Jody Thornton

Here it is. I found it.

Hi Folks: I am running a small file server with Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2, and as you might know, extended phase support finalizes next month. Now once the updates are no longer coming, is it now completely safe to expunge the \Windows\hf_mig folder? Or is there any other reason to keep it? I noticed that updates from the last year or so have not used it at all. To avoid double posting, would this be valid for Windows XP and Windows 2000 systems as well?

NoelC, I noticed somewhere here that you posted a screenshot (I wish I could find it now...lol) but it had different caption buttons (min/max/close) than the now default Windows 10 "shapes". What theme was that?

Now I have an additional question. This might be another route I can take. If I wanted to upgrade my existing HP xw8200 machine, would going with the original Windows 8 be a valid choice to make? With Windows 8, it appears that I could still run the x64 version without the need for SSE2 and NX capabilities on the CPU. Is that correct? Would I still receive patches and updates for the original Windows 8? And if I installed with Classic Shell, could I force Windows 8 to boot to the desktop? Any other "gotchas" that I'd run into by opting for the original Windows 8?

It had more of the Windows 8 look like this: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook-com/images/EverythingInItsPlace.jpg Now that's what most outlook.com users (myself included) still have. Apparently though, and handful of accounts were chosen by Microsoft to roll out their new Outlook Web App appearance. It will now look the same if you were using the Office Outlook Web App for your Exchange account. My mom was one of those chosen, and given that she is 72 this month with Parkinsons, it's a wee bit hard for her to adapt. This is now how it appears for her. https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3tvaz-2xzROJ-OyfJ0aILoPlKvY=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3716972/New-ways-to-get-more-done-in-Outlook.com-2.0.png The article linked below discusses the rollout, but I just wondered if I could temporarily reverse it. There is a lite mode that is reminicent of HotMail, and that could be an option, but I wanted to see if I could return her to what she was accustomed to. http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/21/8634979/microsoft-outlook-email-service-new-features-user-interface

I really appreciate that Dencorso. Just to clarify for other readers, this is the web based Outlook.com I'm asking about. Thanks for all the help Dencorso.

Bump! I was asking the moderator if there was a way to get added attention to this thread. My worry is that it's being missed because it's in a forum that's so far down the list. I hope I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of info on this issue on the web.

The new version is using the Outlook Web App format, whereas the older format is using the "Metro" like look.

Has to be, as I've not seen it. Typing this from Vista Ultimate x64.

(I posted in the "web" forums at the bottom, but I think it's in the wrong spot. If this contravenes duplicate posting rules, just remove the old one. Thanks. ) My mom's Outlook.com account was one of those that Microsoft rolled out the new and improved look shown here: https://cdn2.vox-cdn...ook.com-2.0.png Does any one know of a way to revert to the look and feel from May 2015 and before? I have not found ANYTHING Google-wise. Thank you,

My mom's Outlook.com account was one of those that Microsoft rolled out the new and improved look shown here: https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3tvaz-2xzROJ-OyfJ0aILoPlKvY=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3716972/New-ways-to-get-more-done-in-Outlook.com-2.0.png Does any one know of a way to revert to the look and feel from May 2015 and before? I have not found ANYTHING Google-wise. Thank you,

Hmmmm - I really have to say that Internet Explorer improved vastly after version 9. The new interface is quite sleek actually. I set up Pale Moon with the FoxE9 add on, so I can mimic the look. But IE performance is quite good in 11. I actually liked 7, as it ran well on XP, but ran very badly on Vista (for which it was originally designed...lol). It doesn't render a lot properly now (although using it with Google Chrome Frame helps a bit). I like IE 7 when used with the classic desktop.

Well I had two processors (both Xeon 3.66 GHZ Netburst/P4 style). My RAM is slower (DDR2/400 MHz) but I had 4 GB (which I upgraded to 7 GB). I know that thE RTM release of Vista didn't support my slower SATA bus, but I guess SP2 must've fixed that. So rather than me tweaking things to work, I wonder if time and updates resolved the issue.

nVidia drivers have the Control Panel tool that can modify 3D and 2D rendering for smoothness at the cost of speed. If you want better performance, it sets rendering to a slightly more jagged image.

