cc333

Neat! I like all those movies from I through IIX (one through eight). Especially the music. c

I agree 10,000%! Macs are still relatively PC-like in terms of what they can do (but then again, the Mac UI has traditionally been somewhat more "dumbed down" than Windows, but things seem to have changed recently, in my opinion). What I don't like, is how it's now impossible to upgrade RAM on most Apple models, and that they seem to have become increasingly allergic to ports, but whatever. If I want a PC that does relatively PC-like things AND is relatively new AND money is no object, I like Macs. However, if I want a real PC that does PC-like things perfectly, and age is irrelevant and I'm on a tight budget, I'll stick with my D630 and Windows XP c

Is that scene from First Contact? If so, I just saw that last night on Laserdisc! c

Would it be completely unreasonable to believe that some of the work being put into getting XP somewhat up to par with 7 could be used, with relatively minor changes, on Vista? It seems reasonable to me, given how ignorant I am regarding how it gets done c

Hi, I didn't know I could donate (silly me!), so I went ahead and did so, and now I'm offered the opportunity to create a machine-specific key, presumably to disable the watermark (which is what the OP wanted). Thing is, whatever I type into the "Machine ID" field doesn't seem to take, and it won't generate a key. Why? c

Interesting that XP is holding relatively steady around 9-10%. It won't die! (Compared to 2000 -- at ~0.01%, it's essentially dead, which is a pity as it was a fairly good OS in its own right). Also interesting is that the increase in market share for 7 is almost exactly equal to the combined decreases of Windows 10 and 8.1 share. Coincidence? c

I can confirm that the option is greyed out in VMware Fusion 8.5 with OS X 10.9.5 host and PC-BSD guest. It does work with Windows with the same setup, though, so it should work regardless of host, at least for Windows guests. c

Indeed?! I'll have to give that a try. Such arbitrary crippling of programs is wrong. I'm not surprised, though. Apple has been doing this sort of thing, in one for or another, for DECADES now, so the precedence is set. c

Well, I'm certainly not upgrading my OS arbitrarily, especially when everything else works fine (including, I might add, my antivirus (Avast)). If/when the time comes, I'm sure someone will recompile Firefox and distribute a fork for XP (I'm hoping someone does this for OS X Snow Leopard 10.6, as that is probably my favorite modern OS X version, and is sort of like Apple's equivalent of XP). Given that there's still about ~8%-10% market share, it only makes sense. Fun Fact: My local community college's counseling office still uses XP on their check in computer I'm not seeing plain XP in the wild nearly as much as I used to, but it's still fairly common. c

Well, I don't know much about this, but I can say that the "iaStor.sys is corrupted" is likely due to the fact that said driver may be designed specifically for XP* (2k and XP are largely the same, but there are a few architectural differences). Beyond that, hopefully someone else who knows more than I about such things will chime in. *This isn't necessarily true always. I tried installing 2k on a newish laptop, using a driver that was clearly designed for 2k, and I still got that message. c

Well, Apple has been releasing new OS versions once a year for awhile now? They, at least, haven't gone out of their way to arbitrarily break random things like MS seems to be doing with W10 (they do have this nasty habit of arbitrarily dropping hardware support every few years, but that's a whole other can of worms). I think this rapid release nonsense is the new Order Of Things, unfortunately. c

I'm sure someone will release an FF fork that can run on XP (and maybe even 2000) without any fancy hacks. That being said, Waterfox still claims XP-64 support with a 64-bit executable, which Mozilla dropped some time ago (though the 32-bit release still works), so maybe they'll continue supporting XP-32 beyond Mozilla's XP EOL? Time will tell.... c

Wasn't this also available for Windows 2000? c

Huh. Interesting. Well, at least XP doesn't phone home constantly! And, XP in recent years, has become rather solid (albeit somewhat bloated and slow) relative to its RTM self, so it's not super outlandish to have such a thing actually work somewhat. c

Thanks! I'll take a look at that. c

Yeah, I noticed that Firefox x64 didn't support XP-64. Anyway one could get around that? Can the normal Firefox code be compiled for 64-bit? Or is it too different? IF not, 32-bit FF works okay. c

dencorso: Ha ha, of course! I thought we were on 49 or something. Can't keep track. Well, no news is good news, I suppose? c

I haven't heard anything about Mozilla dropping XP support any time soon. Is this still true? I know they dropped 2000 years ago, but with BWC's Extended Core and Extended Kernel, I can still run Firefox 48, which is reasonably modern (the latest development versions can work with a quick and dirty hack, but I don't want to bother with that until either a clean and simple method for applying it is found, or the Firefox source code responsible for the "bug" is fixed). c

So, would this thing work on Window 8.x and 7? I doubt it'd work on Vista, but maybe so? c

Is Avast supporting XP still? c

I can corroborate all this. It seemed to start this morning, and is very confusing. I haven't been affected by the "please wait for -xxxx seconds before posting" thing yet, but it sounds like it's only a matter of time (interesting pun!) before I do. I hope it gets fixed soon. c

Confirmed! I have Dropbox installed on Windows XP x64, and setting the compatibility to "Windows 2000" got it working perfectly! It seems like such an arbitrary block. That's the sort of stuff Apple does (for instance, the 2009 Mac Pro is not supported by the upcoming macOS Sierra, but the 2010 Mac Pro is. And guess what? The 2009 Mac Pro's hardware is identical to the 2010's!) I just realized that this could theoretically allow Dropbox to work on Windows 2000 itself. Couldn't it? Now I have to test it out.... c

Yes, it does. It's almost perfectly linear? c

Indeed! It's like Apple arbitrarily dropping support for perfectly fine machines. For example, my 2008 Mac Pro was dropped from the latest release, even though all hardware aside from the WiFi card is perfectly compatible. To add insult to injury, I bought a 2009 Mac Pro to replace it, and that isn't supported either. But, if I simply update the firmware to make it look like a 2010 Mac Pro, it's suddenly fully supported! The bloody hardware is identical!!! c

You know, that is a very good point. After reading those articles, I don't feel much like using it anymore (it reaffirms my distrust in "The Cloud"), and deleting the application from all my Macs. Maybe it being discontinued on XP is a blessing in disguise, then? Then again, perhaps it doesn't to that on Windows? If it hacks up OS X (which is generally thought to be relatively secure), then it's probably doing all kinds of nasty things behind the scenes on Windows as well. And I can indeed use a browser to upload/download stuff, and that's probably what I'll do going forward. So, at this point, this is no longer something I want to do for myself, but I will continue researching it, as it's educational, and it may help out anyone else who might be stuck on XP, by necessity or by choice, and requires the application for whatever reason. c