dencorso

By observing the flight of the birds from the Roman Capitolium, maybe?

True enough. And because we, here at MSFN, had found out how to bypass it within the 1st hour after the blocked version was released, actually...

@FranceBB & @Dibya: The yodeling obvious, if it hasn't yet dawned on you both, is that both your day-to-day XP systems are too modified to serve as test platforms, and that, by contrast, the virtual machines you both are using as alternative test platforms are not realistic enough to display the issues people are finding... With all due respect, haven't you realized that by yourselves, by now?

Yes. It propagates like a hormone cascade. It was delayed, but just a little. The effect is cumulative and exponential.

Because they couldn't care less for multibooters then, than they care now. A multibooter, by nature, does not use just their latest and greatest OS, and that makes her/him an unperson.

It's quite clear to me. It means, if one annoys bigmuscle enough he may as well disappear, go use his talents in other endeavours, and let all the users of his program in the rain!

Version 5.1.2600.5512 of volsnap.sys is the latest, AFAIK. However, the missing KB article is still findable here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110222004859/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926185 and seems to offer a solution. HTH.

I'm far from sure about that. He sure wants us out of his forum, but I'm quite OK with that. I'd not like having him here either. But I doubt he'd go the extra lenght of actually inserting code to actually prevent his browsers from running on either Vista or XP. He's taken out code intended to enable that, because he sees it as bloat, of course. But adding code to forestall XP/Vista use would be adding bloat, which contradicts his slim-and-mean optimized code philosophy, IMO. Now, if people, like @Dibya, keeps on nagging him, that might change...

Killing Windows Update on Windows 10 - a cheat sheet -- https://www.michaelhorowitz.com/KillingWindowsUpdate.php 'Nuff said!

Try http://www.oldversion.com

Stop nagging. It won't make things any faster, but does annoy.

Isn't him anymore? The blog seems quite alive...

"Παρακαλώ"!

POSReady 2009 updates, perhaps? Anti-virus software uses all the dirty tricks in the book to get fuller access than it's supposed to..., I'd not at all be surprised if they rely on some flaw that was closed by POSReady 2009 updates (they're legion) after XP SP3 official EoS. Just a guess, of course!

Avast! people couldn't care less for XP die-hards even if they tried real hard to. That was the case with AVG, too. Up to it's takeover by Avast! (late 2016) they kept releasing definitions for AVG 2011 (the last version to really work seamlessly with XP SP3). Afterwards, they forced people (even those holding still-valid licences to the paid-for versions) to update to their "latest and greatest version", which purportedly still supported XP (but not really-really, obviously). That was when I moved on to old MSE v. 4.4.304.0, which I keep using with no regrets whatsoever. IMO, they're just wishing very hard we XP die-hards fall down the memory hole, the sooner, the better! Living is learning, isn't it?

It goes without saying that, wherever any specific rule is actually illegal, there it is automagically null-and-void.

Whenever you became cognizant that software is not "no-strings-attached do-what-you-want-with-it freeware" but some sort of restricted-circulation donationware. If the author took the trouble to lay any rules, the author must have the means to enforce them or that's an exercise in futility. I don't want to convey the idea that bigmuscle's rules in the present case are specifically either nonsensical or arbitrary, what I meant to say is that rules generally may be fully nonsensical, arbitrary or otherwise preposterous, but once one accepts to abide by them one should be true to it. To do otherwise is sheer bad faith, not any type of misunderstanding.

Good to know. jaclaz I find it hard to believe you hadn't presumed it, way back when... Not at all. Rules are just that: rules. When one decides to use the software, one agrees to abide by them, no matter how nonsensical or arbitrary they may be.

oleaut32.dll File Verson: 5.1.2600.7594 (ENU) CRC32: 97A44211 MD4: B3EB8646DDBDDF37D8880F29E477DAF6 MD5: F979C49B339660A6035D942E76A56409 SHA-1: 0CD70F58F7BA37C258DEDDD9F92E40C57EC1A827 SHA-256: A094CC487E4EB86D3114C2A25E1C7B91DA4CB271AE276F1BAD95AF064A96DF94

It is part of the update mechanism. I don't think it's needed in \system32, although a copy of it may find its way there by mistake. None of my 6 current XP installations has it \system32, although all have many old instances of it in previous update folders, many of them of the same v. 6.3.13.0, despite being different compilations (= having different dates).

Please do notice the direct link given points to the Finnish, not the English, version of the said update...

No.

So get and install KB4014652, already!

XP doesn't care about any updates Autenticodes be them SHA-1 or SHA-2. As for whether they'll remove all updates from their servers, maybe. They just did that to the (on-demand) hotfixes, didn't they? But I doubt they'll do it right after EoS... And anyway April 9, 2019 is the last patch Tuesday for POSReady 2009, which means the 1st month without updates should be the following one (.ie.: May). Whatever MS does or doesn't do, it won't cause XP to be impossible to update, anyway. So let's let people get back on-topic, in this thread.