Leaderboard

Greetings from Slovakia. Here is my knowledge of using Windows Vista Business SP2 64 bit (OEM licensed)> Server 2008 (via Vista_SHA2_WUC) on a 13 year old ntb Fujitsu Esprimo V6545 in 2021. - Windows Defender manually updated via mpas-fe from Microsoft, - monthly cumulative updates from the Microsoft Update Catalog manually (last July 2021), - .Net Framework 4.7.2 last update January 2020. (I have successfully installed .Net Framework 4.8, but I do not recommend disabling multiple applications that worked normally in Vista) - Browsers: IE9 - last update January 2020 MyPal 64bit –v. 29.2.1 Serpent 64bit -52.9.0 of July 9, 2021 New Moon 64bit –v.28.10.4a.1 of 8 July 2021 Default: 360 Chrome Browser v. 13.0.2250.0 (Chrome ver. 86.0.4249.198) with Chrome Store add-ons. Security and protection: on a monthly basis, I manually run the applications JRT, RKill, mbam, Kaspersky TDSSKiller, HitmanPro_x64, adwcleaner-7-2-7. The system is clean, without MW, AdWare, SpyWare. The peculiarity is that Microsoft did not end the updates for Server 2008 even in 2021, for which thanks, because the Vista OS team is still alive, fast, 99% usable even at the beginning of the third decade of the second millennium ...

@Humming Owl has been able to successfully make modifications that I myself relied on the Russian Repack for those same modifications. Basically, the Russian Repack removed 90% of the telemetry and my rebuild removed the other 10% but then focused on English grammatical errors and general cosmetics and skin-related nuances. But the Russian Repack "broke" a few rendering issues that I was unaware of until testing Humming Owl's releases (Google Voice, for example). It has been discovered that Humming Owl's modifications are "better" than the Russian Repack modifications so I will be releasing a 2206 v3 - but not until after I can reverse-engineer Humming Owl's v13-branch modifications. I am unsure if Humming Owl plans to release a 2206 or if he will be doing 2250 instead. So I need to wait for Humming Owl's v13 before I can then make modifications to that as my new "base".

sure, thanks for bringing this up! https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commit/fb4c5454c80ccc87610494f47b6c2264056397c5

@Humming Owl - I have these v13 build versions (I think I have "all" of them, but this is what I have): 1000, 1002, 1006, 1032, 1054, 1088, 1106, 2000, 2020, 2040, 2070, 2101, 2196, 2206, 2216, 2220, and 2250. I could not find "qimg" in any one of those resources.pak files. I would also break them into three sub-sections based on the file size of resources.pak. 1) 1000, 1002, 1006, 1032, 1054, 1088, and 1106 all have the same exact resources.pak file size. 2) 2000, 2020, 2040, 2070, 2101, 2196, and 2206 all have the same exact resources.pak file size. 3) 2212, 2216, 2220, and 2250 [all of these default to Chinese for Developer Tools) all have the same exact resources.pak file size.

SwiftShader as compiled for Chromium browsers acts as software rendered OpenGL ES implementation to run WebGL content. Probably there as the fallback when GPU cannot be used. The project itself has a long history, old versions will do D3D9 in software on an OS as old as Windows 98. Graphics may run a bit faster than a slideshow on fast CPU and low resolution. Vulkan version of SwiftShader acts as both the loader library (vulkan-1.dll) and implementation when named vulkan-1.dll. vulkan-1.dll as distributed with GPU drivers is a loader library which loads the DLL with actual implementation that does the graphics, similar how OpenGL32.dll works for OpenGL applications and normally loads another DLL bundled with graphics drivers, though it also has a software based fallback for OpenGL 1.1 if I remember correctly. On Windows 7+ and other recent enough platforms.

Vulkan was/is intended to be a replacement for OpenGL, is based off AMD's Mantle API and is supported on nVidia, AMD and Intel.

