Leaderboard

There's a way to do it without LoadLibraryA or GetProcAddress. This is what I do with everything cause I would rather spend my own time getting those functions in the import table than having the dll use a bunch of CPU clock cycles finding it. If it imports to the last file in the list, I can just add the import to the end. If it doesn't, here's what I do: 1. Shift every reference to everything in the import address table that's going to be moved by how much it will be moved. Example: The order of dlls imported is gdi32, kernel32, ntdll and I want to add an import to gdi32 (this is literally what I've been doing today in user32). I would shift every reference to every address in the import address table that corresponds to ntdll or kernel32 up by 4. I do this in HxD with the replace tool and I start at the very end and go up the table until I get through all the ntdll and kernel32 imports. 2. Rebuild the import directory in PEMaker. In my example, I would delete all the imports to kernel32 and ntdll, add the new gdi32 import, and readd all the kernel32 and ntdll imports with the addresses shifted up by 4. Tip for Step 2: I make the PEMaker window as short as possible to reduce physical strain from moving the mouse from the table to the delete button as many times as I need, since that number of times is usually in the hundreds. Note: Import hints don't needed to be correct when added back when doing this. They aren't essential for the file to work and if you care, ImportPatcher v29 can automatically correct them.

Done! It's elsewhere, now:

Also , you can just skip 4.0 and install whatever version you need - 4.6.1 or 4.5.0 , for example , and the programmes that demand 4.0 will find the files they want. About Seagate , yes , that's right . No Seagate for Vista. And , I think , SSD is not needed to . Just a fast HDD . 10000RPM HDDs work fantastic with Vista. Some newer ones , like WD10EZEX are fine too. Though , I don't trust them as much as I trust Raptors.

Here, you will find a list of software compatible with Windows Vista, after installing the new extended kernel by Win32. As this project is very new, this list will remain quite short for the time being. List: BeamNG.Drive 0.16 and later Chromium versions 53-73 beta (later versions currently do not work) Firefox "classic" versions 53-56 Firefox Quantum version 57 and later GIMP 2.10.18 Google Earth 7.3.3 and later Interlink Mail client Logitech Gaming Software 9.02 Opera 44 (later versions currently do not work) Palemoon 28.x Rocket League Thunderbird versions 53 and later Waterfox Classic Waterfox Current Whatsapp I will continue to update this list as more software is made compatible. Feel free to contribute your own additions in the form of a reply to the topic, and I will add them ASAP.

Hello all, this is something that has been making my mind boggle. As you fellow forum members certainly know, Android has been giving its versions codenames starting from Cupcake upto Pie. And as you may have noticed, Android 10 was not given the name of any confectionery item. My opinion on this is: Android 10 should have been given a name of Android Q- for Qubani-ka-Meetha (it's a popular Indian sweet made of apricots, wiki page will be linked here). How many of you fellow MSFN members share my opinion and agree with what I say? Please let me know your opinion about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubani-ka-Meetha

I don't trust HDDs from ebay , esp. from China. Even if the seller is honest , they can get easily damaged during transportation . You're better off with WD10EZEX then. Vista boot time from this EZEX with Xeon X5450 , DDR3 RAM is about 6-7 secs. to it's fully loaded state. And 5 seconds with Raptor, so I guess you will survive :-) . Though I don't know the boot time if a ton of updates is installed.

I totally understand you have your own way of things , so I'm just writing for the others to spare their time and support the previous poster . Of course , deep in my heart , I hope you will listen too . The 4.X.X range , for example 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 are in-place upgrade of 4.0, they overwrite files in the 4.0 folder during the installation , so there is no need to install them all. As you may (or may not) guess , this was not invented/implemented by me. And here's the official Microsoft's statement. Scroll to "in-place update". So one can easily install it over 4.0 and be done with it. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4054531/microsoft-net-framework-4-7-2-web-installer-for-windows P.S. By the way , congratulations on your first day won , you're here for over half of a year (only) , so this is a remarkable achievement !

@win32 I suggest you to take a look on this build: Windows Vista build 5270 I managed to install it on my 3rd gen intel laptop (took 2 days, because it is really buggy) but I got logon failure simmilar to the Vista one, albeit I could not test more things due to missing drivers obviously. Maybe something has changed around this period. I can’t say really because any other build refused to install. 5048 was the worst one, I’ve never seen so many bsods trying to boot into preinstallation environment Edit: I’ve said 3rd gen, but I’ve meant 5th gen (idk how did I mislabeled them in my head).

Bingo, that was it, thanks. It was unchecked but I now have that option checked.

What the h***? It's somewhat like Apple' restrictions that don't allow 2012-era MacBooks to run MacOS Big Sur!! Same here. I always thought of smartphones as computers in essential, replacing desktops and laptops when we were away from them. Now everything has moved to the 'modern mobile first ' trend. Don't you agree? Not meaning to insult my country in any way, but I was thinking, Indian government made an app to track COVID-19 cases nearby that always showed the security status as Safe, even when there were patients in nearby houses. And this was made mandatory once lockdown was lifted!!! What is this??

I confirming that - on my machine Version 3.1.4.2 it is not working with same message. This means that LS-Tecnology forgot to update system requirements for last version because this message appears when minimal requirements is Vista. However, i also can confirm that Version v3.0.3.2 definitely can work in XP SP3:

There's like no reason to use anything above 4.19 though.