cc333
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by cc333
-
-
MY main machine is an Early 2009 Mac Pro, firmware flashed to think it's a 2010 Mac Pro, and it runs the following OSes in addition to OS X, in order from bay 1 through bay 4:
HDD #1: Windows XP Professional 64-bit
HDD #2: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
HDD #3: Windows XP Professional 32-bit
HDD #4: Windows 8.1 Pro
c
0 -
All is right in the world once again! Yay!!!
I'm sorry about what you've been through, but the most important thing is that you survived it, and now you can get back to life.
And, of course, welcome back!
c
0 -
Went to Home Depot the other day, and I noticed they were using 10 on their check-out registers. What a *terrible* decision!!
I guess it makes that other, more insulting meaning for "POS" more relevant....
c
1 -
I found a reference that suggests build 4015 uses NTLDR. Over at BetaArchive I think.
Maybe that info will help you find what you're looking for?
c
0 -
I don't do Facebook, and that is unlikely to change.
Are there any other places I could use to test?
c
0 -
-
I just tried enabling this on my Latitude D630 running XP SP3 with POSReady updates, and everything looks good, except the test sites all say that H.264 is not supported (what?!)
Why? Is there something I missed? I followed the instructions....
c
0 -
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone has accomplished this. It is Ivy Bridge-based, so it's iffy, but it should be possible?
Anyway, when trying to boot from the setup CD, it freezes with a blue screen that states that the BIOS isn't ACPI-compatible, and to override and proceed without ACPI support.
Problem is, there doesn't seem to be such an option for XP x64. I could run the 32-bit version, but I'd be stuck with 4 GB of RAM (my MacBook has 16).
And why XP, you may ask. Why not 7 or 8.1? Well, I like XP! And it does 90% of what I want to do with a computer, so I'm happy with it.
Thoughts?
c
0 -
On February 13, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Tripredacus said:
"The Azure Screen of Indifference"
That's excellent!
Upon occasion, macOS X (yes, even Macs can crash!) will do something similar, where it will hang at a solid blue screen with nothing but a cursor in the top left corner. No amount of clicking and typing will do anything. Going off this, I think I'll call it "The Aqua Screen of Despair."
That has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
c
0 -
Interesting!
Is your patch available publicly?
c
0 -
On 5/28/2017 at 5:17 PM, dencorso said:
Shouldn't this thread be in the XP forum? What has it to do with 2k or 2k3?
I assume that since XP, 2k and 2k3 share a common codebase (NT 5.x), whatever applies to one, should apply to the others, and thus it doesn't really matter which forum it gets posted in, since it's equally relevant to everything NT 5-based.
That's my understanding, anyway.
c
0 -
I'm not sure I can reproduce it, but bookmarks simply wouldn't work.
I think it was with 2.8d.
c
0 -
On 5/2/2017 at 8:17 AM, antoniu200 said:
You should try putting it trough the AppComp.cmd file and run it like that. If that doesn't work, you should try and install an older version of Firefox (maybe 49).
Not sure about KernekEx, but using BWC's Extended Core, I can run the latest Firefox ESR on 2000 perfectly. At one point (with an older version of Extended Core), bookmarking didn't work, but that seems to have been fixed in the most recent update (I'll have to test more thoroughly, but the stock bookmarks do show up now, and they didn't before, sooo...)
c
0 -
7 hours ago, xpclient said:
Look what this IT security analyst found about Windows 10. It does not honor many privacy related settings: https://twitter.com/m8urnett/status/866353982217699328
Why am I not surprised?
Windows 10 is okay, if I disable virtually anything, but I like every other version better, particularly XP and 7. Even Windows 8 (not 8.1) is better! In stock form!!
When that happens, you KNOW something's wrong, because 8 was pretty bad. Out of fairness though, 8.0 did improve over time, eventually evolving into the much better 8.1, but still....
c
0 -
It's not XP, but K-Melon 76 Pro happens to work very well in Windows 2000 with Extended Core. I'm using it to type this post, in fact
c
0 -
No I mean I have the 32-bit version of "real" Firefox working. I could try the 64-bit version of "real" Firefox, but we'd probably run into the same problems as with Waterfox.
