Jump to content
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. ×

the xt guy

Member
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    $55.00 

Everything posted by the xt guy

  1. Thanks for the response guys, I will try nlite and download the RyanVM files from the guide.
  2. I want to make a fully updated XP install CD, with all the official updates through April 2014 and all the POSReady updates through April 2019. I have several XP install disks (XP Professional Retail, XP Home OEM (generic OEM NOT Dell) and XP Professional OEM (again not Dell), all English). All of these XP install CD's are version 2002, (I think that means they includes SP1 or SP1a.) After I installed them, I would run XP SP3 and then go to MS update. Now that the XP servers have been decomissioned, a CD with all the updates slipsreamed on to it is the only way to go. In the past I have occasionally used Nlite, and I would use that except I've read here that it won't accept any of the POSReady updates. I also used HFSLIP to make an updated Windows 2000 CD in April 2013 that included some post EOS and unofficial updates. I haven't seen any mention whether it works with the POPSReady updates. I know of RyanVM's site, but never having explored there, it's proving challenging to jump in there and figure out all the different update packs, which one I should choose, if any and finding the download links (it doesn't seem as organized as this site). The last time I had to install XP (2015) I did note all the updates my computer downloaded after I ran XP SP3 and I saved a copy of all the hotfixes. I also saved all of the POSReady updates from May 2014-April 2019. This way I knew I would always have all the updates (and i could have made an install CD valid through April 2014).
  3. My XP SP3 system (x86) with the POS registry change is having no problem with the KB3033395 update. It installed fine, shows up in my update history on Windows Update and does not keep showing up again and again on Windows Update to be reinstalled. This makes 11 months of of POS 2009 updates (May 2014 patch Tuesday through March 2015 patch Tuesday) applied to my XP system with no problems (except of course for the well known font corruption from the Feb 2015 KB patch).
  4. Wow, that's it! Thanks -X-! Interesting that there are IE 6 updates for POSReady 2009 even though it comes with IE 7. I did a search on the net a couple weeks ago about removing IE 7 on POSR 2009 and installing IE 6 (not that I'm trying to do that). Someone on some forum (can't remember where) wanted to do that as they had a mission critical app that had to have IE 6 installed. The single response they got back was that their source of POSR 2009 would need to supply them with a special build that had IE 6 instead of 7. I can't help but chuckle at the idea that MS is still supporting IE 6 with patches until July 2015 for 2K3 (and who knows how far beyond that, with POSR 2009!). IE 6: the browser that defines Microsoft.
  5. Can someone tell me how to download the standalone POSReady 2009 updates?
  6. Harkaz, thanks for the June 2014 XP patches. I applied 2939576, 2957503 and 2957509 a few days ago to my XP SP3 system with no problems.
  7. First of all, thank you *very much* harkaz, this is beyond cool! Heading home from work yesterday I was almost a bit giddy seeing these semi-official patches and thinking of all the future ones that could/will be coming our way through 2019! Let the idiots on neowin storm off in a huff! Tell them to come back in 2019. For myself, I only get 1 patch out of the deal (I don't have IE or any version of "dontnet" installed). Hmm, I didn't think about POS not having IE6. Looks like we won't get any IE 6 patches unless somebody ports them from 2003. Jaclaz, I agree it's a patch for general stupidity-let's hope MS doesn;'t start patching for that, as we'll all need petabyte sized drives. (Seriously though, the link to the bulletin 42774 that you posted; under 'System Requirements' it states that Windows XP is a "supported operating system" along with Windows Server 2003. But the title at the top of the page for 42774 just says Windows Server 2003.)
  8. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/388477/microsoft-updates-windows-xp-to-dodge-ie-flaw Also seeing multiple posts on twitter echoing this news.
  9. Another laugh for the day...article entitled 'Windows XP is a much gereater risk than heartbleed' http://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-xp-is-a-much-greater-risk-than-heartbleed/ Quote from article above: "Keanini summed it up the pervasive threat of Windows XP: "Hunt down expired versions of XP and terminate it!" So if one night you see a mob outside your window, carrying torches and pitchforks...you've been forewarned
