Multibooter

"Kaspersky AV software uninstalls itself and mounts UltraAV in its place" "Kaspersky replaced with UltraAV in the US" https://software.informer.com/Stories/kaspersky-replaced-with-ultraav-in-the-us.html My ancient version of Kaspersky still updates OK:

Some versions of software require SP3 and don't install or run under SP2, e.g. Beyond Compare 4, MiniTool v10, Paragon Hard Disk Manager 15, HDDScan v4.0, MyPal68 v68.13.8, LibreOffice v5.4.7.2 TCP-IP patch v2.23d by LVLLord may resolve the TCP-IP issue http://www.lvllord.de/?lang=en&url=downloads The removal of features ("security enhancements") was perhaps intended to make it harder for certain download programs, for example when eMule is running 24/7 and the internet provider disconnects and reconnects the internet connection regularly, e.g. every 24 hrs. The patch seems to allow eMule and uTorrent to resume downloading as if nothing had happened. A value of 50 is recommended at that website.

I am still one of them. My "progressive" WinXP opsys/partition backups are based on WinXP SP2, on computers where Win98 is also installed on another partition. By "progressive" opsys backup I mean a clean previous opsys backup plus clean re-installs of programs which I want to add permanently. For creating a new "progressive" opsys backup I restore the previous "progressive" opsys backup, then make a clean install of new useful software to be added plus detect useful new hardware, then created the new "progressive" opsys/partition backup. Since about 2017, I usually install the WinXP SP3 Service Pack update, as a 2nd step, after having restored an opsys backup. I have archived my old "progressive" partition backups, specific to each computer, starting in June 2009. For example, I could restore the WinXP opsys backup "WinXP_Inspiron_11Sep2010.gho", so that WinXP on the Inspiron 7500 is back to how it was on 11Sep2010. I also keep an Install Log .txt file, documenting what software etc was added in each "progressive" opsys backup. With Ghost Explorer I can easily see and extract files contained in the .gho files. My last clean WinXP opsys backup of the Inspiron 7500 laptop (Pentium 3 SSE-only) was made on 6Jan2024 and contains WinXP SP2, not SP3. and the last clean WinXP opsys backup with the Asus P5PE-VM desktop (Pentium Duo E2200), also with SP2, was made on 11Feb2024. So it would be possible to benchmark these two computers with and without SP3, if I just had the time. Different benchmark results of SP2 vs SP3 on the Asus P5PE-VM desktop (Pentium Duo E2200) are of lesser importance to me, unless the potential deterioration caused by SP3 would be so serious as to reduce the usefulness of computer. With the old Inspiron 7500 laptop (Pentium 3 SSE-only), however, a benchmark SP2 vs SP3 might be quite useful to me, especially for deciding whether to add a new operating system "Windows XP SP3", containing software which requires SP3. I am still using System Commander v9.04 as boot manager, on computers where Win98 is also installed, and most of these computers contain a rarely used, additional 2nd instance of WinXP, installed onto an NTFS partition, so there would be a drive letter available for a "Windows XP SP3" partition. BTW my main WinXP is installed onto a FAT32 partition for compatibility with Win98. I haven't noticed a major performance deterioration caused by the WinXP Service Pack 3 update on the Inspiron 7500. But maybe I just didn't notice it because the old Inspiron 7500 laptop is already sooooo slow, especially with web browsers, so that any additional sluggishness would slip my attention. BTW my computers become perceptably crisper after a clean opsys restore. Maybe because no junk is restored, maybe because Ghost restores a pretty much defragged partition.

Yes, test results of PCMark do vary. But 6-16% worse is a little high.

Maybe, maybe not. PCMark uses, for example, qasf.dll [=DirectSHow ASF Support] of the Windows Media Player to calculate graphic test values. It would be logical to expect that the use of different versions of qasf.dll, contained in different versions of WMP, would result in different graphic test results. But how could audio-/video-related dlls affect CPU Scores (-8.1%), Memory scores (-10.2%), Graphics scores (-16.1%) and HDD scores (-6.6%) when the test was made with Windows Media Player 11 instead of WMP 9? Big puzzle, but WMP is a Windows component. Again, I had stated in my posting "The above comparison of Windows Media Player 9 vs 11 with PCMark04 has, however, a major issue: the initial test of 10Sep2024 was not made after a partition restore, so other issues may have contributed to the worse performance of Windows Media Player 11." Maybe repeating the WMP 11 vs 9 benchmark test after identical partition restores could create clarity, but it's too time-consuming for me. The worse test results with Windows Media Player 11 just don't give me a reason for upgrading from v9 on the old Inspiron 7500, especially since I do not use Windows Media Player, except with PCMark. The apparent worse performance of WMP11, and the consequent rejection of PCMark05, which requires WMP10 or 11, is relevant for my weak, old Inspiron 7500, but should be less relevant for my stronger desktops, their performance and speed is not that important.

