Leaderboard

Actually, "supermium_uao.exe" won't launch under XP SP3 (32-bit) because of two missing functions on XP's kernel32 system file: # Report By YY.Depends.Analyzer (Target:5.1.2600-x86) ## kernel32.dll * [ ] InitializeCriticalSectionEx - Supported OS: 6.0.6000, 6.1.7600, 6.2.9200, 6.3.9600, 10.0.10240 - Ref Module: supermium_uao.exe * [ ] LCMapStringEx - Supported OS: 6.0.6000, 6.1.7600, 6.2.9200, 6.3.9600, 10.0.10240 - Ref Module: supermium_uao.exe Above is a log acquired via the YY-Thunks CLI tool; the command I used was: YY.Depends.Analyzer "supermium_uao.exe" /IgnoreReady /ReportView:CheckBox /Target:5.1.2600 As @mjd79 suggested (), if you redirect the kernel32.dll function calls to Supermium's wrapper DLL "pwrp_k32.dll", you'll be able to make the executable XP-compatible ...

In CFF Explorer, replace the kernel32.dll import with pwrp_k32.dll and copy this file from your Supermium installation. The screenshot was taken on XP RTM

OOOOHHHHHH nnOOOOOOOOO steve I depend on your list every month. how can I get the latest updates like todays, June 9th, 2026 in the future. thx ron PennsylvaniaRon \\\\|//// ~ÖÖ~ ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo----

Yes indeed! He's done the same edit that I did to the file and bundled a copy of pwrp_k32.dll in the zip file with it.

... It would appear that Shane is still monitoring this thread ; inside the Supermium-v144-r4_01 release notes, https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v144-r4_01 this shows up: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/download/v144-r4_01/supermium_uao.zip Edit: Rather the fix was a consequence of the discussion in: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1907 ...

Of course. My suggestion was completely automatic, because I don't use Supermium and wanted to test this tool the easy way. I'm busy porting Chromium for Windows 7 to Windows 2000 SP4 without KernelEx

that is a kernel extender it seems to be a overkill just for file read tool - why it cant make a simple text string with normal code it might have been compiled with a newer version of visual studio 2019 i thought i might talked about this already https://msfn.org/board/topic/182888-how-vs-makes-working-code-still-incompatible/ the vistual studio 2019 v16.1 to v16.7 dont have that problem - all after 16.8 - 16.11 have that trick inside it is a hidden .obj file, where in the c-runtime code/ucrt/std depening on how we call this is forced to being used you can see the header and cpp files - but if you edit them it never reads that code - instead it always force to use that .obj file - what is precompiled with that code that use vista+ functions as said in that article that compiler makes a code that runs without your code and it runs before your programm is starting up (and there are these missing functions - even if they are not used in your code)

Ok. Thanks!

This is the closed, archived repository of the original uBlock Origin Legacy: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy There, you can clearly see that there are no recent patches or updates for it. No more development. @UCyborg started to port patches from the webextension to the legacy version https://github.com/UCyborg/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy. But with long delays in development. His last version is nearly one year ago. And as I already reported, I noticed incompatibilities and higher resource usage when using his version. So, as long as my version is running without any issues, I won’t be making any changes or updates. And if I do, it will only be to the assets, i.e. the filter lists if there are issues. Be that as it may, @Monroe, @Amigafever and @Rod Steel, I'm still pleased to see that there is interest in my uBlick Origin Legacy build.

Do you planning to update your version of Ublock in future?

My main focus was on fixing all the obvious errors caused by a completely outdated XPI file and its incompatibility with the new format of the assets file. That is why I also changed the uBO ID in my version and created my own assets file. As I already said, it’s not easy to implement patches, and that also includes security patches, in legacy extensions that were actually developed for webextensions. So, if you are more interested in security patches of uBO itself, you should use @UCyborg's version and wait for the most recent ones if they are ever implemented. But if you are rather interested in compatibilty and better performance, you should use my version. So it’s entirely up to you.

Yes, this is the latest version from AstroSkipper. Perhaps you could consider porting over the security-related patches that were recently implemented?

I have not checked this version out lately ... this is what I am currently using: uBlock Origin Legacy v1.16.4.35 This is an unofficial, special mod provided by @AstroSkipper. Is this a 'thumbs up' ? ... or am I behind. ...

Everything I reported earlier is already old news. The error has been back in full force for almost a week now. Views are no longer being counted at all. For example:

The @AstroSkipper version is still working. I created it back when nobody was maintaining the legacy version of uBO anymore. This had led to @UCyborg also working on an updated version again. I tested it for a while and actually think any further development is a good thing, but unfortunately I found incompatibilities and higher resource usage. That’s why I’ve gone back to my version. In my opinion, it’s not easy to implement features in legacy extensions that were actually developed for webextensions.

uBlock Origin uBlock Origin (uBO) is not an "ad blocker", it's a wide-spectrum content blocker with CPU and memory efficiency as a primary feature. Out of the box, uBO blocks ads, trackers, coin miners, popups, etc. through the following lists of filters, enabled by default: EasyList (ads) EasyPrivacy (tracking) Peter Lowe’s Ad server list (ads and tracking) Online Malicious URL Blocklist uBO's own lists More lists are available for you to select if you wish: EasyList Cookie Fanboy Annoyances AdGuard Annoyances Dan Pollock’s hosts file And many others Additionally, you can point-and-click to block JavaScript locally or globally, create your own global or local rules to override entries from filter lists, and many more advanced features. uBlock Origin is and was my favourite content blocker. But, to get the more recent versions running in Mypal 68, you have to set the variable dom.moduleScripts.enabled to the default value of true. If not, it will break the gui of uBO. Tested version: 1.46 Here is uBO's wiki: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki And the following link opens a short guide: https://www.online-tech-tips.com/software-reviews/ublock-origin-the-ultimate-review-and-guide/ Download link: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/

News about uBlock Origin Legacy! Since version New Moon 28 (2022-09-29), neither a CSS fix nor the setting of uiStyles from unset to font-family: sans-serif is needed anymore. Big thanks to @roytam1! To accelerate the updating of the filter lists and fix the eternal waiting for update end, you can now download the version uBlock Origin Legacy 1.16.4.31b2, only modified in terms of the filter lists, from the previous post. And, don't forget to remove all remnants of uBlock in your profile folder before installing my mod, as already described above! Cheers, AstroSkipper

Thanks for the hint! Never heard of it! I'll have a look at this tool at the next opportunity. Cheers, AstroSkipper

I've got a licence of Malwarebytes for nearly 11 years. I loved Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.75 as an on-demand scanner. My licence is also valid for Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522, the last version for Windows XP. Unfortunately, I couldn't get this version running at all. It crashed and had problems in loading its components. This was a known issue and also discussed in Malwarebytes Forum. In the end, their experts couldn't provide a solution to fix this issue, though. I had several trials installing Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 on different Windows XP partitions without any real success. At that time, I was very disappointed with Malwarebytes which always claims to be compatible with all programs. Anyway, I gave up on this version. Therefore, I use Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.2.1.1043, which works properly on Windows XP, but only as an on-demand scanner. In my opinion, Malwarebytes is not a full replacement for an AV program as, for example, Avast. But, as an on-demand scanner, to get a second opinion, it's useful although the old Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.75, which is no longer supported, was less bloated and much faster. Cheers, AstroSkipper