Leaderboard

I've had all kinds of hardware die, including new RAM modules, but not the ones I bought used.

I started the talk about Chrome 110, and @Dixel wrote what you see as "argument" in the context of @NotHereToPlayGames, who is a repacker/modder, is he not?

When I said "same modules from one production series", I actually meant modules manufactured directly one after the other with consecutive serial numbers. That is best.

I have had very good experiences with used RAM modules so far. They generally have a very long service life and very often survive mainboards, at least that was the case for me. I've had all kinds of hardware die, but never a RAM module including the ones I bought used.

I have an opposite experience, on later batches they always cheap out on parts. The same goes for hardware and games. v1.0 is the golden standard, at least it was, until they started to use free workers everywhere.

I don't care what they write about user serviceable parts of Chrome. Under the bonnet, it was the same ol' Chrome. In 111 they made drastic changes, so it wasn't possible to run it even with Ex-kernel (vista and 7, both). That was one of the reasons for starting Supermium, as per win32's words.

No solutions as of yet, what they did in the new Ungoogled patch - doesn't block all, btw. It's now more of a partially broken API there, from the looks of it.

WinNTSetup 5.3.5.2 - fixed crash with no source selection - removed policy for HiberbootEnabled

I'm running Supermium on Vista Home Basic, as aforementioned. I moved to the v124x Pre-Release. Holy Smokes! The speed increase of loading the browser and rendering is phenomenal. I'm really enjoying it on this old Inspiron 1420 Notebook. Yes I wish I had something more with the UI of one of @Notheretoplaygames 360-ish builds, so I could place tabs under the address bar. But that's really small potatoes. I tip my hat to @win32 for a job well done. Supermium performs outstandingly, especially on this pre-release build.

C'mon; I meant Chrome 110 requires Win 10 OOTB and you know that. 99% of Chrome users wouldn't know how to redirect or stub a Windows API if their lives depended on it. Even Win 7 users turn to Supermium/Thorium where that work has already been done for them. Why do people have to be so argumentative?

As a beginner, he would have troubles with the system files replacements in Windows 8, it's not Vista or even 7.

You're welcome! NirSoft tools are great. I use many of them for many, many years. Most of these tools are still XP-compatible and even get updates from time to time.

v5.3.5.1 crash when I click "Setup" button after selecting Boot part then Windows part without source (ok if I select a source) v5.3.5 is ok without source (used to post install boot/integrate drivers/reg tweaks ...)

Probably the new flag for disabling didn't work either. I remember it made no sense in v87. I started to notice the difference when applied the flag only in 110 and up.

Official UPSTREAM version v124 is faster than previous releases. So yeah, anything "forked" from that UPSTREAM BASE should also be "faster". I use Speedometer 2.1. My computer will not score the same as your computer. But the computer is not the variable being changed, the official upstream base version is the variable being changed. I have utmost confidence that if you run the same exact benchmark on your computer, the order will not change. v114 will be your best score. Followed by v124. Give or take a small margin of error, of course. Point is, upstream v124 is indeed faster than upstream v122 and v123 (marginally equivalent). Which are both faster than v120 and v121 (marginally equivalent). Upstream Chrome Version == Speedometer 2.1 Score 94 == 133 114 == 163 120 == 110 121 == 112 122 == 148 123 == 147 124 == 154

Most times, the requirements are arbitrary and not required.

