Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/24/2022 in all areas

  1. There is no need to download anything, because while .Net 3.5 installer asks for downloading .Net3 files, in fact it has all the resources already available in it. Thanks to @abbodi1406 for pointing this. To install .Net framework completely offline: 1. Before proceeding you may (or may not) have to install Windows XP service pack 2, Windows Imaging Component and Windows Installer 4.5 KB942288-v4. (I had them already installed) 2. Install earlier versions of .Net Framework like .Net 2.0 sp2 (offline installers are available). 4. Extract .Net framework 3.5 installer using 7-zip or similar program the widely available offline setup. It shouldn’t ask for internet connection now. 3. Install everything from dotNetFX20 and dotNetFX30 folders. 4. Install .Net framework 3.5 using main installer. It shouldn’t ask for internet connection now. 5. You can test some .Net 3 programs. For example Microsoft Mathematics 4.0 which is a .Net 3.5 application.
    1 point
  2. I see D.Draker uploaded it for you. (Thanks!) It won't make any difference, though, unless you need it to validate another certificate that was signed by that one. I understand. I don't think there's any problem with ProxHTTPSProxy. I think there's a bug with Windows Update when it tries to validate a site certificate signed by your ProxHTTPSProxy certificate that runs from 2021 (last year) to 2031. It's throwing that date/time error code when it shouldn't be; your ProxHTTPSProxy certificate is fine but WU still chokes on it. As to actually finding that bug and fixing it, where's @mixit when you need him? For some reason, WU seems to like the original ProxHTTPSProxy certificate (the one that runs from 2015-2025) better. But, it won't work unless you put it in your trusted root store (with a command like the one D.Draker gave you for the M$ certificate) and also recreate your site certificates. I think ProxHTTPSProxy will re-create your site certificates automatically if it sees that CA.crt has changed, but just in case, you can rename your ...\Certs folder and create a new, empty one. That will force ProxHTTPSProxy to generate all new site certificates and sign them with the new CA.crt. The reason for renaming the folder vs. just clearing it is just for performance; if things go wrong, you could just delete everything in ...\Certs, but if instead you go back to your current configuration, ProxHTTPSProxy won't need to re-create all your site certificates yet again. If you have to put your current CA.crt back, it can just go back to using the old ones. A final note: CA.crt contains both a certificate and its private key. The private key is needed to sign the site certificates that ProxHTTPSProxy creates. From a pure security standpoint, it's unwise to share a file with a private key like CA.crt, because (in theory) any two folks using the same CA.crt could decrypt each other's communications, if they had access to each other's computers. But for what we're doing, it's probably fine. I doubt that any of us is inclined to spy on anyone else! That said, does anyone using ProxHTTPSProxy have a CA.crt expiring between 2025 and 2031? It'd be interesting to see if it works or not. I suspect there's a particular point in between (1/1/2028?) where things go wrong.
    1 point
  3. I feel you man !!! Windows 7 is the worst nightmare and you're absolutely right : NO way to turn it off on win7 !!! Yet you're mistaken about Vista . It can be switched OFF completely ! Do not consider yourself somewhat special though , I too can see the bloody dancing pixels. I think most folks won't notice because of their junk monitors though. Windows 7 is pure evil. Here's the proof with AA on and OFF on Vista . And here's my upvote for ya , of course.
    1 point
  4. Don't recall offhand. When Windows 7 landed me in the hospital for migraines that i've never had in my entire life until Windows 7's font rendering came along, I promptly returned to XP. I actually thought I had brain cancer when hit with migraines two or three times a day for several days and never knowing what a migraine was! My issues with sub-pixel anti-aliased fonts actually landed me (and others like me) in medical journals - I've kind of always regretted not getting a "copy" just for nostalgia or whatnot. Most people's eyesight just "adjusts" to sub-pixel anti-aliased fonts. It is NOT because my eyesight is "worse" than others, it's because it is more accute and accurate than others. I mean, I can't fly around like a hawk and swoop down for a field mouse, but I guess you could say it's something like that, lol.
    1 point
  5. Totally agree on font rendering. Win 7 and Vista anti-aliased ClearType-tuned fonts give me migraines. Win 10 does not (no interest in even trying 11). I'm not talking just Chrome font rendering, the entire Windows GUI gives me migraines due to font blur, in ALL applications. The "edgy" fonts in XP are far from 'perfect', but at least they do not send me to the ER or put me in dark closet for four hours waiting for a migraine to subside.
    1 point
  6. Clean Flash Installer version 34.0.0.211 is now available at https://gitlab.com/cleanflash/installer/-/releases/. Confirmed working on Windows XP. Don't forget you need JustOff's GitHub-wc-polyfill add-on installed to access GitLab from a UXP browser; also Serpent 52 must be in single-process mode. 360EE should work without issue.
