Leaderboard

The third post contains an "Alphabetical list of programs that need to be tested for compatibility, features and support or whose installers have been lost". I think you mean the fourth post which contains the"Alphabetical list of programs that have recently been abandoned or should be avoided". But does 360 Total Security Essential 8.8.0.1119 really not work any longer? I personally assume it is still working but only cloud-based. Am I right?

360 Total Security Essential 8.8.0.1119 will never get any Avira database updates again. As already stated in my quoted post, there were (and hopefully are) still some further antivirus engines which were used by this version. However, these were cloud-based. Therefore, no local updates are needed anymore. The last date of your updating from 12-12-2023 was probably the day when you got the obsolete Avira defintion updates from 2021. Other updates you'll presumably never see. All in all, this version is no longer what it used to be, and I haven't used it for a long time. Maybe, it is time for you to switch to another antimalware programme.

That CapXon caps don't look good. It's from the 3rd lowest tier.

Why new? What was wrong with the original, curious?

It's not that hard in the hardware that old, they made much bigger caps and boards then, also many videos exist. In such 2024-made hardware, it's obviously a no-go for a beginner.

Despite quite common belief, CaXpons can live up to 7 years just fine, after they need to be replaced 100%.

This is i have

Thanks for reporting! Unfortunately, your report is a bit unspecific. Which version of 360 Total Security Essential do you refer to? And what exactly is no longer being updated? The programme or the virus definitions or even both? FYI, please be aware of what I have already investigated and written here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184730-antimalware-firewall-and-other-security-programs-for-windows-xp-working-in-2023-and-hopefully-beyond/?do=findComment&comment=1253715

Current version of the IPB Forum does not actually support BBCode like in the old versions and with other forums. It uses it as a markup only and of course you can't set the editor to bbcode view only. Personally don't care for this direction IPB has gone. As for the links thing, yes it is an issue and appeared to be disabled a few weeks ago. Don't need two topics for this. Rel: https://msfn.org/board/topic/185994-cant-edit-my-first-post-in-thread/

Overall working well here with 3BG of RAM (Pentium D) on youtube most of the day - I'm very impressed - thank you!

So you aren't gonna share with people here?

The dev needs proper motivation, I fully support it. Is there a comparison somewhere with and without the "plus" (paid) package. Thanks.

Thanks, that's good to hear, although I will stick with 121 for the moment! I still can hardly believe that a browser with the latest Chromium version will actually work on XP. It's far from perfect, but the fact that it works at all amazes me!

Thank you! Very interesting facts from a fellow MSFNer! It's no wonder that spyware replaces those original Windows files. wzcsvc.dll (Wireless Zero Configuration Service) - convenient to send additional hidden data via side channels (a well known way of stealing data). shimgvw.dll (Windows Picture and Fax Viewer) convenient to view and make screengrabs of what you do on your PC. There are multiple official governmental warnings against using that software.

Off-topic, but I've still got my original PC, from 1993, so not quite as old as yours! I run dual boot Windows 95 and Windows NT 3.1 on it.

How so? In simple English, I suggest to try the both sites with the flag on defaults. I'm just trying to be helpful, as I generally am.

Given that the current Google Chrome "stable" release is at v122.0 as I type this, it comes as no real surprise that sites are starting to "blacklist" our "legacy" Chromium browsers (360EEv13.x, KMB) via "User-Agent-Sniffin'", simply because they report a Chrome/86[/87] slice inside their default UA string... So far, they're not many , but this is expected to change in the future ... The most recent case I encountered is the one of "sciencedirect.com", after a Google Search result had pointed me to: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/protected-storage I was "greeted" by: I'd have expected a "science-related" site to have implemented truly scientific means (i.e. feature-detection) to check whether "my" browser is able to display it properly, but, hey, even "scientists" must have "sold their souls" to Google and company (a figure of speech, surely, but ...) ... At this point in time, I've opted for a SSUAO rather than a "global" one via the " --user-agent" cmdline flag ; several extensions offer this functionality, I've chosen Custom UserAgent String ; you need the older v0.2.1, the last on MV2 : At last, I was then able to be "scientifically" informed using 360EEv13 ...

