sdfox7

I don't particularly care for the rapid release either; such is the reason I use the Extended Support Release (ESR) designed for schools, universities and organizations. Support for an ESR generally lasts for over one year but you still enjoy the security updates of a fully supported version. I highly recommend Firefox ESR, and it has been the browser that IBM has approved for employees to use on its systems since July 2010: IBM names Firefox its default browser and Rational Firefox browser support direction The current ESR 38.x.x is the version I use; its support lifecycle is May 2015 to May 2016. The next ESR will be 45 and will be supported May 2016 through May 2017. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/

There are people running Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8; is it really a big deal if we aren't running Chrome version 57,894? I should also point out that Microsoft violated its own lifecycle policy when it decided to drop support for existing browsers on an OS. It used to be that the browser, regardless of whether it was the latest available for the OS, lived on and received security updates as long as the underlying OS was supported. You can see evidence of this when Microsoft continued to support Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 2000, years after Internet Explorer 6 had been released.

With all of the errors in the log you posted, it sounds like you have a Windows problem and not a Java problem. It might be a good time to save all your work and install a fresh copy of Windows!

EOL for 38.x.x ESR is 05/31/2016. If the past is any indication I will auto-updated to 45.x.x around that date.

I tried the Portable version on XP and as of yet it's still a no-go due to GetThreadInfo. All is not lost however. You can still get the updated pepflashplayer.dll by navigating the chrome-bin directory to the updated Flash Player. Flash seems to cause more problems online than simply running an outdated browser. So simply copy the pepflashplayer.dll from the portable version to your Chrome 49 in Program Files.

Comos The problem you are having is error code 1722: https://www.java.com/en/download/help/error_1722.xml I would try the Java uninstaller to remove all traces of Java on your system, and then try installing it again: https://java.com/en/download/faq/uninstaller_toolinfo.xml

Java 8 was not originally designed with Windows XP in mind, and the earliest installers actually failed on it. Java 8 Update 25 included a fix to allow it to install on XP: https://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/the_future_of_java_on Do you have Service Pack 3 installed? I experience no issues running the installer on XP Professional. The installer recommends a new Windows version, but it is not required: https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/winxp.xml "Can I still install the latest Java on Windows XP? I see the message Java 8 requires a newer version of Windows. You may continue with the installation, but for Java to work as specified we recommend upgrading your computer's operating system. Yes. As noted, users may still continue to use Java 8 on Windows XP at their own risk, but we can no longer provide complete guarantees for Java on Windows XP, since the OS is no longer being updated by Microsoft." I always recommend the offline installer; I've experienced issues in the past with the online installer.

Chrome seems much more bloated than Firefox, or any browser I've used, in my opinion. It wasn't always that way; it was one of the lightest/ fastest and most efficient browsers when it was first released in 2008. Recently I've seen installs with 4,095.00 MB showing for Chrome in Control Panel. My own shows Chrome as taking up 5x the space of Firefox ESR.

How old is your processor? How fast is your hard drive? 4GB was common 7 to 8 years ago and is certainly not special now. My ThinkPad experiences no such slowdowns despite being over a decade old.

Yes. Please see my post here to access the previous version, so I can avoid being redundant here.

Chrome 50 has officially dropped today, so it is probably safe to assume that Chrome 49.0.2623.112 m is the final version for XP and Vista users. I downloaded the offline installer from https://dl.google.com/update2/installers/ChromeStandaloneSetup.exe and archived it on my FTP at http://sdfox7.com/xp/sp3/EOL/chrome/ChromeStandaloneSetup.exe. Do not try to use the Google link because it will serve you the current version which is no longer compatible. I am just demonstrating that is was available as a standalone installer at that link. Chrome 49.0.2623.112 m was digitally signed on April 5. Personally, I would switch to Firefox, Opera, Pale Moon or another supported browser.

Thank you for that information. This was previously released by Funk which was bought out by Juniper in 2005. The client information is still available on the website: https://download.juniper.net/software/aaa_802/public/oac/452/readme.txt I'm sure the client is buried on their website, I'll revise this post when I find it.

I have an RTL8188 802.11 N USB adapter; while the driver works on Windows 2000, I can't find a WPA2 utility that runs on Windows 2000. I would similarly be interested in getting it working on Windows 98. I found out how to operate this adapter on Windows 2000 using this Overclockers page. I tried a few years ago before Frontier took over AT&T's landline and DSL operations. I was only able to connect via WPA.