    1 point
  7. New build of Serpent/UXP for XP! Test binary: Win32 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20220122-f94c0da-uxp-b0eda70ed-xpmod.7z Win64 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win64-git-20220122-f94c0da-uxp-b0eda70ed-xpmod.7z source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/custom IA32 Win32 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20220122-f94c0da-uxp-b0eda70ed-xpmod-ia32.7z source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/ia32 NM28XP build: Win32 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.4a1.win32-git-20220122-ba47fad4d-uxp-b0eda70ed-xpmod.7z Win32 SSE https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.4a1.win32-git-20220122-ba47fad4d-uxp-b0eda70ed-xpmod-sse.7z Win64 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.4a1.win64-git-20220122-ba47fad4d-uxp-b0eda70ed-xpmod.7z Official UXP changes picked since my last build: - Bug 1740389; r=handyman, a=tjr Bug 1735071: Make Windows non-ePopupLevelTop popups respect owner z-order. r=edgar, a=tjr (7d96ee2fe) - Bug 1664149: Hold a self reference in nsDataObj. r=smaug, a=RyanVM (afc2f71d7) - Bug 1735028 - check for missing signedData field r=keeler (e3fb99406) - Bug 1743515 - Add dynamic check for valid serialized length. r=jonco, a=RyanVM (2ceec8871) - Bug 1746720 - Don't special-case <meta> refresh for XSLT. r=ckerschb,freddyb a=RyanVM (b2b02865a) - Bug 1746011 - Handle truncated ADTS stream. r=bryce, a=RyanVM (62a879b69) - Bug 1737816 - Handle truncated mp3 resources. r=bryce, a=RyanVM (258790bf3) - Bug 1741201 - Increase intermediate byte storage maximum capacity. r=janv, a=tjr (7d7c1ab08) - Bug 1650214 - Cancel progress timer when shutting down FileReader. r=asuth, a=RyanVM (b2d3ec5e9) - Bug 1737252 - [devtools] Escaping back tick signs. r=nchevobbe, a=RyanVM (5ad78a48d) - Issue #unknown, update mozglue delay-load DLL list. (164473384) No official Basilisk changes picked since my last build. No official Pale-Moon changes picked since my last build. * Notice: From now on, UXP rev will point to `custom` branch of my UXP repo instead of now-dead MCP UXP repo, while "official UXP changes" shows only `tracking` branch changes. MCP Basilisk/Pale-Moon rev after datecode will be removed later.
    1 point
  8. What GPU you have? Forceware 8x.xx and 7x.xx can be VERY buggy on Windows 9x. Try using older drivers and see if issues go away, you can find them here: https://www.philscomputerlab.com/nvidia-9x-graphics-drivers.html
    1 point
  9. Well then I suggest to anyone looking for drivers to update them themselves. Driver booster actually kinda destroyed few of my windows installation. It absolutely does not care if it is installing chipset driver made for windows 10 on Windows 8.1. Yeah well sorry about that, whenever I hear about this "program" I get really mad. I just try to warn people that it can damage their operating system. One computer was left unbootable, because it replaced acpi driver.
    1 point
  10. Definitely DO NOT! SDI is far superior and it DOESN’T INSTALL INCOMPATIBLE DRIVERS! I’m speaking from experience.
    1 point
  11. Why Windows Vista isn't bad Windows Vista: it's the OS everyone loves to hate. Still today, several years later, I see it being criticized for having high system requirements and being a memory hog. But is it really that bad? I think not. In this article I am going to explain why I believe Windows Vista deserves more respect and really isn't bad, and hopefully convince some of you XP and Windows 7 fans that Vista is a very viable OS, especially by today's standards. So let's begin. Windows Vista, when released, introduced a completely different and totally new kernel and driver model than that of its predecessor, Windows XP. Introducing a new kernel caused compatibility issues with legacy applications, and an entire new driver model caused a number of driver compatibility problems. I'll admit, Windows Vista truly wasn't ready when it was released in its RTM version, as it still caused heavy disk I/O which drastically decreased the life of hard drives and degraded performance. There were also issues with OEMs, that hadn't yet released drivers for Vista or released drivers that didn't work well with the new driver model, and OEMs forced Vista onto hardware that barely met the system requirements for Windows Vista. They also stuffed it full of OEM bloatware which caused it to be even slower for users. However, in this article I'm going to explain how those problems were fixed and are now non-existent in Windows Vista. The Rise of Vista: Service Pack 1 released In 2008 with the release of Vista SP1, tons of issues were resolved, and speed was greatly improved. Some improvements made in Service Pack 1 were: Faster copy times, heavy disk activity was toned down dramatically, and tons of apps and drivers had finally caught up with Vista, but there were still some issues. Vista, even with SP1, was still lackluster and needed some work, to hopefully get people off Windows XP for good. There was still the slow boot up and shut down time, as well as a few instability issues. But soon, Microsoft was going to fix that in its next Service Pack for Windows Vista. Vista at its peak: Service Pack 2 released With the release of Service Pack 2 in April 2009, Vista was finally what I would call ready, and Microsoft had managed to finally advance the OS far ahead of Windows XP. Improvements in Service Pack 2 were: even faster file copy times, boot up time improved dramatically, stability greatly improved, memory (RAM) usage was toned down, UAC was refined to be less annoying (while keeping the OS secure), and support for newer types of hardware was added, including support for blue-ray