Hi @user57, I thikn you are referring to this error. It happens to me quite often because I use a modded Directx10 in XP, https://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/DirectX-10-for-Windows-XP.shtml Most of those errors result from programs that call dwmapi.dl, which in turn, I reckon calls msvcrt.dll, generating the error. Replacing it with dwmapi.dll mod in xompie makes most of those errors disapear. But some programs (zoom, now supermium) call msvcrt.dll directly, I guess, generating the same inconsequential error. If I undestand you correctly, you say that "any exception handler (and xp has this so do win98 or win2000)" can solve for that, but I don't know what app or hack would allow me to do that. In any case, as you say it is of no consequence whatsoever for the browser once the error is clicked away (which I do with the freeware version of PTFB, https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/ptfb_(push_the_freakin_button).html).

So it paid to wait. Happy for you.

... Other people on XP SP3 have experienced that error, too : https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/318 InitializeProcThreadAttributeList requires Vista SP2 as "minimum supported client" ...

I tend to agree - but there's also no reason not to. The main reasons for making 64-bit versions of programs are to address large amounts of RAM in a single process, and to boost performance. Neither is as important for email clients as for browsers. But @Jody Thornton wants one. I could see making it a low-priority project (not much demand), but unless there's something that just won't easily compile in 64-bit mode, I see no harm in giving it to him. The only downside is that the file would be slightly larger (and of course it would only run on 64-bit machines). I made a bit of progress on this last night. The "build" folder is a drop-in replacement. The "web" folder is almost a drop-in replacement, but you do have to make some changes to viewer.js and viewer.html. I got viewer.js figured out last night. I'll see if I can get viewer.html figured out tonight, then I'll see how new the version can get before the Javascript becomes hopelessly incompatible. Edit: I got it sorted and am up to version 2.5.207 from June 1, 2020. This is the last version with the traditional UI; version 2.6 has a "Photon-like" UI. 2.5 has a couple more buttons but it looks and acts pretty much the same. Version 1.7: Version 2.5:

I had solved, somehow, the font ugliness noted in 121 before, but even there I seem to notice improvements (even without installing the NotoEmoji.font that comes with the installer). Nevertheless, I still placed it in windows/fonts. It shouldn't hurt to have it (but optimally, the browser should have its own internal font folder as FF forks do).

Without need of rebasing, and with all settings and extensions as before, 122 has a fast load, relative to 121, can run multiple tabs (included YT) with ease, and releases memory after loading heavily scripted pages very fast. I like it. Probably as a consequence of using DirectX10, on launch I get "The procedure entry point _except_handler4_common could not be located in the dynamic link library msvcrt.dll", and also a debug message"[ERROR:crashpad_client_win.cc(476)] InitializeProcThreadAttributeList (size): The specified program requires a newer version of Windows. (0x47E)". But I don't mind them (click and go on), and can surf quite nicely. Thanks @win32!

Wait at least 2-5 versions (at most when it becomes 127), and I guarantee you it will be perfect and you will want to use it.

The 64 bit version works perfect so far. And in some sites it uses less ram than the previous version

@Amigafever Thanks for your interest in my mod uBlock Origin Legacy! Unfortunately, these new assets.json files of the webextension uBlock Origin are no longer compatible with the legacy extension. To implement such features in uBlock Origin Legacy is very time-consuming due to deeper code changes. Don't forget I am not the developer of uBO which is gorhill together with his team! I am just a one-man band when it comes to fixing code or creating new things. All changes I did in terms of uBlock Origin Legacy are the result of own investigations of uBO's source code. Apart from that I don’t really like this new feature. One always has to weigh the effort and the benefit of such things. I have a lot of projects, and my time is unfortunately limited. Greetings, AstroSkipper

