LoneCrusader
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LoneCrusader
-
-
I will never understand what motivates people to try to appease other people who are disagreeable, arrogant, condescending, and clearly would never reciprocate such efforts. As VistaLover said, full rebranding would not change a single thing about how "upstream" views this project or its users, and those who are now pushing rebranding again are only echoing MCP and Tobin's agendas. Apparently Tobin doesn't even need to come back here again to keep the subject alive. Why would anyone here spend the first second attempting to do anything they "demand?"
2 -
Let's not start this whole name changing bit again. There is nothing to be gained from it, and only more work to be created.
There's a relevant point in another thread (that thanks to the lack of a proper BBcode editor in IPB I can't just copy and paste here
) about how this may affect addons and related applications, requiring them to be modified to recognize the resulting renamed binary.
0 -
On 5/29/2019 at 1:37 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:
Looked through MSFN forums to find this that claims to support "ICH7 chipsets 945/946/975/955/31/41." Although, I have no idea if Lone's chipset drivers are superior.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070726211535/http://windows98.ic.cz/chipset/intelinf.zip
My INF files cover these chipsets plus many newer ones. I did get some of the original inspiration from xRayer's work though.. discovered the "drivers" are just INF files, so then it was easy to port the data to a 9x-compatible INF.
0 -
I keep hearing all these reports about WU/MU not working with SP3 + IE8...
Just a couple of months ago I was still able to use Windows Update with bare SP3 + IE6. All I had to change was to enable TLS in Internet Options...EDIT:
Oops, forgot to mention that three manual updates are necessary as well. See this thread and my link there. I'm getting old and forgetful, lol.0 -
On 5/4/2019 at 1:58 AM, Tommy said:
I tried that too, doesn't work. Apparently it has something to do with signatures of some sort. I'm surprised though that even older Firefox versions are affected this way.
Weird. It worked for me. Only 2 of my Addons were affected, Adblock Plus and Classic Theme Restorer. It may vary depending upon the Addon(s) or versions of said Addon(s) in use?
0 -
7 hours ago, DrWho3000 said:
Using Win XP SP3
Then why post in the 9x forum? Topic moved.
1 -
14 hours ago, SD73 said:
Unfortunately, Linux Mint 19.1 didn't have a little check that I could find. I went with the procedure in the above link.
Glad you solved it. I forgot that the option may vary or even not exist under different desktop environments. I only use KDE3 or Trinity, which are not common these days.
1 -
I got hit with this earlier this evening in 52.9.0esr. Very annoying.
Setting "xpinstall.signatures.required" to false in about:config allowed the Addons to run again, but they still had nag warning messages in the Addons dialog.
0 -
2 hours ago, cc333 said:
To be fair, in the last two seasons of DS9*, the Romulans finally do make peace with everyone else and unite to fight the Dominion; Everyone gets along pretty well, though the new relationship is rather tense at first due to a strong sense of mutual distrust.
(*I'm a pretty big fan of the whole franchise, except the reboot movies (too much modern bling and shallow, cliche-ridden characters for my liking)).
IIRC that alliance was born out of an act of subterfuge committed by the Federation. And they say we're the dishonorable ones...
Just venting one of my pet peeves about the various "24th-century" incarnations of Trek. The Klingons went from being a ruthless, opportunistic enemy in TOS (where they were party to several "dishonorable" acts including planting spies in the Federation) to being the "honorable warrior culture" ally. If anything, the Romulans in TOS, despite being enemies, were portrayed as being much more "honorable" and "duty oriented" and AFAICR never resorted to espionage or sabotage. In TNG and later, their personality mirrors that of the TOS Klingons.
Anyway, moving on, I'm a fan of most of it myself, although TOS and ENT are far superior to the others IMO. Agreed the "reboot" movies are garbage.
3 hours ago, cc333 said:Why does Matt Tobin feel the need to troll everyone (particularly roytam1) so badly? It's just plain mean-spirited and unfair.
If he could just stick to one opinion and let everyone do their thing, it would be OK. I *guess* I can kinda sorta see his point, but I really think he should lighten up and just let it go. All he's doing right now is building animosity and resentment, and there's already *way* too much of that going around these days....
I realize this would be absolutely nontrivial, but what about forking the main Firefox source from the same point as Pale Moon (which I think was somewhere around 27.x.x), or perhaps something newer for better feature support, and backport the necessary security patches and stuff? Kinda like a clean room re-implementation of Pale Moon, if you will.
