Cixert

I have a problem replacing KB2760494 in the "Updates_ELL" folder with the KB in Spanish. You say in info.txt: "For languages other than English, we need these 5 updates in our language." I don't know what ELL means. No languages are seen in Microsoft Catalog for any of those KBs. Although downloads measure differently. How is this? In any case, I only have the problem with KB2760494, since there are 40 files in the download with the same name. which one do I choose? https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB2760494 EDIT: From what I read, ELL stands for Modern Greek. I have replaced these ELL KBs with their Spanish version (ESN) and named them ESN. I have also modified the titles of the .reg files in the folder that modifies the registry. But I still have the problem with KB2760494. I see that if I extract the 40 files, the language appears in the properties. But strangely none of the 40 are in Spanish. EDIT 2: There are not 40 links, there are 41 links. Unfortunately, I only didn't download the file in Spanish. msconv_efb7c52332d941fc3f194e230384e8b9bc0bec85.cab

I have never gotten a list of updates for Office XP. From the list you give, I see that the following are not in the Microsoft Catalog: officexp-kb833858-fullfile-enu officexp-kb837253-fullfile-enu officexp-KB904018-FullFile-ENU officexp-KB905758-FullFile-ENU officexp-KB911701-FullFile-ENU officexp-KB920816-FullFile-ENU But it is possible to get these on webarchive in its English USA version. I don't know if these are obsolete, some are from 2004. https://superuser.com/questions/1185038/how-do-i-download-kb-updates-for-office-xp-under-windows-10-that-are-no-longer-o Additionally, there are 2 more downloads that come in the Microsoft Catalog and that are not on that list project2002 KB961079 visio2002 kb2434711 https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=Office XP

I usually read the license files. Most Service Packs and loose operating system updates are freely distributed. I would invite you to post links here to Office 97-2000-XP-2003-2007-2010 updates without fear of violating any terms of service. The only requirement is to share the terms of the different licenses, which are included in each installer file. If you create your own Service Pack it should include all these licenses, but if you just distribute the original files you can do it directly.

The file that is downloaded is: Office 2007 Compatibility Pack cab.rar And inside it only contains 2 files: xlconv-x-none.msp xlconv-x-none.xml There is no file in .CAB format I have checked the hash and it is correct.

I receive 3 drives in 3 envelopes inside a larger envelope. One drive with supposed capacity 64 TB, truly contains an 8GB SD card, this card is not even fixed with a sticker or silicone. The other 2 drives are a surprise, in theory I had requested 2 drives with a capacity of 2 TB to check if this was real. I opened them expecting to find an SD card but I found that these are 2 Flash drives with a chip. Its true capacity is 7.4 GB & 6.9 GB. I have not yet attempted to format them to their true capacity and I am not sure how I could do that. If no other option works, I will try with RMPrepUSB.

I receive a drive that says it has 128 TB, I have opened it and it contains an 8GB SD card. CHKDSK & Victoria test do not give errors with 128 TB. To format the card to its true capacity the trick is not to perform any operations on the original drive. You just have to remove the SD card and insert it into another SD card reader, then any partition program will indicate the real capacity and say that the card is not yet formatted.

As @jaclaz said inside there is an SD card reader, with an SD card. While the size is different. SSD 12 TB Its opening has been complicated, the trick consists of introducing a screwdriver between plastic and metal on the connector side by hitting a hammer very carefully. Then you have to pull up with the screwdriver. It cannot be done on the opposite side since there is a lid. The unit is sealed with silicone, even the card is sealed with silicone. Flash 16 TB Its opening has been very easy, I have only had to throw slightly with an pliers and the circuit has left the capsule. Now I extract the SD cards and introduce them to my SD card reader. SSD 12 TB - Introduced the card in my reader Windows says: Generic-Multi-Card (121MB) - I have not yet managed to format this card in my reader, the cyclical redundancy error occurs. I am surprised to say 121 MB (no 128 GB). It looks like a 64GB SD card. Flash 16 TB - Introduced the card in my card reader, Windows says: RD3: Generic-Multi-Card (4GB) - Once the card is formatted when it is reintroduced in the flash 16 TB marks the correct size, 3.1 GB It is clear that these products are a scam and that the price is very expensive for what it really is. Apparently the trick is introduced into the SD card and not in the reader. The reader works correctly with any card. What surprises me is that now these drives work properly at Windows XP. So I would like to know why with false size data Windows XP does not recognize these units and yes Windows Seven.

