Leaderboard

@artomberus ... Actually, the very last build of Vivaldi on the stable (release) branch that would run on Vista SP2 is 1.1.453.59, based on Chromium 50.0.2661.102 source code: The screengrab is actually from an unofficial portable installation (in PAF format); search for it on the web... Official link to the v1.1.453.59 (32-bit) installer: https://downloads.vivaldi.com/stable/Vivaldi.1.1.453.59.exe The very last build of Vivaldi on the snapshot (dev) channel that would run on Vista SP2 was indeed 1.2.470.11, based on Chromium 50.0.2661.89 source code: (... again, this is a portable installation in PAF format). The relevant vivaldi blog entry is: https://vivaldi.com/blog/snapshots/snapshot-1-2-470-11-editable-gestures-2/ but, as you found out, ALL binary links are 404'ed now... TBH, both builds date to May 2016, which means they are probably unsafe to browse today's web with, not to mention that many sites have dropped long ago Chromium 50 compatibility; YMMV, but poor site/page rendering is highly probable ; if you plan to install uB0, 1.16.18/1.16.20 is the last one (but hard to find as a .CRX file) that successfully works with those old builds... I only have on disk the 32-bit version of Vivaldi 1.2.470.11[dev] (file Vivaldi.1.2.470.11.exe, dig. sig. of Wed, May 4th 2016, 17:08:01), but I am unsure as to whether I am allowed to share it here... Don't have time currently to search exhaustively for an archived link for it (sadly, web.archive.org doesn't appear to have salvaged it )...

More anti-malware / security programs still supporting Vista could be added to the first post: CryptoPrevent Anti-Malware https://www.d7xtech.com/cryptoprevent-anti-malware/ https://www.d7xtech.com/faq/what-happened-to-cryptoprevent-free-edition/ Cybergenic Shade Sandbox https://www.shadesandbox.com/ Dr. Web https://products.drweb.com/win/security_space/?lng=en https://products.drweb.com/win/av/?lng=en https://products.drweb.com/home/katana/?lng=en Hitman (now owned by Sophos) https://www.hitmanpro.com/en-us/hmp.aspx https://www.hitmanpro.com/en-us/alert.aspx Jetico Personal Firewall https://www.jetico.com/free-security-tools/block-out-bad-guys-jetico-personal-firewall KeyScrambler https://www.qfxsoftware.com/ks-windows/which-keyscrambler.htm NoVirusThanks programs https://www.novirusthanks.org/products/anti-autoexec/ https://www.novirusthanks.org/products/syshardener/ https://www.novirusthanks.org/products/registry-guard/ https://www.novirusthanks.org/products/registry-guard-service/ Qihoo 360 https://www.360totalsecurity.com/en/features/360-total-security-essential/ https://www.360totalsecurity.com/en/features/360-total-security/ RogueKiller https://www.adlice.com/download/roguekiller/ SecureAPlus https://www.secureaplus.com/download simplewall (partial support) https://www.henrypp.org/product/simplewall SpyShelter https://www.spyshelter.com/download-spyshelter/ TinyWall https://tinywall.pados.hu/download.php TrustPort https://www.trustport.com/en/support/frequently-asked-questions Unchecky https://unchecky.com/faq Xvirus https://xvirus.net/xvirus-personal-firewall.html#xvirus-firewall https://xvirus.net/#anti-malware Zemana https://www.zemana.com/antimalware https://www.zemana.com/antilogger

... Actually, stable build v1.1.453.59 has a digital signature of 2016-05-13 and is built on slightly fresher Chromium source (50.0.2661.102), whereas dev build v1.2.470.11 has a digital signature of 2016-05-04 and is built on older Chromium source (50.0.2661.89); so the snapshot build you're after is not more recent than the stable one I posted a link to... ... Yes, but only in (unsigned) ZIP format (which means you'll have to enable developer mode in vivaldi://extensions and install from unpacked folder; or, create yourself a .CRX file from within Vivaldi and permanently install that way... ). ... Knock yourself out Vivaldi.1.2.470.11.exe https://www15.zippyshare.com/v/bNiTojuc/file.html (Link availability at the discretion of forum admins... )

Or the update was posted by mistake. If this is so, then it means that updates for XP are released, but they are simply not published anywhere.

