Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by no1none

  1. But so what? It's not like anyone (at least not on this board, I would assume) uses his/her computer connected directly to the web. You cannot block stats.microsoft.com in your Hosts? Gee, what a big deal... just do it in your router. Even most modern DSL/cable modems have this capability. This kind of arguments remind me of the funny (stupid actually) arguments that Win2K is "less secure" than Win98 because Task Sched opens a port LOL sure it might be a potential (but highly unlikely) problem to get rooted for a Joe Llama, but not for any slightly-advanced comp/Windoze user.
  2. Windows Defender final version also works fine on W2K, just patch the installer with Orca same as you did with beta versions. or get it patched here: Windows Defender Final (1.1.1593.0) for Windows 2000 SP4, XP, XP SP1, XP SP2 (it works with XP SP3, Vista, Vista SP1 and Vista SP2 too, but for those you don't need patched installer) MS seems to drop WD in favor of MSE, but it is still being updated with latest definitions. If you have any problems with automatic updating, you can use this: Windows Defender Manual Updater (since it is small enough to go as attachment with this post, I added it below) It is very simple to use: 1 - download latest definitions update file from Microsoft to your Desktop (Direct download link for32-bit Windozes | Direct download link for 64-bit Windozes) 2 - run WD Manual Updater Alas, NOD32 is obviously way much better choice than Windows Defender or Microsoft Security Essentials... HTH
  3. But what do you want to strip down more? When you set up NT4 you do have options what to install - just don't select anything you don't need (like ancient "wallpapers" or such). Don't select anything, and you'll have almost bare core NT4. "i want to do is only install the core system files meaning no IE, Direct X, Media Player etc..." none of it is ever installed, except for IE3 (which is harmless for as long as you install i.e. K-Meleon and set it as default browser, or you can remove it manually entirely). I suggest: Setup NT4 Install SP6a Install SRP1 (Q299444) done Then do patching manually (either install post-SRP1 patches one by one, or extract them and combine their newer file versions into one single "superpatch" - it'll save you doing it again and again if you plan on doing similar installation in the future)
  4. That might be just Microsoft Stupid Installer's issue (msi ) You can modify msi with Orca and have no more problems with "OS not compatible" problem (but of course it doesn't guarantee the software will work on older OS). I have patched i.e. Windows Defender's msi installer to install on any NT5+ version, and in spite of what Msoft says (that it is for XP SP2 or newer only) it installs and works fine on Windows 2000, plain-vanilla XP, and XP1...
  5. Both USB1.1 and 2.0 work fine on NT4 (just not OOB). "Wireless" has never been any problem and it is a non-issue. Since it is networking (from an OS point-of-view, there is no difference between wired and wireless network connection) hence NT4 always had support for "wireless". But I know what you meant - that many manufacturers chose not to make NT4 drivers for their hardware, and that is a shame indeed (and may be a problem).
  6. I'm sure all Mozilla browsers (or gecko-based browsers) will work on NT4 with flash player 9 highest. IE6 on NT4 only up to version 7.0.73 FF2 is such a bloatware, at least give it a try and check out latest K-Meleon... As awergh said, it is DX Media, not the full DirectX. Also, there is no need to install WMP7.0 first and do upgrade to WMP7.1 I don't remember now what exactly (because I did it years ago) but I simply opened up installers and replaced few files in 7.0's installer with the newer from 7.1, it was that easy. I had it available for ages but I don't have any public ftps anymore. However fellow NT4 user has it available here: Windows_Media_Player_7.1_for_Windows_NT4_95.zip for PS/2 mouse scroll to work you either use Labtec PS/2 mouse driver, or install Msoft IntelliPoint (I'm not sure which is the last version to support NT4, personally I always install version 2.2d which is the size of *floppy* only, and does NOT come with gigabytes of pictures of various joysticks and other junk
  7. well, my primary OS is slackware, but if I need to use windoze I prefer NT4 Out of all windozes, old NT4 is still the slickest and fastest OS.
  8. This is so redundant topic. It would be easier to list motherboards that do NOT work with Windows 2000 (which I haven't seen yet). If it work with XP it must work with W2K. The only problem might be with some proprietary crap (say making Asus EEE to run W2K - that's probably a challenge). See bpalone, I never allow those autorun "installers" found on drivers CDs to install anything, hence I would have never had or never knew about the "problem" you've described. I always click "cancel" and install what I need from the CD manually, like you did in the end to overcome the "problem" (FWIW I seldom use those CDs, usually I download latest/updated drivers straight from manufacturer's site...)
