VistaLover

Otter v1.0.81[weekly300-xp] uses OpenSSL 1.0.2o, so that fact alone empowers it with support for a plethora of cipher suites (and TLS versions); not only a great number of cipher suites are already enabled by default, you can also add additional ones (out of the many OpenSSL supports): However, the xp (and Vista) compatible package (compiled with QT 5.6.2) uses gstreamer as the media backend; because of patented decoders (h264, aac) licence issues, the distributed binaries lack support for h264 decoding and this is a deal-breaker for me in today's media-rich web; the Win7+ packages are compiled with a higher QT version (5.13.1, requires Win7+) which comes with support for the native WMF framework (present in Vista+), enabling access to OS provided patented decoders; to cut a long story short, Otter v1.0.81 on XP/Vista will load fine cote.co.uk, but won't play the background video... The reason Opera 36/XP doesn't, also, play the background video is quite similar; the browser (unlike Chrome 49) doesn't come bundled with a h264 decoder, the OS has to provide that through WMF; but, as you know already, XP lacks WMF . FTR, Opera 36/VistaSP2 does load the site and does play the background video... Best regards

... When Vista SP2 reached the end of Extended Support on April 2017, the EoS'd OS at the time was left with only TLS 1.0 native support; the same was true for XP SP3 when it reached its ES end in 2014. Both these OSes can be upgraded to have native TLS 1.1+1.2 support using M$ official updates originally prepared for sibling OSes that had/have "End of Extended Support" dates way past the ones for the OSes in question... XP users can get TLS 1.2 support by installing updates for (NT5.1) Embedded POSReady 2009 (which reached EoS earlier this year) and Vista users can do the same by installing update(s) for (NT6.0) Windows Server 2008, to reach EoS next January (2020); for Vista, you might read this ; I'm afraid XP & Vista (and soon Win7) are no longer regarded as new systems; yes, they are newer compared to Win98 but otherwise "deprecated" by today's standards... Regards

@Dave-H : A check of "cote.co.uk" on SSL Labs Server test page https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=www.cote.co.uk confirms what has already been reported; just scroll down to the Handshake Simulation section: ... and see that IE11 only works on Win10 ! As to why, I think I have some clues: I couldn't help noticing how that server was configured: Only TLS 1.2 version is enabled, and only 3 cipher suites for that protocol version: Now, IE11 uses the cipher suites available in the OS's "Microsoft Schannel Provider" library; however, different Windows versions support different sets of cipher suites: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthn/cipher-suites-in-schannel If one checks the available suites on Win7: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthn/tls-cipher-suites-in-windows-7 one cannot find any of the three cipher suites needed for connection to the server in question... OTOH, checking the available cipher suites on Win10 v1903: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthn/tls-cipher-suites-in-windows-10-v1903 one can find the first preferred (by the server) cipher suite, TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, as available, hence the TLS 1.2 handshake succeeds and the site loads in IE11/Win10! However, I don't have answers as to why Chrome 49/WinXP[SP3] also succeeds, unless, of course, ProxyHTTPSProxy is used with it... BTW, Chrome 49 does open the site successfully here, Vista SP2 32-bit, but I do have installed WinServer 2008 updates that enable TLS 1.2 support: Perhaps Chrome 49 has native support for that cipher suite and only uses the Windows Store for certificates, NOT using Schannel like IE does (I'm sorry, my Chrome related knowledge is limited, have only been a Firefox fan from the start!) ... Cheers

... However MS states that the offending function ("GetLogicalProcessorInformation") IS supported under Windows XP SP3: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/sysinfoapi/nf-sysinfoapi-getlogicalprocessorinformation#requirements EDIT: @jaclaz : I was notified of your newer post just when I was about to submit this ; submitting regardless, hope you don't mind... EDIT2: It seems the app is compiled using QT Framework 5.6.2; 5.6 is the last version to be XP+Vista compatible, so it appears they knowingly made the effort to keep compatibility with those "legacy" OSes (the same is true for SMPlayer, a GUI for mplayer/mpv - but I think the dev there had different reasons for sticking to QT5.6 ...) ...

@apreese16 https://www.howtogeek.com/126430/htg-explains-what-is-the-windows-page-file-and-should-you-disable-it/

... and, as stated, a "minimal" installation of it: ...which suggests some OS components have been omitted...

Are you talking about MiniTool Partition Wizard 11 Free (file pw11-free.exe) ? This doesn't seem to be the case with pw11-free.exe :

... CPU-Z wasn't causing any issues for @sukistackhouse , though...

