Leaderboard

That isn't a problem only for users of older OSes; it's a problem for anyone who prefers a platform other than Google's Chromium! Opera switched to Chromium long ago. Micro$oft switched from IE to Edge a little less long ago, but the "new" M$ Edge for Win 7/8.1? It's Chromium-based. It's gotten to where Chromium is the new IE monopoly! (But at least M$ wasn't using IE to spy on me or to dragoon me into helping train their AI.) I sometimes wonder if I should have a SSUAO for Google sites, claiming to be Chrome, just so Google's reCaptchas don't bug me quite so much, but then I remember I'd have to update the SSUAO almost as often as @looking4awayout updates the UOC Patch! No, he means New Moon, as the Pale Moon folks will angrily tell you if you ever make that innocent mistake on one of their forums. "Pale Moon" is only one of the browsers officially released by Moonchild Productions. Pale Moon does not run on OSes considered "obsolete," like XP or Vista, and woe to the poor soul that mentions XP or Vista on a Pale Moon forum. Anyone else's build is "New Moon" unless they develop their own branding (e.g., MyPal, Arctic Fox) for their own fork of Pale Moon. Edit: Doggone it, @VistaLover beat me to it again! Foiled by a page break....

If/When @looking4awayout's build process slows down a bit, I can happily host it on my site. I can do it now but it wont be easy keeping up with his new builds every five minutes.

I'm just speculating here, but I bet that the part where they fail is when MU says "verifying download", doesn't see a valid SHA-1 cert, and fails. The Standalone updates either don't check, or use their own/more basic integrity checking method.

Out of curiosity, I downloaded that MS update from the link in the KB article; that fetched file "excel2010-kb4484164-fullfile-x86-glb.exe", sized 36.1 MB (!). I can confirm this is only SHA-2 code-signed: You'll have to test file code-signing signatures in a fully updated Win7 system (or higher) or, in my case, in Vista SP2 with one of the WS2008SP2 updates which give the OS SHA-2 code-signing verification support... Trying the Windows Update Catalog link (mentioned in that same KB article), http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4484164 I ended up with a different file, excel-x-none_a5b150722cca4d6d9b062063747b02df0eaaaf51.cab (sized 19.8 MB); extracting it yields an excel-x-none.msp file (Windows Installer Patch, sized 40.3 MB), which is also only SHA-2 code-signed; notice that on the MUC, only a generic version is offered, regardless of the OS on which Office 2010 is installed ; perhaps the .exe and .msp files check OS version when launched, but it didn't occur to M$ that XP+Vista don't support SHA-2 code-signatures; there was a specific update on Vista (KB2763674) that allowed for .exe file execution even in the case the .exe was only SHA-2 signed, I guess a similar one might exist in XP (as part of the POSReady ones?) ... The deal breaker here is that Windows Update on both XP and Vista was never patched to deliver updates signed with only sha-2 code signatures - for WS2008SP2, such an update does exist, but when that's installed on Vista, it changes the build number of Vista to 6.0.6003 - but that cuts off Vista completely from WU servers , because they were only configured to serve Vista 6.0.6002 builds; it emerges that WU servers are intelligent enough to tell apart Vista 6.0.6003 (blocked) from WS2008 6.0.6003 (supported); so, starting with Nov 2019 (and for the remaining updates till Oct 2020), users of Office 2010 SP2 on XP/Vista should manually install applicable updates from either MS Download Center/MUC... ( ... and you thought M$ would screw Office 2010 only on XP, by sending incompatible mso.dll files... )

Direct links to official Adobe Flash Player distribution packages version 32.0.0.293 with SHA-1 signature released today (should work with Windows XP SP3/Windows XP x64 SP2) Internet Explorer ActiveX: http://fpdownload.adobe.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/32.0.0.293/install_flash_player_ax.exe Mozilla Firefox NPAPI (also for Opera Presto/Google Chrome 44 and earlier): http://fpdownload.adobe.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/32.0.0.293/install_flash_player.exe Google Chrome 45 through 49 PPAPI: http://fpdownload.adobe.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/32.0.0.293/install_flash_player_ppapi.exe

I guess it's again time for the monthly batch of updates. KB4526478 - Servicing Stack Update for Windows Server 2008 - 32-bit | 64-bit KB4525106 - Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 9 - 32-bit | 64-bit KB4525234 - Security Monthly Quality Rollup for Windows Server 2008 - 32-bit | 64-bit KB4525239 - Security Only Quality Update for Windows Server 2008 - 32-bit | 64-bit Optional updates: KB4528081 - Update for Windows Server 2008 - 64-bit (apparently this update lets Server 2008 machines get updates after Jan. 2020 but it's only available in the 64-bit flavor for some reason) And that's it for November updates for now, but I'm pretty sure another timezone update will be released in a couple days so will try to add it to this list as soon as it's out.