  9. System requirements from Microsoft page are only valid for the official/unpatched Windows Defender, and according to their misleading information it won't run on Windows 2000 or XP SP1... that's why I didn't quote or link to it. I have not tested it, but I'm almost sure patched Defender can be installed and run on Windows XP SP1 as well. The most important is existence of Windows Installer 3.1 on the system, that's all. edit/ I have modified initial post.
  10. Lets just say they are remnants of abandoned work in progress
  11. I know, there is bunch of threads about it, silent installers for n-lite etc, and I have Windows Defender incorporated on my W2K installation disc too, but I couldn't find any "standard" modified installer for use with already existing, already installed on a computer W2K. So I fired up orca again, modified **** stupid microsoft installer to allow installation on Windows 2000, and for my own sake and those who may need it too I am posting it here (when I'm not home and working on somebody's machine msfn is usually my primary source of software or links). [ REMOVED. ] Minimum system requirements for Windows Defender: * Personal computer with an Intel Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended. * OS: Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 or later, 2003 SP1 or later, Vista. * 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (minimum); 128 MB RAM (recommended). * 20 MB of available hard disk space. * Internet Explorer 6.0 or later. * Internet access with at least a 28.8 Kbps connection. * Windows Installer version 3.1 or higher. >> Windows Installer 3.1 v2 (3.1.4000.2435) HERE <<< (not needed/already included in Windows 2003 SP1 and Windows Vista) (and no, this is not old beta Defender, this is latest Windows Defender version from Microsoft)
  12. Yes, if you have modern machine. On my old laptop I still keep in my workshed Miranda drags like a snail (and forget aMSN), while MSN Mess works smooth (pentium 130mhz) and you can TALK too. Miranda developer(s) were promising voice chat, but it's still not implemented AFAIK How it could be "better" if it doesn't have voice
  13. Patch parts 5-6 (last) Patch by defaults to ...\Program Files\MSN Messenger\msnmsgr.exe If your installation directory differs, select "Browse' and navigate to your Messenger's directory manually. Tested working on my NT4 desktop, and tested virus/spyware free with NOD32 sign.4132-20090604 (just to make sure) screen of messenger on nt4 (with today date in tray if anyone have doubts )
  14. Correction: I don't think Msoft dropped the support for Messenger 5. Same version 5.0.0544 on Windows 95 is still working fine. It's some usual Msoft's bullsh*t that they don't bother to fix because Bill want you to ditch NT4 and buy Vista FIX: Install MSN Messenger 5 for NT4 from Microsoft DOWNLOAD HERE Try to log in, when prompted say NO to Upgrade, exit Messenger (EXIT, not minimize it to tray!) then Install patch msnmsgr.exe (it is patched to identify itself to live network as version 8.1) and restart your Messenger. Enjoy :-) edit: I forgot this forum have sucky 200 kb attachment limit :/ Patch is split into 6 parts now, download them all and unpack with WinRAR or such. edit again: I can't add all 6 parts into single post, oh well... DOWNLOAD SINGLE FILE from megaupload.com HERE (lasts 30 days or so IIRC)
  15. I'm puzzled and I can't find the cause, so please bear with me if you can help. Configuration: Machine with XP SP3 to another machine with XP SP3, using Remote Desktop Connection v.6.1 (the one that is installed/"upgraded" by Service Pack 3). Problem: When trying to use Microsoft Update on a remote machine non-Admin remote user (but with admin priviledges) is disconnected and cannot reconnect until reboot or loging on locally on such machine: /edit/ (if I allow remote logon for Administrator on the machine, and use then Administrator acct to login remotely - everything is fine, and I can use Microsoft Update without any problem) /edit end/ Everything was fine until SP3 installation on all XP machines (when all machines were using previous version of Remote Desktop, v.5.1) I must add that all machines have termsrv.dll v.5.1.2600.5512 (from SP3) manually replaced with the older v.5.1.2600.2180 (the one from beta SP2, because it is allowing concurrent remote connection without logging off current local user as it happens with all newer versions of this dll), thus at first I thought that's where the problem is. But replacing back the dll to the 'original' SP3 version didn't help either (unless there is some buried deep registry setting I have missed?), so I suspect the problem is with/within this newer "Vista-ready" Remote Desktop 6.1 that came with SP3. Other than that I have no idea what else can cause such behaviour? It happens the same on all six XP SP3 machines. Any ideas? Anyone else experienced same problem?
