Leaderboard

Here is the future of Chromium on Windows 7: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium I have been closely tracking the many changes made to Chromium since November 2022, made with the intent of dropping support for Windows 7 and 8.x. As of version 111, it became very difficult to keep the newest versions running on Vista with the extended kernel; shared memory allocation changes made it impossible to do so as subtle changes to the API (which were done in kernel mode) prevented stable operation of the browsers. So I decided to build my own Chromium. I discovered that a further change was made to the shared memory allocation which broke it even further; the successor to mojo, IPCZ, was forced on by default. It only works properly with Windows 8.1+'s shared memory API. I disabled IPCZ for pre-8.1 and this made the sandbox work again on Vista and 7. Perhaps I will see exactly why IPCZ is broken (from the Windows API level) and try to fix it for the next release. The only win32 API link I can find is CreateFileMappingW, which I need to test with an IPCZ-enabled build on both 8 and 8.1 to see what makes it fail.

It should work on regular Windows 7 with SP1 (it always worked in my VM with nothing but SP1, but some users complained about it not loading because of missing delay-load module; my second release should solve that). Vista needs the extended kernel however.

Thread moved to the Web Browsers section.

I also consider a good idea to take ungoogled chromium instead of regular chromium. Version 112 of ungoogled chromium is not working on Vista Extended Kernel, it can't find a function

This is needed only if he somehow managed to mod the drivers, which I very much doubt, knowing legacyfan. Also, he would get a watermark then.

This is not a politics forum. Stay on topic please.

Exactly. Luckily we're on an old version that won't get any changes anyway. I just hope they won't kill it. Ah and by the way, the merger has only been approved by the European regulator few days ago, so they were still effectively two separate companies. Anyway, it saddens me a bit to see avast end up in the hands of Symantec (which is actually broadcom). So now we have Piriform (Speccy, CCleaner etc), Norton, Symantec, Avira, AVG and Avast all under one single company, Gen Digital. P.s I saw the whole discussion about Kaspersky, but to be fair, the last thing I wanna do in this historical period is install a Russian antivirus on my computer. I mean... it's probably ok, but these days you never know...

Shadow Defender http://www.shadowdefender.com/ It's a type of sandbox program that prevents unwanted changes to the system.

found in my country's news channel. Mono 29 1st May

Senzo Mall Hurghada Egypt Hurghada AirPort

A short article on thread naming using exception 0x406D1388. Calling DLL is debug version or thinks it detects a debugger. DW profiling might support this technique. NOT related to the LCID functions. Also: Failing very first LCID call might prevent subsequent calls.

That reminds me: While searching unsuccessfully for an offline installer I came across a February 2020 post that the version in question could not be activated (but at least this poster evidently had a working installer): https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/81987/unable-to-activate-bitdefender-antivirus-free-edition-1-0-21-1109 The only advice he received was to uninstall it and install “the latest version.” Bitdefender announced EOL for their Free Edition for Windows as of December 2021, including a threat that “all updates will cease” June 30, 2022: https://www.bitdefender.com/consumer/support/answer/2027/ Apparently there is an all-new Bitdefender Antivirus Free in 2023, but of course it does not support XP or Vista; and Bitdefender plans to end support for Windows 7 and 8.1 in January 2024. It would actually be shocking if they are still providing definition files signed with SHA-1 solely for the benefit of XP diehards running a 2016 version that can no longer be downloaded.

How so? I have Windows Server 2003 and it looks exactly like XP Pro. The two can both be made to look exactly like each other, it's all just the "theme" and theme support exists in both. The 98SE crowd would always use the Win2k "classic" theme, but I myself disliked the classic theme and would use the same theme as XP Pro. I didn't have to install the Pro theme on Server, it was already there and only needed selected/enabled.

