Jump to content

dencorso

Patron
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,129

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    63

  • Donations

    25.00 USD 

  • Country

    Brazil

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dencorso

  1. dencorso
    Yes. I'm fully aware of that, and so is 5eraph. And that's why I'm wondering whether one can make this particular omelette while keeping the corresponding eggs intact, so to say, or not... DataStore.edb is a database file, after all, and not even encripted... can we maybe edit it successfully?
  2. dencorso
    Great! Thanks a lot, 5eraph! And that also means the option between WU and MU is stored into DataStore.edb ...
  3. dencorso
    @submix8c: I guess now is time for an update to RunMe-MakeInstallWindowsUpdateAgent.bat, with provision to force the downgrade of those two files... in case you can kindly find time to dedicate to it. @all: Moreover, it's clear now we must find out how to fall back to Windows Update, when Microsoft Update gets broken, without using the -- always gray when needed -- "Change Settings" option at the Microsoft Update site, just in case it may prove useful in the future.
  4. dencorso
    You do rock and roll, sir! And welcome to MSFN, BTW! MicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dll -> 7.4.7057.248 is a actually downgrade from 7.4.7057.249 I was using and ... muweb.dll -> 7.6.7600.256 is actually a downgrade from v. 7.6.7600.257 I was using !!! That said, way to go, sir! It sure works, all right !!!
  5. dencorso
    @NoelC: Please don't let yourself get annoyed by it and, instead, take it constructively, because the issue of bumping is really a somewhat philosophical one... please do read more musings about it in the thread: On Bumping ... While I do think that sucessive additions to a post should be added to the same post (as long as nobody replies to it in the meantime), separated by a blank line, and marked, if necessary, as "Later edit I:" or Later addition I:", then "Latter addition II:", etc. Now, when the post becomes overlong, moving on to a second post following is acceptable, of course, but in general not in the same day. Then again, there are many conceivable warranted exceptions to this rule-of-thumb, for sure, and your two posts just above this one are such a case, since there was a clear change of subject between then, that does justify the break. Cheers!
  6. dencorso
    Me too. Let's hope it means they're working on their side. Let's wait for MS to fix up the MU/WU sites (the issue is clearly on their side). Meanwhile, as I said above, the lone out-of-band MS14-068 patch KB3011780 (for POSReady 2009) is available from the Microsoft Update Catalog and it has not the bothersome IsWinEmbedded condition in the .inf, so it'll install from the command-line as downloaded. Hence, we're not in a hurry.
  7. dencorso
    I noticed it too, tonight. Just to keep things as together as possible I quote my post about it here: I also posted about it at RyanVM's, BTW: <link>
  8. dencorso
    When I go to Microsoft Update I get a message "The website has encountered a problem and cannot display the page you are trying to view. [ Error number: 0x80248015 ]". 0x80248015 seems to mean: "SUS E DS SERVICE EXPIRED" (the caller has requested a service whose registration has expired)... but this is about as informative as an I-Ching hexagram... If it doesn't go away by itself, something is amiss. This notwithstanding, the out-of-band MS14-068 patch KB3011780 is available from the Microsoft Update Catalog and it has not the bothersome IsWinEmbedded condition in the .inf, so it'll install as downloaded.
  9. dencorso
    Yes!
  10. dencorso
    No, he cannot, because it would be against Rule #1b. Did you search wlu?
  11. dencorso
    Well, in any case, none of the versions mentioned above are actually the latest. In fact, it's complicated... But it turns out that the latest OLEAUT32.DLL that works with Win 9x/ME is: v. 2.40.4520.0 from MS08-008 (KB946235) !!! And, since this subject ends up touching on PE Timestamps, let me point out my own little tool to read them may be of help: Here's another link to it: PETmStp.7z
  12. dencorso
    Sure. Then again, I don't think MS was ever so keen on getting rid of 9x/ME (especially 98SE) as it is right now on getting rid of XP...
  13. dencorso
    That's how I see it right now for 9x/ME and somewhere in the near future (but not quite right now) for XP SP3.
  14. dencorso
    Yes/No. Yes/No. Since there can be no underflow in our physical world, no file can be made more empty than already empty... But since a new file might be of interest, I thought it might be relevant to post the modded file with version ("5515") resource and correct checksum, which is also offered by MDGx. Of course it was you! Who else could it have been?
  15. dencorso
    Here's how: <link>
  16. dencorso
    The requested file is below. I've also added a modified version (as a .7z), to which a version resource was added, and which has been correctly checksummed, instead of having the checksum set to zero. sfcfiles.zip SFCFILES_with_version_info.7z
  17. dencorso
    He left unsaid: "then again, those few which could benefit from it and actually manage to run on 9x/ME, will also reap no benefit whatsoever, because, in any case, the OS is single-threaded, and therefore all threads created must execute one at a time, and never truly in parallel. I did not put any words in herbalist's mounth! When *I* told you what he left unsaid, *I* told it to you from *my own* mounth! And what I told you is: no mater whether one writes any software to benefit or not from multi-threading, and regardless of whether such software was also written to be compatible with 9x/ME or not, if ever anyone coaxes the said software to work on 9x/ME, it won't reap any benefit whatsoever from a hyper-threading processor *because* 9x/ME are single-threaded.
  18. dencorso
    OK. Then, when herbalist said: He left unsaid: "then again, those few which could benefit from it and actually manage to run on 9x/ME, will also reap no benefit whatsoever, because, in any case, the OS is single-threaded, and therefore all threads created must execute one at a time, and never truly in parallel. I'm not disputing that. Sure you are! With all due respect, you're actually bargaining and must eventually move on to acceptance.
  19. dencorso
    Of course! Katerina Lioliou deserves to be more widely known: she already is a wonderful singer, and sure will get still better with time passing.
  20. dencorso
    "Multi-threading capability", however exactly one may define that, will avail nothing to a process, when the OS is single-threaded. At most, that process will be duly divided in two or more threads that do less work each than a full single-threaded process would, but the advantage that would be derived form such threads actually running at the same time in parallel cannot ever accrue, because the OS is single-threaded. The OS is king: if the OS knows nothing about multi-threading (unless something like the multi-threading API RLoew's written is explicitly compiled in the executable), no process can ever benefit from multi-threading, despite its eventual ablility to divide itself in multiple-threads.
  21. dencorso
    With all due respect, and just to avoid any misreadings of your above statement, and considering that hyperthreading provides two Hyperthreads per Core, I understand what you just said means "Win 9x knows about and uses one single Hyperthread from just one Core, and nothing more, regardless of how many Hyperthreads and Cores may exist in any given processor it's running on"... and that means you're confirming, albeit in a more detailed way, the other replies preceding yours, mine included, right?
  22. dencorso
  23. dencorso
    No. Not at all.
  24. dencorso
    It reminds me of Marathon Man: Is it safe?...
  25. dencorso
    Of course! XP is leaner and meaner! That's why MS is having a really hard time getting people to let go of it.
×
×
  • Create New...