Before testing with real data, I have carried out a third test with the 12TB SSD drive with H2testw. This time there was no error in the writing phase with verification and I stopped the test at 592 GB. However, upon subsequent checking, H2testw says that only 48.2 GB are successfully recorded. Later I tested it with real data. SSD 12TB -Trying to format from the Windows Seven menu gives an error. -Everything over 48.2 GB is recorded defective. FLASH 16TB -Any file larger than 1 GB is recorded defectively. -Recorded files less than 1 GB are replaced with new ones less than 1 GB. -Some defragmenters show the drive others do not. The ones that show the drive do not give an error when defragmenting. -Chkdsk from Windows Seven does not complete the operation and leaves the disk defective. This automatically changes the disk drive name to: RD3:ChipsBnkFlashReader (4GB) CONCLUSIONS: SSD 12 TB really has a size of 48.2 GB. FLASH 16 TB really has a size of 3.1 GB. Now I'm going to open the drives and see what's inside.

From what it seems, this 16 TB Flash would only have 3.1 GB, unless we multiply 3.1 x 15.3 TB. H2testw has finished checking the 1TB partition and still says that only 3.1 GB is correctly written, the same as at the beginning of the check. Warning: Only 1047140 of 1048577 MByte tested. The media is likely to be defective. 3.1 GByte OK (6685504 sectors) 1019.4 GByte DATA LOST (2137857216 sectors) Details:0 KByte overwritten (0 sectors) 0 KByte slightly changed (< 8 bit/sector, 0 sectors) 1019.4 GByte corrupted (2137857216 sectors) 0 KByte aliased memory (0 sectors) First error at offset: 0x00000000cb168000 Expected: 0x00000000cb168000 Found: 0x0000000000000000 H2testw version 1.3 Reading speed: 10.7 MByte/s H2testw v1.4 I point out that the "Write+verify" button verifies the written data, but that does not mean that at the end of the test the data is still written. Once the "Write+verify" test is finished, you must press the "Verify" button, then a process begins that will take even more hours. I don't know what these 2 values mean: 0 KByte slightly changed (< 8 bit/sector, 0 sectors) 0 KByte aliased memory (0 sectors) I think that the stores that are selling these products are primarily responsible for scamming people. The first people interested in reporting this are the legitimate manufacturers, Kingston, Sandisk, Crucial... If they don't care, there is little we can do. Anyway, anyone can write a letter to Aliexpress giving them the link to this post and informing them that they are scamming buyers. If after sending the letter they do not remove these products, there is judicial proof of fraud. I am now going to do tests with real data.

H2testw has completed the test on the 1 TiB partition on 16 TB Flash drive. Despite the message, I think that the operation has been a success. It was expected to fill only 4 MB more. Media has filled up earlier than expected! In the beginning there were 1047144 MByte free, but only 1047140 MByte could be written. Warning: Only 1047144 of 1048577 MByte tested. Writing speed: 25.2 MByte/s H2testw v1.4 The partition now has 512 KiB free. Now I am going to verify that the written data is correct with H2testw itself. It seems that the results are not going to be correct. If any of you want me to perform another type of test, this is the time to indicate it. Later I will enter real data into the drive and verify it.

I think that the tests carried out with FakeFlashTest are not correct. The tool is not able to show the disk drives capacity in the preview. I think it doesn't work with such large units. Regarding H2testw, it is clear that it gives errors in the 12 TB SSD drive, and after carrying out two tests, the errors are not in the same GB amount (8 & 44 GB). On the 16 TB flash drive the H2testw tool has written and verified more than 600 GB in two tests without errors. At this moment I let the test continue. A strange thing, at this moment while the 16 TB Flash test is being carried out, the light on the 12 TB SSD unit is blinking. The Windows Seven resource monitor shows some activity on all disk drives even though they are not working. I don't know if this is normal.

