FranceBB

Yep that's a touchscreen indeed, but believe me it's very annoying when you press the buttons 'cause it's poorly calibrated. EDIT: I did some research (I literally asked people xD) and people seem to recall those machines being installed in Northern Italy between 2009 and 2010. So... it's not as old as I thought.

Dunno, really, but I think it's pretty old. I'm not from that area, so I can't tell... They "recently" (2017 I think) changed the device on the right with a modern one to support contactless cards, though.

Hi there, I've recently purchased a new USB Wi-Fi adapter: Alfa AWUS1900. It's brand new and bought it specifically 'cause since it was first released to the public in 2013, it has drivers from Windows XP up to Windows 10. As a matter of fact, I quickly downloaded the drivers from here (official Alfa website): https://files.alfa.com.tw/?dir=[1] WiFi USB adapter/AWUS1900/Windows On Windows 10, when I ran the Setup Wizard, everything was fine and the USB adapter was working, but when I tried to install the drivers on Windows XP using the same Setup Wizard, it prompted me to a big fat bluescreen. I tried to reboot and do it again: bluescreen. I tried to install the driver in safe mode: bluescreen. I rebooted, I logged back in my account and I installed the driver by prompting the installer to the location of the .ini file on my desktop \windows_xp_32_64bit_1024.6\windows_xp_32_64bit_1024.6\RTWLANU_Driver\WinXP and the installation completed successfully, however the Device Manager says "This device cannot start. (Code 10)". What really p***es me off is that they even advertise "Compatible with Windows XP" on the package but it clearly doesn't work! (I can post a picture if you want). I would really like to know whether it's them not testing drivers on XP or me who has something wrong in my configuration. This is what Microsoft website says about error code 10: Useless of course, as I can't update the driver, I already have the very latest and greatest version! -.-

I was back in northern Italy and I stumbled on this: Apparently, someone tried to remotely reboot this train ticket machine, but it got stuck on "You can now turn off your computer" because of missing ACPI drivers, which is weird considering that it's an embedded machine. Anyway, this just shows that in 2020 Windows XP is still very much alive all over the world.

No way. The new Microsoft Edge uses the same engine that Chromium uses, hence the fact that it's not gonna run on XP. As to the other version of Edge, the old one, sure thing it had its own engine, but the whole programme was made with Windows 10 and 10 only APIs which means that it's strictly interconnected with the host operating system (Win10). Not only it won't run on older OS like Windows 7, but there are so many missing calls that even open source implementations of Windows APIs like Wine and ReactOS would not be sufficient to run it. On top of this, it's closed source which means that it cannot be modified and recompiled but its own calls have to be implemented in the kernel or a wrapper has to be used. In other words: sure, if someone is willing to implement a s*** tons of APIs on XP/Linux, he could potentially make it run, but realistically speaking, no one is ever going to do that. For the records: it's a failed project which is no longer maintained by Microsoft, the creator has been fired and the whole browser has been turned into yet another fancy closed source Chromium fork by Microsoft to avoid to spend time on it (if they could get rid of it entirely I'm sure they would). TL;DR it's not worth the effort.

It has a file called "kernelxp.dll". Once you patch a programme, the programme will use kernelxp.dll instead of directly calling the XP kernel. Such a thing is needed as it implements redirections to the xp kernel for known functions while it uses Wine implementations for those missing. Of course an antivirus isn't going to like that! Heck, you're basically redirecting calls of programmers and you're gonna let pass to the real kernel only those you decided to let pass while you're gonna employ a non Microsoft compiled and totally unsigned mini kernel for the others. What did you expect from the Antivirus? To say that everything was fine? XD Anyway those are all false positive. Feel free to check @TuMaGoNx code on Github if you don't believe me. As to the behaviours you encountered, you may wanna let him know if you are 100% sure that it's xompie that it's causing them. By the way, Tuma, shall we expect a new release in the future or did you just drop the project?

Sure, fine, you can use that, but why don't you just use xompie as you can automatise it through a bat and it's not only gonna replace the header but it's also gonna try to relink the programme to use a patched version of kernelxp.dll in order to redirect calls that have a different name but that can still work with the XP implementation of them thus increasing your chances of getting programmes to work? Xompie has been available for years now...