  10. What all the panicked chicken-littles' are missing is that, as of right now ALL versions of IE on ALL OS are affected. One article states that the Department of Homeland Security is reccomending that people stop using any version of IE. I'm sure that MS knew of this before April 8 and is going to use this to scare as many off XP as possible. I also see some of the column writers are asking "would MS produce an XP patch for this?" Stupids! MS will be providing an XP patch for the governments etc. who are paying for the pricey post April 8 "custom support". Also interesting to read associated articles about the MSE debacle where the April 15 update of MSE crashed some XP computers and left them unbootable. The only solution at the time was to uninstall MSE. While MS did release a corrected file in a few days, those compnies who now tried to reinstall MSE received error messages, stataing that XP was now an unsupported OS! Between the two issues, it seems as if MS will be using whatever dirty tricks it can conjure up, to force as many as possible off of XP. The warning messages of XP demise delivered via Windows Update and offers of $100 off a new Win 8 PC didn't have the desired effect. MS is going to start playing hardball now.
  11. Dontnet? LOL, my new name for that one now. I agree, reduce one's attack surface, uninstall MS apps (using nlite or another app) such as Office, WMP, Outlook Distress, Messenger, Silverlight etc. and use third party apps, kill uneeded services, use a router, hosts file, standard account, use NoScript/NotScript on your browser, etc.
  12. Just released preliminary reports (Thursday April 3) for the final XP update are in: "Windows XP and Office 2003's final Patch Tuesday will have only four updates total and only one critical each for Office and XP. The number of vulnerabilities is still undisclosed. Microsoft will also release a new version of the Malicious Software Removal Tool and an undisclosed number of non-security updates." I remember the final month of W2K updates (July 2010) there were no updates for 2K at all.
  13. I agree, more FUD, they are desperate to force people off XP. It causes me to wonder how long they will keep XP activation available. With XP being their first OS to require activation, there is no history to know exactly what they will do about activation after EOL. With all the FUD they are pushing, I don't expect them to kill the need for activation but more likely to pull the plug especially if some sasser-like worm or malware starts attacking XP computers. But of course, refusing activation will only really hurt the honest guys who have legit legal copies. The millions of pirated copies in China and the Far East would likely be reinstalled and just go on using their fake/pirated activation software. The road ahead is going to be interesting.
  14. I've downloaded 6 different months from the archive discussed above (starting with August 2010 and into 2011) and there are no Windows 2000 updates to be found at all. Each archive contains levels of folders with updates sorted by OS and language. There are folders for all the post W2K OS updates ( Vista, Win 7, 8, Server 2003 and 2008) but not a single folder in any archive for 2K updates, Not a single individual 2K update I can find anywhere in the August 2010 and year 2011 archives I have extracted. Tomasz86, you said that MS produced W2K updates for 3 years after EOL for 2K (which was July 2010. Then there should have been MS privately issued updates for 2K until June 2013-I realize not every individual month will have updates.). I cannot find any of them in the half dozen archives I have checked. (I can clearly remember, there were no updates issued in July 2010 for 2K but quite a few were issued in August 2010 for XP. I would think at least some of those would have applied to 2K but only available privately to those corporations who paid for the continuing post-EOL support.)
  15. I see a need for a complete pack of all the hotfixes for 2K: official, unofficial, HBR and paid ($) support fixes. As you said Tomasz86 (over on the RyanVM board) there are about 300 patches in total for 2K, too many for most to download and manage. The problem with all in one packs is, what one person deems essential, someone else considers optional or even undesireable to install on a system (I consider WMP spyware and use a 3rd party media player. There are many other 3rd party apps I use instead of the ones that come with 2K. I even uninstall IE6, since it is hopelessly outdated-even unsafe on the net and use Firefox or K-Meleon.) I consider 2K Microsoft's best operating system.
  16. The last internal build of Firefox 2x was 2.0.0.22pre, dated 04-15-09. I don't know if there's any significant difference between it and 2.0.0.20, likely it just has whatever changes were implimented in Seamonkey at the time up to 04-15-09.
  17. I see Mozilla does state on their Wiki that FF 3.6.18 is scheduled to be released on June 21. Unfortunately, I see no mention of FF 3.5.20 (although there are nightly builds of 3.5,20pre available now, I haven't tried them.)
