bluebolt

Yeah, I love that package, as it already includes w2ksp51, Update Rollup 2, and Unofficial Update Rollup v11-w20130323. Simply install the OS, then run the latest UUR daily and the latest .net frameworks (both from November 2014), and you are indeed ready to ride.

“Windows XP’s path toward zero share…” A shorter path could still get you to the Crab Nebula and back.

I tried MSI GeForce GTX 760 Gaming ITX video card using blackwingcat’s latest custom nVidia drivers (347.09 Beta for the video, 335.28 for the audio). Result: easy install and works great so far (system is W2K Pro using tomasz86’s HFSLIP / UUR11302014 / .net Frameworks11142014 on Z77 motherboard with i7-2700K cpu). Apparently BWC has also added support for GTX 750 in these drivers, a nice move, hope to test that as well at some point.

Wonderful, thanks. Next: my understanding is that when one uses PAE on a 32-bit system with, for example, 8GB of RAM, the system can then use all 8GB, but there is a drawback (so-called PAE overhead) compared to a 64-bit system with 8GB of RAM. Question: if we only use 4GB of RAM as such (using the other 4GB for a pagefile), do we still encounter the overhead? https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366796%28v=vs.85%29.aspx [“With PAE, the operating system moves from two-level linear address translation to three-level address translation.”]

XP’s “unstoppability” is especially impressive when you consider how its own creepy maker is trying to kill it off. I wish the filicidal creep would officially abandon XP altogether so the world could legally download the student version, which, like Windows 2000 Professional, requires no activation.

Were you using the page file in unallocated RAM? With 8GB RAM physically installed in a 32-bit system, I thought I needed PAE to “open up” (i.e. make available) all 8GB; from there the plan was to use 4GB for RAM in the conventional sense, and use Ramdisk to set up the other (unallocated) 4GB for the page file.

Thank you, dencorso, your post had caught my attention. In regards to the “DisablePagingExecutive” link, I’m wondering whether that step is specifically required when using the Ramdisk for paging, or is it merely mentioned as a performance enhancement that should be used in any event?

What method did you use? I'm about to take my first crack at PAE; I want to use the unallocated part of 8GB RAM for a pagefile.

I don’t think the article actually says that. I used a command prompt to access Diskpart from the Windows 7 repair disc and it created the additional small partition; I used Diskpart from the Vista Recovery Disc and it created no such partition.

Not to beat a dead horse, but running Diskpart from the Vista Recovery disc works well and easily, and you don’t have to physically move the SSD to another computer (assuming one has another Windows 7 / Vista computer). As the article to which I linked states, “If you install Windows 7 on a clean disk with no existing partitions, it creates a System Reserved partition at the beginning of the disk…” “This ‘stub’ of a partition…is new in Windows 7…” "For a truly clean installation starting from an unformatted hard drive, you must use a different disk-management utility, such as the setup disk available from many hard-disk manufacturers or a startup disk from Windows Vista."

I don't think so. I'm talking about this: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/gg441289.aspx

Does Windows 7 create a partition that’s usable with XP? I once tried a Windows 7 repair disc to create an aligned partition for a W2K Pro install, but Win 7 automatically made its own extra little partition at the “head” (so to speak) of the SSD, and W2K would not install. If the Windows 7 partition turns out to be a problem, the Vista (or Vista Recovery Disc) partition works fine.

I think I used driveridentifier.com once before, successfully, and it looks like they may have your number: http://www.driveridentifier.com/scan/conexant-smartaudio-hd/download/1788525705/39E5773FF84E48AFBE7F111391055E1D/HDAUDIO%5CFUNC_01%26VEN_14F1%26DEV_510F%26SUBSYS_1043138D This webpage layout is misleading; they don’t actually let you download the drivers, you have to install their scanner and let it have its way with your system -- not too bad if you have the luxury of doing it on a practice install. Let it scan your system, then try the drivers in the order they present them (first is likeliest to work, etc., as I recall). Kind of low-brow, I know, but it did work for me. It may put junk on your computer, so I personally wouldn’t loose it except on a practice installation. Nab that driver, then scratch your partition and start over.

Let’s hope this one is handled better. It’s concerning that they apparently knew about the font distortion before they released KB3013455, as it may imply there is no easy fix. Unfortunately, the text quality under patch is unacceptable, so we’re living with a vulnerability that is now divulged.

No other odd behavior on my machines with the other updates in place, and yeah, if the shield is a nag then it might be time to hide KB3013455 in your update settings.

@AnX, you probably already know about this one, just an idea, good luck: http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1167328.html

Yikes. I’m using Windows XP Professional, fully updated including POS, Word 2002 with 2007 Compatibility Pack. Again, yikes.

Fonts affected were affected in Word documents, certain Windows windows, and all across the web--in other words, the whole computer. I don't know how well this image will come across, but... The problematic font (the one on the bottom) displays as sort of weak, almost broken looking, though dark enough:

Yes, I just searched the listings in Add/Remove Programs (must have “Show Updates” checked, of course), and found the ones dated today, and uninstalled from there. I also received similar messages regarding other affected updates, during uninstallation of both the IE update and the one that worked (the Windows XP Security Update).

So I uninstalled today’s updates one at a time, starting with the Office Updates, then the IE update; it was the last removal that fixed the problem (uninstalling Security Update for Windows XP KB3013455).

I wonder if anyone else’s fonts are messed up pursuant to today’s Microsoft Update. I don’t know that it’s related to the POS hack; I think it may be the Office updates that caused the problem. On certain web pages the fonts are displaying wrong. In Microsoft Word (Office 2002), the Times New Roman font looks weird. This is apparent on three Windows XP machines I’ve updated (several machines that I haven’t yet updated still look fine).

I used to think “Windows 2000 Forever!” until BWC said it will only work through 2099… I guess that will have to do. According to netmarketshare.com, for December 2014 Windows 2000 “OS Desktop Share by Version” quadrupled. (Also, Windows XP gained back its previous month’s big drop, and then some.) At least things are moving in the right direction.

The W2k Pro unofficial service pack can be updated; so once USP5 arrives, tomasz86 may just improve on that going forward, in which case a Service Pack 6 would not happen, or be needed.

v5.01.5075

My initial impression looking over the new site this morning is that I really like the look of it, and it is organized well. The arrangement's logical, readable, and mercifully free of clutter -- well-suited to its Windows 2000 subject matter. I look forward to checking it out more extensively. Thanks, tomasz86, looks great. Nice and clean.