Leaderboard

no clue, check for upstream if problem persists. (but remember, youtube pushes AV1 content which is too heavy for old machines.)

I did it for testing (manually applying 3dyd's changes to the source of official PyInstaller 6.17.0) and converting into a wheel (built with 32bit toolchain from here on Windows 10). pyinstaller-6.17.0-py3-none-any.whl (for XP) pyinst-6.17.0_yt-dlp_x86_XP.7z

@roytam1 I believe that he is asking not about xpi min-ver issues, but rather his issues with video playback in Serpent.

It's wuaueng.dll regression for calculating updates metadata chain, specifically these functions CUpdatesToPruneList::PopulateSupersedenceInfo CUpdatesToPruneList::AddSupersedenceInfoIfNeeded they fixed it for Win 7-8.1, but they never backported the fix for Vista/Server 2008

Hello Anton12, you addressed your request to blackwingcat personally. Since he didn't respond for a while now, I will share my thoughts which might or might not help in getting somewhat forward with the issue. The standard "TLS 1.3" was published in 2018. The last official updates for Windows 2000 are from 2016. The last updates for Windows XP are from 2017 (I think). However, there were still updates published for Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 back in 2018. Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 is based on Windows XP and therefore is somewhat compatible with Windows 2000. So it would make sense to check whether there is an update for Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 which adds support for TLS 1.3. It would be a start to work on a solution for Windows 2000. If there is no such update, then it would be nice to know, when and how Microsoft added support for TLS 1.3 to Windows/Internet Explorer for a version as close as possible to what we have in Windows 2000. This type of research can be done without having any skills in programming. But it still helps the person whoever ends up writing the patch. There aren't many who have the skills to backport new features and write a clean and working update for end users. So the todo list of those persons are usually pretty full. Any help to reduce the burden from the bottle neck is often appreciated. Adding support for TLS 1.3 support in principle is one thing. A clean integration into the operating system is another thing. For example being able to activate/deactive support through the internet options like with the other standards would be nice, too. However, it adds more work to the undertaking.

... Well, this isn't a very reassuring answer, you do realise that ... Don't know ; perhaps @user57 is on the right track on this (or even @cmalex, safe may he be, knows more ); the question to be asked is why did it magically appear in the latest yt-dlp WinXP compiles, whereas it wasn't present (needed?) all that time before? ... Can't tell; my AV solution gave it a "clean bill of health" ; you can try to see if the WinXP packages launch and function OK WITHOUT it, then take the necessary steps to remove it altogether; I'm not being paranoid (I think ), but I'd rather not have it there, if it isn't indispensable... Best festive wishes ...

Yeah I remember years ago, I used to be very against using old OSs such as XP because of security update issues. Then I relaxed on it, but over the time morphing my stance to just include Vista and up. Now, with my fully ditching any trace of Vista or older, I stick to JUST keeping Windows 8 going. I don't care about the security updates so much. It's just that I like how Windows 8 looks and feels vs Windows 10. However, I've really started to see Windows XP as archaic. It's odd for me to think that in 2025, Windows XP has ANY place on a running PC, but this time around, I'm not really worried about how others feel about my expressing that opinion. It just is what it is. When I made a comment in one of Roytam1's threads about using Betterbird vs MailNews or Interlink, I was reminded that the goal was to have a client running on XP or higher. My first thought was, "Oh yeah - that!" It feels more like an irritation that won't go away, rather than a goal to aspire to.

fileextd.dll its a old rare file that provide some functions that xp useally dont have - it can be seen as kernel extender i dont know its origin either some say its from the xbox and a official file while other say its a handmade file by someone maybe we get some more information about it what i know is that it is shown as used library on microsofts website: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/nf-winbase-getfileinformationbyhandleex then "Kernel32.lib; FileExtd.lib on Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP"