It would certainly take a long time to accomplish, but it would get Matt off your backs by rendering the branding issue completely moot, wouldn't it?
It's just a thought....
c
Let's hope the situation has resolved itself for better or worse, and move on.
To address the rest of your point, it's not nearly as simple as you're thinking. Current Pale Moon 28 is forked from Firefox 52 ESR, not nearly that far back. Recreating Pale Moon would be a very long deviation from the purpose of roy's projects and be pointless, as Pale Moon is open source just as Firefox is.
Tobin seems to be more concerned about his own "Binary Outcast" projects more so than Pale Moon. But same situation here - they're built on open source code, so overall the same rules apply to them as do to Firefox or SeaMonkey and anything else descended from Mozilla.
0 -
I've run into this a couple of times. Somewhere under your Linux Date/Time or Regional settings there should be a checkbox for "System Clock set to UTC." Clearing this should set Linux to the Windows-style behavior of setting the system clock to Local Time.
2 -
Maybe MDGx's Graphic Filters package?
0 -
4 hours ago, roytam1 said:
@LoneCrusader thank you for your input! I had just learned a bit of business English and I learned lots of words from your post!
You're welcome! Glad I could be of help.
0 -
4 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said:
That's fine. I'll just continue to educate users when they show up. Leave it to a Romulan to create this atmosphere of mistrust.
Good day.
Discrimination against Romulans? Must be a TNG fan.
(TNG being the place where the Romulans become the evil, devious, dishonorable bad guys because someone decided to promote the Klingons to "honorable allies." Role reversal! Character assassination! The horror!)
0 -
On 4/30/2019 at 7:20 AM, Matt A. Tobin said:
These people aren't trolls they are misguided people because they were told at one point that these builds ARE "Pale Moon" but for Windows XP or told "Interlink" but for Windows XP. And it spread. Now it may not have been the original intention of non-english speakers to present it as such and yet it still goes on. This has continued to happen especially at Pale Moon but is also continuing for Interlink and even people for Borealis which btw has STILL not been officially released and yet they are running it on Windows XP.
This confusion exists and it is real and must be acknowledged. My problem has always been that it is bad enough that poor a** linux builders create inferior Pale Moon branded builds which we have to go after and for which we get blamed on for their poor performance and misconfigured builds but we also have to deal with these Windows XP people who can't tell the difference because like it or not it WAS presented as such when you guys first started off. There is proof of that.
I have yet to see any evidence of these supposed "misguided people." We have only your word on the subject, which, given your general behavior and attitude, is not necessarily reputable.
If one takes the source code for a given program (X) and re-compiles it targeting another platform (Y), how is it NOT "X for Y"? These programs are open source. If someone chooses to recompile them targeting a different platform, they have every right to do so, whether you like it or not. Good luck switching to "closed source," drop back by in a few years when you reach a closed-source state equivalent to the current open-source one you "leeched" from Mozilla.
I've seen how you deal with these "poor ___ Linux builders" as you refer to them. You drop in, make demands and threats, create a general atmosphere of negativity that poisons the waters and turns everyone off, all the while hoping that no one stands up to your bullying. Most people eventually give in and give up, not willing to deal with your constant attacks. I'm afraid that modus operandi will not work here.
On 4/30/2019 at 7:20 AM, Matt A. Tobin said:What do we want? Exactly what we said.. Complete disassociation. I still think that your projects could fill a need of people even if that need is based on ignorance and misconception of reality but needs never the less but you HAVE to do more than just made some code changes and not use official branding.. The mistakes were already made and you must actively correct it.
I know for a fact that roytam's New Moon 27 builds are in fact named "New Moon" and not "Pale Moon" and do include a disclaimer on the About dialog that states the build is unofficial and specifically says not to request help on the official Pale Moon forum or otherwise. This thread is also mentioned. So what more do you expect? If the supposed "misguided people" you refer to are too ignorant to read and abide by these disclaimers then nothing else is going to stop them either. In the end all of these programs, including yours and those of Moonchild Productions, descend from Firefox or other Mozilla sources. The "chain of descent" is there, and it is not going away because someone changes a name or writes a disclaimer. Even if the name were changed, what happens when someone simply asks "what is this based on?" When the answer is given no one can control how others may use that piece of information to seek out the project's "upstreams."
