Jump to content

AstroSkipper

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,565

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    465

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Germany

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AstroSkipper

  1. AstroSkipper
    One additional information in terms of this Webroot mess. Here is an official link to the last XP-compatible version of Webroot SecureAnywhere given by their support: https://answers.webroot.com/Webroot/ukp.aspx?pid=17&vw=1&app=vw&solutionid=1847 When I am at my desktop computer, I will check the version number and date of this file. It seems to be an online downloader due to its small size. But as I already mentioned, I am definitely not interested in this program.
  2. AstroSkipper
    There is another candidate which might run under Windows XP. It is SecureAnywhere® AntiVirus from WEBROOT. It is commercial.Here is the link to its German homepage: https://www.webroot.com/de/de/home On their German website, this program is listed as Windows XP compatible. And here is the link to its English homepage: https://www.webroot.com/us/en/home/products/av Strangely enough, on their English website, this program is not listed as Windows XP compatible. Different versions? Wrong information? Frankly, I never used this program, and I am not really interested in, either. Maybe, someone knows more about this program. I won't investigate that any further. I listed it here just for your information. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  3. AstroSkipper
    I fear that many/most users here are not interested in reading these release notes, unfortunately. Only technically interested people, coders or developers will read or check these release notes in detail. And I agree it's a pity, of course. But this kind of disinterest and volatility is the way of things nowadays and can be observed in many situations, everything quick, quick, quick ... and reading? Too exhausting! Anyway! I do appreciate these additional information and am grateful to @roytam1 for his incredible effort and endeavour in all that he does.
  4. AstroSkipper
    Most of these websites provide badly researched information. To find out what the system requirements of the advertised programs are, you have to do your own research on the homepage of each product.
  5. AstroSkipper
    But actually, the idea of this thread is to do that without having to ask about it. Just posting antivirus or security programs which still work under Windows XP!
  6. AstroSkipper
    Ok. And what about researching a little bit first and posting then? I found the exact date of Avira's support end in a few seconds.
  7. AstroSkipper
    Recently seen? The engine and signatures updates for Avira Antivirus products running on Windows XP were abandoned on 08.04.2016. That is almost seven years ago! Where have you been the last seven years? FYI, here is a link with their product lifecycle archive: https://www.avira.com/en/support-product-lifecycle-archive Actually, everyone knows that Avira was one of the first that has turned its back on Windows XP. Anyway! So much for Avira! No option!
  8. AstroSkipper
    Good to know that it seems to have been sarcasm. But honestly, this is easily misunderstood and also completely uncalled for. The only good thing about this banter is that you have brought up an antivirus program that seems to be XP-compatible in its current version. And now, we are back on topic. I took a look at the Vir.IT eXplorer homepage. Do you know if the Vir.IT eXplorer Lite version has a background guard? I could not really see it on their homepage. AstroSkipper
  9. AstroSkipper
    There is nothing to check in a German company in terms of the origin of their workers. Most antivirus companies operate worldwide, in most cases internationally. Certification of origin??? That kind of thinking is more of a pigeonholing or casteism. It is the year 2023. In which century do you live? Apart from the fact that all of your recent comments here are totally off-topic, they have nothing to do with antivirus programs targeting Windows XP, you should urgently reconsider such nonsense, especially regarding the recent history (of the first half of the last century). Anyway! One thing is crystal clear, any kind of racism is never a solution. AstroSkipper
  10. AstroSkipper
    As promised above, I uploaded the program CAupdater 1.0.0.1 created by @Thomas S.. It is the original archive file without any modifications and an alternative to @heinoganda's Certificate Updater. This archive can be extracted to any desired location as CAupdater is a portable application. Here is the download link: https://www.mediafire.com/file/z34fifg2a09fzxo/CAupdater.7z/file Cheers, AstroSkipper
  11. AstroSkipper
    More details about this method here: Cheers, AstroSkipper
  12. AstroSkipper
    G Data and AVIRA are made in Germany but they don't support XP and Vista anymore in their recent versions. Most manufacturers of antivirus programs operate worldwide. The head office is in one country, with offshoots, branches and subsidiaries in many other countries. And antivirus programs often have several scan engines, which in turn are manufactured in other countries. So it's all quite confusing.
  13. AstroSkipper
    Revo Uninstaller is a great piece of software. I use it for ages. The last XP-compatible version was Revo Uninstaller Pro 3.2.1. You could get it for free in several giveaways in the past. Use Google, and you will still find it easily! I can't link it here due to our forum rules.
  14. AstroSkipper
    OT: I use WinHEX for ages and already recommended it here:
  15. AstroSkipper
    Thanks for clarification! Never thought coders do need to make money ...
  16. AstroSkipper
