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. 


cc333

Bronze Sponsor
  • Content Count

    504
  • Donations

    $40.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by cc333

  1. @win32 I agree, that this is probably going to be the safest (most legal) way to go about adding SHA2 support to XP. I look forward to seeing some progress on this! c
  2. Not to mention the plethora of legal problems involved.... c
  3. @roytam1 Maybe now is a good time to start thinking seriously about branching off completely and establishing your own fork, independent of the Pale Moon developers, and thus largely immune from their meddling? Of course, such would possibly be nontrivial, and someone would still need to maintain it. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a developer! c
  4. I agree with @max-h, in that whether it is installed in a VM or on real hardware, the only "real" difference between the two is in the drivers (or Guest Additions on a VM). In other words, as far as XP is concerned, the hardware, real or otherwise, doesn't matter too much, so long as compatible drivers are available. c
  5. I got the yellow shield this morning! (9:37 AM Pacific) I feel like I should get Vista installed somewhere so I can update it. c
  6. When I tried to run WU on my Latitude D630 earlier tonight, I got a BSoD :/ Probably just a coincidence c
  7. Doesn't this violate forum rules? Probably a case of "get it while you can". I'm certain this won't be online for long. c
  8. It'd be lovely if someone could eventually accomplish the same thing for XP (at minimum at least XP 64-bit, since it is vaguely similar to Vista RTM/SP0, and thus probably somewhat more fixable using modified Vista methods than 32-bit XP, which is a rather different beast). Or even better, reverse engineer and implement a 100% compatible clone of the server-side WU/MU v6 engine so it can work indefinitely, which would be much better, because even if SHA-2 support were to be somehow retrofitted into XP (for instance), the relevant XP-related updates will eventually be removed anyway, therefore rendering such support mostly moot. Having a clone of the server-side back end running locally can host a user-defined archive of updates locally (or optionally, some online archive of select official and maybe even unofficial updates) that will always be preserved in some form. c
  9. I like that they're still explicitly supporting XP, and it isn't an afterthought. c
  10. I wonder if someone can hack the WU client and add some sort of SHA-2 support? This presumes that the updates are still extant on the WU servers, of course (they should be, as it stands to reason that the update catalog draws from the same source, which still includes updates dating back to Windows 2000 (I just checked, and they're still there as of now; how long it'll remain this way is anyone's guess)). Also, I know it's not 100% relevant here, but why does WU on Vista break when one updates it with the SHA-2 support from Windows Server 2008? I realize it increments the build number form 6002 to 6003, and that is somehow responsible for the breakage, but can't that be worked around to allow WU to work? Or am I misunderstanding something? c
  11. I have to agree with this. WAY too much emphasis on smartphones nowadays! This has been a growing trend since at least 2013, it's really gotten out of hand in the past three or so years (particularly the emphasis on social media such as Facebook and Twitter; the more people flock to those platforms, the more inclined I am to stay away from them). I'm beginning to feel like the world as we knew it before the mega-corporate info snatchers came along (Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, to name a few) is forever ruined. This, of course, probably isn't true. I'm just being cynical. Be that as it may, there are many modern commercials I don't like. Go back about 20 years though, and they start getting better (the farther back you go, the better they get in general, although every era has its fair share of flops). I remember not liking many of them much then, but after being bombarded by the junk that has come along in the 20 years since, I've warmed up to them considerably c
  12. 20.12.2016. OK, so that's not the problem. That's good! Perhaps I should re-download wsusscn2.cab? Maybe the certificate somehow got stripped out altogether? Anyway, I'll look into it tomorrow. It's late here in shake 'n bake California c
  13. Hmm, I thought I had? I guess it won't hurt to reinstall.... I'll give it a try and see what happens. EDIT: I reinstalled WU Agent 7.6.7600.256, and no change. WUMT is throwing the same error. EDIT #2: I'm not sure if this matters, but this is Win XP Pro x86 installed on a VMware Fusion VM on my macOS machine. EDIT #3: And it has the POS Ready 2009 patch applied. c
  14. Does anyone have a link to the latest working version of wsusscn2.cab? I have a copy I downloaded, but I don't know if it is valid, as I can't seem to get it to work on XP 32-bit (WUMT shows error 0x800B0100: No signature was present in the subject; don't know if this is related to the lack of sha1 certificate). I did get this same wsusscn2.cab to work on XP x64, for what it's worth. c
  15. @dencorso Make that two, for I use Windows and MacOS interchangeably all the time You just never hear about it from me, because FAT32 is enough for most of my file copying needs, and read-only NTFS is adequate for the rest. Plus, there exists a read-only HFS+ driver for Windows XP and up which can help too, and one doesn't need to be running Windows on a Mac to enjoy it, for all you need to do is install two .sys files (four if installing on x64) plus a few registry entries to enable it on any PC running a supported Windows version. Link c
  16. I may've asked this before, but can someone help me get Pot Player working? I've tried on 32-bit XP and 64-bit XP, and in both cases, it complains that some DLL has been modified, and it won't start. My impression is that, at least on 32-bit, it should "just work." Is that correct? c
  17. I thought I had downloaded that version, but apparently I didn't; I accidentally re-downloaded the Win10-only version :/ So, I went back and got the proper version this time, and it's at least starting now! So, now let's see if it'll see updates properly.... c
  18. I'm trying it, and all I get is "Interface not supported", whatever that means.... c
  19. This is all I get whenever I try running Windows Update on my Dell Latitude D630 running a fully updated XP Pro SP3: c
  20. I guess this? The MPL defines Source Code Form as follows: Your patch files are not sufficient. You MUST provide the full source code with your modifications. All software created with covered code I have worked on is currently in breach of the license. Seems like this was declared rather suddenly? I mean, if @roytam1 was in violation of these clauses since the start of his "New Moon for XP" project at least 2 years ago, why wait until now to say so? c
  21. Confirmed! Well, it will be permanently offline eventually, but when that will happen is anyone's guess... Agreed. I know there has been an attempt at reverse engineering WU v4 for use with Windows 9x and ME, but I don't think it has gotten far. Fortunately, though, in anticipation, many updates have already been archived in various languages, so not all is lost, but it would definitely be a shame if updates for some of the less common languages get lost to time. c
  22. Agreed. As you say, at least there's still the catalog! For now, anyway.... c
  23. Is it possible that this could be a temporary outage? It's happened before, so maybe? c
  24. Well there you go! If he can do that, why can't someone write a similar tool which runs within Windows NT (instead of DOS) and operates on NTFS? The basic operating principles can't be too much different, can they? In other words, TRIM is TRIM, regardless of OS or filesystem, because it's an intrinsic function of the drive itself. c
×
×
  • Create New...