Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


VistaLover

Member
  • Content Count

    382
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

VistaLover last won the day on June 13

VistaLover had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

313 Excellent

1 Follower

About VistaLover

Profile Information

  • OS
    Vista Home Premium x86
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Welcome to the MSFN forums Might I ask what this tutorial is all about? Since WD is a native/integral Windows OS feature first introduced in Vista (IIANM, on XP is a standalone/separate download...), perhaps posting it on the main Windows Vista forum looks appropriate ; but a forum admin may think otherwise...
  2. I can definitely report that on my 11 year old Vista SP2 32-bit install (with WS2008 updates up to Oct 2017 and .NET FW 4.6.1 manually installed), the app completes the scan successfully: I'd be much obliged if you forwarded this to your Malwarebytes connections/devs, so they could hopefully be prevented from taking a lighthearted and quick decision, based solely on one reported "issue"; we understand (but certainly not approve...) they don't want to support Vista anymore, but they should not artificially block the software from running on "compatible" (?) Vista configurations: If it works, don't break it! If it doesn't work to begin with, no support should be requested; then everyone's happy... Thanks in advance for alerting the Malwarebytes people... PS: Just a thought/question of mine I wanted to publicly voice: Why is it that "Security/Anti-Malware" software decide to jump the boat once dear ol' Microsoft terminates "official" support for one of their OSes? A sane, everyday, person would think that such software is rendered all the more necessary on said OS (one the vendor stopped patching); just look at what happened with XP: M$ killed for good its MSE solution, so die-hard XP users turned to third party paid apps still supporting XP (which means added profit for the authors of these apps...); but the conspiracy-theorist inside me mumbles that M$ actually bribes those third-party app authors to discontinue support, in order for Windows users to be forced to cough up their hard-earned money towards new hardware+WinOS...
  3. This is not true: if by "official" site you mean https://noscript.net/ then change to the "get it!' tab and scroll down a bit:
  4. ... by described behaviour you mean: From my 7.3.0 scan log, you can see that 27501 objects were scanned: # ------------------------------- # Malwarebytes AdwCleaner 7.3.0.0 # ------------------------------- # Build: 04-04-2019 # Database: 2019-05-27.1 (Cloud) # Support: https://www.malwarebytes.com/support # # ------------------------------- # Mode: Scan # ------------------------------- # Start: 06-13-2019 # Duration: 00:00:40 # OS: Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium # Scanned: 27501 # Detected: 39 As said already, I haven't moved on to "Clean & Repair", so am not in a position to verify it properly removes a selected "flag" (but I might experiment with when spare time permits...). ... We here at the Vista subforums really hate it when app authors impose artificial blocks to their setups/executables and cripple them on our favourite OS, Vista; I hope the devs review their decision by actually testing themselves on the OS, even without officially supporting it... You appear to be running Win10, have you yourself tested latest version 7.3.0 on Vista? I apologise for being a pest...
  5. You seem to know a lot more about this program than my humble self, so am not questioning the validity of what you posted ; however, I conducted a simple test: I launched v6.047 (after declining the prompt to update it...), and then went through its settings to configure it to my liking; then I initiated a scan: granted it took slightly more time to complete the scan (but that may be due to its older engine), but in the end it found exactly the same Folders, Scheduled Tasks and Registry entries as version 7.3.0 did! I never proceeded to the "Clean" action in either version (at least not without first creating a System Restore point), as most "flags" were actually identified by me to be false positives (many related to Chinese browser UCBrowser... ) Regards
  6. This doesn't appear to be true ; I have just downloaded version 7.2.6.0 from the repository you linked to, it had no issue launching, furthermore it prompted me to update it to latest version 7.3.0.0; the update went along fine, I have it successfully running here: So, while it is not officially supported anymore on XP/Vista, as per your link: latest version 7.3 appears to be functioning fine, at least on Vista SP2 (with .NET FW 4.6.1, if that matters at all)... Official download page: https://toolslib.net/downloads/viewdownload/1-adwcleaner/files/1920/ On-line documentation: https://toolslib.net/downloads/viewdownload/1-adwcleaner/pages/5-en-adwcleaner-documentation/ Off-line user guide (for v7.2.4): https://www.malwarebytes.com/pdf/guides/Malwarebytes-AdwCleaner-User-Guide.pdf OT: Doesn't it strike you as odd that Vista had more usage percentage at the time support was officially dropped than Windows XP?
  7. To be frank, I don't think they ever intended this for a massive consumption outside of mainland China; their site does provide rudimentary English localisation and the app, once installed, does have the option of a (poorly translated) English locale, but, beyond that, the browser is heavily China-centered (pre-installed Chinese search engines, default links to their own proprietary extensions store*, NPAPI+PPAPI flash [older version 29] downloaded straight from Chinese servers[IIRC, these are specially modified versions to allow better user tracking by the regime ], pre-installed Quick Dial with popular Chinese sites, support forum in Chinese only, etc., etc.)... What little English support exists is probably targeting foreigners already in China, for whatever reasons... Just my 2c, of course (*): While you can install most extensions directly from the official Google Store when you're outside of China, do note that the installed extensions can't access it for update checks, so no auto-update for said extensions is possible ; for those ones that have such a feature, you should first export to file their configuration/settings, uninstall the outdated version and then install from Google Store the updated version (unlike addons.mozilla.org, Google don't offer previous versions of an extension, and the new, updated, version can't be installed on top of the outdated one, retaining already existing configuration ); finally, import previous settings from file...
