Leaderboard

Popular and simple tools for manual phone extractions: EDEC Eclipse, Fernico ZRT

1984 Long Distance Flight by F.R. David

Lentoid h265 decoder, I tried it in the past on a very old Quad (LGA775, made 15 years ago or more) XP era, I don't exactly remember the model, it was something like Q8400, or so. Very poor result, miserable, unwatchable. Skipping frames.

Nvidia drivers are a closed source software, kept in secret. For XP one would need to write new portions of code and insert into them. Not possible at this stage, unless you have a mate working at nVidia to leak the drivers.

Where do you get this from? DXVA2 is Vista native, the first release of Vista came out with DX10.0, but hardware acceleration works. DX11 was added to Vista a bit later, in the form of an optional patch. Power DVD minimum requirements for hardware acceleration is Vista SP1.

And what about the standard 8-bit H265? Some time ago I found a 780 Ti in the dumpster, the checkmarks correspond to what it supports in the terms of hardware acceleration. But it's on Vista, I didn't try on XP. Driver version 348.01 (HP Elite). The screenshot is old, I can't make more, I'm not at home currently. Took from e-mail.

Does anyone know why only this test failed? PCMark05 otherwise ran smoothly and had nothing to complain about.

The GeForce 6200 AGP is indeed a good one. It is absolutely silent as my version is passively cooled. Unfortunately, my motherboard supports only AGP 4x although the GeForce 6200 is an AGP 8x one. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-6200-agp.c2419

Thanks again! What is a little strange is the unfortunate circumstance that the Multithreaded Test 1 failed completely on my Windows XP computer even though I had installed the Windows Media Encoder 9.

How do we know it?

"Firefox phones home about almost every single interaction you have with its UI Firefox will send information about almost every basic operation that you do back to Mozilla. This is tagged with a unique client ID and an ID for your current session, and any relevant information related to this action. By default, the following uses of the UI are reported to Mozilla[5]: Performing a search Clicking a top site item Deleting an item from history Blocking a site Bookmarking a link Removing a bookmark from a link Opening a link in a new window Opening a link in a new private window Opening the new tab preferences pane Closing the new tab preferences pane Acknowledging a section disclaimer Adding or editing a new TopSite Requesting a custom screenshot preview Session end Impression stats Click/block/save_to_pocket ping Addon initialisation failure Domain affinity calculation Source link.

"Firefox is spyware (extension recommendation scandal)" "Upon visiting a targeted site, Firefox contacts services.addons.mozilla.org to get "extension recommendation" for the site, conveniently disclosing that you've just visited one of these sites." "Mozilla is spying on whether you frequent the following sites: facebook.com, translate.google.com, youtube.com, wikipedia.org, reddit.com. The list can be seen in CFRMessageProvider.jsm where the recommended extensions are listed. If the browser determines you're using one of those sites a lot, it will phone home the next time you've visiting such site by automatically fetching the addon info (even when you don't interact with the recommendation button). If the telemetry is enabled, it should send a lot more info..." https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/anxfz8/firefox_is_spyware_extension_recommendation/

Project-A-Phone is very popular, too. Maybe even a bit over-popular.

PCMark05 is a very sensitive software and also seems to have problems on certain computers if all tests are to be performed. Here are my test results so far: After various tests, changes and corrections in my system, I was able to run all the tests from System Test Suite successfully. Here is my missing PCMark Score: Although all tests from all categories can be run now successfully on my system, the software does not manage to run them all at once. This indicates a bug in the programme, which is probably only noticeable on certain systems.

There is also an updated version (I use at home) called "T-Clock Redux".

Your CPU score is "half" of my POS Acer Aspire One. In the world of MSFN, that makes YOU the WINNER, MSFN really taylors to the POS World and not the world of UCyborg's or my primary computers. Here at MSFN, it's all about who can "make use" out of these SSLLLOOOWW pieces-of-sh^t computers.