General installation advice: just pick a directory ("C:\Program Files" is fine) and extract the .7z file for the browser of your choice into it. That will create a subdirectory (palemoon\ for New Moon, basilisk\ for Serpent) under that directory. Then create a shortcut to palemoon.exe or basilisk.exe in your Start menu and/or on your desktop. Each week when a new version comes out, you can just extract the new .7z file over the previous one. The shortcut you created will still work. If you want/need to run multiple versions (e.g., NM 27 and NM 28, or St 52 and St 55), you can create separate directories and shortcuts for each version. @i430VX's installer does this, creating a palemoonx86 directory for NM 28 and a palemoon27x86 directory for NM 27. You can put i430VX's installer in its own directory. For example, create a "C:\Program Files\Roytam Browser Installer" directory and put it there. Then just create a shortcut to it in your start menu and/or on your desktop. (Does i430VX need to create an installer for his installer?) In general, there's no need to download multiple builds of the same version (unless you're archiving them "just in case"), so if you download NM 27, you'll probably download only one of the four builds of it (64-bit, 32-bit for SSE2, 32-bit for SSE, or 32-bit for pre-SSE) each week, depending on what you need for your PC.

I am opposed to the idea that RT should have to 'worry' about some 'internalized' ADD ON working with his Browsers. It seems like that ADD ONS (LEGACY) can 'stand on their own' -- so LET them do that. (Evil Humor) And, @VistaLover enjoys solving SOME riddles related to 'Ghosts in the Old Machines' https://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/ RT has some ADD ONS (*.xpi files) listed for download at his above URL for BNAV Browser. https://legacycollector.org/firefox-addons/ This above URL has Firefox LEGACY ADD ONS too. Just a straight forward download, no install involved. https://legacycollector.org/firefox-addons/722/index.html NoScript Security Suite

I can definitely report that on my 11 year old Vista SP2 32-bit install (with WS2008 updates up to Oct 2017 and .NET FW 4.6.1 manually installed), the app completes the scan successfully: I'd be much obliged if you forwarded this to your Malwarebytes connections/devs, so they could hopefully be prevented from taking a lighthearted and quick decision, based solely on one reported "issue"; we understand (but certainly not approve...) they don't want to support Vista anymore, but they should not artificially block the software from running on "compatible" (?) Vista configurations: If it works, don't break it! If it doesn't work to begin with, no support should be requested; then everyone's happy... Thanks in advance for alerting the Malwarebytes people... PS: Just a thought/question of mine I wanted to publicly voice: Why is it that "Security/Anti-Malware" software decide to jump the boat once dear ol' Microsoft terminates "official" support for one of their OSes? A sane, everyday, person would think that such software is rendered all the more necessary on said OS (one the vendor stopped patching); just look at what happened with XP: M$ killed for good its MSE solution, so die-hard XP users turned to third party paid apps still supporting XP (which means added profit for the authors of these apps...); but the conspiracy-theorist inside me mumbles that M$ actually bribes those third-party app authors to discontinue support, in order for Windows users to be forced to cough up their hard-earned money towards new hardware+WinOS...

This is not true: if by "official" site you mean https://noscript.net/ then change to the "get it!' tab and scroll down a bit:

Under "described behavior" I mean what I said earlier "Yes, it runs, but the scan is too fast and in fact there is no guarantee that your system is checked at all." Some user reported that the scan takes less than second with no indication that it completed / did anything. So there are some circumstances when AdwCleaner 7 just doesn't work. I don't know what was different on his system in comparison to yours. Yes, I'm on Windows 10 with no possibility to check Vista. I just report what I've seen.

