Jump to content
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. ×


Bronze Sponsor
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Donations

  • Country

    United States

cc333 last won the day on February 3 2021

cc333 had the most liked content!


About cc333

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x64

Recent Profile Visitors

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

cc333's Achievements



  1. OK, forgot to update here that I managed to succeed! I followed the instructions at the RyanVM forums, added the latest 2019 post-EOS updates, and slipstreamed most of the whole thing into an OEM Dell XP x64 CD, and it works! (a handful of .NET and WMP updates wouldn't slipstream (nor would WMP11 itself), so I had to install those by hand after installing, which was mildly annoying, but far better than what would've been had I not made the updated installer, since it was maybe like 12 or 15 updates instead of 200+). Most importantly, I was able to preserve the OEM activation, so it behaves just as the untouched CD would, which is good because activating an OEM copy for which I don't have a product key is a pain. Recently, I did break down and install 7 on the same computer, so now I have both. It turns out that 7 actually does what I want better, if only by virtue of the fact that it can support newer, bug-fixed versions of the programs I wanted to use. After applying all the updates, it was almost uselessly slow until I disabled the Spectre and Meltdown patches (not best security practice, I know), but now it's only a little slow, particularly at starting up and launching programs; I attribute that mostly to the fact that it's installed on a spinning hard disk, though, so I can live with it (SSDs are so much faster!) I had XP x64 working very smoothly, but I wanted to use some hardware that only supports 7 and up, so, here I am. I still do think that, someday, someone somewhere should create a nicely-packaged unofficial SP 3, so that perhaps one can update a live installation, rather than slipstreaming the updates into a new installer CD (a somewhat tedious and error-prone task for the inexperienced), but absent that, this will suffice. c
  2. Well, there goes any chance of me trying to upgrade to Windows 11.... I also have still resisted the upgrade to Windows 10, and still use a combination of XP, 7 and 8.1 for anything I can't do with macOS, which isn't much nowadays, to be honest). XP and 7 may be out of support and "unsecure" by modern standards, but I like how they work (especially XP), and locking them down so that they're relatively safe isn't that hard to do. The only notable obstacle, I've found, is finding hardware they'll actually boot on (VMs are okay for light stuff, like testing software and such, but there is no substitute for real hardware if I want to do anything more resource intensive). That being said, any Windows before 10 will someday no longer be viable for any modern purpose, so I'll have to just give up on Windows altogether when that happens. At this point, I'm already mostly using macOS anyway, so fortunately, it won't hurt much, though I have similar qualms about Apple too (while they're not nearly as bad as MS (indeed, of all the major Tech companies (MS, Google, Facebook, etc) Apple is actually among the least offensive and most privacy sensitive ones), I nevertheless don't trust them 100%, if only because they're so big). I'll keep watching from the sidelines, but I don't think I'll be doing anything but experimentation on an unimportant backup machine or VM, if I do decide to try Windows 11. c
  3. True. It's definitely a nontrivial undertaking, but I really hope someone somewhere decides to do it, because the current state of affairs is stupid. I have a newish Skylake-based PC, and even that is struggling with the stupid internet. On an 800Mbps connection, no less!! And I was kindly updated to Firefox 91 ESR the other night, and you know what? Even though it did seem a bit faster, the new UI is ugly, and it partially broke all the userChrome cusomizations I'd made (out of fairness, though, it actually still renders it, which gives some hope). I was tired, so I went back to 78 ESR and hardcoded it to disable updates altogether, so I don't get updated (or even notified) again until I'm good and ready. c
  4. The simple and concise version: I hate the modern Internet. The long version: Just about every imaginable aspect of it seems to demand infinite RAM and CPU cycles, and for what? To do the EXACT same things websites did 20 years ago (via Flash and, yes, ActiveX)?! And these sites managed to do what they did at about the same speeds sites do them now, with 1/10th the available resources! (the average PC in 2001 had probably 256 MB of RAM and 20 or so GB of disk storage, which is nothing by modern standards). And Google? It seems to me they're leveraging their immense size and reach to remake the Internet in their image (proprietary and exclusionary), simply because they can. And they pass it off as an improvement?? And don't even get me started about Facebook, one of the other major evils of the Internet industry... *grumble* What would be nice is if someone created a new browser, which incorporates a sensible, standard UI (something PM-like would be nice, but FF 5x.x would be okay too) and a light weight, efficient rendering engine which is highly compatible with Chrome where needed, but completely open with as little telemetry as possible (undoubtedly, there will be sites that require telemetry as a "feature," so this hypothetical browser would have to "emulate" enough of it to keep the site happy, but without the security risks). This browser should be cross-platform, and it should be backwards compatible as far back as reasonably possible by using basic APIs and simple runtimes wherever possible (think Mac OS back to 10.6 and Windows to at least XP SP2, but ideally XP RTM and 2000). If anyone wants to start this project, count me in as one of your first customers!! c
  5. I'm really liking how this is progressing! It took me a few days to catch up on the 6 or so pages of posts, but I finally have, so here I am! I have a question (or so) re: themes, if I may: is it possible to have the title bar and minimize/maximize/close buttons render using the native OS controls? I prefer to use the Classic (Win 2000) theme, and I'd like the browser to blend in a bit better. And, if this isn't directly possible, is there a Classic look-alike Chromium theme out there that would work? Can I create my own?? Also, can I even use themes meant for the official Google-supplied version of Chrome, or do they need to be specially modified somehow? c