Test performed from Windows Siete / Windows 10 Chip Genius - SSD 12 TB Chip Genius - Flash 16 TB FakeFlashTest - SSD 12 TB FakeFlashTest - Flash 16 TB H2testw - SSD 12 TB 1st test error at 8 GB 2nd test error at 44 GB H2testw - Flash 16 TB 1st test 634 GB stopping without error 2nd test 650 GB test in progress without error Usb Device Tree Viewer -SSD 12 TB Usb Device Tree Viewer - Flash 16 TB HD Tune - SSD 12 TB (by USB 2.0) HD Tune - SSD 12 TB (by USB 2.0)

These programs do not recognize the drives in Windows Seven, so it is not possible to test. -Checkflash (check sectors). -Flash Drive Tester ---> does not recognize this drives installed how flash units, this confirms both that are SSD units. -RMPrepUSB ---> does not list these units although yes other disk drives (PATA/SATA & USB)

Winhex in XP is not able to open the drive, gives in/out error. In Windows Seven it gives the same values for the SSD 16 TB drive and for the Flash 16 TB drive. This says that both drives have capacity 16 TB. XP WinHex - SSD 12 TB Seven WinHex - SSD 12 TB Seven WinHex - Flash 16 TB

Well, that's what I want to check. What is true and what is false. According to that link I have to use H2wtest to verify units. I have already mentioned that in one of the units I have stopped that test at 624 GiB. But I still don't want to confirm that this capacity is real. I will upload all results tests. Until now I have been trying to make the drives visible in Windows XP, unfortunately I have not succeeded and I do not understand why. The result on XP is the same as with the Seagate 5TB external box converted to MBR. The device manager recognizes and installs the hardware, but neither the drive nor the partitions are visible, except in this case I can take the hard disk out of the box and connect it with another adapter. On these drives with supposedly 12 and 16 TB, these are displayed in the device manager... ... but only 2 programs recognize that there is a disk drive installed in XP, MiniTool Partition Wizard and EaseUS Partition Master, but both show the drive as a 2 TB "Bad Disk". Afaik I have to conclude that some drives with more than 2 TB are not possible to install on XP with Microsoft drivers due to the adapter firmware. It seems that there are certain adapters type that on XP are limited to 2TB. It is somewhat strange, because I have 8 TiB external hard drives working with USB adapters on XP, but not all adapters work. Some with MBR +2TB do not work on XP but do work on NT 6-10 and others do not work on any operating system. I will be left wondering why. I have tried to install the Universal ATA Driver (UniATA), but I have not succeeded yet, it seems that it is necessary to edit the .inf file adding the Hardware ID. so that my unit is recognized. http://alter.org.ua/en/soft/win/uni_ata/uni_ata.php Does anyone know another updated driver for disk drives in XP?

Data disk manager with various programs in Windows Seven Do you see any reason why the disks are not compatible with Windows XP? Are both drives SSD? USB Flash Drive 16 TB original partition GPT exFAT SSD Drive 12 TB & USB Flash Drive 16 TB converted to MBR FAT32 with cluster 256 KiB Despite the drive being visible in Windows Seven, DiskGenius says "hidden", other programs do not say "hidden". I have already removed the hidden attribute and converted them to NTFS with 1 TB capacity, but they are still not visible in XP. SSD Drive 12 TB disk SSD Drive 12 TB FAT32 partition USB Flash Drive 16 TB disk USB Flash Drive 16 TB FAT32 partition