It fundamentally comes down to a dependency that Google has added to the browser beginning with version 50; I suspect Material Design. We just need to identify and remove, replace or fulfill the requirements of that dependency (modifying XP's KERNEL32.DLL). There must be a way to dumb the browser code down to make it backward compatible. If Firefox (and everyone else) can make their browser run on Windows XP, then there is a way to make Chrome continue to do so. For example, see my page for using Mozilla Firefox 2.0 on Windows 95. You simply need to delete nsSearchService.js and nsSafebrowsingApplication.js Once you do this Firefox 2.0 runs correctly on Windows 95.

It appears to me that POSReady 2009, still supported, improved upon WEPOS. Is it really a loss? What are the differences between Windows Embedded Point of Service (WEPOS) and POSReady 2009?

Attempting to run on XP results in my previously mentioned GetThreadID call to API which does not exist in XP. However, as I suspected, there is a way to remove/modify the call. LeapMotion is no longer officially supported on XP, and "programmers" over there figured out how to restore XP compatibility. Windows XP and GetThreadID and the resolution Restore Windows XP build compatibility

Are you referring to the free evaluation CD available on Microsoft's web site? Microsoft.com: Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 Evaluation CD (archived here)

Thanks for doing that! I didn't realize it was such a convoluted process. In other words, it's much faster to use the --disable-infobars to disable the notification. While some people may want to leave infobars enabled, I have no use for them.

It looks like Google has finally added a new function to get rid of the warning info, a new SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning policy setting. Issue 1834783003: Added the SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning policy setting.

I was just thinking that this .112 update could be strictly related to the Flash Player bug that was announced by Adobe a few days ago. I just updated my FTP copy with the .112 version. The changelog does not address this, but I noticed that my .110 folder has Flash 21.0.0.197 while .112 has a new Flash 21.0.0.213. (Chrome's embedded Flash is called PepperFlash if anyone did not know)

Google's wording on the matter has been ambiguous, to say the least. If you refer to my first post in this thread, the original "will soon stop receiving" and the new "will no longer receive" phrases apparently both mean the same thing. I would have thought that "will no longer receive" meant that the updates were done. Of course, it was stated support would end in April, but they did not specify the exact date. Who knows, they could backtrack and continue to release updates as long as it isn't negatively impacting their R&D. Firefox has not set a date, although they did drop 2000/XP SP1 back in 2012.

Tommy is correct, the default browser for XP is Internet Explorer 6, regardless of service pack level. However, the service packs do upgrade IE to IE 6.0 SP1, IE 6.0 SP2, and IE 6.0 SP3. To my knowledge, the only way to get an upgraded IE 7.0 or 8.0 is if it is slip-streamed into the installation source. I never upgraded the IE on my XP systems; I like having the old IE for backward compatibility, and I just use Firefox/Chrome/Opera etc for anything that requires a newer browser. IE 6 actually still works with quite a few sites, but you MUST have XP SP3 for SHA-2 compatibility (CRYPT32.DLL). I have no issues using it on BlackBoard, for example. Also, Google Chrome Frame (wiki), (the original download and my own) while no longer supported, allows IE 6 to work with the majority of modern websites. The web developer simply has to include the following in their source to recognize it. Most websites already include this code. <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1" />

Today marks two years since Microsoft dropped Windows XP. The Internet is abuzz with articles that are "incredulous" to the fact that people are still using XP. Long Live Windows XP! https://www.google.com/#q=windows+xp&tbm=nws TechnoBuffalo: Windows XP the Third Most Popular OS After 15 Years Daily Caller: Windows XP Still One of the Most Popular OSes We Live Security: Windows XP: The Zombie OS Lives On

Avast 4.8 support was scheduled to end in 2009/2010. Version 5 was released in 2009. This was followed up on in 2011 on the Avast forum, and I quoted this 5 years ago in another forum as well. This version has been on borrowed time for several years now. Anything beyond that is something to be grateful for https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=69329.0 Avast Free 4.8 is Updating Past End of Support Deadline

Please download the 4.8.0 update on Avast's standalone update page, and let me know if this works for you: Avast Software Updates The fact that this has not been removed leads me to believe you experiencing a specific issue not related to Avast. Are you using the latest Avast 4.8.1368 installer? http://sdfox7.com/avast/4.x/setupeng.exe