Maybe "tsu schee" ? In my posting of 10Sep2024 I had displayed a screen shot of the test results of PCMark04 on an Inspiron 7500 laptop (650MHz Pentium 3 SSE-only), run with Windows Media Player 11 installed. The overall score was 568. I have subsequently restored the WinXP partition to a clean, pre-PCMark partition backup. I then installed Windows Media Encoder 9 and PCMark04 v1.3.0 and then ran PCMark04, i.e. with the default Windows Media Player 9, which comes with WinXP, instead of Windows Media Player 11. The overall score was 617. The better test results with Windows Media Player 9 show that the last version for WinXP (i.e. v11) is NOT the best version for every computer, e.g. the old Inspiron 7500. The test with PCMark04 shows that installing the system component Windows Media Player 11 will probably degrade the performance of the old Inspiron 7500. Unfortunately PCMark04, in contrast to PCMark05, does not create a log file showing how long the tests took. The above comparison of Windows Media Player 9 vs 11 with PCMark04 has, however, a major issue: the initial test of 10Sep2024 was not made after a partition restore, so other issues may have contributed to the worse performance of Windows Media Player 11. BTW, Windows Media Player 11 canNOT be uninstalled, only a rollback can be made. I made a rollback to the previous version (i.e. v9) in two steps: -> Start -> Run -> enter %windir%\$NtUninstallwmp11$\spuninst\spuninst.exe -> Start -> Run -> enter %windir%\$NtUninstallWMFDist11$\spuninst\spuninst.exe I had installed WMP11 NOT by running wmp11-windowsxp-x86-enu.exe, but by first extracting wmp11-windowsxp-x86-enu.exe and then running first the extracted wmfdist11.exe and then the exptracted wmp11.exe I don't know how long the test with PCMark04 took on the Inspiron, PCMark04 does not create a .log file. The test with PCMark05 took 7:40hrs PCMark04 does have a special use with very old computers, e.g. the Inspiron 7500 laptop, identifying software and hardware components which slow down the computer, a critical issue for the usefulness of old computers. One benefit of installing older PCMark04 instead of PCMark05 is that PCMark04 works OK with Windows Classic. To restore my previous Windows Classics, e.g. after uninstalling PCMark05, I made the following 3 steps: 1) -> right-click on desktop -> Properties -> in Themes tab: -> select Windows Classic 2) in a Windows Explorer window: -> Tools -> Folder Options -> select Use Windows Classic folders (had been changed to Show common tasks in folders) AND: ->select Open each folder in its own window 3) to restore colors used for high-lighting, etc: -> right-click on desktop -> Properties -> in tab Appearance: - in drop-down box Color Scheme: -> select Windows Classic - in drop-down box Windows and buttons: -> select Windows Classic style I am not sure whether I will keep PCMark04 on the old Inspiron 7500. The 3D test component of PCMark04 still takes many hours. eventually I will test-install PCMark2002. Maybe this old Win98 version is the best version for the Inspiron 7500 under WinXP.

I also have an internal 4MB video card for the Inspiron 7500. My Inspiron 8000, the successor model to the Inspiron 7500, has a 32MB video card, but if I remember right it doesn't fit physically into the Inspiron 7500 and, if it did, it might damage the DC-DC board in the Inspiron 7500 because of the higher power consumption. The Inspiron 7500 is my favorite oldtimer laptop, it works with three internal HDDs/SSDs, which do use already a lot of current. The DC-DC board is the 2nd most fragile part in the Inspiron 7500, after the cracking hinges and the cracking plastic.