Even after all this ranting you still have not made any set of concrete "minimal acceptable changes" from your point of view. You keep changing them based on your level of annoyance each time you post. First it's change a name. Then it's full branding. Then "unofficial branding" is OK. Then it isn't. You noted at one point that mentions of the original names would be necessary for "profile compatibility reasons." Now, "ALL THE ORIGINAL NAMES MUST GO!" This is beyond ridiculous.
On 4/30/2019 at 7:20 AM, Matt A. Tobin said:My biggest problem has been the adhoc nature of this endeavor.. Why not make something more than a blogger blog and a thread on msfn.. Why not create unique product branding and why not learn that some of your collective decisions aren't the best in general let alone to achieve your goal. You want me to see you as more than half-assed badly modified XP builds.. Than BE more than half-assed badly modified XP builds.
I still don't see any improvement on that front and it has been at least two years since this whole mess has started and I have offered to help in that regard and was shot down every time. Still not willing to do the number one thing we collectively asked for for two years.. Create your own branding. Where is it?
So I feel like I have to force the issue with EVERY issue just to get SOMETHING done and that in and of its self p***es me the hell off. If I remove unofficial branding will you then create new branding? Or will you just restore the unofficial branding.. OR WORSE YET will you go back to violating my rights and use whatever branding is left? See, I don't know and in two of those cases which are far more likely based on the past two years the core issue remains.. Which p***es me off that you don't acknowledge: Confusion of users about what exactly they are running..
Maybe roytam isn't a good graphics artist? I myself certainly wouldn't want to have to undertake the task of creating new "branding" that is worthy of the underlying code here.
I'm no programmer, but I would take bets that changing the names and such would also create more headaches for roytam and his users in the fact that this could cause Addons and other associated applications to not recognize roy's builds, thereby forcing him or his users to manually modify every single Addon or associated application in order to get it working as it should. If my assumption of this is correct, what reasonable person with a life and better things to do who would choose this path?
I'm sorry, but no truly serious user of these builds has any confusion whatsoever about what they are using. If the official installer(s) won't run on your non-supported platform and you had to get a build from here, that's self explanatory. And, if you're running on a supported platform where the official installer(s) work, that's self explanatory as well, and why would you come here in the first place?
On 4/30/2019 at 7:20 AM, Matt A. Tobin said:My second biggest problem will be that little to nothing is done to crush that perception which branding should solve. I don't want to hear that someone is running "Interlink on Windows XP" or "Borealis on Windows XP" because that isn't what they are running.. Not by a long shot. This is a falsehood that is being allowed to continue and as long as it is being allowed to continue I will never hold any of you in anything but abject contempt. And that is where I am on the whole thing. I can't ignore you and it seems I also can't help you. So all I can do is dislike you and try to educate anyone I come across.
Covered this above, but once again - "If one takes the source code for a given program (X) and re-compiles it targeting another platform (Y), how is it NOT "X for Y"?"
You "don't want to hear" these things because you don't like the fact that someone had the gall and took the time to compile your project for a different target platform that you disapprove of. That's the beauty of open source. Also once again - "Good luck switching to "closed source," drop back by in a few years when you reach a closed-source state equivalent to the current open-source one you "leeched" from Mozilla."On 4/30/2019 at 7:20 AM, Matt A. Tobin said:Nothing will change until SOMETHING changes. The first true step aside from a single sentence on a web page is BRANDING and BRANDING is the start to your future as something other than what I despise.
As an aside, unique branding won't be very affected if at all by any code changes we do and you can override our default set preferences without there being merge conflicts or worrying about our pref changes if you specify them in branding.. That alone would harden your product choices against our normal development to a degree. That alone should encourage you to make it so.
See above about causing issues with Addons and associated applications.
You claim that there is some "advantage" in the changes you are demanding when it seems more likely that this will only create more work for the developer. I see no advantage whatsoever to be gained by these projects from your suggestions, only that you just want things your way.
On 4/30/2019 at 7:20 AM, Matt A. Tobin said:My next course of action will be determined by your choices.. So what is it to be? You gonna take that first step to being unique and a force unto yourselves or do I keep having to fight you at every turn coming up with more and more ridiculous ways to get something to change out here?
That is about as diplomatic as I get in these cases.
Decide.
I don't speak for roytam, but if I were in his shoes I would be all the less inclined to acquiesce to any of your demands simply based on your behavior. You have chosen to act in a condescending and demanding manner laced with threats to keep throwing roadblocks in the way of or create problems in any way possible for roytam's projects.