  6. That's hilarious! Windows 10 is so much slower in general (primarily because of all the extra "features"), that I think production would slow to a crawl if those robots were upgraded to it. Besides that, I doubt 10 would support them anyway. 11 certainly won't, unless M$ relents on it's somewhat unrealistically high minimum requirements (last I heard, there was some rumors suggesting they might, but that was several weeks ago-- an eternity in the computer industry). c
  7. Maybe so, but it makes a good point! Since we're making "useless" posts today, I've noticed another, similar kind of post almost as much as those switch to Linux posts, and even had a CS instructor* go on about it: "throw out your old PC and buy a new one with Windows 10!" I do NOT see any point in throwing out a perfectly fine PC just because it's 4 years old, just to get a new one which that may not have the features I like, and probably won't run the software I want because Windows 10 won't run them (this, I admit, is rare-ish, but it happens). c *I went out of my way to run a Latitude D630 (from 2008) with Windows 2000 to make the point that one need not upgrade to the newest hardware and software to get things done (I did eventually upgrade it to XP, but the point was still valid because XP was only released one year later than 2000; because XP had such a long service life, it has become extremely mature and as a result, supports an unusually wide range of hardware (everything from the earliest Pentium Pros to at least Haswell, or Skylake and up with some ACPI patching and creative workarounds for some hardware that lacks XP drivers), and has at least some support for a lot of modern conveniences).
  8. OK, I had everything configured as I wanted, and it was really running quite smoothly, which was refreshing after that ordeal with those defective backups. However, the hard drive decided to fail on me, which was totally frustrating, because it meant doing everything all over again. To that end, I repurposed an old SSD I had laying around and then ordered a Dell XP x64 SP2 Reinstallation disk (this machine is an Optiplex 390). I figured might as well just install x64, since I had the disk, have 8 GB of RAM that it would be nice to use all of, and, well, the hard drive died, which was a good excuse, for I probably would've stayed with 32-bit XP otherwise. The installation went smoothly, but since Dell doesn't offer official support for XP x64 on the Optiplex 390, there are no XP x64-specific drivers offered, so I instead had to hunt them down myself. Fortunately, it wasn't too hard, for the official-for-this-model 32-bit XP and 64-bit Vista driver packages each happened to include some 64-bit XP drivers, seemingly by chance. I was thus able to piece together enough "official" drivers to get a 100% working setup with all hardware fully operational. As for updates, I got it kinda-sorta mostly current using RyanVM's update packs slipstreamed into a copy of the Dell disk, plus a bunch of manual installation of other packages (namely, .Net Framework and WMP11 (and their respective updates), plus the VC++ redistributables) after the install was finished, so I'm pleased to say I have accomplished what I wanted. c
  9. @jaclaz Thank you for the links! However, I have given up for now, as it deteriorated from bad to worse: it wouldn't boot at all no matter what I did, so I could never get far enough to even be able to try doing anything with the linked software. So, I installed 32-bit XP instead, and everything actually seems to be working as expected, so perhaps I don't need 64-bit. Now I need to figure out how to update it in a reasonable manner. The unofficial SP4 is good, but a little buggy in my experience. It might be worth a try, though, because I really loathe to install so many updates by hand. At least the media I used (a Dell reinstall disk) came with SP3. That leaves me with about 12 years worth of updates to install instead of 16 years worth... c
  10. OK, so now it's 2021. A plague has threatened to destroy life as we know it, and Microsoft has shut down the WU update servers for XP and XP x64, so, yay? Now that the "old-fashioned" way of installing updates no longer works, it seems to me that an unofficial service pack has become more important. That being said, has anyone decided to make one since my last post in this thread in 2019? If not, maybe it's about time someone did! I would, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Anyway, I'm dragging this thread out of the depths because I'd like to install XP x64 on a spare Dell, and I don't much enjoy the prospect of installing 200+ updates one by one.... I'd just install 7 (whose WU client, for the time being, still works) and move on, but I have a need for XP x64 specifically, so I can't really avoid this issue. c
  11. I'm trying to restore a computer of mine for some software that won't run on anything newer very reliably. The problem is, the installation seems to be broken. I finally got it to boot by fixing a few things, but I think the problem stems from the fact that the installation was made with drive E: as the system root, rather than the usual C: (which it now is). As a result of this, the registry is a complete disaster. So, is there a better way than finding, one by one, every reference to E: and correcting it to C:, or is there a better, more automated way? EDIT: I should add that I would prefer to preserve this installation because it is updated fully, but if there are no alternatives, I am willing to start over and reinstall. c
  12. I'm a little rusty and out of date on this, but I'll try to help: The only reason Vista doesn't handle SSDs as well as a more modern OS might is because Vista doesn't natively support SSDs, and thus can't issue necessary TRIM commands or self configure to minimize needless reads and writes, so performance can degrade with time. However, with some careful tweaking, Vista should be able to run just fine off an SSD. Lack of TRIM can be a problem, but as far as I know, many modern name-brand SSDs have pretty good self-maintenance and garbage collection, and so shouldn't be affected too badly. That being said, if you can boot into 8.1 periodically, you can let it TRIM the whole drive (either automatically or by using software that can allow one to trigger a TRIM manually). c
  13. Much better! I found another string that needs changed under "Use custom font size, however: Additionally, the "Use custom DPI" option doesn't seem to do anything? Isn't it supposed to show some sort of control for adjusting the DPI setting? Also, the font used on most buttons and dropdown boxes is some kind of serif font. Shouldn't the font be sans-serif so it's consistent with everything else? c

  • Create New...