Jump to content

cc333

Member
  • Posts

    591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by cc333

  1. Did you try re-registering all the Installer dlls and such, or maybe reinstalling 4.5 altogether?? It seems to me that 4.5 usually supersedes 3.1, and anything that expects 3.1 should work just fine with 4.5, so maybe there's some subtle corruption going on somewhere.... Unless you can confirm it works 100% with anything other than the updates you're attempting to run? c
  2. I don't know how many computers I have now, however, at last count I think I had roughly 100 This is primarily Macs of various shapes, sizes and ages, but there's a fair number of PCs as well. c
  3. I came of age in the late 90s! However, I remember virtually nothing of it, except at the very tail end (I do clearly remember when Windows 98 was the latest and greatest, though ). Unfortunately and somewhat tragically, most of my "recent" memories actually begin around the time of 9/11/01. With big crashes and bangs, no less (I will never forget that sad, sad day). @VistaEX You're lucky you missed out on that one! Anyway, as far as music goes, I was raised on oldies and 60s-style folk (that's what my mother played on the radio all the time back then), so I don't know much about anything past the early 80s. I sampled then-modern country and pop for awhile in 98-99, but decided I didn't like it and went back to oldies (yes, I know....). I have revisited pop every now and then since, and every time I listen, I can't switch it off soon enough because I'll find that it has gotten at least 1,000% worse since the last check in. Sometimes I feel like I belong in the past.... c
  4. Mac OS because not only does all the software I like to use (Adobe, Avid/Digidesign) work better on it, but also the fact that my main computer at the moment happens to be a MacBook Pro. c
  5. It did go up slightly, from .25% to .27%, since January 2021? Probably well within any error margin, though. c
  6. It seems to me that the last Windows that was truly free of this stuff (in it's original, RTM form, not after subsequent updates) was Windows 95 and NT 3.51/4.0. The "webification" movement, which began with Windows 98 (really, 95 OSR 2.5, aka 95 C) is probably where this all started. To that point, in my opinion, the "telemetry" (or whatever one wants to call it) is relatively benign in Windows versions before 7, so I don't really feel too concerned by it. And besides, with the TLS 1.0/1.1 apocalypse, most such services in XP/Vista probably don't even work anymore anyway (and the few that still do can be disabled fairly easily for the most part). In my opinion, therefore, the main reason to block them all is primarily to increase efficiency and decrease wasteful use of system resources (which tend to be more scarce on most XP-era hardware) and internet bandwidth, not to protect privacy per se (quite frankly, staying away from Google, Facebook and Amazon (basically, staying off the Internet altogether, if possible) will do more to protect one's privacy than blocking XP's telemetry services). c
  7. Lots to catch up on here! Firstly, I don't know what was up with Dixel's, um, fervent fixation on the intertwining of KGB-type things in almost every aspect of the modern Internet, but I'm glad it's over. For now, anyway; it was getting pretty close to violating the no-politics rules, I think. I wasn't really following any of it, so I can't say for sure. Secondly, I'm really glad these browsers are still being released regularly, despite repeated attempts by MAT, et. al. to thwart @roytam1's efforts via FUD and other underhanded methods. It's my go-to browser for XP, 2000 (with the Extended Core), and, before win32's marvelous Extended Kernel project came into being, Vista. It would be nice to eventually see it cleaned up a bit, maybe like have a milestone release every 4-6 weeks like Mozilla (or, better yet, proper branding!) Of course, things as they are are perfectly fine for most of the few people left using XP (most of whom are likely to be power users who know their way around this stuff), but I've observed that the frequent release of many different developmental versions can be pretty confusing for those who simply want a browser that works, as they can't decide which one they want, nor do they fully understand how to "install" them. This has been discussed at length off-and-on, so I'm not saying anything new, I don't think. Be that as it may, I'm simply glad this project exists! Keep up the good work! c
  8. @Dave-H Well, Vista is mentioned parenthetically in the thread title, so it oughtn't be completely off topic, yes? That being said, a separate, Vista-specific thread would be much more appropriate, as too much of it here tends to distract from all the XP-specific information, thereby causing confusion. c
  9. @Dave-H Interesting problem. When you do a manual update check/install, are you able to use the traditional IE-based WU interface to do it, or must you use another software's UI, such as Windows Update MiniTool or some such, to accomplish the task? c
  10. I tried to set up WSUS on a Server 2008 R2 VM, and all I keep getting is this: Anyone know why? Windows is fully updated, minus .NET Framework 4.x, as I'd read that it can cause WSUS to fail to install. c
  11. So, this WSUS update system can be set up, perhaps as a VM on a server or other primary system, properly connect to and download updates from the WU servers, and then "feed" those updates to any appropriately configured 2000, XP and Vista machines? I'll have to give it a try! Is it free? c
