Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    I don't think there will be any POSReady 7 registry trick like with Vista where you need to manually to install updates from the Update Catalog. (I think the post should belong to the Windows 7 category, glnz )
  2. 2 points
    ... This isn't always a definitive test - many a times, lowering the subsystem string (to < 6.0) in the main executable will get it to launch, despite this initial warning; the only definitive test is to use dependency walker x64 on the 64-bit program executable (and, possibly, on the program DLLs it depends on) and look out for API calls to missing functions in the XP x64 kernel...
  3. 2 points
    @-moz-document domain(instagram.com) { div._97aPb > div { display: block !important; } } is what it should be in userContent.css. I don't use userContent.css myself and I guess I figured people would just plug the (entire) changed part into userContent.css based on the previous example. Not that \i blame you, I've made plenty of similar mistakes copying code from one kind of syntax to another. (Edit: And even in my last 2 posts here, I've somehow managed to write !'d instead of I'd and \i instead of I That's actually kind of mysterious, though I guess an irregular sleep schedule can do that to you...) The full UA I'm using on Instagram is Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 but only the 56.0 part I gave above should matter.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    OT: it seems that my new rig win7's status is somewhat bearable for daily use, may swap-in in next week.
  6. 1 point
    I installed right over 3.0b with no issue. The only issue seems to be that a few resources were left in Japanese (descriptions of Downloads/My Documents/My Videos in Explorer). Aside from that it's solid. 19 1/2 years later and the OS keeps getting better
  7. 1 point
    I released Extended Kernel v3.0d * Installer is improved. * TLS1.1/1.2 support *Download Folder Support. ・GDIPLUS・MSXML6・JSCRIPT9 update ・add functions in KERNEL.DLL GetLocaleScripts GetStringScripts VerifyScripts ・add functions in ADVAPI32.DLL EventProviderEnabled EventSetInformation EventWriteEndScenario EventWriteStartScenario EventActivityIdControl EventWriteString EventWriteTransfer EnableTraceEx ・wevtapi.dll bug fix ・WindowsCodecs.dll/wmphoto.dll (WIC) upgrade to Windows 7 compatible
  8. 1 point
    maybe a "one-shot" build can be done, if I can finish migrating my main workstation to new rig and I got some more free time, likely in october. (but please don't hold your breath for it)
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Now, seriously: nothing is safe, but XP is about as unsafe as 10 (maybe even less, now that it's below 2% market share, and MS compilers set Subsystem Version to 6.1 by default... ). However, security is mainly a PEBCAK, more than anything else. My 2¢, which you asked for.
  11. 1 point
    I did my usual update of Adobe Flash today, and since I now have the Edge beta I decided to update the PPAPI Flash version. It worked, but I discovered that Edge really doesn't like Flash very much. First, it defaults to disabled. If you visit a Flash page (like, say, the Check Adobe Flash Player Version), nothing works. But there's a tiny icon in the address bar; if you click it, it tells you "Flash was blocked on this page" and gives you the option to "Manage." If you click Manage you can turn Flash on. Then, you get a nag telling you "Flash will no longer be supported 15 months from now" or words to that effect, with a button to "turn off" Flash again. You can dismiss the nag, (Edit:) but it will come back every time you restart Edge! Then, if you try again, it still doesn't work! But if you click on a Flash control, at least now it gives you the option to "Allow". (Edit:) And once again, you must redo this every time you restart Edge! Pages you've told Edge to "allow" Flash on are only remembered until you close it. So does it finally work then? No, of course not! You have to explicitly click on each Flash control again (in this example, the one telling you which Flash version you have) in order to run that control. Google/M$ really don't want you running Flash! What a ridiculous number of hoops to jump through! In Firefox, I generally leave Flash disabled, but I have an add-on that lets me enable it with one click if I run across a site that needs it. I think Firefox and its forks (at least, the older ones that still run it) have it about right. I don't want it on by default (as is the case with IE), but if I do want it, I don't expect to have to answer a ton of "are you sure?", "are you really sure?", and "are you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY sure?" dialogs first!
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    I like debian. Not some derivative distribution, but plain vanilla debian. Now, regardless of what linux distribution one uses, I think the best desktop environment is Trinity, hands down. If not that, then xfce. All others are too much fireworks and eye-candy for my taste. Of course, just my 2¢. YMMV.
  14. 1 point
    KB4034775, KB4343674, KB4458000, KB4458006, KB4462987, KB4463573, KB4473077, KB4487085-v2, KB4487385, KB4489977, KB4490385, KB4493793, KB4493794, KB4493795, KB4493796, KB4493797, KB4494528, KB4495022.
  15. 1 point
    I don't know this for a fact, but I'll hazard a guess: Google keeps changing reCAPTCHA code and only tests it thoroughly with their own browser, Chrome. Maybe also the latest version of FF, if we're lucky. But Pale Moon and Basilisk, both based on an older FF version, 52.9? Fuhgeddaboudit. My guess is, they're trying to stay ahead of the bots, so it's not totally nefarious; but they also have no incentive not to break older browsers. After all, it just might drive more users to Chrome in the process. What a lucky happenstance for them! After all, FF will keep up. Eventually Pale Moon and Basilisk will probably catch up too, but by then Google will probably have changed something else and broken them yet again.
×
×
  • Create New...