Leaderboard

Well spotted! The thing is I had the following rule in uB0's My Filters ! Block globally AdobeDTM SatelliteLib scripts ||adobedtm.com^$third-party,important ... since many months ago , so that's why I was able to load the referenced links in my previous post ... The crux of the issue is UXP's incompatibility with the SatelliteLib Adobe are including in their tracking scripts , so yes, ALL UXP- based browsers/forks are affected... In fact, if you search for "adobedtm.com" in the official PM forums, you'll discover many related cases: https://forum.palemoon.org/search.php?keywords=adobedtm.com I think the issue for me was first manifested on Oracle's site (see here) and I now remembered I actually sought help here in these forums about it ; solution was provided then by @UCyborg, further analysis by yours truly can be read here ... Nothing to do with the Windows XP OS per se (apart from the fact it won't run the latest versions of Chromium and siblings (including Firefox Browser), on which the Adobe tracking scripts are made/tested to work without issues...). Generalising is easy sometimes, but not necessarily the truth ... 360EE browser, based on recent versions of Chromium and made XP/Vista-compatible, has no issues dealing with the adobedtm scripts and, thus, with the sites that make use of it... But, being a Chinese product, it isn't easily endorsed by the XP community... Anyhow, 360EE is OT here and has dedicated forum threads (with some enhanced activity lately... ) Best wishes

Don't know. You can REM lines one at a time to search if there is an entry causing this behaviour. Maybe start with the ANSI.SYS-line. Type 'REM ' at the beginning (without quotes) and reboot. BTW Why are you using COMMAND.COM from C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND instead from C:\WINDOWS ?

Normally HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE are in the Windows-directory, NOT in WINDOWS\COMMAND. I'm not sure about ANSI.SYS - search with DIR ANSI.SYS /s from the command-line (can take a while).

Windows Blinds + Start is back ++ Definitely getting there with the support! Only bugs are the windows 7 jump lists are black, occasionally the taskbar buttons will have the appearance that there are more than one program open, but usually fixes itself, and the start menu's font color is black/blur/acrylic blur no longer works on the start menu (same with Open-Shell but definitely windows blinds fault. I'm not gonna complain, this is the closest I've gotten to a fully functional Windows 7 look. Of course it's gonna have its limitations, that's to be expected, but I just wanted to report on it!

Hi ragnargd, Thank you for your donation of $100.00. We look forward to improving the forums and stay online with your donation. MSFN Team

Enough! It was just a misunderstanding. So let's stop here, please.

For those interested in trying the beta releases, I've found a Dropbox that contains thirteen beta releases (these are the X-Pen repack versions). Page that contains the Dropbox = http://effect8.ru/soft/browsers/360-extreme-explorer-portable.html The actual Dropbox itself = https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1br0hs9ft84gf0v/AADEnsCRUFogCCHFSX8SBkHZa

The article gives a link to the DOS date/time format. But following this link gave me a 403 Forbidden Error. Luckily the link is stored in the Wayback-machine. First 2004-entry gives information below (and a nice picture, not nice anymore in the quote): "Number four: The DOS date/time format The DOS date/time format is a bitmask: 24 16 8 0 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|M| |M|M|M|D|D|D|D|D| |h|h|h|h|h|m|m|m| |m|m|m|s|s|s|s|s| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \___________/\________/\_________/ \________/\____________/\_________/ year month day hour minute second The year is stored as an offset from 1980. Seconds are stored in two-second increments. (So if the "second" value is 15, it actually represents 30 seconds.) These values are recorded in local time. November 26, 2002 at 7:25p PST = 0x2D7A9B20. To convert these values to something readable, convert it to a FILETIME via DosDateTimeToFileTime, then convert the FILETIME to something readable." https://web.archive.org/web/20040614163825/http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/09/05/54806.aspx EDIT: this looks like the 'math' needed (hex-binary-decimal, done with a converter-website). Please correct me if I'm wrong. MS-DOS DATE/TIME FORMAT LITTLE ENDIAN: 20 9B 7A 2D HEX: 0x2D7A9B20 BIN: [0010110] [1011] [11010] [10011] [011001] [00000] DOS: [yyyyyyy] [mmmm] [ddddd] [hhhhh] [mmmmmm] [sssss] DEC: [22] [11] [26] [19] [25] [0] DATE+TIME: 2002 / 11 / 26 / 7:25:00 pm BTW I added the Little Endian bytes. Excercise in behalf of Wunderbar, no calculator needed: Little Endian: 01 a9 82 4e Hexa-decimal: 0x4E82A901 Decimal => Binairy 4 0100 E=14 1110 8 1000 2 0010 A=10 1010 9 1001 0 0000 1 0001 yyyyyy 0100111 = 39 mmmm 0100 = 04 ddddd 00010 = 02 hhhhh 10101 = 21 mmmmmm 001000 = 08 sssss 00001 = 01 = x2 1980+39 => 2019/04/02 9:08:02 pm

