FranceBB

The point is that such limitations have been inserted both in the installer and in the final code, but I removed them. By the way, I might have found a way to import certain APIs that are missing in both the XP and Vista kernel. To be fair, XP is not able to execute much more functions than Vista, but still Vista is missing some functions as well. These are minor functions, of course, but they are still missing. Last night I made a test, trying to import them from a more recent kernel; if everything goes fine, we will have the compatibility back, but we will have to say goodbye for good to the x64 'cause functions won't be executed in x64 OS. Still, it's not a big deal. I just need time to test it in virtual machine, 'cause, if it fails to load, it won't display a message, but it will screw up the system. If you want to test it, feel free to do it, I'll upload it, but please please please be careful and DO NOT use it in your daily system yet.

True, but unless someone targets you directly, there's nothing to fear. I mean, I have my important stuff encrypted and secured by a password, but I use to leave my computer up and running with team Viewer since 2009. The point is that team Viewer itself uses encryption and, of course, there isn't a list of every device or account. So... they should figure out what's your account and then break TV security or steal the password from you in some way. It's relatively easy to do such a thing, and Jaclaz is right; it is a problem for your security, indeed, BUT it's very very unlikely that someone would take you and just you as a specific individual target. In other words, unless you are a sort of celebrity, or you post stupid thing in Internet about how much money you have, there's nothing to fear, as no one will ever target you.

We already know that (avast developers and beta tester). It depends on a few settings as well like the hardened mode etc. Anyway, it's better to deactivate the Filesystem scan and the Internet scan while installing updates. The very first one might prevent you from saving them and the other one might stop the connection in order to prevent you from downloading updates. Don't open a topic in avast's forum, just send a report using the chat button (top, right). Thank you! P.s you are invited to join our beta testing, since the more we are, the better it is. I have been involved in the development of avast 2016 since the very beginning and I would like to see the team confirmed again for the next year. If everything goes fine, we will start working at the new avast this summer to get a stable preview build up and running in October, but it all depends on the amount of users running avast on XP. As to everyone else, please note that if avast won't be confirmed for XP the next year, it doesn't mean that machines won't be protected, but just that some new features won't be included/added.

It's normal. It could be because of her connection (unlikely, considering you live in the U.S) or her computer. Basically, when you are accessing her computer, you are viewing her desktop, so it's like you are "recording" in real time and playing the "video" in your computer, which is kinda intensive for an old computer. Try to open the task manager windows and you'll probably see the CPU going up to 60-70% just to render the deskop. "The higher the resolution is, the harder will be to render it". That said, it's pretty easy to render resolutions like 1080p for computers nowadays, but not for the old ones. By the way, since it's your mother's computer and you are a trusted person (her son xD), I suggest to open team viewer, click "connection" and click to "setup unattended access" in your mum's computer. This way, you won't have to ask her the ID and the PSW every single time and you'll be able to connect to her computer anytime. Besides, you can do that in your computer as well, so you can access it using your mobile, for instance. I personally use it a lot and it turned out to be very helpful on several circumstances.

It didn't work for the other distro, so I think it might be better to remove it. Anyway, it can't be removed while Windows is running (neither in normal nor in safe mode). The only way to remove it is to use something like PCRegedit or something else to boot from USB.

Crap! Ok, it seems I'll have to change other stuff and compile everything again... which is kinda sad, considering it takes two hours on my crappy old netbook. Anyway, we will bring chrome support back, I strongly believe it. As to Aero, it's simply not working 'cause I'm pretty sure I disabled it in one of my tests and left it that way (my fault). Anyway, it's not a big deal, once we'll have the compatibility back (without breaking stuff), we'll just have to send the changes to github and wait for an answer. If we will be lucky, Google team will approve the changes and will allow us to work at the code on github to get at least chromium supported by users to users, in the great spirit of open source.

The POSReady one is the right one 'till 2019

Gotcha. That's simple! I'm gonna try to replace that call with GetCurrentThreadID. It will lead us to another issue (another error), for sure, but it's still another step ahead. As to Vista, I would like some feedback: is it working fine? I know that my final target is Windows XP, but having Vista support would be a great starting point. @sdfox7, thank you!