  8. ... Actually, stable build v1.1.453.59 has a digital signature of 2016-05-13 and is built on slightly fresher Chromium source (50.0.2661.102), whereas dev build v1.2.470.11 has a digital signature of 2016-05-04 and is built on older Chromium source (50.0.2661.89); so the snapshot build you're after is not more recent than the stable one I posted a link to... ... Yes, but only in (unsigned) ZIP format (which means you'll have to enable developer mode in vivaldi://extensions and install from unpacked folder; or, create yourself a .CRX file from within Vivaldi and permanently install that way... ). ... Knock yourself out Vivaldi.1.2.470.11.exe https://www15.zippyshare.com/v/bNiTojuc/file.html (Link availability at the discretion of forum admins... )
  9. @artomberus ... Actually, the very last build of Vivaldi on the stable (release) branch that would run on Vista SP2 is 1.1.453.59, based on Chromium 50.0.2661.102 source code: The screengrab is actually from an unofficial portable installation (in PAF format); search for it on the web... Official link to the v1.1.453.59 (32-bit) installer: https://downloads.vivaldi.com/stable/Vivaldi.1.1.453.59.exe The very last build of Vivaldi on the snapshot (dev) channel that would run on Vista SP2 was indeed 1.2.470.11, based on Chromium 50.0.2661.89 source code: (... again, this is a portable installation in PAF format). The relevant vivaldi blog entry is: https://vivaldi.com/blog/snapshots/snapshot-1-2-470-11-editable-gestures-2/ but, as you found out, ALL binary links are 404'ed now... TBH, both builds date to May 2016, which means they are probably unsafe to browse today's web with, not to mention that many sites have dropped long ago Chromium 50 compatibility; YMMV, but poor site/page rendering is highly probable ; if you plan to install uB0, 1.16.18/1.16.20 is the last one (but hard to find as a .CRX file) that successfully works with those old builds... I only have on disk the 32-bit version of Vivaldi 1.2.470.11[dev] (file Vivaldi.1.2.470.11.exe, dig. sig. of Wed, May 4th 2016, 17:08:01), but I am unsure as to whether I am allowed to share it here... Don't have time currently to search exhaustively for an archived link for it (sadly, web.archive.org doesn't appear to have salvaged it )...
  10. That's probably because your system lacks Eastern Asian Fonts (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc...); not saying you'd be able to understand the messages in Chinese (displayed by the installer) had you got them installed... Perhaps a native Chinese speaker could create an installation guide with screenshots for those wanting to install this Chinese Chromium 69 fork (myself, I'm using a Russian-made portable version in WinPenPack format, just search for it on line as it's not allowed here on MSFN to post links to "unofficial" packages... ).
  11. ... As posted elsewhere, 45.9.0esr was the last 45esr version officially released by Mozilla (mid-April 2017): https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/45.9.0esr/win32/it/ 45.0esr (very similar to stable 45.0) was from March 2016; during an ESR branch update cycle, only security updates, chemspills (urgently needed fixes for various breakages) and some quality/performance updates are being backported from the main (stable/release) Firefox branch (with higher major version numbers...); system/CPU requirements don't change in the middle of an ESR cycle, when they do, it's always beginning with the next ESR cycle; e.g. all 45.x.xESR builds will run on max-SSE processors, none of the 52.x.xESR cycle will (likewise, all 52.x.xESR builds will run on XP/Vista, but none of the 60.x.xESR cycle will ) Simply put, 45.9.0esr has more than a year's worth of publicly disclosed security vulnerabilities patched; as to whether those put a perceivable dent to the whole browser performance, as suggested, I can't comment really ; test on your own particular setup and decide for yourself; if you ask me, though, I'd go for safer...
  12. ... You "sound" surprised ; if you please read more carefully previous posts in this thread and/or inspect related commits in Roytam1's GitHub repository (as the result of Mathwiz's PRs), you'd realise ONLY NM28/UXP and (some of) Serpent52/UXP "Help" entries were altered... If, OTOH, you are truly asking for Mail News's "Help" entries to be modified, that's a different matter; AFAICT, @roytam1 hasn't published a forked Binary Outcast GitHub repository (unlike his UXP one!) one can then re-fork and submit the necessary PR... He, of course, can do this in his local BO repo, if he agrees to your requests... NB: I am NOT a user of any of the BO forks (nor will I choose to be )...
  13. Actually, this is NOT accurate; Avast does provide 19.x versions of their Free Antivirus flavour; e.g. if you navigate to https://www.avast.com/download-thank-you.php?product=FAV-AVAST&locale=en-gb you will end up downloading from: https://bits.avcdn.net/productfamily_ANTIVIRUS/insttype_FREE/platform_WIN/installertype_FULL/build_RELEASE which, once on disk (337 MB, off-line setup), can be verified to be of file version 19.4.4318.0. But versions 19.x require Win7+, the version you have installed (18.8) is the last supported one on Vista/Server2008 ... Cheers
  14. ... I understand this was a change implemented on a platform level, so I'm not sure as to if/how what I suggest below is feasible, but what would be best, IMHO, is to implement the upstream change ONLY to New Moon (application/palemoon) and NOT implement it on Serpent (application/basilisk); removing the "force-enable e10s" feature on NM should be favourable, because force-enabling e10s on PM/NM, even for testing purposes, will produce a totally broken/unresponsive browser (as the internal e10s supporting code is non-existent in PM/NM); just my 2 eurocents, of course
×
×
  • Create New...