dencorso

3.6.28... sort of. More exactly, they started by giving a full revision/optimization to the 3.6.0 code, and then revised all the patches in detail up to 28, and continued by creating their own (from scratch) afterwards, based on the patches given the later versions, up to 32, and then decided to retire it (although they do keep it available as "legacy").

You are right that the .NET updates can defer optimization for later and will then wait for moments in which the machine is mostly idle to do their work. So it's not unusual to have system activity for sometime after a .NET update is applied, even with one intervening reboot or shut down...

@MAgicAndre1981: Dave-H's machine is a 2 Xeon Supermicro X5DAE with 4 GiB ECC DDRs, and has been working OK for quite a long time already... I don't believe it can be memory timings, unless he's decided to tweak them recently. @Dave-H: I'd give the machine a good old 12h or more run of MEMTEST86+, just in case: it may have been just a quirck, but it may be RAM begining to malfunction... and if so, MEMTEST86+ will show it, and help find which stick is the problem, too.

I really see no difference in Pale Moon, and Firefox other than the UI. (Yes I downloaded Pale moon to compare it to the version of Firefox I have which is Firefox 7.0.1) EDIT this is also on my Vista pc comparing the latest Pale Moon vs an old Firefox There is one major difference: Firefox 24.0.5 esr runs on a non-SSE2 processor, while the last PaleMoon to do so is 3.6.32 (I should know, this is an Athlon XP 3000+ and those two specific versions do run here). That means Firefox still retains a lot of code to suppotr older hardware, which is just bloat when running on newer machines. I love PaleMoon so much that I keep v 3.6.32 on this machine... but newer versions only on my newer hardware. In any case, lack of SSE2 will eventually be the reason I'll decommission this -- otherwise perfectly good -- machine.

Well, RLoew's SATA patch costs US$11 (which is about £6.50), and arrives by e-mail right after you pay. All the wait and effort involved saved you about £1.50. Is it worth it?

I stand corrected. Thanks! Are you sure that there are IE6 patches for POSReady? It comes preloaded with ie7. (Never tried to revert back to ie6 since I hate it) Yes. Harkaz made them available already, BTW.

Besides other editings needed, the "Frankenstein folder" "Windows XP Version 2003" must be corrected to "Windows XP", BTW.

You're welcome! And thanks for reporting back, I'm glad it worked.

Thanks! You rock! All pointless endeavors are worthwhile... only resistance is futile (they're the Cloud!)...

I have some more data to add to the list submix8c compiled: And I have a further question: when exactly did Redmond's area code change from (206) to (425) ?

Rest assured the IE6 and the IE7 patches for POSReady 2009 also exist! I'm sure harkaz'll release modded versions of them soon, too.

Us who, kemo sabe? I, for one, remain with XP by deliberate choice (or by refusing to yield to FUD, which is to say the same thing). And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

It has to do with the addition of the rather cryptic ExclCRC and AutoCRC in those same sectors, to fudge up the final CRC-32 value... As for MS CRC-32 v. 3.0, MDGx offers yet another link, which is a direct download link (also preserved through the wayback machine), among his rather comprehensive collection of checksum tools.

Based on the very meager info you've provided about your setup, yes: you need RLoew's SATA patch (it's not just an .inf, anymore). But since you won't tell unless asked, then, please, do tell us: which board, processor and how much RAM (besides HDD(s) size(s)) does your machine have?

I know. However, it makes no sense to me that someone at MS would still be using v. 2.27 in Dec 15 1999 without loosing her/his job at MS, unless it was someone very paranoid, in the process of preparing a rather elaborate Chewbacca Defense.

@jaclaz: You missed the point... the keyword is "restore", used in a very peculiar acceptation... @vicvan: You cannot be right... judging by the dates, it ought to be v. 2.42 (and not higher...), but definitely not v. 2.27!

Are you sure you're not chasing a wild goose? Win 95 SR2.5 CD was created with v. 2.38 (from 1997); Win 98SE and Win ME CDs, with v. 2.39 (from 1997) and Win XP SP3 CDs, with v. 2.52 (from 2004)... are you sure you need v. 2.27 ?

No. Mine is as up-to-date as possible (with all MS has offered, except KB905474 and KB2934207, of course), plus a few select unofficial updates, too.

I confirm the behavior reported by submix8c. It seems to depend on whether the target site responds as expected to "https" or not. As for alternatives, the third, which was Alta Vista's BabelFish (afterwards bought by Yahoo!), seems to be no more. So, for all purposes, we're left with just two choices nowadays (and both are not really good but, then again, machine translation is probably one of the hardest open problems of all times).

I use IE8 for WU (MU actually) and for some sites requiring ActiveX. And as a plain-vanilla baseline, when in doubt (I also have Opera 12.17 for this purpose)... But I use FF 24 esr (with NoScript, RefControl and PlainOldFavorites) as my main browser. But, in any case, my main point was: the files from the fixes for IE7 and for IE8 ought to be usable directly.

Errr... Well... Oh, yes! But that's on Vista!!! So, yes... I mean... no: what I had on mind was something like: "is there anyone actually still using IE7 on XP in the wild?" the reason being that anyone who'll take the trouble to update IE on XP ought to do it directly to IE8, IMO. But, then again, real life is more complicated than that, anyway...

Well, Bulletin 1 in the IE7 (is there anyone actually still using IE7 in the wild?) and IE8 versions should be immediately usable, perhaps requiring a relaxing of the .INF "Applies To" conditions, perhaps even directly. The IE6 version has traditionally had components with different version numbers, so some testing is required, but probably should work, too. I'm betting Bulletin 5 (the .NET one) may be directly applicable, too, perhaps requiring, likewise, some previous callisthenics... As for Bulletin 6, we'll only know, when whe know what does it contain. For now, nothing can be said. All other bulletins do not apply, which is good! Thanks for the heads up, -X- !

I see no reason for despair at all... Here is the info page at MS: KB312108 and the direct download link for the HotFix.

Beyond Compare 3 (3.3.10.17762 actually). Not free but surely worth the cost, IMO. Multibooter convinced me to try it, and I've never regreted it.. it's really great!

In the attached image, only lines having at least one different byte were included, the rest being equal. While NT62_FAT32_72024.VBR differs from None_FAT32_75096.VBR in 182 bytes, which can be reduced to 54, if one disconsiders the 128 corresponding to the text that's only present in NT62. Now, in a glance the 14 differences in the picture below can be counted.... Left file is NT60_FAT32_55808.VBR MD5=13b15145f2639a094ba85953c3832981 1536 bytes...