While there's no doubt the ESET v12.2.30.0 range of products had been officially released on Oct 2nd 2019, as per @Vistapocalypse's link above, the second link of his only gives access to 64-bit builds (under the "Early Access" category, submitted on Sep 27th 2019 ). OTOH, the official ESET support site, when searched for older versions of ESET products, https://support.eset.com/en/download-and-install-eset-offline-or-install-older-versions-of-eset-products lists as latest v12 version the 12.2.23.0 one, where indeed an official download link for the 32-bit flavour is present: E.g. the direct link for the Antivirus product is The plot thickens by the fact the downloaded installers don't display a v12 file version, but a v10 one (!), e.g. file eav_nt32.exe from above link is of version 10.9.73.0 (a fine mess, if you ask me...); so, if anyone has official (/unofficial?) links to the 32-bit setups of ESET v12.2.30.0 products, do share!

... Makes sense; the installer is of the Inno Setup v5.5.7 type; I downloaded and unpacked the installer for MTPW 11.5 Free via Universal Extractor 2, but I kept logs for the process; here's an excerpt: ... so I'm not sure what's awry in @sukistackhouse 's case... Might be the fact the installer is only SHA-2 code-signed (but then why would it work in @Dave-H 's XP system?) ...

Well, if you want a Chromium 69 based browser that is able to run on XP (and Vista!), we already have it by now: it's 360 Extreme Explorer by QiHoo (11 version recently updated to build 2251, i.e. v11.0.2251.0, official site here).

Sadly, this is indeed true ; Inno Setup v6.0.x+ supports Vista (NT6.0 ?) and upwards... For such cases, I can recommend two CLI tools that allow the extraction of "Inno Setup" installers without running them... The latest versions of innoextract (v1.8) and innounp (v0.49) can both extract up to v6.0.2 of IS; however, there are cases where these would not work (custom modifications of the official IS code and encrypted setups, configured to only install via a proper installation route); unfortunately, I have no way of knowing here (Vista SP2 32-bit) whether either CLI launch under XP... So, you could use the last XP compatible setup of the app (to install in XP), (hopefully) use the unpacker to extract the binaries from the updated version of the (incompatible) installer and then do an in situ replacement (with the proviso the updated binaries are still XP compatible)... Kind of what is done currently by XPers wanting to update Java RE 8 past 8u152... Personally, I'm using, when need be, innounp.exe with the following .cmd file:

@roytam1, @Mathwiz : How is that guaranteed to only touch Serpent 52's AOM (WebExtAM) but NOT NM28's AOM (TychoAM) ? On GitHub, in the PR's description, it says But NM does not need that pref, OR the functionality of that PR ... Also, Was that actually carefully examined (... I mean, the impact it has on the rest of the UXP-based apps) ? If I am to voice my personal humble opinion, this whole issue was rushed... Also, I'm a firm believer in the adage: "Don't fix it if it ain't broken!" and, as of this writing, NOTHING IS BROKEN (yet) ... To re-emphasise what I wrote in my previous posts: 1. Serpent 52.9.0/UXP and Serpent 55.0/Moebius both have a WebExAM type of AOM (St52 one derived from FxESR52, St55 one derived from Fx53.0a1 - probably not identical, but with very few differences between them...) 2. CTR v1.7.8 serves both above browsers perfectly, and AVN is offered as an option (OFF by default); also, CTR is incompatible with NM, so this leaves NM totally out of this discussion. 3. CTR v1.7.8 won't break in St52 in the future, unless @roytam1 explicitly touches Serpent's AOM code (not likely) 4. The upstream team have implemented the TychoAM on both Pale Moon and Basilisk; I'd speculate that they are unlikely to change TychoAM any further, but you can never really be sure with them... In the event they do change it, it's probable (from my viewpoint) that those changes won't be applicable to St52's WebExAM and would have to be reverted by Roy (but somehow applied selectively to NM28?)... The CTR v1.7.8.2019 branch was created by Aris with only classic Waterfox (Firefox 56 derived, but heavily forked...) and official Basilisk in mind, but after official Basilisk had changed to the TychoAM; if upstream implement changes to TychoAM, then CTR v1.7.8.2019 will have to accommodate, of course, but with code not relevant to Serpent's AOM... There's absolutely no compelling reason to install CTR v1.7.8.2019 on Serpent 52 currently (... just because you can is not a valid argument in my book )... 5. If, despite all the above, one insists on installing CTR v1.7.8.2019 in St52, then, as posted, to get the AVN feature back (present in CTR 1.7.8) just co-install either of Version Number in Add-ons Manager 1.10 (by magicp) caa:addon/addonvernumber/versions?page=1#version-1.10 Add-ons Manager - Version Number 1.4 (by Aris) caa:addon/amversionnumber/versions?page=1#version-1.4 NB: Latest v1.5 not compatible with Serpent (it installs, but BREAKS the AOM!) Of course, you can install either one without any version of CTR, if you JUST want the feature of AVN in St52's AOM... Thus, no need at present to touch the UXP platform code... In all fairness, MCP might in the future do something more radical in Basilisk's GUI, outside its TychoAM; if that big change lands in Serpent 52, then CTR 1.7.8 might get (partially) broken, and an update to a future version of 1.7.8.20xx might be needed; even then, CTR 1.7.8.20xx + one of the above extensions should suffice (but let's cross that bridge when we get to it...). In closing, I thought I'd detail my personal, lukewarm, view on that PR, since it was I that instigated this chain of events (after pointing out to @Mathwiz the existence of CTR versions past 1.7.7.2 and providing a link to the Wf PR that implemented AVN natively in its - Fx56 based - AOM) ; and to clear out any trace of a possible misunderstanding, this has nothing to do with the author of the PR; I highly appreciate all his efforts (coding and otherwise) and contributions offered to this great community here, not to mention the outstanding quality of his posts; plus, I sort of think of him as a good friend (especially since we've conversed in the past over PMs); so, @Mathwiz, nothing personal here Best regards!