... by described behaviour you mean: From my 7.3.0 scan log, you can see that 27501 objects were scanned: # ------------------------------- # Malwarebytes AdwCleaner 7.3.0.0 # ------------------------------- # Build: 04-04-2019 # Database: 2019-05-27.1 (Cloud) # Support: https://www.malwarebytes.com/support # # ------------------------------- # Mode: Scan # ------------------------------- # Start: 06-13-2019 # Duration: 00:00:40 # OS: Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium # Scanned: 27501 # Detected: 39 As said already, I haven't moved on to "Clean & Repair", so am not in a position to verify it properly removes a selected "flag" (but I might experiment with when spare time permits...). ... We here at the Vista subforums really hate it when app authors impose artificial blocks to their setups/executables and cripple them on our favourite OS, Vista; I hope the devs review their decision by actually testing themselves on the OS, even without officially supporting it... You appear to be running Win10, have you yourself tested latest version 7.3.0 on Vista? I apologise for being a pest...

If you want links to the (English only) 2000 and XP service packs, and Internet Explorer, you can use the page I created a few years ago. It automatically downloads the SP's from the Internet Archive. http://sdfox7.com/dl2kxpie.htm The SPs are also in the http://sdfox7.com/2000/ and http://sdfox7.com/xp/ directories. IE 6 for Windows 2000 isn't on that page, but all the versions are in the FTP here: http://sdfox7.com/ie/win32/ (older 16 bit versions for Windows 3.x are here: http://sdfox7.com/ie/win16/)

I am a member of various anti-malware communities including the official Malwarebytes forum with a status to access hidden forums. There was a report that AdwCleaner 7 on Vista exhibits the described behaviour. And the response was that potentially the lock should be added to prevent running the program at all.

You seem to know a lot more about this program than my humble self, so am not questioning the validity of what you posted ; however, I conducted a simple test: I launched v6.047 (after declining the prompt to update it...), and then went through its settings to configure it to my liking; then I initiated a scan: granted it took slightly more time to complete the scan (but that may be due to its older engine), but in the end it found exactly the same Folders, Scheduled Tasks and Registry entries as version 7.3.0 did! I never proceeded to the "Clean" action in either version (at least not without first creating a System Restore point), as most "flags" were actually identified by me to be false positives (many related to Chinese browser UCBrowser... ) Regards

About the database update, I was referring to the 6.x line. Also, it has been reported that AdwCleaner 7 on Vista does nothing. Yes, it runs, but the scan is too fast and in fact there is no guarantee that your system is checked at all. Actually, the issue triggered an internal report with a suggestion to disable launching of AdwCleaner 7 on Vista with a dialog with unsupported versions. It seems that they have not do it yet.

This doesn't appear to be true ; I have just downloaded version 7.2.6.0 from the repository you linked to, it had no issue launching, furthermore it prompted me to update it to latest version 7.3.0.0; the update went along fine, I have it successfully running here: So, while it is not officially supported anymore on XP/Vista, as per your link: latest version 7.3 appears to be functioning fine, at least on Vista SP2 (with .NET FW 4.6.1, if that matters at all)... Official download page: https://toolslib.net/downloads/viewdownload/1-adwcleaner/files/1920/ On-line documentation: https://toolslib.net/downloads/viewdownload/1-adwcleaner/pages/5-en-adwcleaner-documentation/ Off-line user guide (for v7.2.4): https://www.malwarebytes.com/pdf/guides/Malwarebytes-AdwCleaner-User-Guide.pdf OT: Doesn't it strike you as odd that Vista had more usage percentage at the time support was officially dropped than Windows XP?

Could be you're just a little more paranoid than most?