Windows embedded for points of service (WEPOS) support ends today, sadly. Another one left, two to go: Windows Embedded Standard (WES) 08/01/2019 - Windows Embedded POSReady (POSReady) 12/04/2019.

[Multi-language] Google Chrome 51 Vista x86 x64 There we go!! Feel free to test it BUT remember to read the "README.txt" first! https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzH7YVbfkU3oQkRYcFhWOFJVWjA/view?usp=sharing README:

Thanks for the link. Besides, as Dencorso said, chrome 49 is probably gonna be the last supported one, since the tests I'm doing are with the chrome 51 source code and it's clearly not working. Anyway, after some other tests, I'm pretty sure Google is clipping Vista compatibility by purpose. Tonight/this evening I'm gonna make one last test and upload my temporary custom build.

Long live to Windows XP! We have ported several functions and updates, BUT I'm sure that with the official Microsoft support, DX12, .NET 4.6.1, C++ Redistributable 2015 and Visual Studio 2015, Windows XP would have been the first most used OS, instead of being the third one.

OK, sorry for the delay. A friend of mine is testing it right now. It should work on Vista sp2, but I want to try a bunch of stuff, 'cause it has some weird behaviours on Windows 7 (which is natively supported), which means that I probably have screwed up something while I was modifying stuff. Off topic: You might not know me, but I'm an encoder and we are about to receive some new masters with a new standard that is not supported by our frameserver. I'm very very busy in trying to figure out how to implement it, so this project (Chrome for XP and Vista) will proceed, but slowly. P.s if someone works in the video industry and wants to help me with the IMF, feel free to contact me.

Dibya, if there's a patch for it, I want it That said, I'm gonna spend some words about AMD. Ladies and gentlemen, sit down, have a mug and be comfortable: this is the story about AMD (Cool intro xD) Once upon a time, computers used to run with CPUs made by Intel and we were all happy. Back in the days, CPUs were not very powerful and there were single cores with a bunch of cache 1 KB. One day, a company tried to use a different approach, compared to the normal (average) one and they made a processor with transistors set in a different way and moved memories locations in order to use a different approach. Such approach turned out to be good and even better than the Intel one and AMD processors were able to have more cycles than the Intel ones. As we all know, a processor has a clock, a multiplier and executes cycles, using the memory cache to calculate things. Thanks to the new approach, AMD processors were able to execute more cycles than the Intel ones in the same amount of time. In order to avoid to be surpassed, Intel started releasing new CPUs with higher frequencies. We are talking about the "era" of CPUs like the AMD Athlon. Since people used to have Intel CPUs before AMD, AMD decided to release its own CPUs with names like AMD Athlon 3200+, which means: AMD CPU that runs at the same speed as an Intel CPU with the same cache at 3.2 GHz. The Athlon 3200+, in fact, with its 512 KB cache l2, has only 2.2 GHz, but it's as fast as an Intel CPU at 3.2 GHz. Of course, people started loving AMD 'cause, in order to run at 3.2 GHz, Intel CPUs used to have an higher voltage and used to warm up more. These were the shiny AMD days... Then, the technology moved on and new nanometers way of making processors were discovered. Intel, then, had the brilliant idea of making a CPU that has two smaller cores instead of a single powerful one. The power of these two cores, together, is greater than a single powerful one, the problem, at the time, was that programs had to be made/optimised to run using the multithread, otherwise just one core would have been used (and of course, just a bunch of professional programs were able to use the multithread). So, there weren't any programs able to run in multithread, and people who bought Intel, ended up having an expensive CPU, pratically slower than other older CPUs. That granted the victory to AMD once again, since the company released a new, traditional monocore (single core) CPU. Anyway, Intel insisted on that risky path and continued releasing dual core processors. Bit by bit, consumer programs started being able to use multithread and Intel CPU turned out to be really good and powerful with multithread programs, compared to the AMD ones, since AMD was still releasing monocore. AMD, then, decided to keep going with monocore (single core) CPUs and released CPUs like the AMD Athlon 3400+ and the greatest monocore ever released, the AMD Athlon 3800+ with 1 MB of cache and I own an engineering sample of it. Anyway, these AMD CPUs didn't have success at all and people moved to Intel. So, AMD was forced to move to the multicore CPU world and started working on them. The problem was that their different approach which, at the very beginning, gave AMD the chance to win the competition with Intel, turned out to be a big obstacle to build a multicore solution; it was incompatible. AMD engineers studied it a lot and they were successfully able to fix every issue and make a multicore (dual core at the time) solution. The problem was that the two cores have never been able to "talk" in a good way using the cache and that never changed. Basically, even today, if a program is not extremely optimised to work with multithread of several cores, they don't really work well with AMD CPUs. While Intel is able to re-distribute the load to several cores, AMD is not and, if a program is not completely optimised for multithreading with several cores, it won't use every core at the same time, that's why people love Intel and blame AMD for being slower nowadays. So... This basically should answer the common question: why are AMD CPUs not using all the cores. Cheers and regards.

