dencorso

Yes, I mean... no: "None_FAT32_75096.VBR" is different from "type NT60" bootcode in just 14 bytes. I'd say it's yet another variation of "type NT60", rather than a variation of the "type NT62".

Here you go! So: "B.0" ≡ "B.1" and "C.0" ≡ "C.1", but then there is "C.§"... ...what about "None_FAT32_75096.VBR" and "None_NTFS__66904.VBR", in 6.2.8102.0? other_bootsects2.7z

Thank you for this very interesting thread, jaclaz! Just for the sake of completeness, I'll add some other versions of bootsect.exe I know, and have a sample of: A.1 Vista/Waik2/PE2.x->6.0.6000.16386->02/11/2006->87,552 bytes A.2 VistaSP1/Waik2.1/PE2.1->6.0.6001.18000->19/01/2008->102,400 bytes B.0 7RC/Waik3RC/PE3.x->6.1.7100.0->103,312 bytes (Released April 30, 2009) B.1 7/Waik3/PE3.x->6.1.7600.16385->14/07/2009->103,312 bytes B.2 7SP1/Waik3/PE3.1->6.1.7601.17514->20/11/2010->97,280 bytes C.§ 8DP/ADK4DP/PE4.x->6.2.8102.0->110,408 bytes (Released September 13, 2011) C.0 8RP/ADK4RP/PE4.x->6.2.8400.0->117,672 bytes (Released May 31, 2012) C.1 8/Waik4/PE4.x->6.2.9200.16384->25/07/2012->117,688 bytes D.1 8.1/Waik5/PE5.0->6.3.9431.0->15/06/2013->119.912 bytes D.2 8.1/Waik5/PE5.1->6.3.9600.16384->21/08/2013->100.968 bytes I didn't check it again today, yet I seem to remember those pre-release WAIK/ADKs were withdrawn, and are not available anymore at MS, but I'm not really sure about it. In any case I cannot see what those three additional bootsect.exe versions would add to your careful analysis, if tested. However, they do permit the inference that all pre-release version WAIK/ADKs seem to have build number zero.

I was going to post this to the fake screenshots thread but, somehow, I do think it'll be better posted here, so:

By extracting IE8-WindowsServer2003-KB2964358-x86-ENU.exe one gets one mshtml.dll file I'll henceforward call mshtml_2k3.dll, which PE Timestamp is 0x5360C507 or Wed Apr 30, 2014 09:40:23 UTC. It has Image Base = 3EC80000, PE Checksum = 005BF3E7, MD-5 = 2652A0D1140422D9DA651A446240499D and CRC-32 = B346E2D0. OTOH, by extracting IE8-WindowsXP-KB2964358-x86-ENU.exe one gets another mshtml.dll file I'll call mshtml_xp.dll, which PE Timestamp is 0x5360B08D or Wed Apr 30, 2014 08:13:01 UTC. It has Image Base = 3C510000, PE Checksum = 005BF2F9, MD-5 = 3DB2624CCB1663BF6D62311B2B9E7B55 and CRC-32 = 05F2D23B. Both mshtml.dlls have file version = 8.00.6001.23588 (longhorn_ie8_ldr_escrow.140429-1230) and they are 6,022,144 bytes long. By opening them simultaneously with Beyond Compare 3, one finds out both mshtml.dlls are 96,8% equal, differing in just 195226 bytes, which, very visibly, appear grouped as matched word-pairs dispersed throughout those files... Now, after rebasing to 3C510000 mshtml_2k3.dll from its original image base, by using the command: REBASE -v -b 0x3C510000 <drive>:\<path>\mshtml_2k3.dll and then comparing the resulting mshtml_2k3_rb.dll to mshtml_xp.dll, one finds out that they differ in just 6 bytes, of which 3 are part of the PE Timestamp and the other 3, of the PE Checksum. And if one changes the PE Timestamp by hand with a hexeditor to be the same as that of mshtml_xp.dll, and then recalculates the PE Checksum, both mshtml.dlls become identical! Therefore, it must be concluded that mshtml_2k3.dll and mshtml_xp.dll are nothing more than two instances of the same executable, differing just in the image base (and its associated relocation address placeholders) and the PE Timestamp (and the consequent PE Checksum, of course!), which is to be expected from two different compilations/linkings of the exact same sources. It's no wonder they can be interchanged: they are funcional equivalents for all relevant purposes. Obs: the MS REBASE.EXE used in this experiment is 29184 bytes long and has file version = 6.0.4006.0 (Lab01_N.030209-2000), MD-5 = 57B8A0E5863AA2F138DE8B55DCEC3CA2 and CRC-32 = 04999251. It can be found inside PSDK-SDK_Core_BIN-x86.0.cab, which is part of the MS Svr2003SP1 PSDK. After downloading, rename .img to .iso, and extract as usual.