I "agree to disagree", but my opinion is only one man's opinion

PCMark05 ran OK overnite, took 7:40hrs to complete. The overall score was 402. In contrast to the previous test with PCMark04, three graphics test of PCMark05 didn't complete. PCMark04 seems therefore to be preferrable to PCMark05 for testing/benchmarking old hardware. The last version of a software for WinXP is not necessarily the best version for WinXP. Below is the log file: Test started at: Tue Sep 10 01:05:32 2024 3D - Pixel Shader: This system is not capable of running pixel shader test. 3D - Pixel Shader: This system is not capable of running pixel shader test. 3D - Vertex Shader: This system is not capable of running vertex shader test. Test ended at: Tue Sep 10 07:45:25 2024 Maybe I'll keep PCMark05, the SystemInfo Explorer part of the program is perhaps useful as a diagnostic utility. "Max. User Clipping Planes 0" in the screenshot above explains maybe why the 3D tests failed. The SystemInfo Explorer runs OK with the Windows theme "Windows Classic", PCMark05 only complains "In order to run all the tests properly, Visual Settings need to be set to "Adjust for best appearance" and the "Classic Style" may not be selected". PCMark04 does not display such a message. Not sure whether SystemInfo Explorer runs without Windows Media Player and MS Windows Media Encoder 9. BTW, not sure how trustworthy the stuff displayed by SystemInfo Explorer is. PCMark05 displays as "Total Local Video Memory" 7MB, PCMark04 displays a correct 8MB. Both PCMark04 and PCMark05 display incorrectly one memory slot as empty (altogether 2x256MB RAM is the RAM slots), but the Total Physical Memory is indicated OK as 512MB. Maybe the main benefit of this "pinewood derby" was the social effect, adding to the feeling of community here at msfn.org.

Didn't work. Windows Media Player 11 played music Ok when installed into a sandbox. PCMark05 also ran some tests OK when installed into the same sandbox as Windows Media Player 11. BUT: Two err msgs were displayed when PCMark05 came up: - SBIE2103 Denied attempt to load system driver 'pcibus' [PCMark05] - "In order to run properly, PCMark05 requires Windows Media Player 10 or newer to be installed on your computer" Somehow PCMark05 in the sandbox couldn't find Windows Media Player 11 in the same sandbox.

I will uninstall PCMark05 (it was installed under Total Uninstall, so no problem uninstalling and restoring it later), then install Windows Media Player 11 and PCMark05 into the same sandbox under Sandboxie 4.22. Maybe in this way it will be possible to have Windows Media Player 9 and 11 side-by-side.

@NotHereToPlayGames You can install PCMark04 and PCMark05 side-by-side, i.e. no need no uninstall PCMark05 if you install PCMark04.

You can find it at https://archive.org/details/pcmark-04-v-130-installer

I tested the Inspiron 7500 again, with the preceding PCMark04. The Inspiron 7500 is not an old timer yet, i.e. older than 30 years, the Inspiron 7500 was made in 2000. Eventuall the Inspiron 7500 might be compared, except in monetary terms, to a 1908-1927 Ford Model T, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T PCMark04 showed a similar behaviour to PCMark05: when the 3D test started the screen turned black for a long time. Luckily I needed to do something else and when I came back to the laptop after about 30mins all on a sudden the screen turned on and testing continued, displaying 3D bricks falling down a staircase, very slowly, frame by frame. The whole test completed successfully after maybe four hours. Physics calculation and 3D was 0.405fps. Overall score was 568. I will repeat the test of the Inspiron 7500 with PCMark05 as an overnite job, and will not pull the plug when the screen stays black for a long time.

Thanks, I'll take your word for it. I have never used MU/WU. I have found this final Windows Media Player v11.0.5721.5262 by looking at https://web.archive.org/web/20190615000000*/http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/9/5/0953E553-3BB6-44B1-8973-106F1B7E5049/wmp11-windowsxp-x86-enu.exe and then looking for the most recent BLUE capture which did not load a 404 page. The download starter of the last OK capture on 28Aug2019 is https://web.archive.org/web/20190828083947/http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/9/5/0953E553-3BB6-44B1-8973-106F1B7E5049/wmp11-windowsxp-x86-enu.exe and the actual download link is https://web.archive.org/web/20190828083947if_/http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/9/5/0953E553-3BB6-44B1-8973-106F1B7E5049/wmp11-windowsxp-x86-enu.exe I have never really used Windows Media Player. Instead, I like a rare hacked, portable Korean version, with some English localization, of PotPlayer v1.4.19843 (6May2009), it works great under WinXP and Win98, and is probably the best video viewer for Win98.