Ok, I gave it a shot! I tried to compile the last chromium version (51) using Visual Studio and it didn't work at the very beginning, 'cause I found out that it requires at least Visual Studio 2013, so I had to do it running Windows Server 2008 r2 (yep, sadly enough I didn't have a computer running Win7 xD) and it worked, I compiled it for x86, but it doesn't work in Windows XP displaying a weird error. I'm gonna find out what's that about in my spare time and I promise I will be back with a working chrome build. p.s I tried to run it using mono as well, just to find out whether is some silly dll that is missing, but it didn't work. I think (I think) it's related to Windows Aero that simply fails to load under XP. Since Windows Vista has Aero, Vista users should be able to run my custom build. So... since I don't have a computer running Vista (and I don't wanna set everything up to run it in a Virtual Machine), if I'll upload my custom test build somewhere, will Vista users give it a shot? It would be very helpful! p.ps Dibya, I think we have something we can work on together

Well, it's not gonna be a big deal, but still Microsoft should have been supporting at least. NET 4 a bit longer. Anyway, speaking of POS ready and embedded, when I was waiting at Victoria Station, I was queuing in front of a MC Donald and I saw one of the tills rebooting. I wasn't that close to the till, but I was close enough to recognise the "Windows XP style", which led me to think about Windows embedded. It was weird 'cause it was a definitely flat day, but in that moment I laughed. :')

Ok, so... I did something slightly different. I decided to integrate drivers using nlite, then I copied the new i386 folder (containing drivers) in C and I set Windows to look at that folder instead of looking for a CD via regedit (I just had to change a path in a key). In other words, now if I would like to install, for instance, a new language, it won't ask for the Windows CD, but it will look for the required files in the folder named i386 I copied in C. That said, it should do the same with drivers every time I connect a new device and every time I change my hardware.

Yep... I mean, it's weird. I have been using team Viewer since 2009 without experiencing any issues like the one mentioned above. I installed it on multiple OS, Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 r2 and I never faced any problems. It turned out to be reliable during group meeting as well, as I was able to explain to other people connected to a certain computer at the same time. Anyway, I generally prefer RDP over TV to connect to servers, but I strongly rely on TV to connect to other computers that are not in the same LAN. As to the RDP, Microsoft added an option to disable "unsecure connection" but it just prevents XP users from connecting to a newer OS (starting from 7). Whether you decide to activate it or not is your choice only, but I don't really like how things are right now, 'cause I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft will decide to disable XP connections in the near future. It's a possibility, hope not.

The problem with the remote desktop (assuming they are running XP Professional) is that - if they are not in your internal LAN - you have to know their external IP address or they have to use something like duckdns or noip to get a "domain". The easiest way is to use Team Viewer: is a free software that works under XP and allows you to login automatically in their computer; you can add their computer to your account, set a password and that's it. Give it a shot, trust me. P.s my favourite combination: Skype and team Viewer

I'm gonna take a look at chromium source code to find out what's going on and I'll be back with a build in a few days, hopefully. My thoughts now are about a thing: chromium is open source, but chrome is not. Everyone is allowed to submit a change, but it has to be tested and approved by Google, so... I'm really curious to see what will happen when me (or someone else) will submit something to bring XP compatibility back. It would be hilarious to have chromium xp-compatible and chrome not XP compatible.