On the other side, you create more annoyance for yourself by coming here and ranting about supposed "misguided users" who are troubling you, when it would be simpler (and probably better for your health) just to tell them off and go on about your day. You appear to thrive on creating a negative environment and beating dead horses. And, in the end, if you decide to try and make good on your threats then you will create more work for yourself in rewriting closed-source code to replace the open-source code you "borrowed" but don't like others "borrowing."
Based on this and in the interest of civility I will state that I believe this "discussion" is never going anywhere. Please stop wasting everyone's time with your threats, condescension, and negative attitude. These will get you nothing here, except an end to OUR "diplomacy."
10 -
17 hours ago, siria said:
I love his builds too, and am very glad and grateful for them, but to tell the truth: it really is very misleading to use the very same browser name for the forks and even identic version numbers as the original ('upstream') browsers. In the download filename, the unzipped folder name, the exe name, the profile folders, and if even everywhere inside the browser too... Same browser name and identic version numbers - no chance to NOT confuse. Nearly every normal user will have no chance to realize those are completely different builds.
Not really. Any "serious" user who comes here for a build is not going to be "confused" in any way. If they're running on a non-supported platform where the official installers don't work, and have to come here for a working build, then it's self explanatory. And, if they are running on a supported platform where the official installers and builds do work, why would they come here in the first place?
14 hours ago, roytam1 said:not to mention keeping same exe name and same profile prefix for compatibility.
4 minutes ago, roytam1 said:and then you'll break shell integration.
I'm glad you mentioned these. I'm no programmer, and not familiar with all the details, but I had been considering the potential side effects of name changing. Doing so would probably also cause Addons and any or all other associated applications to stop recognizing the renamed XP builds and force each instance of such things to be manually modified by yourself or other users. A bunch of unnecessary work. Probably the intent of the "complainer(s)" to just make your job harder.
0 -
1 hour ago, Matt A. Tobin said:
Okay, couple of things..
First and foremost, I am not Moonchild. I am not here to comment on what may or may not be happening in regards to the builds that use Pale Moon or Basilisk code. Binary Outcast != Moonchild Productions.
I represent my self and Binary Outcast. Now, I am here to ask you to keep your dog off my lawn. This is not unreasonable though I sometimes phrase it unreasonably. The fact that you think I need a disclaimer is ridiculous seeing as Mozilla doesn't need a disclaimer about us. They simply tell everyone that they aren't the makers of it and that they should p*** off. They want our dogs to stay off their lawn too. However, I did as suggested and he did as I suggested. Of course that wasn't the end of it it. It had to continue right? So let's continue.
I think we all understand that you are not Moonchild nor do you speak for MCP in this case. However you get grouped together with MCP here because you have been variously associated with them and apparently share the same condescending attitude toward XP (and Vista) users. This attitude is what turns everyone here off; I mean really, what do "you guys" care what operating system other people choose to use? Don't want to "support" it in your projects? Fine. Just don't break it on purpose, and don't act as if someone is committing a sin by using it on a "unapproved" platform. I fail to understand what bothers you so much about people asking about the XP builds based on this latest statement. Why not just tell them to "p*** off" as you put it and go on about your day?
Now, back to the issue. If you wish to make a "reasonable" request, then do so in a "reasonable" and diplomatic manner. Coming in here and making demands and threats will get you nowhere. I'm willing to accept that your desire to have these "forked projects" disassociated from "Binary Outcast" is a "reasonable" request. However you need to lose the attitude first and foremost, and then make a clear policy on whether or not and how you wish to be credited or mentioned at all in any subsequent "forked" project. You have given conflicting statements on this depending on your attitude whenever you were posting.
Do you want roytam to just change the names, icons and such?
Do you want any stated credit such as "this project is forked from ___ " "created by ____"?
Do you want to be "erased" entirely from the resulting fork?
If roytam does these things you "request," then does that mean you will lose the condescending attitude and derogatory language in reference to these builds here and elsewhere?1 hour ago, Matt A. Tobin said:Windows XP and Vista support was dropped from UXP broadly because the code paths and support of them for an 18 year old operating system is NOT reasonable. ...
In your opinion; which most everyone here does not share. This is a nonstarter here. It doesn't matter how much "insight" you believe you have into this code; it works on these older platforms and since we have no other options it's a very good option, regardless of your opinion.