As long as this computer works, I'll probably keep on compiling FFmpeg, or at least I'll try to. No promises though. After having added 'C:\Program Files\Essentials\Python39\' and 'C:\Program Files\Essentials\Python39\Scripts' to %PATH%, it works. Thanks. D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git>python -m yt_dlp --version D:\Storage\Media\Binaries>python "yt-dlp_git\yt_dlp\__main__.py" --version 2023.03.04 That works too. I don't have much experience with Python, so if I understand correctly this 'yt-dlp.exe' it creates in the Scripts-dir (which is really small in size) is a module binary and is a sort of shortcut method (and hardcoded to that "site-packages\yt-dlp"-dir, which it will always depend on) to be able to quickly run yt-dlp, right? I've tried that. First by removing the already installed package: python -m pip uninstall yt-dlp Then by running that bat-file: D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git>cd /d "D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git\" D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git>echo D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git 1>python39._pth D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git>echo . 1>>python39._pth D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git>echo Lib 1>>python39._pth D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git>echo Lib/site-packages 1>>python39._pth D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git>python -m pip install -e "D:\Storage\Media\Binaries\yt-dlp_git" Obtaining file:///D:/Storage/Media/Binaries/yt-dlp_git Installing build dependencies ... error error: subprocess-exited-with-error × pip subprocess to install build dependencies did not run successfully. ¦ exit code: 2 ?-> [1 lines of output] C:\Program Files\Essentials\Python39\python.exe: can't open file 'C:\Program Files\Essentials\yt-dlp_py39\Lib\site-packages\pip': [Errno 2] No such file or directory [end of output] note: This error originates from a subprocess, and is likely not a problem with pip. error: subprocess-exited-with-error × pip subprocess to install build dependencies did not run successfully. ¦ exit code: 2 ?-> See above for output. note: This error originates from a subprocess, and is likely not a problem with pip. As you can see I've extracted your archive to 'C:\Program Files\Essentials\Python39', but it looks as though "yt-dlp_py39" is hardcoded somewhere.

Nice pictures but unfortunately they don't really help. What we need are details about the installer. I didn't find any offline installer. Any link to a working, full offline installer? The name, size or date of this installer would be helpful, too. Since then, no further information from you! At this point, I would ask you to share your knowledge with us. Any detailed information about this offline installer would be helpful such as name, size, date and version. Even better would be a working download link or, if there is no longer one, an upload link. Thanks in advance! Kind regards, AstroSkipper PS: Due to the lack of a working installer, I added BitDefender 1.0.21.1109 to the list in the third post. @bluebolt I have now asked you twice to share information about a working offline installer for BitDefender 1.0.21.1109. All what you provide are pictures. But pictures can't be installed and tested. I'm glad for you that your old installations are still running and seem to be updated , but unfortunately that doesn't help us at all . Can BitDefender 1.0.21.1109 still be reinstalled in 2023? I personally fear that this is no longer possible. So I ask you a third and then last time to give us information about the offline installer you mentioned in the quoted posts above. Any detailed information about this offline installer would be helpful such as name, size, date and version. Even better would be a working download link or, if there is no longer one, an upload link. Thanks in advance! Kind regards, AstroSkipper

Did the "Virus signatures updated" page's signature number change? The "Last Updated" could still be misleading and the actual signature number be the same virus signatures from BEFORE the "update". The "My Bitdefender" clearly reads Could not connect to server, are you 100% sure that your virus signatures were updated? Wouldn't these come from the same server that was unable to be connected to?

This seems extreme and equivalent to your ban-all-Russian request. Why thwart competition? We currently have two competing paths towards the "Future of Chrome on Windows 7". 1) Catsxp -- Vanilla Windows 7 2) Supermium -- Extended Kernel Windows 7 The two can co-exist.

Thanks ! Maybe also block/remove the postings with the promotions of china made browsers then ? Not only due to the safety concerns (since they aren't even properly vetted), but also due to the off-topic activities. This needs to be just as the topic suggests, agree with you Dave, as usual.