... Unfortunately, it doesn't look like v12.2.23.0 installers are still available on the official site (truth be told, I did not search exhaustively... ); some third party sites may host them, though...

+1

Sadly, wrong filenames and links, that fetch last Saturday's builds...

I think I've found the exact reason for your recent Adobe Flash grief: privacy.resistFingerprinting in Firefox versions 50.0+ hides the contents of the navigator.plugins query, as per Bugzilla bug #1281963 ; that piece of JS code is used by sites to query various NPAPI plugins installed in the browser; when the official Adobe Flash Plugin test page uses that code but receives no results, it assumes the plugin is not installed/its installation is corrupted, hence the test fails to display plugin's version... It's all clear to me, now...

IMHO, the best thing for both @looking4awayout and the community consuming his efforts (UOC Patches & Enforcers) would be for him to change to git (or other Version Control System) and ultimately host his nice project on GitHub | GitLab and similar; then, automation would be the simplest of things... Just my 2 (euro)cents, of course...

Thanks for that! I've now bookmarked that third party Adobe Flash Test page, it's nice, desired even, to have an alternate test page, besides the Adobe official one...

... But all Mozilla devs live under the illusion that constantly aping Google Chrome (by removing native browser features and GUI customisations, delegating removed features to WEs instead) IS the way to deter Fx users from changing camp over to the competition, ie. Chrome! They've also assigned a "name" to this illusion, it's "Chrome parity" (!) But, as you say, the net result is quite the opposite...

Does the previous version of NPAPI Flash (32.0.0.270) work there? Of course, just a sample of two people (works for one, doesn't for the other) has no statistical value...

Cannot reproduce here: New clean profile of latest St55 (32-bit) on Vista SP2 x86 - NPAPI Adobe Flash properly installed systemwide:

If you want to hide from view various addon-related warnings inside Firefox's AOM, but don't wish to install CTR just for that function, then you can achieve the same using the following CSS code (inside a userstyle manager, like [legacy] Stylish 2.1.1 or Stylem, or inside your chrome\userChrome.css file in your browser profile) : @-moz-document url-prefix(chrome://mozapps/content/extensions/extensions.xul), url-prefix(about:addons) { .warning { visibility: collapse !important; } }

It's funny you mentioned SSUAO in Firefox, because today I became aware of another Mozilla change involving SSUAO support in Firefox... During the pre-Australis era, Mozilla had implemented native SSUAO support in Firefox (but I'm now too lazy to search and quote relevant Bugzilla bugs, it's 01:50 AM on Friday already here...), but then disabled it at some point (in Fx 25.0 ?) in desktop Firefox (but kept it in the mobile version) to, supposedly, gain a 7% speed increase in page loading times... The feature supporting module (UserAgentOverrides.jsm) was still kept in the source tree, but was not initialised in desktop Fx versions - hence the need of an extension (or additional code) to re-initialise it properly in Fx ESR 52.9.x In a previous MSFN post, I had searched Bugzilla and found that the SSUAO native feature was again restored in Fx 55.0, so from Fx 55.0+ one would not need extensions (legacy/WE) or JS code to apply SSUAOs in the browser... However, it appears that this native useful feature was again binned, starting with Firefox Browser (previously known as "Quantum") v71.0 (currently in the beta channel); this time, the original SSUAO supporting module (UserAgentOverrides.jsm) was completely excised, reason being "it was just old code", and those users wanting the removed functionality back should, once again, resort in using a dedicated (WE) addon... I was alerted by the following Mozillazine thread: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3055169 Bugzilla bug #1513574 : Remove UserAgentOverrides.jsm Once again, I beg to differ...

... Pardon me dear dencorso, but this was first made public on Jul 25th, 2017, more than two years ago already; so, most people browsing the web today should be sort of aware of the "crónica de una muerte anunciada" of Flash... On that same vein, there was recent discussion in the official Moonchild forums regarding Flash deprecation: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23191 and Moonchild himself stated: But, come the end of 2020, NPAPI Adobe Flash won't be further patched for security; if MCP leave NPAPI Flash support in, as stated, then it's up to individual users to decide upon themselves if the inevitable security risks are really worth sticking to Flash in PM/Basilisk...