discs. At this stage, Windows Vista was, in my opinion, a worthy successor to Windows XP, and was almost perfect. However, the hate still raged on in most people's minds. Why people still hate Windows Vista Vista is still hated by the majority today, and I believe I know why. Early adopters that tried Vista didn't give it a second chance. They tried it once, either hated it or loved it, and never looked back at it again. So they just hopped back to the trusty old Windows XP and waited for the next version of Windows to arrive, that being Windows 7. Despite service packs improving the OS, people still didn't give Vista another chance, and forever concluded in their minds that it was a failure. I've also had people tell me that they hate Vista because they "heard bad things about it". And a lot of people just jumped on the Vista hating bandwagon without even trying it, which in my opinion, isn't a smart thing to do. Why Windows Vista deserves more respect Windows Vista introduced many new technologies that are critical to Windows 7's existence. Some people may not realize this, but Windows Vista was critical to Windows 7's success. Had Windows 7 in its form today been released instead of Vista, Windows 7 would've received criticism for the same reasons as Windows Vista. It also had high system requirements (identical to Windows Vista's in fact) compared with XP, and it retained a similar kernel (only slightly refined from Vista) and an almost identical driver model introduced by Windows Vista, which makes it a complete departure from Windows XP as well. Compatibility issues would've existed, and Windows 7 would've been installed on underpowered hardware, just as Vista was, and users would've complained about slowness, and jumped back to XP, just as they did with Vista; which is why I believe Vista deserves more respect. Why Windows Vista is much better than Windows XP Some people might have trouble swallowing this, but Windows Vista truly is a large step up from Windows XP, in many ways. One large criticism of Windows XP was security, and despite Microsoft improving the security by releasing Service Pack 2 for XP in 2004, Vista really abolished that problem at a much higher level. With a stronger Windows Firewall and User Account Control that was refined over time to be less annoying with updates, Windows Vista is much more secure than Windows XP. Windows Vista is also better optimized for modern hardware, and takes better advantage of multi-core processors than Windows XP, and has a full-fledged 64 bit version. XP had a 64 bit version, but it was based on its server counterpart, Windows Server 2003, which caused compatibility issues and was not widely adopted. Windows Vista also has more secure networking, and with Service Pack 1, tests showed Windows Vista outperformed Windows XP in the file copying area, just as Microsoft had claimed to improve with the update. Windows Vista also introduced DirectX 10, which delivered much richer gaming graphics and better performance than DirectX 9.0c which was the last version available for Windows XP. Windows Vista also introduced support for USB 3.0, which was much faster and more efficient than USB 2.0 that was available on Windows XP. Although, most USB 3.0 devices will still work—in a technical sense—with Windows XP because they’re backward-compatible. However, they will fall back to USB 2.0 compatibility and transfer data at about one-tenth of the potential speed of USB 3.0. Also, Windows Vista introduced a much faster, more efficient, and more convenient search. Open any explorer window or open the start menu in Vista, and there's most likely search present there. In Windows XP, all you have out of the box is the classic search from previous versions of Windows. And although it works, it's still not as convenient or as efficient as it is in Windows Vista, because you only have it all in one place, rather than throughout the system like in Windows Vista. Although it really wasn't necessary, Windows Vista introduced a very elegant desktop composition engine known as Windows Aero, which looked, to me anyways, much more appealing than the Luna interface that was in Windows XP. And it was refined to be less resource intensive with Service Pack 2. Windows Vista: a viable choice for many, even today Windows Vista was truly ahead of its time, and by today's standards, it still pretty much meets everything most people would want from an operating system. It's very similar to Windows 7. It works well on modern hardware, as it's optimized for multi-core processors, and works with most of the latest third party software. And it also supports 64 bit computing very well, just as well as Windows 7 in fact. And much better than Windows XP did. I'm not saying we should all just switch to Windows Vista, but if you're still using Windows XP, upgrading to Vista with Service Pack 2 wouldn't at all be a bad idea if your hardware can handle it. Conclusion Well I'll leave you with this, and I hope I helped some of you realize why Windows Vista was really a misunderstood operating system. Today, Windows Vista is much better than it was in its infancy, and is no longer "crap" like people have claimed that it is. As long as you run it on compatible hardware and keep it up to date, it will run just fine. In fact, I use Vista (or server 2008 as a workstation rather, the same as vista pretty much) as my main OS, and it runs just fine. And I don't understand that if someone that likes Windows 7 tried Vista today with Service Pack 2 installed on modern hardware, how they could still hate it- but that's just my take on this. If you know why please explain. Thanks very much for reading! -2008WindowsVista
    1 point


×
×
  • Create New...