dencorso
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by dencorso
-
You mean, just like "risk of life" = "risk of death"? -
I see... it's byte rust! It seems you've got a bad case of it...
-
Check to see whether each and every needed directive is present in the about:config page. It has happened many times to many of us that some directive or other disappears upon updading, even from a minor build to the next.
-
I've Always understood the "two blank lines" as being the same as "CR;LF;CR;LF". My own rationale here is: one "CR;LF" ends the last line. The second "CR;LF" shows there's no next line. There is a parallel in C matrixes of strings: a 0x00 ends each string. When followed by another 0x00, it indicates the matrix has ended. The VS_VERSION_INFO structure used by MS executables is an example of such a "double-zero" terminated matrix. Of course, these are my personal musings prompted by @bphlpt's question and @jaclaz's reply, so I can provide no reference for them.
-
To be true, I don't know why, either. But since at least Win 95 times (= REGEDIT4) up to this day, there must be a pair of blank lines at the end of any .reg file. I think some, if not all, such files may be interpreted wrongly if ended by just one blank line or none. But I don't remember ever having done it, personally (i. e. failed to put the two blank lines). Perhaps jaclaz can tell us why.
-
It's possible and harmless to spoof IE8 as IE9. However, pretending to be IE10 or, worse, IE11 leads to cripled funcionality. The above .reg does it. Remember it's mandatory to put two (or more) blank lines at the end of the .reg file, though.
-
Nah! That's too yesterday! What you really want (you just don't know it yet) is the brand new Bentley Continental GT, of course!
-
MS must've pulled out the putative v 5.1.2600.7330 of xpsp2res.dll at the last moment, because they've found it was seriously blorked or, in the hurry which must now be their update creation proccess (because they've already fired too many of their best people), someone just forgot to compile the new file and they've tossed in the latest one they had at hand, instead, and it happened it wasn't the actual latest extant version, but the one preceding it. Incompetence, as y'all know, usually is the true explanation.
-
Yes. The same applies to Office 2000 and Office 97, both of which I still use (I have two 97 and six 2000 licences, but I'm currently using half of them).
-
I've figured it out: problem is @heinoganda is so good at it that he replied to our questions before we actually posed them!!! See; In fact, I have already installed KB4039111 and did not find any problem either, so I think it can be used safely all right.
-
Thanks to @glnz, I knew which Office 2007 compatibility pack with SP3 updates to search (now @Bersaglio has kindly provided direct links to them), so I downloaded them and installed those four by hand. Afterwards my main machine took 47 minutes (main XP) or 35 minutes (secondary XP) to find the other updates. Since there´s no need to reboot between them, the Office 2007 compatibility pack with SP3 updates are best downloaded and updated by hand... provided we know which KBs they are. We already know it's them that cause the long delays. @Bersaglio: Why KB4039111is questionable/not recommended?
-
That one you must delete. The other two (WEPOS and WES, if set to 0000, may as well be left in place).
-
Please do make a backup before installing SP4 (which, BTW, you don't really need, you know)! I mean: SP4... A good backup is always handy.
-
This issue has been fixed by this month's new win32k.sys v. 5.1.2600.7334 (from KB4039384). Make that +1, because we have yet one more, as I said above
-
So many questions...
-
@Roffen: Have you updated the board's BIOS to the latest version before going on? Or... are you sure the current BIOS version supports the actual processor the board is using?
-
I feel you pain! I've upgraded all my desktops (I had four, now I have just three plus a rather old netbook which I love: an EeePC 900). It was a big pain and I did learn very little, too. But I had decided it wasn't worth it to keep on non-SSE2 machines anymore, so I don't regret it. But sure it was a mostly a painful process.
-
With all due respect, Jody, you're entitled to your opinion and I do respect it. But this thread is about registering the fact that XP actually still *is* everywhere, in a factual, objective way. Hence, you're way off-topic (and I trully suspect you knew that even before posting)... Let's please keep on topic. If you want to open the nth "XP users in corporate environment should burn in hell", please be my guest... but you already know it'll be a helluva flame-bait, in this specific forum, right?
-
How so? Read please the esr FAQ:
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/08/microsoft_says_it_wont_fix_kernel_flaw_its_not_a_security_issue_apparently/
-
Adobe Flash, Shockwave, and Oracle Java on XP (Part 2)
dencorso replied to Dave-H's topic in Windows XP
Install on, say, 7 x86, then check the subsytem version of all .exe and .dll files, before anything else. And do check it for the installer, too, of course! -
Of course.
-
It's OK. Now that we know it exists, we may all seach for it. Thanks! And, BTW, welcome to MSFN!
-
Link please.