The problem is, the same happens with multiple types of SSD, on multiple HP z210 CMT workstations. The users reported significantly longer boot times when compared to other computers. To be more precise, users reported computer malfunctions. When compared to standard HDD, computers with SSD took much more time to go through the blank (black) screen phase. Since other computers were faster in the same boot phase, the assumptiom was made the workstation with SSD were faulty, so workers started to power off the workastation with SSDs to fix the problem. After investigation, it came to light, the workstations with SSD took about a minute of black screen time, when workstations with HDD did the same in less than 10 seconds. After informing the workers about the extended wait time, the power cycling and computer failure reports stopped. All workstations have the same specifications, except hard drives, and monitors. The system partitions were cloned, so they do have the same drivers. After cloning system it is visible the HDD boot is longer (3m 22s). But with each sequential boot the time goes shorter. On the other hand SSD is faster first (1m 42s) but the time does not improve significantly, after that. All workstations are not using Microsoft Account. In any case, both SSD and HDD workstations would take the same time with the MSA and OneDrive, probably. There is no domain logging, as well. It all came to light with SSD and HDD mixed enviroment. In a different location all workstations are fitted with SSD, so there is no time difference between them. So workers assumed long boot time is normal behavior, probably. I will have to check how they are performing on boot, when I have an opportunity to be there.

this site uses await, which is filed in https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/2229

Notice: although there are some commits in upstream which worth importing, I'm mentally affected by fire news happened in Hong Kong lately so new build will be delayed (i.e. no build this week)

steve: i'm still dl every month. thx again for keeping these lists viable. Helps a lot. ron

Thanks, I finally got through by using a good VPN, now upon choosing a low definition 720p (.mp4) file, it redirects me to a page with an "app", but then it says the "app" doesn't work with Vista! Finita la comedia, I guess.

One can get tired of exporting one by one very quickly. Let's see, There we have often cases where pics and videos are stored at another website, so even if you export the main (root) website cert, the pics will show empty, the browser will prevent the off-site untrusted (un-certified) connections. Last but not least, many modern AV scanners use your cert store to check the sites and/or your browser's executable. As we see, Tripredacus uses official browsers, perhaps he uses such AV software, too.

This time I agree, the engine is too bloody old anyways. Don't waste time.

I am not always right. But a pure comparison of CPUs is not sufficient. Read here, for example, about the difference between SD-RAM and DDR2-RAM: https://www.transcend-info.com/support/faq-296#:~:text=DDR2 SDRAM(Double Data Rate,(double of DDR SDRAM). Maybe now you'll realise what I'm talking about. And apart from that, an Intel Pentium 4 is not the same as an Intel Pentium 4. There were different series like Willamette, Northwood, and Prescott. And within these series different FSB clock rates. So, forget about these comparison sites! The only way to compare our computers is doing the same test regarding all hardware components. P.S.: Due to my motherboard layout, there are several bottlenecks. Firstly, the extremely slow SD-RAM memory, then the very low bus clock rate and finally the AGP 4x interface, although my graphics card actually is an AGP 8x one.

Please, don't come up with your "gut feelings"! I have presented all the essential facts that you have not commented on. My presentation has nothing to do with subjectivity and hypotheses. But as I said, it's offtopic here anyway and actually totally irrelevant. Your cucumber is old and mine is many years older.

Ok. As far as I can see, my Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8GHz 32-bit has a higher operating frequency than your Intel Atom 1.6GHz. In all other categories, your CPU is better than mine. L1/L2 cache, thermal values, instruction sets and so on. And you use DDR2-RAM which is much faster than the old, slow SD-RAM I use. Furthermore, I assume your Intel Atom CPU supports Hyper-Threading technology, my CPU does not. Even your Intel GMA 950 graphics is more efficient than my NVIDIA GeForce 6200 AGP 4x (8x is not supported on my motherboard). And as we all know, the operation frequenzy is difficult to compare regarding completely different processors, i.e., a higher frequenzy value does not necessarily mean a higher performance. BTW, which Intel Atom CPU is it? N270? All in all, I think your old Acer is faster than my old computer.

That's a general problem here on MSFN. If members/users have problems, they are very communicative and willing to provide information. But when it comes to selflessly contributing something to the cause, a certain listlessness prevails. Very regrettable. In principle, the same people always make a contribution here to move the cause forward.

Good comparison! This clearly shows the positive effect of rebasing I stated in previous posts. 66.6% less RAM consumption. That's a lot. BTW, maybe your CPU is weaker (I can't remember what kind of CPU you have) but your system is equipped with 4 GB RAM, mine with only 1.5 GB RAM (slow SD-RAM, i.e., no DDR-RAM).

In my system with 1.5 GB RAM, every single megabyte counts. 350 to 450 MB is then a huge amount of RAM.

Didn't you just contradicted yourself? This flag only has an effect if you are TAB HOARDING !!! No. If you open two or three tabs of the same domain to really work with them, then this has nothing to do with tab hoarding as they are closed immediately when all is done.