Leaderboard

It didn't work with 4.7.2 so I think Microsoft changed the system requirements on purpose. Updates that i had installed: all Vista updates till 2017 + KB4019478 - D3Dcompiler-x64 + SHA-2 updates KB4039648-v2,KB4493730, KB4474419 + Extended Kernel The "4.6.2" text next to "Server 2008 SP2" was added quite recently: http://web.archive.org/web/20210506200116/https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/get-started/system-requirements http://web.archive.org/web/20211006034517/https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/get-started/system-requirements

I was intrigued by your report , so I connected an external HDD in which I had archived a copy of NDP462-KB3151800-x86-x64-AllOS-ENU.exe originally downloaded Sep 14th 2016; that off-line installer was dual-signed (SHA1+SHA2) on July 15th 2016; running that installer now, after file extraction, generates the familiar error below: I closed that installation attempt and then went to https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-framework/thank-you/net462-offline-installer Direct link is https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2099468 The latter fetched file ndp462-kb3151800-x86-x64-allos-enu.exe (in small letters this time ) which is only SHA-2 signed on May 1st 2021; my Vista SP2 32-bit system has SHA-2 support installed, so when I ran that second off-line installer, and after file extraction (takes a few seconds, because it scans ALL your drives to choose the one with maximum FREE disk space), I was, surprisingly, presented with: Now, I didn't click Install to go on with the 4.6.2 installation, because I wasn't yet ready to part with my existing, perfectly working, 4.6.1 setup... Perhaps the 4.6.2 installation would have aborted at a later stage, or perhaps NOT... The thing is the updated .NF462 setup doesn't immediately barf when it detects NT6.0; another kind soul with Vista SP2 in a VM could try that new installer to explore whether it "requires special procedures" to complete the installation... FWIW, since this revised setup targets WS2008SP2, I expect it would require a special minimum set of WS2008SP2 updates to be present in your Vista SP2 image...

I was almost certain that .NET 4.6.0 was the last to officially support Server 2008 SP2, but I just looked it up and and a Microsoft document now shows 4.6.2 as supported!? (But it neglects to mention 4.6.1 in connection with 2008 SP2, so quite possibly an error. This is near the bottom of https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/get-started/system-requirements .) Special procedures are were required to install 4.6.2 or above on Vista. Edit: Subsequent posts reveal that installing 4.6.2 is no longer a problem, assuming that SHA-2 support has been installed. Btw updates for 4.6.1 and earlier are supposed to end on April 26.

It does install successfully I have the latest ex. kernel installed on the machine and all the updates that are required However I don't have any apps installed that use it so you can suggest some Check the bottom of this page https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/the-net-framework-4-6-2-offline-installer-for-windows-9dce3874-a9e5-9b11-289d-5594824aafe0 I thought the last version for server 2008 sp2 was 4.6.1

I can confirm everything that you are saying. First I tried with my old .NET 4.6.2 offline setup that was signed on 15.07.2016 with both SHA-1 and 256 and I got the "unsupported OS" error. Than i downloaded a new installer from Microsoft, and it worked! I'm going to try 4.7.2 next

Thank you for telling me. I'll probably install Blender 2.45 to see if it will work under Windows NT 4.0.

Well Ford and Dell got some in common. Both used to do high quality stuff but since then started cut corners and turned into unreliable short lifespan products. Dell uses cheap caps on mainboard and their cases are propieraty so no way change case easily. I hope you and your machine will have long lifespan together . PS. that desktop is interesting looking still. It looks like mix of Windows XP and Windows 7 to my eye

I used to have .net framework 4.7.2 installed on Vista. Some programs displayed an error "A programs has stopped working", but I could minimize it (not close) and the application worked fine (for example BlueStacks3), others like Visual Studio 2010 Express didn't run at all. Currently I use 4.6.1 (officially supported on Server 2008), but 4.6.2 is stable too. Most modern programs still support those versions.

I'm trying to run Bloons TD 6 Steam version. What is weird is that the game worked in the past with the Kernel and without .net framework 4.8 (it would prompt me to install it, but I could still run it), but now doesn't. I uninstalled it and tried to reinstall it, but it throws an error. I should note that the game and steam are in my osver.ini file (otherwise it will tell me there is no connection). I should note that Bloons TD 5, also from Steam works, but this game was released when Steam still supported Vista.

Installation is possible, but I would advise against it because you will get missing dependency errors with .NET software that should work on vanilla Vista (see this May 17, 2019 post). Unless you simply must test some program that specifically requires 4.8, you would get better results with any lower 4.x version.

Wow I didn't know that was going on. If they try to completely stop all the forks then their project, what's left of it will die out. Many of us have little use for their versions. They should work with the fork developers instead of being antagonistic but that's just me.

The page actually names two seperate End Of Life-Dates. The upper one states January 2023, but at the end of that page it says January 2022. Edge is based on Chromium. So, they will end their support when Google ends Chrome for Windows 7

And fine with FF 53 too. Evidently a very unique bug. I see; the procedure is passed a 32-bit value, and wants to ensure it's a valid port number (in the range 1 to 65535), so that you'll get the error if you enter something idiotic like microsoft.com:0 or google.com:65536; but it was first assigning the 32-bit value to a 16-bit value, cutting off the high-order bits and rendering the check for being over 65535 meaningless. Worse, it was a signed 16-bit value, so anything over 32767 tested as less than 0 and was blocked as an invalid port number! Edit: Roytam's fix works! BTW, I saw that he found and fixed the same coding mistake in FF 45 and the Tycho browsers (PM 27 and KM); yet it didn't cause the same bug, at least in the FF 45 build I was using. (Haven't tried the others.) Like later FF versions, FF 45 accessed port 50100 just fine.

Good - sounds like the issue was unique to the Moebius platform and doesn't affect UXP browsers. Which sort of makes sense, because IceApe is itself a UXP browser - I think they would've noticed if they couldn't browse their own change log!

The simple and concise version: I hate the modern Internet. The long version: Just about every imaginable aspect of it seems to demand infinite RAM and CPU cycles, and for what? To do the EXACT same things websites did 20 years ago (via Flash and, yes, ActiveX)?! And these sites managed to do what they did at about the same speeds sites do them now, with 1/10th the available resources! (the average PC in 2001 had probably 256 MB of RAM and 20 or so GB of disk storage, which is nothing by modern standards). And Google? It seems to me they're leveraging their immense size and reach to remake the Internet in their image (proprietary and exclusionary), simply because they can. And they pass it off as an improvement?? And don't even get me started about Facebook, one of the other major evils of the Internet industry... *grumble* What would be nice is if someone created a new browser, which incorporates a sensible, standard UI (something PM-like would be nice, but FF 5x.x would be okay too) and a light weight, efficient rendering engine which is highly compatible with Chrome where needed, but completely open with as little telemetry as possible (undoubtedly, there will be sites that require telemetry as a "feature," so this hypothetical browser would have to "emulate" enough of it to keep the site happy, but without the security risks). This browser should be cross-platform, and it should be backwards compatible as far back as reasonably possible by using basic APIs and simple runtimes wherever possible (think Mac OS back to 10.6 and Windows to at least XP SP2, but ideally XP RTM and 2000). If anyone wants to start this project, count me in as one of your first customers!! c

OK I think I found the root of issue, and a fix is pushed.

Hey thank you ntfoxy for these XP enhancements. XP will always have the most special place for me as the OS that treated users right. It is lovely to see little enhancements for it that later Windows releases got. I no longer have XP on real hardware but my VMs will live on forever.

The next stage/phase of chromium development is web.brain , to track down and eliminate survivours after the global takeover .