Jump to content

cc333

Bronze Sponsor
  • Content Count

    524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Donations

    $40.00 

cc333 last won the day on August 16 2020

cc333 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

130 Excellent

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.

  1. Unless, of course, you can track down a physical copy. c
  2. Better late than never, I suppose! Nevertheless, given all the renewed interest in Vista due to the new extended kernel project, this could be potentially useful for installing it on newer PCs wherein the stock Vista installer won't function correctly (there is of course no reason to use FAT32 on a boot volume anymore, but whatever). c
  3. @Jaguarek62 That's an *extremely* clever desktop! c
  4. Well, not really, I guess. I just like the layout and aesthetics better. c
  5. I found that Windows Update with the patch broke at one point (I'm not sure why, but it happened after I tried switching the patch from stock Vista to Server 2008, so that might've had something to do with it), and I had to remove the patch, reboot, reinstall the patch, and reboot again before I could get it to work again. So, maybe try that? c
  6. I wish someone could bring back the old toolbar-style interface from XP and older. This is something no one seems to have been able to do yet, but I'm sure it's possible. c
  7. I have been using my twice rebuilt P4 machine (2.8 GHz Northwood, 2 GB RAM, quad boot Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 7), off and on, for the past couple of summers while I packed the good stuff in a safe place (because I live in hot and dry California never know if/when our house, and everything contained therein, will be damaged or destroyed by a fire or earthquake). Browsing is remarkably pokey compared to a modern machine, but surprisingly, everything works more or less fine, just slower (not 5 minutes slow, more like a few seconds here and there, which do add up and
  8. Well, OK. I think I'm misremembering, and it did come with 1 GB, not 512 MB. Nevertheless, it *should've* been fast, but for some reason, it wasn't, and I never could figure out why. All I knew was that XP performed much better on it, so that's what I used. Maybe it was because it was SP0? c
  9. Hopefully this is relevant enough My experiences with Vista over the years have been mixed. My first experience was with an eMachines/Walmart special, with 512 MB of RAM and 3.0 GHz Pentium D, running Vista RTM (SP0); back in early 2007, these specs were considered modest, but decent enough for a budget machine (not woefully inadequate as they seem nowadays ) It was a pretty pokey Vista machine, and actually crashed quite often (including right out of the box the first time we'd ever used it, as I recall!). Once I downgraded it to XP, though, it was much better. My se
  10. @Dylan Cruz Interesting. I wonder if someone could do something similar with v49 (the last Chrome to run unmodified on XP)? c
  11. I dunno. I'm kind of neutral on this particular topic of file hosting sites. However, I will agree that there's lots wrong with the modern internet, particularly the (in my opinion) overemphasis on security. I can understand the need for good security for important things like online shopping, banking, and other such things. But why does every single website need to be forced to use protocols and cipher suites that only a few of the newest browsers (namely Chrome and its derivatives) support?! It's not like they're ALL dealing in sensitive info! For example, I don't see the point in
  12. I have installed the extended kernel on a Vista x64 VM last night, and I tried running the latest Firefox ESR (78.5), and I got the same error as @jns629 at first. Looking at @tamarindojuice's response, I decided to follow his advice to jns629 and patch firefox.exe. And it worked! However, I'm a little concerned that firefox.exe needs to be patched like this with every update, which can get annoying. So, with that in mind, is there a way I can automate the process somehow? I mean, it's of course not hard to do manually, but I'm nevertheless curious. c
  13. I haven't been super active here for awhile, but I have been following, and I must say that I'm impressed that Firefox 4x runs now! This would therefore allow roytam1's New Moon 27 (based on Palemoon 27, which I believe is in turn loosely based on Firefox 3x.x) and Nightly Firefox 45 with SSE1 support, both of which are actively maintained and much more up to date than any other browser KernelEx is capable of running. New Moon 28 (based on FF 52, I think) is probably a step too far, but it's a lot closer to being possible than it ever has before! c
  14. It may seem harsh, but upon reading the rules, it does actually seem to break rule #1.d: "warez" would seem to qualify as an illegally obtained, illegally hacked copy of Windows XP, and as such, would constitute usage in a manner that violates the license agreement. In other words, I understand where the mods/admins are coming from here. c
×
×
  • Create New...