Standalone installers are working fine, updates have been installed.

That actually sounds like an old problem that's come back! We used to complain about this all the time on the POSReady '09 thread. Then M$ did something and the problem went away - until now. Uh-oh; that sounds more serious. It sounds like M$ is now signing Office updates with SHA2 signatures. XP was never updated to validate that type of code-signing signature. Your only hope is to extract the updated files with something like 7-Zip and replace the original files manually.

If they're using DRM (with no Silverlight NPAPI fallback), then 1. Any version of Pale Moon (official 27.9.4 runs on Vista, official 28.x.x doesn't) or New Moon don't have any support for EME, DRM and the WidevineCDM needed to decrypt the DRM'ed streams. 2. If you're actually using the Serpent 52.9.0 fork, able to run on Vista, then I have seriously bad news to tell you: while St52 does support EME/DRM, the version of WidevineCDM it is compatible with is 1.4.9.1088; that version was revoked by Widevine licence servers (owned by Google) on Aug 13th, 2019. There is a task underway by a Moonchild Productions developer to port support to latest official Basilisk for currently supported WidevineCDM v4.10.1440.19; this task is currently stalling due to real life issues affecting that developer; even if/when that attempt reaches fruition, it is a moot point for the Serpent fork on Vista; new WidevineCDM dlls contain functions (actually, only one: TryAcquireSRWLockExclusive, Win7+) not compatible with Vista's kernel32.dll system file; as WidevineCDM is proprietary closed source code and Google don't support the CDM on Vista, there's practically 0 chance DRM services requiring WV will ever work again on Vista If Disney+ use DRM with WV, then, if you can, try Firefox Quantum 60.9.0/68.2.0 (with WV v4.10.1440.19) on a supported OS (Win7+); or the latest Chrome there; as I can't try D+ myself, I speculate your predicament is DRM related; if they don't employ DRM - highly unlikely - then some other member here (in the US, CA or NL) might throw some light... PS: If you don't grasp some terminology in this post, Google is your friend (actually, in the above WV context, your foe... ). Regards

Are YOU sure? Have you tried going to Pale Moon's site and installing one of it's themes or extension?

No, he's right: Pale Moon (28) is the official browser by Moonchild Productions that targets Win7+; the fork maintained by @roytam1 is a yet unbranded one, with the (interim) name being New Moon, that adds (restores) XP and Vista compatibility to the browser; over the course of development, Pale Moon and New Moon (and certainly Basilisk and Serpent) have diverged even further, beyond the initial point of New Moon being just "Pale Moon for XP"; also, you're kindly asked to refer to the fork as New Moon only, because using the official branding (Pale Moon) when actually meaning the fork tends to aggravate the upstream developers (who then make angry appearances here and lash out at the fork maintainer and users...). I realise you're a new addition to the MSFN forums, I'd like to welcome you, too, but kindly advise you to get some facts straight first by reading existing threads... Regards

Notice: git repo update times may be decreased as I need more time on transportation to/from workplace at the moment. #5DN1L

I installed the Windows XP Professional x64 operating system on a Samsung 970 Pro NVME SSD drive using an ASRock X99 Extreme4 motherboard. Really easy the second time. Download Kai Schtrom's driver here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/nvme-for-windows-2003-server/files/ Download KB932755 here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11619 Download AOMEI Backupper Standard here: https://www.aomeitech.com/download.html Use diskpart in Windows 7 x64 to create the aligned partition on, and format, the NVMe drive (the Windows 7 OS must have an NVMe driver installed, or diskpart will not be able to see the NVMe drive). Use Device Manager in XP x64 to install Schtrom's driver, which makes the NVMe SSD available as a storage drive -- and the XP x64 operating system as such now includes the NVMe driver. Run the storport hotfix. Use AOMEI Backupper to clone the XP x64 disk to the NVMe disk (remember to align the partition). Reboot into the BIOS and set the NVMe drive to boot first. I don't know whether Kai Schtrom had Windows XP 64-bit in mind when he wrote his driver, but for those of you running that OS it does present the potential for significant performance improvement, to say the least.