1 hour ago, Matt A. Tobin said:Back to the area where I have supreme authority, Binary Outcast Projects. Now, what I want above all the bul***** is just to do my projects and not have you guys or your dogs crapping on my lawn. However, if this continues I may have to just shut down my projects and forget doing them at all. I only have 7 months of mandatory support for the email client as per the original terms for funding the Interlink Mail & News project at that time I can shut it down and obliterate it from existence if I so choose. If I do that there will be no more updates for which these builds can utilize. Since, roytam1 or the other guy who I can't be bothered to look up his name don't do true development.. That means the end of the builds here except for they will still do builds but will never advance.
I don't want to do that but I will because my lawn is my f****** lawn. Stay off it and you won't have to worry about me coming here and dumping the refuse I pick up back on yours.
Addressed most of this above I believe. However, you still seem to think that roytam can somehow exert mind control over those who choose to use his builds and keep them all from "wandering" into the wrong places for support. I'll wager that a good number of these people who are supposedly causing you problems are trolling, especially given your attitude about the builds and since you seem to be very easily triggered by anyone who mentions XP. Since you don't distribute these builds from your site, and most likely one must visit here in the first place in order to get the links for the builds, I find it strange that any serious user doing as such would not "stop here" first for help. They seem to be purposely seeking you out rather than sincerely needing help; and if this is the case, no one here can do anything about that.
1 hour ago, Matt A. Tobin said:As for my wish to have constructive dialog that could still be done but the fact is there is no good medium to do that and here isn't exactly sufficient. It is too bad that these XP projects have no true infra for that to happen. Merely leeching off other people's services.
What's not "sufficient" here? This forum has been around for a long time and has hosted the support for many projects. I'd rather see a developer dedicated to his or her project rather than dedicated to extraneous "infrastructure." Nothing wrong with having "infrastructure;" mind you, but in the end it is secondary to the project itself. roytam has enough to keep him busy with a $dayjob and building his various browsers, and since he has no help in doing so it's not reasonable to expect him to spend time on a website or otherwise.
8 -
10 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said:
So the confusion doesn't exist except that users are confused and coming to me. Look, I am simply tired of explaining it. I shouldn't HAVE to disclaim downstream projects or explain to user after user how what they are running isn't my project.
You want constructive? Well how about providing a real website, real branding, and real support venues and making it clear that the projects are NOT related to their upstream. Instead of this smattering of low level fragmented non-efforts provided thus far..
I had no intention of returning back here but your users are confused and bothering me. So this becomes your problem.
BUT if you think it will help.. Here: http://binaryoutcast.com/projects/interlink/#faq
You actually expect anyone here to take you seriously while you continue to maintain a condescending attitude toward roytam1 and everyone else in this community? You can't even speak of these things without lacing it with some ignorant derogatory language or FUD. Emphasis mine.
QuoteDoes Interlink support Windows XP because there are XP builds elsehere?
No Binary Outcast (and by extension Unified XUL Platform) Project supports Windows XP.
The builds you MAY find elsewhere are unofficial and modified (poorly) to run on Windows XP without care to over all platform stability or security of your system. Make no mistake, these builds by third parties are not supported nor are representative of this or any other BinOC project.
Binary Outcast cannot be held responsible for support of these builds nor the likely case of failure or compromise of those systems by running software that was not created, compiled, or distributed by BinOC or its approved agents.I assume once again that users are intended to believe that "poor modification" is an acceptable definition of "restoring the pre-existing functionality that you intentionally chose to break?"
Not one of us here cares one iota whether or not roytam1 has some useless eye-candy website or some fancy branding for his browser builds. What we care about is that they work and that he is very responsive to bug reports and quick to address other issues that may arise on the target platform(s).
Yourself and "Moonchild Productions" could do with some lessons from what you find here. When the rest of the world leaves your precious Windows 7 and your "outdated" Mozilla forks, along with their "outdated" addons behind, where will you be? In the same boat with the rest of us.
If you expect anyone here to take you seriously, you'd better learn to treat people here with respect whether you agree with them or not.
12 -
3 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said:
I have just encountered my third Windows XP user using your builds asking for information and support. WILL YOU PLEASE STOP REPRESENTING YOUR PROJECTS AS MINE. Create your own branding or end your foolish projects.