  18. When I've installed XP (version 2002, then SP3) there is never any version of Net that gets installed. Windows update wants to install 3.5 but if I deselect that, it downgrades to wanting to install 2.0 on the next scan, and then 1.1. Why install any version if you don't need it? It just adds tons of junk to the registry and you'd be vulnerable to any security holes it might have.
  19. According to mdgx's site, one software that needs net framework is Sun Java. The current version 6 needs net framework to install. I know that the 5x version of Sun Java (even update 22, the last 5x version) does NOT need net to install. I agree that you should not install net if you don't have any software that needs it. It adds hundreds of entries to the registry. Plus you can't be attacked through any known or unknown vulnerabilities in net if you don't have it installed. As far as Satanlight oops I mean Silverlight it contacts MS and sends them God knows what information even when it's not being used. Practically spyware. I'd avoid it unless I absolutely had to have it for an app and there was no alternative. I'm glad to read (comment by -x- above) that it has already failed.
  20. According to Symantec, Stuxnet does run on Windows 98 (everything from Win95/NT on up).
  21. I've never used the scan at bootup (nor any kind of automatic daily scan or auto update). I also disabled the e-mail scanner, since it seemed to be holding a port open (1026?) all the time. I'm very careful about open ports. Since I am on a single machine I don't need any networking services, so my first order on an install is to make sure there are no open ports, a bigger task in NT series OS, as they can have 10 or more ports open by default. Even though I'm on a router/hardware firewall I still don't like having any ports open that don't need to be. The 9X series is much easier to deal with in this regard, just disable NETBIOS and that closes ports 137/8/9, usually the only ports open in a default install. Dencorso, I guess were the only two left still using 7.5!
  22. I'm still updating AVG 7.5 this way on a regular basis and it is still working! Just updated this morning with def. numbered 3268. (I update once a week.) I've noticed the names of the two defs files used to start with "U7...". Then in 2009 the main defs file (huge size-over 60mb) started being named with "U9...". Starting in October 2010 it changed again to "U10..." but it still seems to work. Also, there used to be two def files to update, but the second one (small file-only 6.6 megs) was not updated past January 2010, although it was still there to download. In October 2010, AVG changed the whole layout of the download page. This second defs file (the one not updated past Jan. of 2010) is now gone. The big main defs file (66 megs) is still there.
  23. Well, I did the scanreg/restore and that seems to have brought the system back to life. One piece of software I installed that day is not there, but I assume if I reinstall it, I should be back up to speed. I did do some Internet searching and found instructions how to restore the dual boot on a ME/XP system using the XP installation CD and the 'fixboot' option. If I saved my triple booting boot.ini file ahead of time and then used it to replace the one the fixboot repair created, would I then have my triple booting back? Or would I need to replace ntldr and ntdetect as well? BTW, thanks to both of you for your help.
  24. Yes, 98 is installed to the first active partition (drive letter C). Then, in the extended partition, 2K is installed on the first logical partition (D) and XP is installed on the second logical partition (E). I'm using the standard Microsoft bootloader that installs whenever one installs more than one MS OS (boot.ini, etc.) I'm nor using any special or third party software to do that. I had KernelEx installed on the 98 amd was trying to install ZoneAlarm and get it to cooperate with KernelEx. After changing the compatibility settings with KernelEx, I rebooted and got the dreaded message about msgsrv32 had caused an error in the 98 Kernel. The desktop does not appear just a plain background (in the custom color I set it to.) Same thing in safe mode. The 98 version is Soporific's 98UBCD, plus 98SE2ME installed after that. It was working fine till I tried to make KernelEx and ZA play together nicely.
  25. I've got a computer that boots three operating systems (98/2K/XP). The first hard drive (120 gb IDE primary master) is partitioned into primary and extended paritions (12gb primary and an extended partition with 2 logical parttitions of 54 gb each). If the 98 OS has become unbootable, is there any way to reinstall it and not affect the other two OS? I don't want to reinstall all 3 OS's plus all the software. (I realize I can eventually use some kind of imaging software to save a copy of the drive and restore the entire drive, but I haven't gotten to that point yet.)

×
×
  • Create New...