I may be able to get an xw8600 for even cheaper. My hope is that is compatible with Windows 8.1 x64 as well. It has two Duo Core Xeons in it and an SAS interface.

I'm sorry Dencorso, I just checked again and it appears that I've lied (doh!). It says Designed for XP, and in white on Black, the bottom half says "Vista Capable", which must be true because it's running that right now.

I've run as Administrator since Windows 2000 Professional (what I prefer to replicate is a single user box ala Win9x). I always install as Administrator. Then I create a new Administrator account with an alternate name, log in and remove the original Administrator account from the system. I'm using Puppy Linux on an old Dell D610 notebook, and it only runs as root. It's been fine. I'm not saying there is no threat whatsoever. I just backup my data regularly before the worst happens.

I have one on my xw8200 HP Workstation, and it says designed for XP and XP 64-bit Edition.

Hi Folks: I am looking into one of two new workstations to eventually replace my HP xw8200. I tried installing Windows 8.1 x64 Pro on it but my system isn't suitable. The Z600 and Z800 from HP look like really nice systems, and on the off lease boxes I've come across, the systems have SAS 15K rpm drives on them and between 12 to 16 GB of RAM. Nice! But it appears they do not have UEFI BIOS interfaces on them. I've read up on the recommendations from the HP website for carrying out clean installations of Windows 8 and Windows 8.1. It's hard to get a clear answer but from what I can decipher, you can install Windows 8.1, but without UEFI capability, some of the processor security features will not be available. That in itself doesn't bother me, as long as Windows will run. Does anyone have any exprience installing or running Windows 8.1 on a Z600 or Z800 workstation? Any help or insight would be GREATLY appreciated. Cheers!

My pleasure! But do keep us posted: this thread is serving as a meeting point where we exchange info on what's happening, all the time. Whenever an issue occurs, it's posted here, and so are solutions and workarounds. That a big 10-4!

Hmmmmmm - very tempted to go back and run Windows 2000. I really liked it. What's the latest browser you have managed to run?

There may well be, at some point, but up to now there is none. But we'll deal with that when it happens, as was the case with the win32k.sys that impacted rendering. Observe that just hiding it and waiting for the next month was enough to solve that but, even before that had happened, harkaz had released an unofficial fix. That sounds good to me. So I'll proceed with updating my mom's machine and see what happens. Thanks for the report in a nutshell. I needed that.

So if I may ask (summary-wise without having to read through the whole thread) the following: Can I now assume that entering the registry patch and just ruinning and installing all POSReady updates without any intervention or workarounds is not possible without some added effort?Am I correct that at some point, there will be at least some DLL issues to contend with? I'm not going to be installing any .NET framwork or updates, and I'm already aware of the update that negatively impacts font rendering.Thanks

As always I may be wrong, but IF in any way Windows XP was in practice "not secure anymore" or "less secure" than 7 or 8/8.1, now, one full year after the end of support deadline we would have had between 15% and 25% of all the internet connected PC's compromised one way or the other , and since this has not happened yet the "not secure anymore" or "less secure than" appears like nothing more than an unverified theory or of some wishful thinking. jaclaz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that neccessarily there would have been attacks if XP were that insecure. I always took the secuirty issues as Microsoft trying to mitigate security problems and be ready by getting users off the OS. As for Moonchild, he simply wants Pale Moon to support current dekstop OSs. The is an XP build for Pale Moon (not the Atom one) and that is for x86 and x64 builds, maintained by Matt Tobin. The link is here: http://binaryoutcast.com/projects/pm4xp/ Support will expire in July 2015 though for this build. As for Firefox supporting XP, but not Pale Moon, all I can say is that Moonchild says he is forking Pale Moon in a different direction thatn Firefox, so it's no longer considered a clone or custom build, but rather a separate browser originally based on Firefox. Pale Moon dispensed with Australis and uses it's own identifier for add ons and what not. We'll see, though for now I'm a happy user of the x64 build.

See I thought it was the April 2015 deadline for MSE. No biggie though. And to answer Dencorso, the 4.4.304.0 version does work without complaint. I just figured that the Vista and 7 installer would be devoid of that code.