@AstroSkipper I love your topic, it reminds me of a pinewood derby, at the Boy Scouts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinewood_derby , great fun to compete. Below are the PCMark05 results for an old Inspiron 7500 laptop (650Mhz Pentium 3 SSE-only). Unfortunately no overall PCMark score was generated. When PCMark05 started its 2nd test, "Physics and 3D", WinXP CRASHED with a black screen, I had to pull the plug, tried three times. The 8MB AGP 2x graphics card in the laptop apparently does not work with all tests of PCMark05. After de-selecting the "Physics and 3D" test, PCMark05 completed the test OK, without crashing the computer, but no overall scores and graphics scores were calculated. I then ran PCMark05 on an old desktop computer, which has also MS-DOS and Win98SE installed. The HDD inside is a 17-year old 7200 rpm 250GB IDE HDD. It has a Geforce 7800 graphics card inside, but the only reason why I don't use the onboard graphics is that the card has a DVI-D connector for a modern monitor. Below are the PCMark05 results. Currently @UCyborg is the leader with a PCMark Score of 11,147 The window title of my screen shots is "PCMark05 - Professional Edition". The registration code by chip.de is only for the Advanced edition. You can upgrade from the Advanced Edition to the Professional edition by right-clicking on "PCMARK"-> Unregister PCMark05 -> Register and then enter the registration code of the Professional edition. The main benefit of the Professional edition is that you can export the test and diagnostic results into Excel, works fine with Excel 2003. @AstroSkipper BTW, my ancient version of Kaspersky has flagged the installer "PCMark05_v120_1901.exe", obtained from your download link, as riskware. "detected: riskware not-a-virus:WebToolbar.Win32.Asparnet.dnq file: Z:\PCMark05 v1.2.0 (26Sep2008)\PCMark05_v120_1901.exe//AskInstallChecker.exe" When you extract the installer "PCMark05_v120_1901.exe" with UniExtract, data1.cab and data2.cab contain AskInstallChecker.exe, file modification date 15May2009. PCMark05_v120_1901.exe is 92,260kB, is digitally signed OK 3Feb2010 and contains in turn PCMark05.exe, digitally signed OK 26Sep2008, The original installer of v1.2.0, "PCMark05_v120_installer.exe", is digitally signed OK 16Nov2006, is only 88,531kB and does not contain the riskware "AskInstallChecker.exe" in data1.cab and data2.cab. "PCMark05_v120_installer.exe" is a hard to find file, and can be downloaded at https://ds-servers.com/gf/pcmark-2005/windows/v120/pcmark-05-full-install-v120.html [click on the big green Скачать button, looks like "CKaYaTb"]. The 1st installer window of the original "PCMark05_v120_installer.exe" displays "v1.2.0", while the installer window of the riskware "PCMark05_v120_1901.exe" displays "v1.2.2". After installation, both builds indicate "v1.2.0" in their About windows. "PCMark05_v120_1901.exe" is an example of the last version for WinXP not necessarily being the best version for WinXP. Below is a screenshot from "PCMark05_v120_installer.exe", i.e. the original version of 16Nov2006 without the riskware. The scores are quite similar. Question: I did not have Windows Media Player installed on my computers before this topic, and PCMark05 requires Windows Media Player 10 or higher. Is there a better/more recent version of Windows Media Player than v11.0.5721.5262 of 30Jan2009 for WinXP SP3?

Great post, sorry I'm out of reactions for today, I'll do it tomorrow. I like what you write, it's honest and unbiased. To me, it seems too much of a hassle to make Firefox even remotely private.

@Sampei.Nihira I can't see GitHub mentioning Rust even on Mozilla's repo, just Other. What page are we looking at? Wouldn't rewriting Rust code be rather complex task? I tried r3dfox several versions ago and noticed win32k lockdown is disabled for aesthetic reasons, using Windows' provided GUI elements instead of custom drawn ones. AFAIK, custom drawn ones are used for unified look across platforms and avoiding calls to win32k.sys on Windows to reduce potential attack surface.