Uhm... I think we'll just have to download the new chromium source and compile it using visual studio (or GCC) in order to make it run in Windows XP, unless Google did something to prevent it to run in XP. It's gonna be interesting how this is gonna affect the code and its compatibility. Keep us updated!

Hi, first of all, I made this because I was wondering what changed between .net 4.0 and .net 4.6.1, but this is for a test purpose only. Let's start! So... let's just say that technically (but not pratically) it's possible to force 4.6.1 programs to run in Windows XP via 4.0 .net framework, but I'm here to explain why it's a bad idea and what could crash. First of all, the core framework assemblies didn't change in .net 4.6.1 and it still targets v4.0.30319, but, in a program created with the 4.6.1 version, there is a [Target Framework] attribute that says that version 4.6.1 is required (which is not a big deal to "fool"). After that, there is another thing that has been changed by Microsoft and it's about the excutable header of the assemblies, which specifies which version of Windows the exe is compatible with. As we all know, XP belongs to the previous Windows generation and its number is 5 (which changed with Vista, that has number 6). .Net compilers have always specified the minimum version number to be 4.00 (the one that belongs to Windows 9x and NT), but now they specify the subsystem number to 6, but, again, it's possible to manually set it back to 4.00. It is now possible to run programs designed to run using version 4.6.1 BUT they could (probably will) fail if they have to run/load certain things. For instance, classes have been moved from one assembly to another for the [Extention] attribute, which is in System.Core.dll in .net 4.0 (Windows XP) and has been moved to Mscorelib.dll in .net 4.6.1 (well, it has been moved in .net 4.5, if I recall correctly). Let's now suppose that I'm a programmer and that I declare my own extention method. When a user tries to force to run my program in Win XP using .net 4.0, it will try to look to Mscorelib for the attribute (Enabled by a [TypeForwardedTo] attribute in .net 4.6.1 version of System.Core reference assembly), but, of course, isn't there and the program will fail. As to the classes and methods introduced in the newer version of .net 'till 4.6.1, if used, the program will result in a "TypeLoadException" or "MissingMethodException" error if forced to run using .net 4.0. So... that's about it. This is why it's not a good idea to force programs to load using .net 4.0. How about backporting newer .net to Windows XP? Forget about it: with a few workarounds .net 4.6.1 will install, but it won't run: In a nutshell, programmers will have to target .net 4.0, otherwise, I suggest you all to try running programs via mono, which, indeed, has some new features introduced by .Net 4.6.1, but lacks several other features that are available in .net 4.0 as well. So... just... try. Hope it can be useful to understand a bit what's going on nowadays. Bye!

Hi, I'm here to ask you a kinda weird question this time. I know that Windows has a limit of components that you can change, but there is a workaround to avoid them to be checked. That said, I use to simply swap my hard drive/SSD and/or clone it in order to change computers. I mean, I just have to unplug my hard drive (or SSD) from my actual computer, plug it again in a new motherboard (a brand new config), install drivers and everything is ready. I know that, thanks to Nlite, I can integrate drivers packs in a Windows Install (I did it in the past), but I was wondering whether it's possible to do it in a "living" Windows or not. Thank you in advance. ^_^

I didn't know that! When I bought an R9 290x, I made drivers myself, but they never worked as I expected... Thank you for letting us know!

Well, to be fair, it is pixelated nowadays. I mean, XP has been released in 2001-2002 and we didn't have the monitors we have now. If we take a look at the TV standards back in the days, everything was 720x480 anamorphic and interlaced, with early DVDs made in MPEG-2 8bit 4:2:0. I mean, when I boot XP now, even the boot logo has some ringing artifacts, but that's simply because it wasn't meant to work at resolutions like 1080p or 2160p. Microsoft itself didn't expect XP to last this much when they released it the very first time, in fact it works perfectly with old CRT monitor and with 800p progress monitor. As to the UI itself, instead, it scales perfectly with resolutions as high as 1080p (I mean the login page and the Start button/menu.