Hi @roytam1 , I do hope you're well I just noticed the following commit, that found its way into the custom branch of your UXP fork: Issue #1793 - Only use Glass on the Toolkit Download Manager on Windows 7 margin-top: 3px; } -@media (-moz-windows-compositor) { +@media (-moz-windows-compositor) and (-moz-os-version: windows-win7) { #downloadManager { -moz-appearance: -moz-win-glass; background: transparent; I understand this was merged as-is from upstream (mattatobin), they only support Win7+; but Glass (aka Aero) is also extant in Windows Vista, will that specific commit "break" the UI of toolkit download manager under Vista? If yes, could you include Vista there (e.g. (-moz-os-version: windows-vista) ) ? ... Thanks for your unwavering efforts thus far

I am reverting my focus on releasing a v13 2206 v3. I am optimistic on Humming Owl's releases but at the same time I have stumbled upon a few points of concern. However, these points of concern are also present in the original Chinese that Humming Owl used as his base. But they were "fixed" in the Russian Repack. We all have our "feelings" toward Chinese Software and towards Russian Software, let's keep that bias out of the equation, it really serves no purpose as this community modifies and improves 360Chrome for a communal level of trust. We should all agree that software development is an "evolutionary" process - we don't have "major", "minor", and "build" version numberings just for the sake of using the NumPad on our keyboard. We have demonstrated that the Russian Repack did break a few things in v11 and v12 - but the "evolutionary" process has fixed those breaks in v13 (I cite Google Voice functionality specifically). But I am seeing evidence that the Russian Repack seemingly fixed a few things that the Chinese missed. The Russian Repack has a global following - with that comes a level of "checks and balances" in the "evolutionary" process of open source software development (just as Humming Owl and I both rely on feedback from other users). To make a long story short ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP2QQH4uuQ ), I kinda have the most trust in v13 build 2206 and the evolutionary process that got it to where it is (ie, v13 evolved from v12 which evolved from v11, etc).

@Humming Owl ... Hello and nice to meet you I will report with feedback with v11 when I can. Thanks for your contribution! EDIT: OMG I can't even type today without a million edits Sorry guys.

Don't forget @Humming Owl's realeases

hi it becomes really problematic with all the uxp browsers Roytam1 , none of them can read this website https://gettr.com/post/p3vi4y , fortunately, "ArcticFoxie" 360chrome is there...

@RainyShadow : This all appears to be IP related ... I am posting now from my 360EEv11 profile (fork of Chromium 69), on my Vista SP2 x86 laptop, and when loading https://www.abv.bg from my (default) Greek IP, or from a UK IP (via a "VPN" extension), I get exactly what you get: But when accessing your URL from a US (or Dutch) IP (via the Browsec "VPN" extension), I get the expected result: So I guess that is why @XPerceniol can load OK that homepage, being in the US himself... The plot thickens...

THIS. A pretty good resume of what happened 15-20 years ago. There is a movement from PowerPC community in another forum advocating for a new web standard for the masses with less powerful computers, advocates for a more simple web, the Web 1.1 and bringing back much of the previous web standards, and attempts to evolve them into better standards from this starting point. Web 1.1 also calls for much less javascript and more html/css. Most old browsers nowadays choke with modern websites because of HTTPS and sites made entirely on javascript frameworks like React (Arrrrgghh). Old School web, the community developed a few classic websites like a search engine called frogfind. Worth a look, worth joining the movement. As a former frontend web developer and current UI/UX Designer, I am pleased to see a such movement.

I’m not a leading authority, but if your understanding was accurate, then scannow could obliterate any and all Windows updates - not just Server 2008 updates installed on Vista - unless your installation media was slipstreamed with all possible updates to begin with. When an update is installed, I believe backup copies of files are cached. There is no reason to be fearful of these updates. It’s not like Microsoft simply forgot to block installation on Vista: the updates contain extractable text documents that plainly list Vista under applicability info. Vista and Server 2008 SP2 are both Windows 6.0. (Beginning in April 2019, the build number changed from 6.0.6002 to 6003, which was a little scary - and in fact I stayed on 6002, but would not rule out “upgrading” if I decide that I must have SHA-2 support on Vista.)

Welcome to MSFN! We have a lot of “diehards” here! Contrary to the predictions of naysayers who warned many Vista users against installing these updates, no issues related to sfc /scannow have ever been reported as far as I can recall. (The extended kernel discussed elsewhere in this forum is another matter entirely: scannow will reportedly “fix the corrupted files” if that is installed.)

Take a look at this ftp

There were also some .NET Framework updates released in January that I did not see posted anywhere in this thread yet: KB4532944 .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 (Security/Quality Rollup) - http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4532944 KB4532959 .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 (Security Only) - http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4532959 KB4532929 .NET Framework 4.5.2 (Security/Quality Rollup) - http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4532929 KB4532964 .NET Framework 4.5.2 (Security Only) - http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4532964 KB4532932 .NET Framework 4.6 (Security/Quality Rollup) - http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4532932 KB4532971 .NET Framework 4.6 (Security Only) - http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4532971

Just curious: Are definition updates for the legacy Windows Defender still available after 14 January 2020?