    Thanks for the information! I know you mentioned K7 in a previous post. Unfortunately, both suggested programs are commercial. No free versions available. Seqrite doesn't seem to support Windows XP in its new versions 8.x, only in the old ones 7.x. And I can't see any products for home users. Or did I miss anything? BTW, both, K7 and Seqrite, are totally unknown here in Germany, and presumably, in other European countries, too.
  17. AstroSkipper
    CAupdater - An alternative Root Certificate Updater There is an alternative tool for updating Root Certificates in Windows XP. I totally forgot to mention this here as a single program. The creator was @Thomas S.. It is called CAupdater and is available in version 1.0.0.1. I use it for years, and it works great. Here is the link to its original post: It is also embedded in @Thomas S.'s HTTPSProxy package which can be downloaded in the section 11.2.1.2. Downloads related to HTTPSProxy of my main article "ProxHTTPSProxy and HTTPSProxy in Windows XP for future use". In his original post linked above, the download link of CAupdater as a single archive file doesn't work anymore. Therefore, I will provide here a download link of this single archive file as soon as possible. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  18. AstroSkipper
    We should not forget that there is a further tool for updating Root Certificates in Windows XP. The creator was @Thomas S.. The tool is called CAupdater. Here is the link to its original post: It is also embedded in his HTTPSProxy package. In his original post, the download link of CAupdater as a single archive doesn't work anymore. BTW, both versions of my self-created Root Certificate and Revoked Certificate Updater are meant to be used in case no internet connection is available. Generally, @heinoganda's Certificate Updater 1.6 or @Thomas S.'s CAupdater is completely sufficient. All facts about Root Certificates can be read in the section 5.2 of my article "ProxHTTPSProxy and HTTPSProxy in Windows XP for future use". Greetings, AstroSkipper
  19. AstroSkipper
    When using my Android tablet, and I use it very often (as for example in this moment), I haven't experienced such heavy CPU usage in Opera, Kiwi, Brave and Firefox, either.
  20. AstroSkipper
    My primary browsers in Windows XP are New Moon 28 and Serpent 52/55. I use 360Chrome 13.5 only for testing purpose in my Windows XP installation. It is great to have alternatives but I prefer UXP browsers under Windows XP. I am also an Android user, and there you have a pure Chrome/Chromium world offering the most recent browsers. Or I use Windows 7/10 to surf the internet with the more/most recent Chromium browsers. But no need to do that in my beloved Windows XP system, and 360Chrome 13.5 is not recent anymore, either. When starting my Windows XP system, I dive into another world and enjoy the recreation of all this Chrome/Chromium stuff. All Chromium browsers are extremely restricted, especially in terms of extensions, custom buttons, customizations and modifications. That's one of the reasons I love and prefer my UXP browsers New Moon and Serpent. And to have them at all, I am very thankful to our creator @roytam1! Welcome back and of course, a good decision! Cheers, AstroSkipper
  21. AstroSkipper
    In my quite clean testing profile, I opened your testing repo and performed continuously soft reload. After more than 20 times I stopped. In this profile, setting both dom.webcomponents.enabled and dom.getRootNode.enabled to the value true with Palefill 1.26 enabled works on your testing repo, i.e., GH timestamps are shown each time. In my main profile, unfortunately not as I already mentioned in a previous post.. However, these strange differences between my profiles keep bothering me. And I have to correct my statement from a previous post which I already edited. You're right, setting dom.webcomponents.enabled to false does not lead to a 100% CPU utilization on GitHub (but on VirusTotal ). The site was continously loading the assets from the not visible part down below. Scrolling down to the assets normalized the CPU usage. I didn't notice that in my first test. So theoretically, I am able to set dom.webcomponents.enabled to false, but I'll leave it at its default value. In any case, I have to test all of that over a longer period of time. Best regards
  22. AstroSkipper
    And here is a screenshot taken from @roytam1's commits on GitHub two hours later:
  23. AstroSkipper
    In my quite clean testing profile, setting both dom.webcomponents.enabled and dom.getRootNode.enabled to the value true with Palefill 1.26 enabled works on GitHub, i.e., GH timestamps are shown in New Moon 28. Here are two screenshots taken from GitHub:
  24. AstroSkipper
    Setting the preference dom.webcomponents.enabled to the value false in New Moon 28 is no option for me, unfortunately. Due to a permanent 100% CPU utilization on VirusTotal, for example, described in a previous post of mine. Therefore, this preference will stay here to the value true as long this abnormal behaviour exists, and presumably I'll just have to do without the GH timestamps in New Moon 28. Ok. I tested this GH timestamps behaviour a bit more deeply. It looks like I won't have to give up the GH timestamps after all. I've been using the extension Lull The Tabs for a long time in all my UXP browsers. This extension seems to interfere on GitHub sites which results in lacking of GH timestamps. Only disabling this extension or excluding the website GitHub.com in Lull The Tabs'options solves the problem. Edit: But only temporarily. There are more problems in my main profile. I need to investigate this strange behaviour much deeper.
  25. AstroSkipper
    Setting the preference dom.webcomponents.enabled to the value false in New Moon 28 is no option for me, unfortunately. Due to a permanent 100% CPU utilization on VirusTotal ,for example, described in a previous post of mine. Therefore, this preference will stay here to the value true as long this abnormal behaviour exists, and presumably I'll just have to do without the GH timestamps in New Moon 28.
×
×
  • Create New...