Last version with Vista support is 25.1.0.12. Official German article still serves links to download, but I don't know if definitions are delivered: https://www.gdata.de/support/faq/consumer/kompatibilitaet-mit-window-xp-windows-vista-und-outlook-2007 Last version for Vista is 6.x, newer 7.x does not work. As far as I'm aware, outdated database with no possibility to update. https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/204703-release-adwcleaner-7000/ https://toolslib.net/downloads/viewdownload/1-adwcleaner/files/?s=6&t=release

The author recommends NoScript 2.6.9.32. Indeed, it's faster on the old machines. Concerning the security of old, unsupported software, all I can say from my experience is, that I have never ever got virus troubles with Windows 98 on the internet (an unsupported system since 2006) at daily use with old browsers like Netscape (2008) or K-Meleon (2010). Just don't click on stupid things and deactivate JavaScript. Even on scammy websites, nothing really happens then.

If you can wait a couple of hours, I will provide you the link for the best version.

The old parameter still applies to Chrome 75, the new one applies to Chrome 76. I guess only time will tell about the future versions.

I suppose I could...

That's probably because your system lacks Eastern Asian Fonts (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc...); not saying you'd be able to understand the messages in Chinese (displayed by the installer) had you got them installed... Perhaps a native Chinese speaker could create an installation guide with screenshots for those wanting to install this Chinese Chromium 69 fork (myself, I'm using a Russian-made portable version in WinPenPack format, just search for it on line as it's not allowed here on MSFN to post links to "unofficial" packages... ).

... As posted elsewhere, 45.9.0esr was the last 45esr version officially released by Mozilla (mid-April 2017): https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/45.9.0esr/win32/it/ 45.0esr (very similar to stable 45.0) was from March 2016; during an ESR branch update cycle, only security updates, chemspills (urgently needed fixes for various breakages) and some quality/performance updates are being backported from the main (stable/release) Firefox branch (with higher major version numbers...); system/CPU requirements don't change in the middle of an ESR cycle, when they do, it's always beginning with the next ESR cycle; e.g. all 45.x.xESR builds will run on max-SSE processors, none of the 52.x.xESR cycle will (likewise, all 52.x.xESR builds will run on XP/Vista, but none of the 60.x.xESR cycle will ) Simply put, 45.9.0esr has more than a year's worth of publicly disclosed security vulnerabilities patched; as to whether those put a perceivable dent to the whole browser performance, as suggested, I can't comment really ; test on your own particular setup and decide for yourself; if you ask me, though, I'd go for safer...

Yes but what i meant was @looking4awayout had said to try the SSE version. All I was doing was clearing that up as IIRC that CPU doesnt support SSE Therefore needing to use the noSSE one

I agree. If this were to be done at all, it should be done by @i430VX's installer. I could see the installer offering to download and install a few popular add-ons after extracting the browser. In theory @siria's method below would be ideal, but I'm not sure it would work in practice: That would install add-ons in a new profile anytime one is created. It may work in KM - I haven't looked - but in NM and Serpent, the defaults\profile\ folder seems to live in browser\omni.ja, and I'm not sure it's feasible to modify that file. It seems to be a nonstandard .zip format. So that leaves you with storing the downloaded add-ons in the browser\extensions\ subfolder, which means they could be disabled but not removed easily (except of course by reinstalling). The installer would need to give the user a message to that effect.

One that only catches viruses... I doubt any exist anymore. However, traditional AVs are, nowadays, signature-based antimalwares, with some heuristics (not always very good) on top of it. Malwarebytes, OTOH, says it uses their own methods (not clearly disclosed) which appear to be very good heuristics and just a little pinch of signature-based as a seasoning. It just works, though.

Where's @Bersaglio? I assume we can just change "192" to "207" in the links below. I'm about to give it a try anyway. Edit: Apparently works fine. (Avast did scan "plugin-container.exe" for me, but didn't find any malware!)

I checked the code, they just changed the command line parameter for disabling custom title bar. The correct parameter in newer Chromium browsers is -disable-windows10-custom-titlebar The decision is made in chrome/browser/win/titlebar_config.cc.

The same happens on Opera. I guess it is because hardware acceleration is enabled on Windows 10 only thus compatibility mode disables it.