Leaderboard

Are you serious? Really? No offense meant, but what world do you live in? XP SP3 went EoS on April 8 2014 (and POSReady 2009, on Apr 9 2019). Now, we're on Apr 26 2021, just over two years after that, what on Earth justifies believing MS did that by mistake, while striving to keep backward compatibility with an OS they'd rather had disappeared already? They wouldn't be able to care less even if they bothered to try it! Come on, wake up to reality, it's time already! And make no mistake, I do love XP SP3 and actually use it as my main OS to this day.

Generally speaking, I think Windows 8.1 will be treated like Vista when it comes to Supported Software. To be fair, the following companies should have separated XP‘s EOL from Vista‘s EOL: Google: Chrome support ended 2 years after XP’s EOL in 2016 with v49. If they would have done the same 2 year hiatus after Vista‘s EOL, we would probably have Chrome up to v73/74. Mozilla: Firefox XP users functionality updates nearly 3 years after EOL. Imagine, Vista‘s EOL was in 2017 and additional 3 years would mean that users could have possibly be at Firefox v68 ESR/78ESR Microsoft: To be really honest with you guys, Microsoft did the most sh*t, when it comes to Software Compatibility with Vista. 1. It literally came with WMP 11 and stayed with it until EOL, although 12 was pre-released, 2 YEARS after Vista‘s release. XP on the other hand, came with WMP 6 (?) and got all the way up to WMP 11?? 2. Microsoft Live Essentials 2012 was a heavy improvement over 2011 and I‘m sure that Vista could have ran that software easily 3. Internet Explorer 9 is the biggest cra* browser that is still updated nowadays. Please never tell me that this browser is good. I was mad that MS stopped producing IE and replaced it with Edge. That‘s so confusing in Windows 10 with two browsers but anyways.. IE9 was released in early 2011, when Vista was 3 years old. However, Vista‘s Mainstream Support ended in 2012, which means that never IE versions could have definitely be ported to it as well. If they would have released new IE versions annually, XP should gave gotten IE9/10 and Vista 11+. Why I am so mad? Because when we speak of Vista, we also mean Server 2008 SP2. An operating system, which is used in bigger companies and businesses. What‘s the point of updating IE9 for sooooo long, if businesses cant do anything, not even check E-Mails anymore? Server 2008 is my biggest argument for these unjustified EOL‘s. My father‘s company still relies on that OS with ESU on it now, but everytime I see Vista/Server 2008, a bitter irony floats through me: the only still secure browser is Internet Explorer 9 and it‘s basically useless. Anything that scores below 300 HTML5 points cant be used properly to browse the web anymore

I used to be on here back in the 2003-2004 timeframe and was basically DevOps building Windows XP, it became rather fun and I built a pipeline for all of our PCs at work (only about 200 systems). I was responsible for all aspects of IT at that point, except for our ERP system. It has been a rather long time since then and I finished my BS while working at that job and the next job. I have done tons of enterprise work since then and I work as a consultant doing Azure work, these days. I use Packer to create system images these days and want to get a little more serious with Chocolatey in order to streamline the software installation. EDIT: My desktop is Windows Server 2019 Datacenter. I have a couple of NVMe drives and 64GB of RAM and run Hyper-V for VMs.

https://aka.ms/framework-sha1-retirement

Did you try adding a custom resolution with VBoxManage.exe? Some hints here - https://superuser.com/questions/443445/how-can-i-get-virtualbox-to-run-at-1366x768 How did you even get two displays in a single guest? Or these are separate VMs?

Welcome to the MSFN forums, @FalcoFantastic Let me first say I find it highly praise-worthy that you are willing to accommodate users of the arduino forums that happen, for various reasons, to be stuck on older hardware/OS that would warrant the use of "niche" browsers like New Moon 27 (NM27) ... I think it should be first prudent to familiarise you with what exactly NM27 is... NM27 is an unbranded unofficial fork of version 27 of the Pale Moon browser, originally developed by Moonchild Productions; v27 of PM is no longer maintained by "upstream", they are already at v29 of Pale Moon... NM27 is modified to run on at least Windows XP SP3 (original PM27 required at least Vista SP2), it is now being "updated" with code from another upstream project by ArcticFox/rmottola, which tries to "equip" it with features from higher ( > 38 ) Firefox versions... NM27 is built on a platform originally called Tycho (name given by MCP), itself a fork of Mozilla 38esr (heavily modified along the way...) ; it is being compiled in three flavours, two of which (sse-only/ia32-only) are very popular with members here on old CPUs incapable of SSE2 instruction set ... So, @Vistapocalypse is right when saying that NM27 should be at least on par with Fx38; in fact, I loaded your test URI in Fx38.8.0esr and got the exact same console errors as in NM27: For my test in NM27 trying to load the new format of the arduino forum, please see this . Kindest regards

@roytam1 Roy, regarding browser crashing, I just tested with NM Version: 27.9.7 (32-bit) (2021-02-19) and everything went smooth. Opening, viewing and closing PDF's are hassle-free. No crash at all. So the problem must be browser-related. The above NM version is the last 27.9er before shift to 27.10 branch. Maybe something to go on for you??