I remember spybot search and destroy as I have been using it many years ago. Anyway it's a good thing to know that definitions are still kept updated. By the way, just like the other topic, I think this should be merged with

I feel like this should really be merged to the topic "Which Antiviruses are Known for a Fact to be Working on XP SP3 as of 2019?" that you can find here Anyway, although Norton 2002 still works on XP, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone as antivirus. Sure, definitions will be kept updated, but it's missing some very important functions that have been implemented in pretty much any recent antivirus software including (to name a few) streaming updates rather than checking them once a day, a sandbox, an anti ransomware which prevents important data from being encrypted, protection against unauthorized access to devices like microphone and webcam and so on, all features that modern version of antivirus softwares (like Avast) have.

lol Cinemas generally require a DCP which is generally a motion JPEG 2000 (based on the Wavelet transform), XYZ 4:4:4 12bit at either 24 or 25fps. They generally run on "standalone" isolated Linux systems only shared within their closed intranet system where movies are ingested and ready to play. (For those who are curious, here's my experience back when I encoded my very first movie https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=177174 )

Can you imagine Putin lurking MSFN and eventually posting questions with a fake and apparently unrelated nickname? XD

@user57 you can find us all in our group on Skype: https://join.skype.com/kkCmZhCwjegP

https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog-6.1#v0 "Linux host: Drop PCI passthrough, the current code is too incomplete. Not useful." So the dream of GPU passthrough from Linux host to Windows guest (like XP) on a dual GPU system ends here. The code was incomplete and bugged and has been like that for years, but rather than improving it, they dropped it. This marks 6 years of unsuccessful project. Congratulations Oracle... -.-

Got it. I've tried to go several level down and I noticed that there are some missing APIs. The problem is that once I fixed one, several others I was ignoring of pop up. It's a dependency nightmare. I'll take a look at it again in the next coming days...

Sure, I don't think @dencorso will have something against it: https://mega.nz/#!6JESDYrQ!gw0yUcbVfIsTIEU5bEbzh73qfXwACV8wwqdDGbaLxro (Den, in case there's something wrong, feel free to edit my reply and remove the installer).

Do you have Skype? If you do, please join this group called "Windows XP Forever" and help with the development. Your contribution is very much needed! https://join.skype.com/kkCmZhCwjegP Do you have Vista up and running somewhere? Can I send you the installer to test whether it works or not?

Yep, I wrote it on the Skype group and I'm gonna write it here again: well done. You were interested in backporting Chromium and making it available for XP users and when you joined the group on Skype many months ago, you found a situation in which Samuel didn't manage to get Chromium working, me and Dibya both failed and we were all very frustrated with our attempts, but instead of giving up, you took a different approach, you wrote your own code, you managed to fix many more errors by re-implementing old chromium commits and you spent hours and hours of your time in doing just that. Although the last build you made in October doesn't work on XP for the reason above (GDI among other things), you spent a lot of your free time trying to do something good for the OS we love and I thank you. So, although this is the last attempt of the very last person who tried to backport chromium in vain, I say "Well done" 'cause you put so much effort on it. (for the records, he's the guy I was talking about a few days ago in the other topic). For those interested in his November build: Any suggestion is welcome.

Not really. I stopped working on that after my last attempt failed miserably. There's a post with screenshots here on MSFN somewhere. I spent way too many hours on Chromium. It's a far too big project with many parts that I don't really understand and since I don't fully get what they were trying to do and why some things were there that way, some of my implementations were actually wrong when I rewrote them. If you search for my last attempt here on MSFN you'll find out that I managed to get it running but it wasn't able to load any pages and the UI was broken. If you think that every time they add some commit many other things change we're never gonna get it working. That said, the last thing I want right now is to waste many other hours on this code, yelling at my computer for yet another thing that doesn't work. I can only say that I'm not currently working on it and I haven't even opened the solution explorer for months. Dibya isn't working on it and Samuel isn't working on it either. The other guy we shared the code with got stuck at the new vs old multi-threading implementation 'cause once he re-introduced the old multi-threading several things that are NOT documented broke (I.e they are documented, but they expect data in a completely different way and of course it doesn't say anything about it 'cause nobody expects someone to change a trivial modern Windows API to substitute it with some sort of dirty way to check and allocate workload that was used in the former implementation). We haven't heard from him ever since. The last compiled executable works fine on Windows 7 and above but on XP and Vista it doesn't. If we push our very latest code into it and we compile, then it doesn't work on ANY Windows Platform as it fails to load pages (although it does start a glitchy default Window which immediately crashes). This just enlightens the fact that there's something deeply wrong in our code since we broke modern Windows compatibility, but anyway we don't really want to have different routines inside our code for different Windows platforms. In a nutshell: I'm not working on it, don't expect anything from me. I did my part, the code has always been open source and online, so if you wanna help the guy who took the project over from us, ask Dibya and Peter so they can make you talk with him, if he's still working on it of course (I have no idea what that guy is up to since I haven't heard from him for months and he doesn't reply on Skype anymore). I'm sorry to delude you, but I guess that's it...