Because it's irrelevant since Vista and ASLR enabled executables are a thing. The OS always picks random base address for ASLR enabled executables and is smart about it to not duplicate it in memory across multiple processes that share the same executable binaries.

The animal rights activists won't like that.

Just for clarification. Only the scores are completely arbitrarily defined values. You have to read more carefully what I write. And please don't mix everything up!

"Pocket — a privacy nightmare Firefox has a Pocket button in its navigation bar, which allows you to "save any article, video or page from Firefox" and "View in Pocket on any device, any time." Let's see how it looks in terms of privacy — quoting from Pocket's privacy policy[3]: "In addition to the information that you provide to us when you register for a user account, we collect information about the URLs, titles and content of the web pages and other information you save to Pocket." So everything you conveniently put in "your" Pocket is being stored (of course, otherwise Pocket wouldn't work). "The types of information we collect includes your browser type, device type, device id, time zone, language, and other information related to the manner in which you access the Pocket Technologies. " So anytime you view a file in "your" Pocket, they know everything about the device you used to do it. "We may also use "pixel tags," "web beacons," "clear GIFs" or similar means (individually or collectively "Pixel Tags") in connection with emails that we send to our users in order to collect usage data." So, they are acting like any old tracking website, even in ways that have nothing to do with their functionality. "We may also share your device ID with third parties in connection with advertising campaigns. " And they work with advertisers too! Describing all of Pocket's violations would take up this whole article. There are similar services with better privacy policies, but in the end, they still store the things you view in "the cloud". A real privacy-based browser would not be integrated with them by default. Can be disabled in about:config[8]" Source link.

"Firefox tracks users with Google Analytics Firefox has been integrated with the spyware platform called "Google Analytics"[1]. Firefox has been confirmed to now send analytics to Google. According to a Firefox developer the spyware in Firefox is "extremely useful to us and we have already weighed the cost/benefit of using tracking." and that Firefox will not remove Google Analytics support entirely. Firefox's position on privacy is made very clear with this quote: "Wanted to address your position though: We don't give the "data directly to Google". See the discussion here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=858839. The short version is: tl;dr: We now have an option to opt-out of Google doing anything with the data that Google Analytics collections on Mozilla websites. GA tracking is anonymous and at the aggregate level and we use it to improve the experience of our websites. We are collecting aggregate and non-identifiable data in numbers to ensure our development/UX changes are met well. We can respect privacy and still have analytics; in fact Mozilla's aim is for an experience that values user privacy and usability (I'd say Apple also wants UX that fits that mold, as an example). We need some data, anonymized and aggregated, to do this. " The best takeaway to this is that Mozilla wants to pretend that including spyware in their program is somehow not a breach of privacy, and that Firefox could possibly be respecting user privacy while simultaneously collecting data on users and sending it to Google. It's strongly suggested reading the GitHub thread and the further anti-privacy statements the Mozilla employee makes while defending the spyware features in Firefox. It's very dangerous to assert that there is somehow a middle ground between respecting user privacy and datamining the user." Source link.

I didn't say "only" about the whole series of that laptop, I said that precise config with N450. I looked in your country at Walmart, etc. In my country they ceased to sell computers with XP in 2007.

You are grabbing values from the System Test Suite. These values are not CPU-specific. That's what the CPU Test Suite is for.

Unfortunately, nonsense. You didn't provide your values. Only the values from the System Test Suite via screenshot. Where is the list of all values? You only get them via exporting from PCMark05. Look at my post: https://msfn.org/board/topic/186451-overall-performance-comparison-between-different-computers-under-windows-xp/?do=findComment&comment=1272362 I mean the detailed values I posted in the code area. And the values in the section CPU Test Suite have to be compared to get information how many times faster my CPU is than yours.