FYI, I uploaded again my custom button Restart & Purge but this time as an HTML file. The former download links unfortunately contained a backup file of this button which either couldn't be installed without additional editing or some characters were not transferred correctly. The problem has to do with the conversion of custom buttons into XML format, where the tool I had used did not work correctly. But now, it should be working. The new download link can be found in my original article. Please, re-download the HTML installation file if you have already downloaded one of the XML files and still interested in this custom button! Greetings, AstroSkipper PS: It is a little strange that nobody had reported this before, even though a few downloads had already been made.

Not here please, as it's off-topic.

I tried Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security 3.1.0.461 and Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security 3.3.0.87 on Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3. Both versions (version series) would replace or modify the following system files: wzcsvc.dll (Wireless Zero Configuration Service) shimgvw.dll (Windows Picture and Fax Viewer) Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security 3.1.0.461 also modifies: mfc42u.dll (MFCDLL Shared Library - Retail Version) Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security 3.3.0.87 also modifies: pdh.dll (Windows Performance Data Helper DLL) userenv.dll (Userenv) netapi32.dll (Net Win32 API DLL) secur32.dll (Security Support Provider Interface) user32.dll (Windows XP USER API Client DLL) mfc42.dll (MFCDLL Shared Library - Retail Version) usp10.dll (Uniscribe Unicode script processor) shlwapi.dll (Shell Light-weight Utility Library) ws2_32.dll (Windows Socket 2.0 32-Bit DLL) msasn1.dll (ASN.1 Runtime APIs) wintrust.dll (Microsoft Trust Verification APIs) mscms.dll (Microsoft Color Matching System DLL) olepro32.dll () fastprox.dll (WMI) odbc32.dll (Microsoft Data Access - ODBC Driver Manager) winmm.dll (MCI API DLL) atl.dll (ATL Module for Windows XP (Unicode)) wldap32.dll (Win32 LDAP API DLL) wmiprvse.exe (WMI) It is not clear why the products do so. After restoring the original files, the original files were again replaced with Kaspersky modified ones after a few reboots.

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look. I suspect that it isn't actually an individual file, it's probably hidden inside another file. I did look for disk.sys and scsidisk.sys with no luck.

That was really quite worrying, to see so much missing there on my system! It turned out that three of the four files which should have been in the \system32\GroupPolicy\Adm folder were not there! Only wmplayer.adm was there, conf.adm, inetres,adm, and system.adm were not. I have no idea why that would have been! I've restored them, and it now looks much better. I found the setting specified, and set it to 'enabled' and 'ignore', but again no difference, the wretched prompt still pops up when I mount a drive. One thing I have done as a test is restoring the three files I changed back to their originals, so things should now be standard. I was amazed (and annoyed) to find that the 'unsigned driver' prompt is still popping up! It can't be because of the files now, as they are the originals, so why is it still querying the driver?

Oh, how could I forget to tell?!? I even saved a bricked GPU that wasn't recognized as a GPU anymore, I had to short the dedicated pins (while it was booting up), it cleared out the chip off the remnants of the invalid BIOS someone stupidly flashed on it, so I was able to re-flash with the original. Probably it will work for the router, too.

The original BIOS was nowhere to be found, and the one I used was meant as an "update", so I used it. I had nothing to lose anyways.

I once had a case where the lightning bricked the device's BIOS, and I was able to resurrect it with magic flashing a new BIOS version from within DOS environment.

