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

    496
  • Donations

    $40.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by cc333


  1. 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


  2. On 8/17/2020 at 5:32 PM, win32 said:

    And now, in the U.S., most commercials for services promote them as mobile-only (we're on Google Play and the Apple Honourable Supreme Ruler Tim Cook App Store, but if you just have a PC, get lost). Even those where proper URLs are given, they are often typed in on smartphones. Sometimes laptops. Desktop computers are no longer acknowledged in North American marketing, even for computers themselves.

    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 :crazy:

    c

    • Like 2

  3. 1 hour ago, ED_Sln said:

    Which version of WUMT? Works on XP 20.12.2016, 07.01.2020 works only on W10.

    20.12.2016.

    1 hour ago, ED_Sln said:

    Edit: I checked it in VMWare and on real hardware, it works both there and there. Applied registry tweak to enable POSReady, works well too.

    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 :zzz::no:

    c


  4. 29 minutes ago, ED_Sln said:

    I tested it on XP RUS SP3 Pro VL.

    You need to install Windows Update Agent 7.6.7600.256.

    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


  5. 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


  6. @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

    • Like 2

  7. 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


  8. 8 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

    You're trying to use the later version, which only runs on Windows 10 apparently!
    See earlier posts.
    :)

    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


  9. I guess this?

    49 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:

    BTW Have I mentioned you are in direct violation of the Mozilla Public License 2.0?

    Specifically, Section 3.2 which states:

    Quote

    3.2 If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then:

      a. such Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no more than the cost of distribution to the recipient; and

    The MPL defines Source Code Form as follows:

    Quote

    1.13. “Source Code Form”

      means the form of the work preferred for making modifications.

    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


  10. 7 hours ago, IntMD said:

    It seems to be up once again

    Confirmed!

     

    7 hours ago, IntMD said:

    but for how long though?

    Well, it will be permanently offline eventually, but when that will happen is anyone's guess...

     

    7 hours ago, IntMD said:

    Might be the best moment to reverse engineer this s*** while it's still alive, and mirror updates that haven't been archived yet in any form.

    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


  11. On 8/2/2020 at 3:25 PM, Dave-H said:

    The late great Rudolph Loew produced a "TRIM" program which works in DOS!

    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


  12. I find it somewhat odd that no one has yet made a generic TRIM support package which is XP compatible and works with all SSDs.

    Surely the protocols are standardized enough for this to be theoretically possible?

    Unfortunately, I don't presently have the knowledge to make such a thing happen, but someone around here must?

    c


  13. On 7/24/2020 at 7:07 PM, roytam1 said:

    New build of Serpent/UXP for XP!

    Test binary:

    ...

    IA32 Win32 https://o.rths.ml/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.6.win32-git-20200725-4d76d4e-uxp-1e0bb1d35-xpmod-ia32.7z

    source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/ia32

    Does "IA32 Win32" mean it will run on non-SSE2 CPUs?

    By the way, which one of these represents the Serpent 55.x branch?  The logic w/re how versioning works here is escaping me somewhat at the moment (not enough sleep :zzz:)

    c


  14. 7 hours ago, loblo said:

    I think Burp allocates a max of a little less than 100kB/s bandwith per connection.

    Huh, interesting.  In that case, is there a setting somewhere which can change that allocation?  Or maybe some lines in the source code (if available)?

    My home connection gets at best ~350kB/s anyway, so it's not likely to hurt me much, but it would nevertheless be nice to know if it can be somehow changed.

    c


  15. 32 minutes ago, schwups said:

    The connection via Burp reaches a little less than 100 KByte, here. The pages are loading perceptible slower.

    To alleviate this problem somewhat, it is possible for Burp to be run on another PC which is configured as a proxy server to the Win98 PC?

    I ask because it's possible that the slowness is due to the Win98 networking stack's inherent architectural inefficiencies, which are being exacerbated by running Burp via Java 8 on KernelEx.

    c


  16. It often amazes me how easily some of you find such hard to find files!

    These ones, of course, aren't obscure by any means, but they have nevertheless been rendered quite hard to find since Intel apparently took them offline, and most of the "driver-finder" sites link back to Intel's copy of the files it seems. *sigh*...

    A few weeks ago, I tried to find Windows XP Intel Management Engine drivers for a laptop of mine (Dell Latitude D630C), and couldn't (most everything was for 7 and up).  Ended up not mattering though,a s I simply turned the ME off, and the missing devices disappeared :)

    OK, enough thread hijacking.  Carry on!

    c


  17. I've tried 7-Zip 19.xx, and it seems to generally work OK (GUI, extracting and compressing).  The GUI is a bit weird in that most strings in some dialogs are cut off, but the buttons seem to work. 

    This is with KernelEx 4.5.2 and all recent updates on Win98 SE. 

    c

×
×
  • Create New...