That seems exaggerated to me. I have disclosed all my values in detail, even from the CPU Test Suite. Where are yours? Without these values, your statement is just conjecture and not statistically proven. You just wanted to set a value for calculating a geometric mean to zero, and now you want to be able to read from an artificially, completely arbitrarily obtained value how many times faster my CPU is than yours. That's very funny.

Test completed. Unfortunately, as reported, no PCMark Score was calculated due to two tests in the System Test Suite that failed: Here are my results: My self-calculated PCMark Score gained by reducing the discrete characteristic values is 1290. Of course without any guarantee, as it is not quite clear which units PCMark05 uses in its algorithm. But I think I did it right. Here are my detailed values: <<< System Information >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ System Model MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD MS-6391 Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz Physical Memory 1.5 GB Graphic NVIDIA GeForce 6200 Video Memory 256 MB Operating System Microsoft Windows XP (5.1.2600) 32-bit Application PCMark05 <<< Result >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ < Main Test Results > PCMark 0,0 PCMarks CPU 3.049,0 Memory 2.034,0 Graphics 1.335,0 HDD 5.107,0 < System Test Suite > HDD - XP Startup 11.035.388,0 B/s Physics and 3D 76,2 FPS Transparent Windows 391,1 windows/s 3D - Pixel Shader 33,5 FPS Web Page Rendering 1,6 pages/s File Decryption 54.567.500,0 B/s Graphics Memory - 64 lines 354,6 FPS HDD - General Usage 7.412.013,0 B/s Audio Compression 0,0 Video Encoding 0,0 Text edit 42,1 pages/s Image Decompression 8.869.950,3 pixels/s File Compression 2.236.637,5 B/s File Encryption 14.321.510,0 B/s HDD - Virus Scan 17.429.826,0 B/s Memory Latency - Random 16 MB 4.948.194,5 accesses/s < CPU Test Suite > File Compression 8.475.572,0 B/s File Decompression 92.539.640,0 B/s File Encryption 61.333.580,0 B/s File Decryption 51.141.084,0 B/s Image Decompression 19.719.909,7 pixels/s Audio Compression 2.027.561,7 B/s File Compression 4.393.688,0 B/s File Encryption 29.755.038,0 B/s File Decompression 23.497.330,0 B/s File Decryption 13.191.807,0 B/s Audio Decompression 532.577,2 B/s Image Decompression 5.039.531,7 pixels/s < Memory Test Suite > Memory Read - 16 MB 926.653.120,0 B/s Memory Read - 8 MB 928.947.840,0 B/s Memory Read - 192 KB 21.672.546.304,0 B/s Memory Read - 4 KB 39.685.492.736,0 B/s Memory Write - 16 MB 901.376.320,0 B/s Memory Write - 8 MB 900.723.200,0 B/s Memory Write - 192 KB 12.219.063.296,0 B/s Memory Write - 4 KB 12.250.072.064,0 B/s Memory Copy - 16 MB 867.653.760,0 B/s Memory Copy - 8 MB 862.753.856,0 B/s Memory Copy - 192 KB 7.173.510.656,0 B/s Memory Copy - 4 KB 12.217.476.096,0 B/s Memory Latency - Random 16 MB 4.948.194,5 accesses/s Memory Latency - Random 8 MB 5.298.853,9 accesses/s Memory Latency - Random 192 KB 143.647.140,5 accesses/s Memory Latency - Random 4 KB 1.404.406.372,1 accesses/s < Graphics Test Suite > Transparent Windows 392,7 windows/s Graphics Memory - 64 lines 354,1 FPS Graphics Memory - 128 lines 248,9 FPS WMV Video Playback 19,7 FPS 3D - Fill Rate Multi-Texturing 1.334.127.441,4 texels/s 3D - Polygon Throughput Multiple 8.536.705,0 triangles/s 3D - Pixel Shader 33,6 FPS 3D - Vertex Shader 5.565.621,9 vertices/s < HDD Test Suite > HDD - XP Startup 10.599.348,0 B/s HDD - Application Loading 8.399.760,0 B/s HDD - General Usage 7.344.671,5 B/s HDD - Virus Scan 63.417.920,0 B/s HDD - File Write 43.694.524,0 B/s For my PCMark Score calculation I took MB/s instead of B/s as shown in the details here: Comparing my values with @NotHereToPlayGames's ones, his Intel Atom CPU seems indeed to be weaker than mine.