  16. Windows 2000 SP5 ? Can you modify your post and add the attached explorer's version info as well? thx I'm in the process of requesting Q172648 explorer.exe version 4.00.952 hotfix for Win95 (if it's still available). After I get it, I'll have to patch it up to implement the 256+ colors fix. Microsoft only partially fixed the problem in WinME for Color Depths of 16-bit high color [65536 colors] and 32-bit real color modes, but NOT for 24-bit true color mode. If a video card (such as Intel 810/815 graphics chips) support up to 24bit color mode and you use 24bit color mode in WinME, the 256+ color trayicon test will FAIL and will display a FEW colors. If you switch it from 24bit color to 16bit color mode in WinME and run the 256+ color test, it will display the colors correctly. I've done numerous test on this on a WinME machine to prove my point. Dr. Hoiby is only HALF right on his assessment and did not test the problem thoroughly enough on Windows ME computers with different video cards. It is in Windows XP that Microsoft completely fixed the 256+ colors trayicons problem for ALL color depths (16bit, 24bit, 32bit & higher) I have no experience with WinME beside that I bought it when it came out, found out its garbage, and haven't ever used it myself I am sure I have explorer 4.00.952 and that hotfix. If you won't find it let me know, but I'd prefer you don't (I'd have to search for it on my old uncatalogged discs... <shrugs> )
  17. This has been answered so many times here... Replace your explorer manually if you have activex disabled (thus cant use drhoiby's) http://www.msfn.org/board/Patched-EXPLORER...es-t106779.html Most of the software have icons with 256 or more colors, probably the only ones that still may have less are microsoft's own within W2K... and there are quite few shell icons packages for W2K. I use xpicons silent installer combined with WindowsDSv991121 color scheme registry file that are autoinstalled during setup on my W2K discs (which is perfect for me, you may like other ones). It looks like this (note the Favorites icon being not updated): All you need to do is just search this forum
  18. OP have asked for transparent icons, not the whole "revolutions pack", people This is what makes your icons transparent:
  19. Windows 98 SE patched explorer.exe version 4.72 ( 4.72.3110.1) EN-US Offsets 4B6B B4D2 changed 01 to 11 (not mine - patched by drhoiby) EXPLORER_98SEv4.72.3110.1_patched.rar
  20. Windows 95 patched explorer.exe version 4.00 (4.00.950) EN-US offsets: 0C496 0E6CF 1E86F all changed 01 to 11 EXPLORER_95v4.00.950_patched.rar
  21. Windows NT4 original explorer.exe version 4.72 (4.72.3612.1700) EN-US [unpatched] EXPLORER_NT4v4.72.3612.1700_original.rar
  22. Windows NT4 patched explorer.exe version 4.72 (4.72.3612.1700) EN-US offset 5750 changed 01 to 11 EXPLORER_NT4v4.72.3612.1700_patched.rar
  23. Windows NT4 patched explorer.exe version 4.00 (4.0.1381.282) EN-US EXPLORER_NT4v4.0.1381.282_patched.rar
  24. Yesterday I was looking for an old thread with patched explorer and I couldn't find it (search on this forum sucks, really). I had to go home to find the patched file... so, with this still fresh on my mind, I decided to open new thread with nothing else but explorer files. Since Microsoft patched explorer executables himself in versions from Windows ME upward (with exception of W2K) to display 256+color icons, this thread should be for Windoze 95/95A/95B/95C/98/98SE/NT4/2000 explorer files only. Anyone please contribute if you have anything else to add. Lets post here the original (unpatched) and modified (patched) files. Please state the full version numbers of files, and what has been done to the patched ones. useful links: XVI32 excellent hex editor by Christian Maas Dr.Hoiby's page with some patched explorers * * * * * For those wondering what is it about, here is nice comparison of how the windows explorer handles icons with 256 or more colors: original microsoft's windows explorer: (any Windows95/98/NT/2000) using patched windows explorer: (any Windows95/98/NT/2000) TEST IT YOURSELF WITH TrayTester by Dr.Hoiby

  • Create New...