I could try compatibility mode, but since there's no entry for Windows Vista x64 (which is understandable, since XP x64 predates it by at least two years), I'm not sure it'd work.
c
0 -
This is good information! Perhaps I'll give this a try when I get some time.
Firefox is open source, yes? I wonder what would happen if somebody took the source code for the 64-bit version and compiled it with the XP compatibility flag set. Would it just work with few/no changes to the code, or explode spectacularly with a million errors?
c
0 -
On 3/23/2017 at 4:21 PM, JodyT said:
Unfortunately, even though x64 XP x64 compatibility is touted as a feature, it hasn't worked since v46.
An oversight you think?
If I unpack the installer for 32-bit Firefox and set the main executable to the "Windows XP" compatibility mode, it works quite well, so not all is lost.
It would be nice to have a natively working 64-bit version, though.
c
0 -
Too bad they didn't offer it to 2000
Well, I'm sure some enterprising person can find a way to backport the patch, since 2000 and XP share a common codebase (NT 5.x), and are relatively compatible with one another (case in point: the latest HFSLIP packages for 2000 incorporate many XP-specific updates which appear to slipstream successfully into 2000's install media, and said media seems to install a properly working 2000).
c
p.s. Is 9x, NT 3.xx or 4 affected by this?
2 -
I saw that just now. There was only one other time that Ms released an update for an EOL'ed OS, wasn't there?
Well, nevertheless, it makes me feel a bit better about XP x64!
And yes, the article did mention that the initial infection needed to be initiated by a person. I just forgot to mention it, as it was very late when I wrote that post.
EDIT: Note, however, that Vista was conspicuously not included in this post-EOL update.
Perhaps MS should reconsider "un-EOL"-ing these Windows versions for a time, given how they are apparently still being used in significant numbers.
c
0 -
Apparently XP was a major target, since the mainstream version (i.e., not updated with POSReady patches) is still vulnerable, and is still widely used within the affected organizations due primarily to severe budget cuts in their IT departments.
As a result, I think today it can be said that, once and for all, plain XP is definitely not safe. Not even good browsing habits or firewalls could stop this, apparently.
Of course, those of us who regularly apply POSReady updates to our XP systems are supposedly safe, since POSReady was patched for this particular vulnerability (those money-starved IT depts. would benefit greatly from this I think; it's technically not a supported configuration, and would thus create more headaches, but it's free compared to a complete upgrade).
EDIT: XP x64, however, was not patched. Since that is based on Server 2003, I wonder how trivial it would be to backport relevant updates from Server 2008 (it's NT6 vs. 2003's NT5, but maybe they're similar enough??). Of course, if it could be done, it probably would've been done by now, so it's probably impossible....
c
0 -
I just got one of these from my local JC's computer surplus, and with some TLC, it runs quite well.
I thought I'd try putting 98SE on it, because I'd read that it was possible. So, after downloading and installing the drivers, 98 installed easily.
There are still three unknowns in Device Manager, though: Universal Serial Bus Controller, PCI device, and PCI Network device. I can guess that the network device is the unrecognizable Intel WiFi card, and the PCI device is probably the modem, but what of the extra USB controller? USB seems to be doing OK, so maybe it has something to do with Bluetooth (there doesn't appear to be a Bluetooth card, but maybe that's the bus it would've used had it been installed?)
I'm content with it as is (98SE at 1.4 GHz!), but if I can fix these, I'll be happier
c
0 -
OK, I'm getting XP up and running on a Dell Latitude D600, but with a slow, single core P4 CPU, I'm afraid that updating via WU will take days of sitting at "Checking for updates...", instead of the hours it took for my comparatively much faster D630.
Any advice on how to prevent the stickage?
c
0 -
I have a Nehalem/Westmere-based 2009 Mac Pro (very old, I realize) with Windows 7 on it.
I shall boot it up sometime soon and check if it's affected by this new "feature".
Windows 8.x is also affected by this garbage, yes?
c
0
Post your Windows 7 Desktops!
in Windows Desktops Screenshots
Posted
Really? I never thought of that possibility!
Based on some basic Googling, it appears that I should begin by tweaking tray_icons_padding.
I haven't touched it for awhile, but with this new information, perhaps I'll revisit it and see if I can refine it some more.
The next step after this would be to get Windows Explorer windows (particularly the toolbars and address bar) to look more XP-like.
Thanks!
c