Correct. You have to click the Submit button to upload your results, and then you get a PCMark Score.

This is the only official source by the developers. Completed all tests. All eye candy in Windows enabled by default. I was missing WM Encoder, so I installed it, wasn't sure if 64-bit would be fine, so installed 32-bit just in case, but otherwise, I never needed it before, I rarely manipulate media files. Disk tests were performed on 1 TB HDD WD WD10EZEX, memory is DDR2, 2x 2 GB Mushkin 996671 in first 2 slots and another 2 GB no-name Kingston in 3rd slot, all supposedly 800 MHz, but the mismatching Kingston slows things down to 667 MHz (add some MHz due to slight overclock), guess due to timings. Ok. You was able to submit your results to get a PCMark Score. Great! Under my Windows XP 32-bit, I wasn't, unfortunately. After finishing all tests, I got an error when trying to submit my results. Either I have to install Windows Media Encoder 9 or I have to update FutureMark SystemInfo as it is perhaps outdated. I will try again later.

Maybe counterfeit? That exact model with Atom N450 came with Microsoft Windows 7 Starter / Google Android Dual Load. https://www.productindetail.com/pn/acer-aspire-one-d255-2dqcc "An N450 Intel Atom CPU sits at the helm, running at 1.66GHz. It has 1GB of memory, which is just enough for Windows 7 Starter" link Was sold in Walmart. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Acer-Aspire-One-10-1-Netbook-Intel-Atom-N450-160GB-HD-Windows-7-Starter-AOD255-2Dkk/15185527 Earlier model with Single-core Intel Atom N270 CPU 1GB RAM, 160GB HDD also had Microsoft Windows 7 Starter https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/acer-aspire-one-d260

New build of Serpent/UXP for XP! Test binary: Win32 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20240907-3219d2d-uxp-a088e79f72-xpmod.7z Win64 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win64-git-20240907-3219d2d-uxp-a088e79f72-xpmod.7z source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/custom IA32 Win32 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20240907-3219d2d-uxp-a088e79f72-xpmod-ia32.7z source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/ia32 NM28XP build: Win32 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.7a1.win32-git-20240907-d849524bd-uxp-a088e79f72-xpmod.7z Win32 IA32 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.7a1.win32-git-20240907-d849524bd-uxp-a088e79f72-xpmod-ia32.7z Win32 SSE https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.7a1.win32-git-20240907-d849524bd-uxp-a088e79f72-xpmod-sse.7z Win64 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.7a1.win64-git-20240907-d849524bd-uxp-a088e79f72-xpmod.7z Official UXP changes picked since my last build: - Issue #2559 - Implement hashbang grammar (7cc9551e79) - [DOM] Stop exposing NotifyPaintEvent to web content. (b9e7ecd8bc) - [js] Simplify with-env handling in FetchName (8f31479968) - [js xpconnect] Fix error handling in xpc::CreateSandboxObject (ec8793a094) No official Pale-Moon changes picked since my last build. No official Basilisk changes picked since my last build. My changes since my last build: - js/xpconnect: pre-C++17 fix (a088e79f72) Update Notice: - You may delete file named icudt*.dat inside program folder when updating from old releases. * Notice: From now on, UXP rev will point to `custom` branch of my UXP repo instead of MCP UXP repo, while "official UXP changes" shows only `tracking` branch changes.