In order to shed some more light onto the hullaballoo around Kaspersky, I have looked a little into it, here are my two cents: 1) Kaspersky Anti-Virus 18 does NOT install under SSE-only I have attempted to install 2 builds of Kaspersky Anti-Virus 18 on my SSE-only Inspiron 7500, neither of them installs under SSE-only. I initially tried to install the current build digitally signed OK 24Dec2017 and available at http://arc-products.s.kaspersky-labs.com/homeuser/kav2018/18.0.0.405abcdef/english-0.3439.0/323224f2/kav18.0.0.405en_full.exe I got the typical SSE-only err msg: "Kaspersky Anti-Virus [18.0.0.405.0.3439.0] has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience." I subsequently attempted to install the earliest build of v18 which I could find, digitally signed OK 12Jul2017, and got a similar err msg: "Kaspersky Anti-Virus [18.0.0.405.0.1298.0] has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience" 2) I tried to extract both installers. Below are the extraction details from the 164MB installer of 24Dec2017: - WinRAR v5.61 (30Sep2018) extracts 95 files and 2 folders, altogether 23MB - 7-Zip v9.20 extracts 88 files and 19 folders, altogether 136MB, with differing file and folder names - 7-Zip v23.01 (20Jun2023) also extracts 88 files and 19 folders, but adds an err msg: "Warnings. There are some data after the end of the payload data" when extracting \Product\crypto_ssl.dll i.e. Kaspersky 18 uses a proprietary SFX which cannot be extracted completely with WinRAR or 7-Zip I definitely did NOT like the warning msg by 7-Zip v23. My ancient version of Kaspersky can be extracted Ok by 7-Zip v23. BTW, the above shows that 7-Zip v23 could also serve as a security tool. 3) When my ancient version of Kaspersky, updated with current signatures, scans the installer kav18.0.0.405en_full.exe, it indicates that only 2 files were scanned, i.e. that it could not look into the installer, even if WinRAR and 7-Zip could partially look into it, which is exceptional. When I subsequently virus-checked the file with Kaspersky Anti-Virus v6.0.3.837 under Windows 98, with signatures of 1Apr2014, Kaspersky COULD look it the .exe and checked 1531 objects. This led me to suspect that some files, e.g. kav18.0.0.405en_full.exe [the installer .exe of Kaspersky Anti-Virus v18], are intentionally not checked by Kaspersky. Possibly the instructions of what to check and what not to check are contained in the signature updates of my ancient version of Kaspersky. Maybe certain files are flagged as "safe", to speed up scanning, or to skip doubtful stuff? When I checked kav18.0.0.405en_full.exe under WinXP with my not-yet-updated updated ancient version of Kaspersky, a similar huge amount of objects was reported as scanned, in contrast to the just 2 objects reported as scanned after updating the signatures. This is quite a strong indication that the signature updates contain a flag to the scan engine not to look into certain files. Comparing the number of objects scanned by my ancient un-updated version vs my ancient updated version could perhaps be a very easy method of identifying Russian spyware, on the assumption, right or wrong, that Kaspersky hides Russian spyware. The 2 screenshots below were deleted on 11Sep2024. The posting with the screenshots was archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20240911232807/https://msfn.org/board/topic/184730-antimalware-firewall-and-other-security-programs-for-windows-xp-working-in-2023-and-hopefully-beyond/page/69/ 4) My two cents: current Kaspersky 18 may perhaps contain or hide Russian spyware. Kaspersky may protect Russians from Western spyware, given the relation between Eugene Kaspersky and the former KGB. By analogy, Western antivirus software may possibly hide in a potentially analogous manner Western spyware and may possibly protect Westerners from Russian spyware. A tiny number of items scanned in a container, e.g. in an installer .exe etc, may or may not be a flag for a suspicious file scanned, or for a suspicious or poor virus-checker, or for both. It would be interesting to see which containers cannot be scanned by Western antivirus software. Maybe it would be worth while moving some archived stuff into a separate category, "Suspicious - no virus flagged, but cannot look into the .exe". I have seen a lot of such files, some may be innocuous, some maybe not. Using both Western AND non-Western antivirus software seems to be useful to keep the computer clean in an era of cyber conflict. Kaspersky Anti-Virus should remain accessible, being probably the best check against WESTERN spyware. Modern Windows may or may not contain, hide or facilitate Western spyware An old SSE-only computer may be much more resilient to infections by modern spyware, modern spyware may not install or run. The detection of a particular modern spyware, however, may be disabled also in SSE-only computers by special instructions contained in signature updates, which may apply equally to Western and non-Western antivirus software. My ancient version of Kaspersky definitely does not contain spyware and is still my preferred virus-checker, even if it may not detect all Russian spyware, if any, in my downloads. Kaspersky 18 may be useful for identifying Western spyware. But using Kaspersky 18 may be risky, except on a dedicated standalone computer. I have used a lot of "maybes", these were my two cents only

Please do not bump your posts in this pile. Do not report 26244 missing classic taskbar. I know

Yes, the second policy for HiberbootEnabled has no effect and will be removed. The first one seems to be different between windows versions.

After testing on Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3, I note the following problems: 1. Dragging and dropping to open files does not work when there is already a document open. Prerequisite: Use standard window mode (which also disables tabs). Problem Description: Drag and Drop to open document does not work when there already is an open document. Regular menu system to open document still works. Expected behavior: After dragging and dropping next document to open into window with already open document, another window should open with the dragged-in document. What actually happens: Open window becomes inactive and no new window with the dragged in document is shown. However, there is a new SumatraPDF.exe process created without a visible window and without the ability to terminate the process not forcibly. 2. Visual GUI display bugs. Toollbar items display is somewhat, wrong-looking. This is what it looks like: [COULD NOT UPLOAD IT]

I know, but it was a purely personal suggestion to that specific user, what does it have to do with "99% of Chrome users"? There was no "argument", until you abruptly intervened our pleasant conversation with such baseless accusations. https://msfn.org/board/topic/183484-polyfill-whats-all-this-then/?do=findComment&comment=1268314

Nope. 110 was very much an experimental release. You'd have to read the "whatsnew" blogs beginning with the disappointment with 109 for everything that was delayed to be included as a first with 110. It's like buying a remodeled model of a car - never buy that "first year" because it will spend a lot of time in the repair shop (under warranty but still a nuisance to your day).

You don't need to replace progwrp if you're using the the latest version. Those DLLs are from 121 and is incompatible with 122 and above.

Of course, it does. However, it's probably better to ignore such unqualified comments about the age of hardware. But I'm not that kind of person.

