LoneCrusader

I've just spent the better part of two days fooling with getting fresh installs of Vista x86/x64 SP2 installed, connected to WU, checking for updates, then manually downloading all the listed fixes from the Update Catalog, and I still have to install them and recheck for anything new afterward. What a nightmare, lol. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if the service weren't (possibly) about to disappear, and if I didn't have other OS'es that need the same treatment before time runs out. Such a repository would be a great benefit, and it's good IMO to have a separate repository with official pre-EoL Vista updates along with the repository of post-EoL fixes. I think the Platform Update file you have is considered a "Supplement" to the Platform Update. I've not been able to figure out if the Platform Update was ever issued as a single package, because its KB number (971644) does not exist on WU, or whether it's just four component packages counted together (971512, 971513, 971514, 960362). Anyone with knowledge of this please chime in.

Yes, this is important. We don't want any MP10 (or MP9) updates to get left out because the MP11 updates have the same KB numbers etc. Same goes for IE6/IE7/IE8 - all need to be preserved, not just the latest update for the latest version.

Looking forward to seeing the updated list. I could swear I saw a list here before somewhere that someone (heinoganda maybe? ) posted that had links for all of the POSReady 2009 updates, but now I can't seem to find it. Did this exist or am I confused? Server 2003 is important because there are and/or may be more useful things in it that might eventually be backportable to XP (replacement USBPORT.SYS to go along with the 64GB RAM patch, and STORPORT.SYS are two good examples). I tend to think of Vista in the same way; it's closer to XP than Windows 7, so maybe there are useful things there. Also in the case of Vista, the fact that it has so few users now makes it even more likely that its updates will really go into the "memory hole." XP's files should survive, and Windows 7 will as well, but Vista is more "endangered." Given our group of Vista diehards here I'm surprised no one seems to have at least some kind of list..

If any one of you Vista diehards has anything resembling a complete list of Post-SP2 updates (and hopefully their links!) I'd like to see it. I've been trying to collect everything for XP, but I'd like to see the same done for Vista and Server 2003 before this potential deadline falls, and I don't think I'm going to get there in time doing it manually.

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...

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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?

Then why post in the 9x forum? Topic moved.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Maybe MDGx's Graphic Filters package?

You're welcome! Glad I could be of help.

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! )

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. 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. 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? 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." 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. 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."

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? 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.

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? 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

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...