsoft's site that is supposed to lead me to some documentation or update for an older system and instead I get some garbage like "We're sorry. This page/update is no longer available. Update to Windows 10 today! It's up to date, fast and secure!" My response? Sure. When .... freezes over. +1 Amen. +1

Happy happy Joy joy! I restored a system backup from April that I did with AOMEI Backupper, which went surprisingly smooth, and then KB4343900 got installed with no issues Now it's time to update other program and components... Many thanks @Tripredacus for leading me into the path to the solution. Two lessons from this case to be remembered: 1) Start investigating 0x80073701 issues from checking if any past update went wrong. 2) Always, remember to do regular backups, keep 'em safe and ready to use Topic can be closed.

Well it appears that we've made a slight breakthrough... I finally managed to extract the installer using Command Prompt. And as a result, I got an MSI file along with a few other installation files. I took the MSI file and modified it with Orca MSI Editor, and I was able to easily remove the OS restriction in the file. However, there's another problem.. When I opened the MSI, I got an error about Windows Installer. My assumption is, Windows Vista only recieved Windows Installer 4.5, and this requires 5.0 to work properly, which unfortunately isn't available for Vista. I'm about out of ideas.. Thoughts anyone? Screenshots: http://prntscr.com/76v661 http://prntscr.com/76v63j