The only reason you don't know 'an awful lot about "animated bitmaps" etc.' is that you don't actually read the links given you, even when they do contain the info you're seeking, as happens to be the case of the section entitled "Animation during booting", which is part of the reference you were given in post #5 (and you'd have come to that part, provided you took the trouble to scroll down):

Wise words.

You're right! XP has both DEP and UAC. Always had, BTW.

You rock ! Thanks!

Hmmm. Well... Good try, xper... But, sorry, no cigar, as the saying goes (I can't help but wonder where anyone would still be able to smoke a cigar in real life, nowadays...)... Now member ハイドン has had his username changed to "katakana"... when it really meant "Hydn". So, no, I think conversion just "sanitized" the "impossible" names (i. e.: those contining # < > and things like Japanese characters)... In any case, can you give "katakana" back his username in Japanese characters? In case the database refuses that, then I think the username should be made "Hydn", which is what that meant, anyway. TIA.

Mr. Nadella's got his head in the clouds... he doesn't care any about a handful of die-hards.

No. I'll run fine.

Technically, no IE8 isn't XP, but what I meant is IE8 supports XP, so it's like extending End of Support for XP. True enough! And, since IE8 is supported both on Win Server 2003 (EoS: Jul 14, 2015), on WEPOS (EoS: Apr 12 2016), and on Win Embedded POSReady 2009 (EoS: Apr 09, 2019 viz.: MS PLS), then all IE8 components and patches go on up to at least Apr 09, 2019.

The audio driver probably is the easiest case to solve: either adding strings to the corresponding driver from the most similar board from the previous generation, say, one based on the H77 southbridge will do, or the SNAP audio (now unsuported), maybe only after some calisthenics, should do. Even that won't be easy, but that far I bet you can go with some care and patience...

In general you're right. But for x86 IE7 and x86 IE8 the files are the exact same version, although they clearly are different compilations, but I bet the mshtml.dll intended for 2003 works alright in XP, and vice versa...

It may happen. It only depends on what's perceived as more damaging to MS: to release a post-EoS security update (observe that the current one is for IE 6-11, not XP!) or to live with 25-30% of all computers running on an unpatched OS (and that's about 1/3 of all the Windows machines, BTW).

It's both actually. That's just MS's term just like "High-Priority" which is not a word in the English dictionary. It's just high priority (no dash). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-life_(product) All these euphemisms are somewhat tiresome, and End-of-Sale, End-of-Life, and End-of-Support can be (and actually, according to MS, they are, if I'm not mistaken) different dates. What I meant, more as a pun on the euphemism itself is that the life of a product only truly ends when nobody at all uses it anymore, and that's a long way from now, for XP. Not only on Win 2003 but on POSReady 2009 which is almost exactly XP. And, moreover, it was an update to IE, so that it'd be about aero additional cost to release also for XP the updates for IE7 and IE8, although the one for IE6, plus the effort in creating the update must have added a negligible additional cost. But, all in all, surely worthy of avoiding the generalization of the idea that all IE versions are insecure, and some generic aditional good PR for MS because of their showing they "care"...

It's not EOL... it's EoS: life goes on!

It's out already! MS Security Bulletin MS14-021 and KB2964358.

You rock!

Welcome to MSFN! Although it's really more-or-less gray area, since you're OK with changing it, I'd say "make it so"! And, BTW, do read the Rules, it's also always a good idea.

A tool that can extract SZDD archives?

Here's the essence of the 1st post: The best possible answer: This is a fact: both submix8c, and jaclaz (whom submix8c's just mentioned above), do come across to some (sometimes even to me) as harsh, grumpy or, in any case, "not quite nice". But I've never seen either of them really intent on giving offense to (or worse, really flaming) anyone. On the contrary, they usually try to help even when they are visibly annoyed for some reason. I do appreciate your viewpoint, too. And I, for one, am, most of the time, ready to agree to disagree, and hold no grudge at all, because of it. Now, you've also pointed out to a thing I maybe hadn't seen as clearly before, but now I do, thanks to you: what you fail to realize is that we *are* a "club"... in fact, this forum (and that for 2k and now, that for XP, too, of course) are the meeting point of users of OSes who are disparaged, ridiculed, flamed or otherwise offended and mistreated, almost anywhere elsewhere, just because we use the OSes we like to use. Why do you expect any of us should not feel defensive when someone comes to our own hideaway and posts things like that 1st post I just quoted above? ... and, still on that line of thought, I think a lot of forums I know are, likewise, just "clubs", too...