  12. Has anyone tried running Vista's explorer.exe in 7? That might reintroduce the classic start menu in a way that could work somewhat natively on 7 (not third-party, like ClassicShell). c
  13. I have to agree with this! A few years ago, I needed to install Visual Studio for a class I was taking, and since my daily driver laptop was (and still is) a 2012 MacBook Pro (Ivy Bridge i7-based), I figured I'd install it to a VM for convenience. Well, that was a mistake, as it took over three hours to install, and it was so slow it was worthless. So instead, I used an older version of Visual Studio on my Dell Latitude D630 running Windows 2000 or XP (or maybe it was Notepad++ with a standalone compiler?); the instructor kept looking at me funny for doing this, as he was a big fan of Windows 10, and was of the mindset that all other versions must be immediately and completely forgotten, so almost to spite him (and prove that just because it's old doesn't mean it won't work), I kept using my then 12 year old laptop with a then 17 year old OS I mean, if it does the job and lets me do the assignments properly, what's the problem? I'll probably never use XP as my daily driver OS full time, since there's software I like to use which requires at least Windows 7, but that doesn't mean I won't use it for casual web browsing and other things that don't require new software, particularly on hardware which can't run any newer Windows versions very well. c
  14. If I may play devil's advocate for a moment: out of fairness to Windows 10, it has gotten a bit better than the RTM release. And I'd also like to point out that XP wasn't always the "gleaming pinnacle of perfection" that many see it as nowadays; In fact, back in 2003-2004, I recall it was actively despised, and often criticized as being slower than the versions it replaced, namely 2000 and 98 SE (which was still pretty much 100% usable back then). It did improve with time, however, and once SP2 came out and multi core PCs became more commonplace, XP matured quite nicely. It would be nice if 10 would follow the same progression and actually become a mature, decent product, but so far, it hasn't.... Be that as it may, even after almost six years, I still don't like 10, and I won't use it (I actually did try for awhile, but it broke on me, and rather than going through the effort to reinstall, I decided to wipe it and install Linux in its place). Fortunately, because my primary is Mac OS, I don't really have a need for everything to work 100% on any older Windows, thus having the luxury to tinker with and hack up any Windows of my choosing ad infinitum . c
  15. I use Vista in a VM, so the host hardware doesn't matter so much (it runs fine on my i5-6700K this way). If I want to use it on real hardware, I have a 2.8 GHz P4 and a Dell Latitude D630 I can install it on, as well as numerous other machines. If there were an easy way to patch it so it runs trouble-free on newer hardware, that would be neat, if only so I can do it "because I can". c
  16. Unless, of course, you can track down a physical copy. c
  17. Better late than never, I suppose! Nevertheless, given all the renewed interest in Vista due to the new extended kernel project, this could be potentially useful for installing it on newer PCs wherein the stock Vista installer won't function correctly (there is of course no reason to use FAT32 on a boot volume anymore, but whatever). c
  18. @Jaguarek62 That's an *extremely* clever desktop! c
  19. Well, not really, I guess. I just like the layout and aesthetics better. c
  20. I found that Windows Update with the patch broke at one point (I'm not sure why, but it happened after I tried switching the patch from stock Vista to Server 2008, so that might've had something to do with it), and I had to remove the patch, reboot, reinstall the patch, and reboot again before I could get it to work again. So, maybe try that? c
  21. I wish someone could bring back the old toolbar-style interface from XP and older. This is something no one seems to have been able to do yet, but I'm sure it's possible. c
  22. I have been using my twice rebuilt P4 machine (2.8 GHz Northwood, 2 GB RAM, quad boot Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 7), off and on, for the past couple of summers while I packed the good stuff in a safe place (because I live in hot and dry California never know if/when our house, and everything contained therein, will be damaged or destroyed by a fire or earthquake). Browsing is remarkably pokey compared to a modern machine, but surprisingly, everything works more or less fine, just slower (not 5 minutes slow, more like a few seconds here and there, which do add up and require some patience, but not so much that it becomes unbearable). Aside from that, it's as fast (slow?) as it has ever been, and as long as I use period-appropriate software on it (basically, anything up to about 2008 or so), it can do pretty much anything I want (about the only thing it can't do well is Youtube, but I don't care because I usually use it mostly for streaming music, thus making video quality more or less irrelevant). I have a PC with one of these in it that I recently rebuilt, and it runs XP really well (much better than my P4). It's good to know that I can run 8.1+ on it if I *really* wanted to (I don't), but I want to keep it as is because it works. c
  23. Well, OK. I think I'm misremembering, and it did come with 1 GB, not 512 MB. Nevertheless, it *should've* been fast, but for some reason, it wasn't, and I never could figure out why. All I knew was that XP performed much better on it, so that's what I used. Maybe it was because it was SP0? c


×
×
  • Create New...