Jump to content

cc333

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    605

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Everything posted by cc333

  1. cc333
    That doesn't seem too good. Is there a known defense against it that one can apply? c
  2. cc333
    So I've read. I haven't been posting much lately, so I missed out on most of it. How much? Excellent! Where can I get it? Is it free, or paid? I'm curious, much effort, it seems, has been put into getting 98 installed on a modern AMD-based machine, but what about a somewhat older Sandy Bridge PC? I'd imagine it's more possible than with a PC with an AM4-based CPU (or whatever they're called nowadays), but still anything but straightforward (at least there's full support for XP, and probably 2000 ). c
  3. cc333
    I have no idea. Be that as it may, I just bought a Dell Precision M6800 (Haswell based, so could conceivably run XP minimally with some hacks), and it is coming with Windows 7. I could go with 10, but, eh... 7 is enough for me, and it still has 2 years yet before EOL (and people will probably devise ways of extending it and keeping it relatively up to date, as done with XP). I won't touch 10 with a 10 foot pole (pun intended ), unless it's quarantined within a VM. c
  4. cc333
    Not to disappoint, but Apple builds most of their stuff in China too. Some of their higher end stuff gets built in other places, but the vast majority of their low to mid range products come from factories in China. And a 7 year old iMac being more current than a modern PC? a 2010 iMac would still be using a Core 2 Duo CPU, maybe a first gen i5 or i7, and, on paper, is significantly less advanced than many newer PCs (and Macs). That being said, My 10 year old MacBook (bought new) ran XP better than most laptops did at the time, and the fact that it can still run Windows 10 decently is quite nice. Also, for the most part, if you can get all the drivers to install, Windows under Boot Camp should perform just fine, and power consumption shouldn't be much different than OS X's (that being said, I have noticed that the CPU under Windows tends to run a bit hotter). c
  5. cc333
    That's good! c
  6. cc333
    Not sure about ATMFD.DLL, but the rest would seem to be related to the NT kernel. I'm checking to see if this patch will be released for XP 64-bit. The last time there was a major bug like this, they did release an emergency patch, so it stands to reason they may do the same in this case. c
  7. cc333
    This could be useful for running XP on newer hardware where no XP-native drivers don't exist (newer Kaby Lake or whatever, for instance). Any chance something like this could be made for XP 64-bit? c
  8. cc333
    Yes, I've been following that, as Macs are 100% affected as well as virtually *all* PCs (I use mainly Macs for day-to-day stuff). What a *great* way to start the new year, with a computer apocalypse!! Be that as it may, POS 2009 will likely see a fix for this, but since it's so big, will it work on plain XP? On the other hand, since it requires an almost complete rewrite of the kernel's address space handling, maybe MS will decide to EOL POS 2009 two years early? c
  9. cc333
    It's not really a huge problem, as everything seems to work fine otherwise, but if anyone knows of a way to fix the problem, that would be most excellent. Thanks! c
  10. cc333
    Sorry to dig up an old thread, but it's mine, so... I already have XP x64 running on my 2009 Mac Pro (it runs quite well for the most part, except I keep getting random BSoDs related to disk.sys), so it must be possible. Meanwhile, I gave up trying to get XP x64 to run on my MacBook Pro directly, so I compromised and put in a VM instead. It's not 100% perfect (there's some heavy software I can't run), but it works well enough. However, I would still like to get it working, if only to say I can. c
  11. cc333
    I think I remember seeing a few instances of XP in the wild lately, but I can't remember exactly where :/ Nevertheless, as 16 year-old operating systems go, it's far from extinct, a fact proven by our numerous recently reported sightings. on a somewhat related note, I remember seeing Windows 2000 Advanced Server in the wild once, about 10 years ago. it was still being supported then, but even so, actually finding it was quite rare even then, since the vast majority of people had already long since switched to XP. Except me, of course (from 2004-2006, I ran either XP, 2000 or 98 as my main OS, depending on what computer I was using (I had an old eMachines at one point, and with a 466 MHz Celeron, 256 MB of RAM and an 8 GB hard drive, XP was not fun; 2000 ran okay, but it was clearly meant for 98 first and foremost). c