Found 'em ! Not seeing the source code for the latest 116, though. The latest they have is the 113 source code. https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-windows/releases/tag/113.0.5672.64-1.1 EDIT : This one should play all videos (allegedly). "Website for ungoogled-chromium contributor-submitted binaries (contributor binaries). IMPORTANT: These binaries are provided by anyone who are willing to build and submit them. Because these binaries are not necessarily reproducible, authenticity cannot be guaranteed." https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/releases/windows/64bit/

@win32 wrote he had built from the original chromium source. Simple (vanilla) chromium doesn't include HEVC (H265), H264 - which you need to play most videos, youtube works because it has VP9 , VP8 included, but it's not enough for the majority of websites, Twitter. for example. I'd suggest a good solution to avoid possible licencing issues and the users who are so overly concerned with "thin" or "thick" lines of legality, or whatever they call it - compile from the source that has all codecs included (some ungoogled versions, for example). Though, I'm not sure if they share their code in the open.

Thanks @win32 Supermium running on the lightest NT6 OS ever made (8.0) by MS But the same problem as in the previous version someone released some months ago... online videos not working, do you know how to fix? (except for youtube)

... Thanks for that kind offer ; unfortunately, my memory betrays me these days. ... I've managed to locate a certain post by @Vistapocalypse where he, in fact, makes a mention of what I've spoken about, however I was not successful at locating those exact reports... Kaspersky themselves no longer offer downloads for KFA2019 (Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2019, aka Kaspersky Antivirus Free (KAF) 2019 or just 19), but "neowin" have archived a stub (web/on-line) installer for it: https://products.s.kaspersky-labs.com/homeuser/kfa2019/19.0.0.1088/english-gb-0.57.0/kfa19.0.0.1088en_14173.exe Since mina7601 keeps a Vista SP2 VM, perhaps an attempt to install it there could be made? For best results, that VM should be first updated all the way to Vista's EoL, plus select WS2008 updates enabling SHA-2 signature support should also be installed; additionally, KFA2019 requires .NET FW 4.x.x installed; for NT6.0, Microsoft have last year produced a 4.6.2 installer that works out-of-the-box (whereas in the past, only 4.6.1 would work) ... All this talk is, of course, OT for this (XP) thread , but since an offer was made to clarify things once and for all, why not accept it? Perhaps even attempt an installation of KFA19 on a fully updated XP SP3 system (with .NET FW 4.0.3) while one's at it?

U-Bahn (Metro) Duesseldorf, Germany, Last week. Cannot identify the OS exactly. But it has the classic theme and icons.

https://www.catsxp.com/ OS: Win7+ Ver：3.5.2 Kernel：113.0.5672.86 Update：2023-05-03 20:20:38

Error Code 52 is a blatant driver digital signature issue with your Graphics Driver in the combination with the operating system. 8.1 has very strict demands towards WHQL. Clean manual installation of WHQL graphics drivers resolve the issue.

That was in 2021. I’m not sure how it could affect Windows XP diehards using a 2018 version of Avast. 🤔

Yep, v3.windowsupdaterestored.com works

This video is wrong. If it were the Longhorn kernel booting up, you would see the Longhorn logo appear instead of the XP one, as the bitmaps are stored in ntoskrnl. Also, other kernel mode system components would be incompatible. NTDLL would be incompatible due to a change in syscalls between 2600.5512 and 4074. XP still boots at all, because it does not actually boot from a kernel named ntoskrnl.exe; in this case, the user also has a file named ntkrnlpa.exe in their system32 folder. This is a variant of ntoskrnl for single-processor systems that support PAE. The user would have needed to change boot.ini to boot from ntoskrnl to actually try using this kernel. And it would probably fail early on due to incompatibilities with the HAL and the like. But I think you could get a DWM-type experience with XPDM if someone did a lot of hooking work to capture each window, seize the borders and captions, create bitmaps of window contents and "play" around with them to make animations, etc.

Now long EOS Windows Embedded 2009 still living it large in my local Marks and Spencer store! Not quite XP or course, but as near as makes no difference now as far as I'm concerned.