New Moon 27’s JavaScript engine should be equivalent to Firefox 38!?

thats auto-detect in runtime

there is no such switch. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/arch-x86?view=msvc-140

Java 8 has been broken bit by bit for XP, jdk u60: javafxpackager/javapackager not run because of PE issue jre u60: javafx might not run on non-SSE2? as it compiled by vc2013 jre u112: javafx not works on XP, last working U111 jre u151: the last working installer jre u251: native crypto provider MSCAPI switch to NCrypt (API prefix also changed) jre u261: all exe not run because of PE issue, TLS 1.3 introduced note that this guide not needed if you use ojdkbuild https://github.com/ojdkbuild/ojdkbuild/releases/download/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.242-1.b08-x86/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.242-1.b08.ojdkbuild.windows.x86.msi How to make oracle java installer for XP? First, Oracle doesn't use normal approach with its installer, inside its executable e.g. jre-8u241-windows-i586.exe there is msi but this it doesn't do the entire job, there is another installer within it that do extraction and binary patching (bsdiff) while reporting back to msiexec (msi and installer.exe must from same version), any failure will cancel remaining actions and trigger rollback tools needed: xn resource editor (resource hacker 4.2.5 run out of memory when injecting huge file) orca bsdiff (search bsdiff4.3-win32.zip) archiver e.g. 7zip 1. Get the msi from U111, U151 and U241 installer using xnre. open jre-8uXXX-windows-i586.exe, go to RCDATA ordinal 100 and export as jreXXX.exe open jreXXX.exe, go to JAVA_INSTALLER ordinal 103, export as jreXXX.msi 2. Extract jreXXX.msi from cmd run msiexec /a jreXXX.msi /qb TARGETDIR="%CD%\jreXXX\" 3. edit jre151.msi inside jre151 folder, open jre151.msi in orca replace text 151->241, 1.8.0.1510.12->1.8.0.2410.7, b12 -> b07, 1.8.0_151->1.8.0_241 optional: change summary and the guid of package, upgrade and product code change INSTALLDIR's defaultdir set updater property to 0, not really needed since we skip its msi (ordinal 105) 4. Extract the "final zip" of U111 and U241 inside jreXXX\Java\jre1.8.0_XXX open installer.exe in xnre export RCDATA ordinal 5 as patch.bs and 6 as old.zip run bspatch old.zip new,zip patch.bs extract the new zip 5. Combine U111 and U241 Replace javafx files (see below) in U241's extracted new.zip with one from U111 Remove C++ 2017 runtime from U241 as they only needed by JavaFX U241 6. Recreate bspatch step with combined zip Zip combined jre files as jre.zip (use store compression) and make a copy as jre2.zip run bsdiff jre.zip jre2.zip patch.bs, yes just a dummy diff. replace U151 installer.exe RCDATA 5->patch.bs and 6->jre.zip set the proper ordinal and locale as original one. 7. Ptionally re-run msiexec /a jre151.msi /qb TARGETDIR="%CD%\jre151\" to cleanup the msi 8. Test it JavaFX files: bin\msvcp120.dll bin\msvcr120.dll bin\javafxpackager.exe (jdk) bin\fxplugins.dll bin\glass.dll bin\glib-lite.dll bin\gstreamer-lite.dll bin\javafx_font.dll bin\javafx_font_t2k.dll bin\javafx_iio.dll bin\jfxmedia.dll bin\jfxwebkit.dll bin\prism_common.dll bin\prism_d3d.dll bin\prism_sw.dll lib\ant-javafx.jar (jdk) lib\javafx.properties lib\javafx-mx.jar (jdk) lib\jfxswt.jar caveat: browser plugin is marked as unverified, not really matter as applet will get blocked anyway due to "out of date" policy. If you need to browser plugin (for retro purpose), use Java 6 or older. Personally I have rebuild installer with jdk tool included, it could save space at just 39MB while jre-only at 29MB. The saving come from the fact that no actual binary patch happen.

So, you just randomly decided to bury my PC?! Nah, it survived for 20 years, this is nothing. I just need some free time for maintenance

Evidently related to what abbodi1406 mentioned in his April 14 post on the previous page.

New build of post-deprecated Serpent/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 52.9, but some security patches can not be applied/ported due to source milestone differences between versions. Test binary: Win32 http://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk55-win32-git-20210424-3b8a3eb13-xpmod.7z Win64 http://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk55-win64-git-20210424-3b8a3eb13-xpmod.7z repo: https://github.com/roytam1/basilisk55 Repo changes: - import changes from tenfourfox: - #642: M1677940 M1698503 M1699835 (modified) (4f70dd5c9) - #642: update eTLDs, HSTS (0136f8aca) (3b8a3eb13)

I have some systems in a LAN, connected through the usual cable-company supplied WAN/LAN router. Router brand is Technicolor. File sharing is set disabled in the Windows XP systems, in the LAN-Adapter settings. At the moment I cannot say exactly how necessary that is for security, but that is what I did. The router had a nice option to use an USB storage device as a NAS. It worked to some degree, however, it is bugged: At some point certain files start to behave read-only. So the past years I have been just swapping around USB storage. (And experiencing reliability issues with USB 3 drives and USB 3 SD card readers, which have made me prefer USB 2 again for these ones. No issues with larger 2,5" USB 3 devices ) Can someone recommend a small NAS like solution for sharing files between Windows XP and Linux? Just to hold some music and books and transfer some small files. Thanks in advance Edit: I do have a small E350 nettop with Windows XP functioning as internet radio. But am hesitant to make it the file sharing device. Maybe if I would install Linux on it instead.

My first post! This was interesting as I just set up a cheap thin client with gigabit ethernet running OpenBSD 24/7 serving files. I wanted both encrypted SSH/SFTP and unencrypted FTP access as the devices in my household are both new and old. Works very well!

Donated also, but life goes on and so I have moved on also, cannot wait. Uninstalled Aero Glass and updated Windows 10. I will miss you Aero Glass.