Well, you are missing a large number of settings then (not only the Administrative templates/System). Check that you have all the .adm files in the right directories, this experiment to add gpedit to Home edition - as a side effect - provides all the needed info: https://www.oocities.org/kilian0072002/GPEditHome.htm This is more or less how it should look

i had some time to look at it his function is bugged up basicly he write it himself "// hacky but works: small number is command id, large is submenu (a pointer)"" that indicates he tryed to trick it and had to do "hacky solutions" he use a endless while true loop with ends escapes and continues, also goto´s,calls to the same functions in a function, and then seperators for his menu to fix how he called it "bad seperators" this ended up in a os specific solution you useally dont do that because the operating system can might change the relevant codes over time (such as 7 to 10, or 98 to nt) - something like this already happend in the past but the solution to this problem is possible as the author use multiple fixes all over around (probaly to compensate the problems) it is easy to add that fix - anyways it actually was a bit weird to find it out in win10 its just a flag, that was found like very quickly - but no in xp it didnt do that and gave very weird results even turned off xp was working ok while on 10 it did what it suppose to do - it was turned off as the code suppose to was changed to let me know if it works now! the .avif file (and heic) format dont work for me, neither on xp nor on 10 nor on 7 (both unchanged from the official download page and the changed version) https://www.file-upload.net/download-15277606/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip.html https://www.mediafire.com/file/a4mtyf33ozs6q63/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip/file

https://www.file-upload.net/download-15277606/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip.html https://www.mediafire.com/file/a4mtyf33ozs6q63/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip/file

i wrote a private message with a changed version it might fix the annotation bug for the choose the other bug i try to look later

well here is a experimental version of sumatra pdf for windows xp i had to change lots of things this time, so it might have errors but we should test it out version 3.5.2 is lastest version up to current date 21.02.2024 https://www.file-upload.net/download-15277606/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip.html https://www.mediafire.com/file/a4mtyf33ozs6q63/SumatraPDF_WINXP_3.5.2_3.zip/file edit to fix some problems

You did, many times, but the offensive posts were kindly removed by our respected moderators, almost each time. Had there been any consequences for you? I don't know, but it wasn't not enough, your behaviour hasn't changed. My screen name is Saxon, not "account #4 of many". I suggest you to be respectful, which is demanded by the rules. I don't how blind someone that even considers your weird theory must be, "one man" can't post 24/7 with 1-2 hours intervals during all night and day at absolutely random intervals. https://msfn.org/board/topic/184730-antimalware-firewall-and-other-security-programs-for-windows-xp-working-in-2023-and-hopefully-beyond/?do=findComment&comment=1250550 Now, as usual, you have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion. Find yourself a hobby, no? Stop troubling members!

Rays of support to you, Karla! That user @Vistapocalypse attacked me heavily in the past, too, at least he switched his strange attention elsewhere, be strong, I can wish to you.

so other users getting same problem: https://msfn.org/board/topic/185966-my-browser-builds-part-5/?do=findComment&comment=1259648 so posting embedding links with a preview box causes HTTP 403.

Well, since we don't have that problem, I'm starting to lean towards external (questionable?) third party content ban. As the last resort, can you try to login from another location, maybe? As an example, see, they can't add youtube URL to their post. https://msfn.org/board/topic/5150-what-are-you-listening-to/?do=findComment&comment=1259491

Recently @XPerceniolreported the same Forbidden issue in the below topic, several times he couldn't post with (copyright protected?) links. https://msfn.org/board/topic/182193-the-msfn-café-a-penny-for-your-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=1259125 https://msfn.org/board/topic/182193-the-msfn-café-a-penny-for-your-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=1259146 That said, all the links I want to attach or post, I have no troubles with doing so. I post from an unnamed Chromium browser based on v.119. (not Supermium)

Where? Did I miss it? My tests: music.youtube.com works fine, if the flag's on default. www.napacanada.com won't let me in at all (says protected by croudfare). Perhaps because they don't deliver to France?

As a rule of thumb, there's no need to mess with any flags in chrome, a wise idea would be add only those you surely need via cmd (using launcher), and not in the chrome's flags page. If it's too many of them, it may become slow at launch.

Default setting doesn't mean it's explicitly disabled, since it's not hard passed to the executable via cmd.