OK, since you can't add code when editing a post, here it is: [spoiler] [/spoiler]

It's undocumented, but you can try this:

Well, when I'll get out of options, I'll consider that.

Here is a regrouping place for when RyanVM.net members need to communicate and that board is unavailable for any reason.

A lot of normal "legacy" firefox extensions work just fine too...

Any updates on AeroGlass for latest Windows 10 1909?

I mainly Use @roytam1's K-Meleon, Serpent, and New Moon 28 builds. Some people say they have sites that wont load in these but I have encountered one as of yet. I've never tried the 360 extreme browser, because while I hear some tracking is blocked, it doesn't sound like all is. And I have no real need for a heavy chrome browser anyway.

(The discussion topic here is horizontal scrolling via mousewheel ) Hi ; most members frequenting this thread are on Windows XP (or older OSes), with the exception of the few Vista users like me; not all of such members have ready access to Win7 or higher... I tested several Firefox versions (up-to-and-including v53) that would run in my system, I wasn't able to enable HS in any of them, via either of the following "mousewheel.with_*.action" prefs: mousewheel.with_control.action;4 mousewheel.with_shift.action;4 It turns out that HS was enabled in Firefox only as recently as v58.0: Horizontal Scrolling with Mouse wheel+ modifier key and, mind you, that was a bug originally opened in 2002 (!) ... Mercurial commit that implemented the fix: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/63b547bb4078 So, pray tell, which was "every other version of firefox" ? Actually, that's quite an interesting story... Horizontal scrolling had been implemented in a perfect way by MCP in the previous PM platform, Tycho, forked off Mozilla ESR 38; New Moon 27.9.x, currently maintained by @roytam1, is built on Tycho ; HS in Tycho can be enabled by setting one of the "mousewheel.with_*.action" prefs to a value of 4. HS in Tycho works on both pages and frames; to test it on a page, zoom the page content until a horizontal scroll bar appears in the bottom of the tab; keep the designated key pressed and by simply moving the mousewheel, that bar should move, too... To test on a frame, just load https://www.bing.com in a tab and then have the bookmarks/history sidebar displayed (e.g. ctrl+B); increase the sidebar's width to the right, so that a horizontal scroll bar appears in the bottom of the bing tab... When PM was ported from Tycho to UXP, that feature (HS) regressed : https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=20119 => https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/732 => https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commit/f0e053a However, Moonchild's fix was only partial, in that HS works in PM/NM28 for pages only, not frames; relevant UXP bug is still open: https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1173 will have a look later to see if I can fix it or not What you can obviously do is try whether UXP bug 732 (linked to above) applies cleanly in Moebius; of course, it would be just as partial, i.e. only apply on pages... IDK whether Mozilla bug 143038 is a better approach to the issue at hand... FWIW, legacy extension "Shift + Scroll (Horizontal Scrolling)" is available via CAA ("caa:addon/shift-scroll", originally over at AMO ); not tested ...

Then if AeroGlass needs only a whitelist string please BigMuscle give us customers a small update-release!

To curb the error-message that you have to cancel or what are you referring to? We already know the current build of Glass8 works fine on 1909, there's just this error message you have to click away because the build isn't whitelisted.

I have tried the PDB Downloader, doesn't work, at least not on 1909, I still get the error. I just click retry or cancel and it goes away, I am sure there will be a fix for it put out a few weeks before 20H1 is released, then we will need the fix for 20H1.

I'm currently working to overhaul my desktop machine, which uses XP64. I've got an ASUS SABERTOOTH TUF X99 mobo I'll be using and apparently it can support NVMe SSDs, although I do see one person saying that the drives get zero airflow and heat up to 80 C / 176 F when using the mobo's native connection, which ... does not sound ideal. Will this driver work with the SABERTOOTH X99s? Also, what would you recommend in order to TRIM? We have a thread on that for XP32, but I don't know if what software would be recommended for XP64, especially for this type of SSD.