Ask @heinoganda to send you proxHTTPS and your problems with HTTPS will be gone. I've been using it for years now and it works like a charm.

Ah, so this is why I looked at it for the very first time when it was already been edited (not knowing that it was cropped by you) and I thought it was 100% legit xD

We do respect the privacy, but pictures are generally taken of computer running in public places and accessible by everyone, like train stations, markets, local shops and so on... You know, as long as it's a public place (not some deeply hidden computer running in some secret part of a company storing valuable and secret information about whatever leaked by a dodgey employee) and there are no other people included in the picture with their face well visible, I don't think that there are any problems in posting them here.

I'm lurking 'cause I use PotPlayer on a daily basis; as a matter of fact, I'm using it in this very moment as well 'cause my stereo only gets FM and not DAB so I listen to radio using my computer. (FYI DAB in UK airs at ridiculous bitrates, so do online radio, but we don't have any alternatives and they sound better than FM despite the very low bitrate, so...) Anyway, I'm concerned about another program as well: Telegram. I stopped receiving updates with my version (1.2.6) and if I click "search updates" it doesn't show any updates, however if I go to the website I can see that newer version have been released (without my knowledge). When I tried to install the very latest version (1.8.7 beta), it let me install it and it works, however it shows a big fat red bar at the very top saying that I should update my OS, so I think that telegram may stop working "soon".

You can't invent pixels out of nowhere. What you are actually seeing is the maximum resolution of your screen, there's no way to increase it as every pixel physically correspond to an object on the screen that is charged electronically and displays a value between 16 and 235 (between 0 and 0.7 Volt) or 0 and 255 if it's full range of RGB which gives you what you see as an image. For instance, if you had a camera that was able to zoom enough you would see that when you are seeing white, each and every pixel is turned on with the maximum voltage available. You can basically see why you can't increase the resolution: there won't be enough pixels on your screen to fit it, so you would end up with a partially represented screen TL;DR parts of the elements of your desktop will fall out of your screen. - trick and attempt 1 If you are really willing to try, you can use the Windows scaling function to scale down desktop icons and text or in Firefox/Chromium to zoom out web pages. This won't give you more resolution, however it will make text and icons smaller and give you the feeling of having a higher resolution. - trick and attempt 2 Just like it's possible to encode images and video with a Frameserver, it must be possible to make a downscale of your desktop live. What I mean by that is that you will set the resolution very high and then you'll downscale the resulting signal down either via software or via hardware to fit the resolution of your screen. There are many resizing kernel like PointResize, Bilinear, Bicubic, Lanczos, Spline based resizers etc. I would personally suggest to use Spline64Resize or Lanczos. They are both very sharp, but spline is prone to create ringing on texts. This way you're definitely gonna make use of the space created by the new pixels, but you won't see them! What you'll see is rather an interpolation of them made by the resizing kernel you selected and it may look aliased or with ringing or even so mis-represented that it's impossible to read! If you wanna learn more about resizing kernel, check this out (beware, it requires at least a basic knowledge of linear algebra): http://avisynth.nl/index.php/Resampling Source: I'm a broadcast engineer you can find me on Doom9 (the international encoding forum) talking about... well... encoding all the time.

And in the meantime, over here nobody shared the premium updates for XP worth 15k bucks per year since the end of support, but I'm confident that if a big enough security vulnerability will come out, Microsoft itself will publicly release the patch (or someone else will). Hello... it's me... I was wondering if after all these months you'll like to read... And go over... everything... They say time is supposed to heal ya But I ain't done much healing... Hello, can you help me? I'm on Microsoft Updates where we all use to be When we were supported... by everything... I've forgotten how it fell When installation was just a click... There's such a difference... between now and then And thousands of BATs... Hello from the other side I must have tried a thousand times... To go to Microsoft and try to update And make my computer... once again safe... Hello from the other side At least I can say that I've tried... To tell Microsoft 'I'm begging you... from the bottom of my heart' But it doesn't matter as it doesn't tear you apart Anymore... (Adele feat FranceBB - Unsupported OS).

I would, except for the fact that it's written in Electron which is a programming language that doesn't support XP. I wrote to the developers long time ago but they didn't bother. The client isn't compatible and the website is crappy. Sure, there are unofficial clients made by third party developers that actually work on XP, but with no audio support. I gotta say that ever since Microsoft dropped support for XP on their Skype client, we have officially lost audio support as well, that's why we're looking for alternatives that are XP compatible and that support multiple audio calls.