sorry about not adding the fix i updated the 1st post to add the fix

block scripts from adobedtm.com

More or less the issue is the following: 1) the traditional alignment was on "head", which plainly means in 99.9999% of hard disks with a geometry of n/255/63 that the "gap" from the MBR to the beginning of first (primary) volume was (is) 62 sectors (i.e. 63, the amount of sectors in a "head" minus one, the MBR). 2) the SAME gap happens inside extended partition, between the EMBR (first sector of the extended partition) and the first (logical) volume inside it, AND between the following EMBR ant the relative (logical volumes). When the alignment "(non-)standard" changed to 1 MB, these gaps became 2047 sectors (i.e. 1048576/512=2048 sectors minus one, the MBR or EMBR). There is nothing wrong with eoither of the two "conventions". The bug is in Disk Manager coming with (and likely in the Diskpart version that can be used on) XP. In order to do what amounts to changing one single byte in the MBR from 0x80 to 0x00 (or viceversa) *somehow* the disk manager "travels" the whole chain of logical volumes inside extended and when the (normally on 1 Mb alignment 2048 (2047+1) value of "sectors before" is encountered the whole EMBR logical volume entry is "wiped" (i.e. overwritten with 00's) but the MBR and thus primary volumes/partitions are not changed, of course this same happens if other (possibly any) changes in Disk Manager are attempted, not only changing the "active status", I don't think anyone made extensive tests on this. It is as if there is an implied check on current status of the disk partitioning and when something is not the expected value the entry is wiped (silently). Different (third party) tools are usually fine (particularly those that - in the same version - run on both XP and Vista/7), as generally they are written to do what they are supposed to do (change a single byte) and not to *somehow* check the consistency of the partitioning scheme of the disk at every run, but of course you cannot be sure-sure until you try the specific tool on the specific system. As said on the mentioned thread, it is not particularly difficult to find and "undelete" the logical volumes as - luckily - only the first entry in the EMBR is wiped, whilst the second (address of "next" EMBR) is left unchanged, but still it is not exactly "trivial". About speed, generically speaking when we are talking of storage devices they belong to a "bus", where controllers (and relative drivers and protocols) are involved. Notwithstanding whatever you read at the time when SATA (SATA I) came out, there was not any particular advantage in speed over good ol' ATA (ex IDE) disks (at the time already at the fastest incarnation of the bus at , i.e. theoretical 133 MB/s vs the - as well theoretical - 150 MB/s of SATA I) because the actual devices (rotating hard disks), both the 7200 rpm and the more economical (and largely used in laptops due to lower power requirements) 5400 rpm were slower than that. (to be fair there was a tiny advantage because of NCQ, Native Command Queing that was available on some SATA disks but not on ATA/IDE ones). In other words, the bottle neck was the hard disk. Then faster hard disks came out and the bottleneck became the bus or controller or protocol, so motherboards started getting SATA II. SATA II (theoretically 300 MB/s) is usually enough to deal with *any* rotating hard disks, the bottle neck is again the mass storage device. Then came SSD's (that in their SATA version largely outperform SATA II speed) and motherboards started getting SATA III. SATA III (theoretically 600 MB/s) is enough to deal with *any* (SATA) SSD. Still SSD (in themselves) can be much faster than what SATA III allows (the bottleneck is again the bus or controller or protocol) so new faster buses (for SSD's) were introduced, direct PciE or Nvme. Putting a "high end" SSD topping the SATA III standard (like 480-500+ MB/s) on a SATA II bus gives no advantage (the resulting speed will be roughly half of what the device is capable of on a SATA III bus), a "more common", cheaper SSD (with a speed like 350-400-450 MB/s) is already faster than the SATA II bus, i.e. any speed difference in the device speed is cut off by the bus capacity, i.e. leveled down to the bus max speed. jaclaz

win9x have integrated SB emulation for own dos vm. HKR,,NTMPDriver,,"sbemul.sys" HKR,Drivers,SubClasses,,"wave,midi,mixer"

I also personally run pure Debian with XFCE.....I use Windows 10 for my business... "Rome wasn't built in a day" comes to mind.....;) We will never change Microsoft.....they got lost along the way...it is a shame that everything comes down to money.....this is why I will never respect Microsoft for what they have become.... bookie32

Try ask about it users on forum http://forum.notebookreview.com in MSI section. Maybe in topic ***The MSI GS60 Ghost Pro 970M Owner's Lounge*** This forum in past have users who are actually modified bios of laptops. There is also this section on msi forum: Private Unofficial Modified BIOS'ses & EC-FW - these are UNSUPPORTED AND UNOFFICIAL BIOS files, and donation is required. Links that i mention as is (it should work now): 1) http://forum.notebookreview.com/ 2) http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/the-msi-gs60-ghost-pro-970m-owners-lounge.762769/ 3) https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?board=51.0