  12. cc333
    @mnogo999 That basically describes Netscape 3/4, but with modern rendering capabilities and security updates/fixes. Something like that would be really nice to have for Win9x as well. c
  13. cc333
    @Dibya That's the original Pentium and/or PII, right? XP can run on those, but I'd imagine it would be miserably slow on such a system in stock form. On the other hand, if you nLited it down to the bare minimum needed for things like networking to work, it might be tolerable. c
  14. cc333
    Well, one should probably use a more modern computer for those things anyway, for security purposes if nothing else (possible exception: logging into forums about old software, such as this one). What these proxies do is allow one to browse things, read news sites and perhaps search for things on Google. I don't think that's too gimmicky. c
  15. cc333
    @hotnuma It would make pages slower to load probably, but once loaded, the pages should be lighter and more responsive. @Destro Retrozilla is sort of meant to fulfill the role of a modern-ish browser for 9x. However, it seems that, save for minor updates to security ciphers and rendering, it's only about as good as Firefox 2.x or 3.x at best. At least for now. It's probably a longshot, but it might be worth trying to get Pale Moon to compile and run on 9x. This is most likely impossible, even with KernelEx, but some features and improvements could be backported to Retrozilla? c
  16. cc333
    That would be me I'll have to check it out! Thanks!! c
  17. cc333
    I guess maybe because Win2k is to NT4 as Win98 is to Win95? And as such, I suppose there are people who prefer the lighter UI of 95/NT over the "webby" one in 98/ME/2k. With some work, the UIs of 98, 2k and XP can be tweaked such that they're close approximations of the 95 UI, so you can have the UI, and still enjoy the benefits of running a more modern OS. c
  18. cc333
    iCloud.com doesn't work with the official PM build on Win 7x64 either, so it's a bug in the official source. However, when people asked about it on the forum over there, the answer was basically "live with it," so I kinda got turned me off to filing a bug report there. Hence my question here. I thought maybe you could take a look at the problem for your next build, and maybe implement some sort of fix. c
  19. cc333
    Is it possible that iCloud.com could be made to work? c
  20. cc333
    Well, if the best we can do is get 3.6 running, that's really a good place to start, because it's current up to March 2012, and one can backport security and rendering fixes from newer versions to bring it into 2017. I don't know how trivial it would be, but it should be possible? Even standard 3.6 is still relatively functional as is, so it shouldn't need much work once it's working decently on NT 3.x and 9x/ME. Nevertheless, this is a fantastic project! Keep it up!! c
  21. cc333
    I, too prefer the classic UI. Everything nowadays looks like Chrome, and I don't particularly like Chrome's UI. Firefox up to 57 is OK too, with Classic Theme Restorer, but I really liked the UI in Firefox 28 and below (which Pale Moon, and by extension, New Moon, inherited, by virtue of having been forked from that version). c
  22. cc333
    It's about time I have the obligatory Windows 10 VM, but I'd rather run Windows 3.1 than put up with that data mining spyware masquerading as an OS. Much of it *can* be fixed, but then what? It's basically a slightly improved Windows 7 with a half-broken UI. Might as well just run 7, then. It does pretty much all the same things, but with much less work to get it to behave properly (it's actually pretty good out of the box, but with a couple minor additions (7+ Taskbar Tweaker, Classic Start Menu), it's perfect). c
  23. cc333
    XP already has LBA48 support? Like, since SP1! c
  24. cc333
    Excellent! Add the Netscape 4-like theme and it'll fit right in! Is it faster and less clunky than modern Firefox on 2000? FF on 2k works okay for me, but it's slow and somewhat quirky (for example, bookmarking doesn't work). On the other hand, I've found recent versions of FF to be slow and somewhat quirky on modern, supposedly supported platforms as well, so maybe it doesn't matter anymore? c
  25. cc333
    @roytam1 Could the problem with it not displaying fonts have something to do with your locale? What happens if you use American English NT 4? Perhaps I can set it up in a VM and try it out myself.... Also, has anyone tried compiling Pale Moon XP (the new experimental backport of Pale Moon 27) on NT 4? c
×
×
  • Create New...