Do this or I will revoke the repository again and start rewriting major parts of it as proprietary software.
So much for the "more constructive approach." I had a feeling this was insincere.
roytam1 has no control over the actions of those who decide to use his XP-compatible builds. Even if he were to change names, remove references, yada yada yada. there could still be "ignorant" users (or even troublemakers just trolling) who will keep going to the wrong places for support or to ask questions. How hard is it to say "I don't support those builds" and link them here? Much easier than ranting there, ranting here, and rewriting a bunch of code.
6 -
A visit to the Microsoft Update Catalog and searching for "POSReady" yields 319 results. Excluding two listed updates that are for POSReady 7 and allowing for three of the remaining 317 updates having multiple files linked on their download popup page results in a folder with 321 update packages. Obviously some of these are probably supserseded. Is this a "complete" archive of all the updates, or have some of them been "disappeared" over time?
2 -
Not sure if this will help or not; I noticed your card is a PCI-E card. Try removing all references to VGARTD.VXD from the INF and remove this file from your system and registry. AGP GART drivers are not necessary for PCI-E devices and it may be interfering in this case...
0 -
1 hour ago, Goodmaneuver said:
I think it can work on Win95.
www.computerhope.com/download/window95.htm :- Updates Windows 95 to support USB. Requirements: Only for Windows 95 version 4.00.950b and 4.00.950c.
toastytech.com/files/w95usbflash11.zip :-USB flash driver
I did some checking and mfc42.dll needs IE4 installed that came with Windows 95 OSR 2.5 because wininet.dll is missing some functions otherwise. IE4 updates many system files including advapi32.dll, shell32.dll, rpcrt4.dll, msvcrt.dll and setupapi.dll. These file dates are 18/11/1997 but advapi32.dll does not contain SetSecurityInfo so advapi32.dll and iphlpapi.dll have to be updated manually from Win98FE.
You're way behind the times on USB for 95.
Remember as well that IE 5.5 SP2 works on Windows 95. It may contain updated versions of some of these files. Not to say whether this will or will not be enough to support WPA2. This is likely up to the decisions made by the developers of whatever WPA-client software rather than "whether or not Windows 95 is capable" of it.
(There are even ways to hack in IE6 under 95; never tried it myself and I don't know if all files work, but there's a thread about it on BetaArchive.)
0 -
1 hour ago, dencorso said:
is there actually any SCSIPORT.SYS in Server 2k3?
I assumed there would be, as both exist right now in the \system32\drivers folder on my XP x64 system. (not certain whether they are both loaded or if storport is even used)
But I haven't examined Server 2003 x86 or x64 directly myself.
Of course all this is moot if Microsoft "fixed" the problem by changing the code in the Kernel rather than making the drivers coexist. But even in this case one might be able to reverse engineer the changes if they have the required knowledge...
0 -
2 hours ago, UCyborg said:
16-bit Windows 3.1 driver on Windows 9x strikes me more as an emergency solution rather than anything else.
Here it falls into the category of "ONLY solution" for those who want to use HDA devices.
Of course one can use add-on cards, but this makes for redundancy in any multiboot setup.Unless of course you can find a copy of the "IHV Enabling Kit" I mentioned or some Windows HDA driver source code... something we can use to develop a better solution.
0 -
2 hours ago, dencorso said:
...NVMe.sys...NVMe disk...
(which lead XP to load scsiport.sys, and this *seems* to be the reason why storport.sys fails to load afterwards). This is a question that remains to be eventully elucidated.
(This may have been mentioned and tried before; if so I'm way behind the curve and I'd be interested in seeing any discussion of it.
)
As I understand it, one has to use STORPORT.SYS from Windows Server 2003 x86 since XP x86 does not have this file, correct?
Has anyone tried simply using the Server 2003 x86 SCSIPORT.SYS paired with the STORPORT.SYS driver? Maybe Microsoft fixed whatever the issue is and made them able to coexist under Server 2003?
Also, for the record, XP x64 already has STORPORT.SYS included; might be an option for some people provided XP x86 is not absolutely required.
0
)
Then why post in the 9x forum? 
Discrimination against Romulans? Must be a TNG fan. 
)
On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019
in Windows XP
Posted
So, did everyone finally decide on a definitive, complete list of files + links?
I've been working on collecting things myself, but it's very slow doing it all manually. Not to mention the fact that it also needs to be done for Sever 2003 and Vista as well before time runs out...