Reserved

On pages like Aliexpress or others you can find very low-cost USB Flash drives and SSD drivers. This is surprising with capacities from 2 to 128 TB compared to the capacities of drives from well-known brands such as Kingston, Sandisk, Crucial, etc. which are between 8GB and 256 GB for USB Flash Drives. It is said in Internet forums that this is impossible, that inside the SSD box there are a couple of large nuts to give weight, that the capacity is not real. I have a friend who assures that the capacity is real. I think that a 16 TB SSD drive is possible, it will depend on the number of cells capable of recording. If we record a Kingston 256 GB SSD several times, this gives a total of several TB. So the manufacturer can increase the capacity by 16 TB allowing it to be recorded only 2 times. With this we already have the same 256 GB unit with 16 TB capacity. This is determined by the cells type it contains: SLC (single level cell) MLC (multilevel cell) TLC (Triple Level Cell) To clear up doubts, I have bought several for a price between 3 and 12 euros, a similar price in dollars. The first suggestive deception is that the units are offered for 1 euro / 1 dollar, but at the time of paying it turns out to be a promotion for a single unit with high shipping costs and the price is the same as what I have reported 3 / 12 € Pay close attention to the basket and when paying, the prices and products paid may not match!!! So far I have received 2 units: -SSD Drive 12 TB https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006997442760.html -USB Flash Drive 16TB https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006845793050.html And I have started to carry out the first tests. However, I have 2 additional problems. 1-Many of the recommended test programs do not recognize the units. 2-Windows XP installs the drivers in Device Manager but does not show any hard drive in Disk Manager, nor partitions, nor hard drive. Other test programs give uneven results, these units could be of real capacity or not, I am still not clear. Performing a capacity test with "H2testw" from Windows Seven, the 12 TB SSD unit is only filled with 8 GiB, however on the USB Flash drive I stopped the test when 634 GiB had been completed. In order to verify the real capacity, I want to copy images from several TB to these drives as a backup of my current disks. But before continuing I want to solve the compatibility problem with Windows XP. Why are these drives not visible in Windows XP Disk Manager? The drives come with a GPT partition table, indicating that the first initial sector alignment is the 4096, with an 4096 bytes physical sector size. To try to solve the problem I have converted the unit to MBR, I have changed the initial sector to 63, 256, 2048... And I have also reduced the partition size to 1 TiB but the result is the same. Why can't Windows XP handle these drives? In the next post I will publish the tests that I carry out. My first suspicion is that both, the USB Flash Drive and the SSD drive, are removable SSD drives. How can I know what cells types they have?

As far as I know, Google forked Webkit2 to Blink in 2013. But several companies continued to work with webkit2. Chromium can be compiled in both Webkit2 and Blink. Browsers XP compatible that have been compiled in webkit 2 from Chromium are: -360 Extreme Explorer -Google Chrome 27.0.1453.116 (latest Webkit 2 except MAC) -Liebao aka Cheetah Secure Browser by Kingsoft -Opera browser in 2013 (in 2014 Blink engenie) -QQ Browser -Sogou Explorer Otter Browser is not based on Chromium it is based on Apple Webkit same as Safari

So can we conclude that the 1 year time bomb starts on the version's production date? Or what date does the time bomb start?

It's not that I'm very clear on how to differentiate one from the other, but 360 Extreme Explorer uses Webkit2 engine.

Sorry, I confused the terms. I meant a VL-VOL-VLK copy. These do not have a repair console or the option to install with repair.

Sorry for my ignorance, Supermium rendering uses Blink engine or Webkit2 engine?

I just discovered Supermium 122. I've been testing it for 3 days on original Windows XP Professional SP3 and I have been pleasantly surprised. The first day I noticed that everything was going very fast, however on the second day I noticed that the tabs wait a few seconds before opening a URL. The tab remains blank for a few seconds and then the page opens. I don't know if it is because Supermium is configured by default so that the page is not displayed until the download is complete or that I have touched something inappropriate in the settings. I would like to know who is behind the creation of Supermium, if it is a company or free development team. The downloads on Github are from the "win3ss" profile and according to what he says, he has created the company "Legace Software Corporation" Are these responsible for the creation and development of Supermium?

Thanks, I'll try it. I feel like I didn't express myself well with the BIOS update. What I mean is that when installing XP with the old BIOS version, ACPI was not installed by default and neither was it installed once the BIOS was updated. Unless I press F5 during the CD-ROM boot process and choose the correct HALL. Greetings