My archive may contain 7 different builds of this rare ancient version of Kaspersky, perhaps 5 of them for servers, perhaps 2 for WinXP. For 3 of these builds, FTP links to kaspersky.ru with pw may have been commonly known. One server build of this ancient version is still available at an abandoned site of a former distributor of Kaspersky, together with corrupted trash, and is at archive.org. The server version of my ancient Kaspersky unfortunately does not install under WinXP SP3 (tested), it requires at least Win2000 server.

I always use RunAsDate from NirSoft for this purpose.

I really don't think that is true. Maybe for the latest-and-greatest of each. But I use uBO v1.26.2 (intentionally!). I'll try to "vet" uBO Lite again. But the last time I tried it, it was not faster than v1.26.2. I'm open for suggestions of quantifiable benchmarking between the two - that web site doesn't even indicate what VERSION was tested and I find that to be a tad misleading.

Thanks for your confirmation! I also thought that a time bomb had been implemented in the executable. McAfee probably wanted to prevent users from using outdated versions of Stinger. But I wanted a confirmation from others to be sure it's not related to my system only.

Thanks for testing! However, it is quite unusual that the virus definitions of McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.8 with such an old scan engine can still be updated in these days. BTW, for updating the scan engine to version 5900, you can try to use this which I found by accident: https://download.nai.com/products/licensed/engine/intel/5900/ I don't know whether this scan engine update is the right one for your installation, though. Thanks! It worked well!

Welcome! Vista users is what we really need. What does 7601 in the nick mean?

Mixing RAM modules from different manufacturers with different timings is always problematic. More like a game of chance. It is best to replace them all with same modules from one production series. That's what I did with my lady's Fujitsu notebook, built in 2010. I bought the modules second-hand a few years ago as new ones were no longer available. I completely replaced two 1 GB modules with two 4 GB ones. It worked perfectly and still works in these days.

McAfee Stinger seems to have abandoned Windows XP in 2021. For testing purpose, I tried to open several stinger32.exe files from 2021 which are supposed to be still XP-compatible but I am always getting the following messsge: "McAfee Stinger executable has been modified and may be infected". Can anyone confirm this?

Considering StartAllBack is alternative history genre, it should be possible to pull one from the multiverse.

You might want to think about your download behaviour. And about your choice of favourite search engine. Yandex is a very bad choice but a good one to get crap. 200 out of 1000 files flagged that's a quota of 20%. Far too much! All what I can say is .

I have a rule of updating my browser in about a year, maybe a bit over a year. 15-16 versions is the maximum where it needs to be thrown away. Just polyfilling simply isn't enough.

Thank you for another compliment! At this point, I'm starting to have doubts about yours. People asked you to stop posting off-topic. Is it really so hard to understand? That we have no way of checking out with simple ways, unless I poke the guys from CIA I worked with. But then again, it's none of my business, I'm just joining other people of this wonderful thread by @AstroSkipper and ask you to stop the derailing.

Are you really serious? A new installation after every update? And all this effort for an ancient programme with a totally outdated AV engine? I'm losing faith.

I am sorry I retained these errors in 5erPOSUp.inf which did not seem to have a harmful effect when installed on my C drive. You could correct the registry post install to be on the safe side. Just search the registry for D:\Windows and change it to C:\Windows. The errors occurred because the 5erPOSUp.inf entries were based on logging the changes to the registry after installing each update, and I must have been using an XP installation on a second partition. I have since corrected 5erPOSUp.inf by replacing all instances of D:\Windows with %SystemRoot% and re-uploaded the XPSP3 QFE POSReady Addons.

well here is a experimental version of sumatra pdf for windows xp i had to change lots of things this time, so it might have errors but we should test it out version 3.5.2 is lastest version up to current date 21.02.2024 https://www.file-upload.net/download-15277606/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip.html https://www.mediafire.com/file/a4mtyf33ozs6q63/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip/file edit to fix some problems

1 - I only had issues with 399.24 , and it looks like not only me. I think this is just driver's fault, not Vista's. And don't forget, we run very different hardware. https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/geforce-399-24-whql-driver-download.html see the issues on win 7. 2 - Thanks. 3 - I had troubles (BSOD 124), even when using that self-ported Brazilian USB drivers with ancient 353.xx drivers and even older. That BSOD had happened many times , but only while gaming. Under heavy GPU load.

Oh, and one more question, there's a lot of noise regarding Intel inf (chipset) "drivers", could they actually help, if installed ? I know they are just inf files (not the actual drivers), of course, but still... I run without them. Oh, and I don't know if you saw, I finally found the reason for BSOD 124 in my other system, it was that "famous" home made USB drivers I downloaded here, made by a guy from Brazil (who also ignored my question, when I asked him what updates exactly he used to "cure" the haswell bug, and the topic got locked immediately, lol).

Awesome work mate, this is the best tool Windows 8 could ask for, this will make Windows 8 the best OS of all time Thought I should show how I managed to use OldNewExplorer without needing to modify a single system file and all completely loaded on the fly at the click of a button in the personalization menu