Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Donations

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by cc333

  1. 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
  2. @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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. I'm trying it, and all I get is "Interface not supported", whatever that means.... c
  6. This is all I get whenever I try running Windows Update on my Dell Latitude D630 running a fully updated XP Pro SP3: c
  7. I guess this? The MPL defines Source Code Form as follows: 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
  8. Confirmed! Well, it will be permanently offline eventually, but when that will happen is anyone's guess... 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
  9. Agreed. As you say, at least there's still the catalog! For now, anyway.... c
  10. Is it possible that this could be a temporary outage? It's happened before, so maybe? c
  11. 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. 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 ) c
  14. 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. 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
  18. @flyod Have you tried disabling hardware acceleration within the browser? The setting for it is in the advanced tab. c
  19. That's too bad, for I've seen examples of when Matt Tobin actually can be decent (the thread about finding permanent names for roytam1's browsers, for example). I think it's just that, for whatever reason, he seems to get impatient very easily and apparently has a bit of a temper. Even so, Seamonkey's email client is integrated within the browser suite, and it is nice to have it as a standalone program à la Thunderbird for those who don't want the whole SM suite just for the email client, so we can give him credit for that, if nothing else. Anyway, my main OS is macOS 10.13 from 2017 right now, and Polymer 2 is in no danger of being unsupported there. However, I do still dabble with NT5.x (and do occasionally use it as my primary OS, depending on need), so it'd be nice to have a browser there which supports it and isn't sponsored by either Google or the Chinese government (I don't trust Chrome or its China-based derivatives to respect any privacy settings whatever, at least not without extraordinary means; other Chromium-derived browsers (such as modern Opera) are probably OK, but none of those run on NT5 to my knowledge, so....). I dunno, maybe I'll give one of the Chinese chromiums a try, for they might not be as bad as I'm fearing they are w/re privacy (or maybe it's more easily manageable via HOSTS or other such tweaks than I'm thinking?). So to that end, which ones of the lot are most current and recommended? c
  20. Thought so! I like to know what I'm using, how it works and why, so I'm glad I figured it out successfully in this case! Anyway, back to the topic at hand (sorta), I use Transmission on Mac all the time, as it is the only BT client I've used (for Mac, anyway) whose UI is sensible and easy to use. i knew it also supported Linux, but until today, I didn't know (or had forgotten) that there was a Windows port that ran on XP/Vista! c
  21. @dencorso Agreed. Just because the latest release is no longer compatible with XP, doesn't mean that the last release that is won't suddenly stop working (we've seen some rather unscrupulous examples of that elsewhere over the 6 or so years since XP's "official" EoS). My understanding is that, while Bittorrent has added new features to its protocols over the years since it was introduced, the basic architecture is more or less the same, and virtually all clients, new and old, can still connect to it just fine, just without the advanced features of newer versions. Unless I'm missing something? With all the paranoia surrounding the coronavirus lately, this is actually becoming a real life phenomena, something I never thought would happen! (I kid you not, I recently came across a headline (from a reputable source) that stated that some people are *wearing hazmat suits on airplanes* because of the extreme fear of acquiring the virus!) While i won't be stupid and go put myself in a situation where I'd be infected, I'm not going to live in that kind of fear. Same applies to old Windows and software. While I will use newer, safer software when appropriate (online shopping, banking transactions, etc.), I'm not going to stop using XP, Vista or 7 (or any software thence developed) simply because MS isn't releasing patches for them anymore! Enough said. c
  22. No, I haven't. Perhaps I should? c
  23. Apologies for my somewhat rambling post! I remember the year 2004. Life seemed easier back then XP was the latest and greatest, and SP2 had just been released. And if you didn't like XP, you could simply use Win9x or NT/2000 instead, all of which were fully supported by all the mainstream browsers of the day (and pretty much all but the oldest browsers still more or less worked fine on most of the Internet). You could even browse competently on Win3.x if you wanted to!! and the best part is that security was still considered optional for most things, so browsing around didn't require a ton of computer resources for all the fancy encryption algorithms that exist nowadays. And most websites were still relatively simple HTML+CSS, which helped even more. It's a far cry from now, where only the latest or second latest browser is supported, most sites are actively blocking anything older, and maximum security everything is mandatory. In this respect, computing simply isn't that much fun anymore. Anyway, back on topic: with everything hacked as much as I can to make it behave somewhat like 8.x or 7, combined with a few choice addons (7+TaskbarTweaker, ClassicShell, AeroGlass), Win10 1809 is finally acceptable. Not great, but acceptable. Maybe once it's finally released, I'll download 2004 and check it out to see if it has regressed any. I suspect that maybe it has, because MS invariably does stuff that breaks some or all of the tools that make life with 10 tolerable. Whether this is by design, or, more likely, simply an unintended consequence of various security/usability/stability fixes, I do not know, but it's definitely frustrating. My feeling is that, despite all the.. how shall I put it.. boneheaded design and policy decisions MS has made over the past decade or so, I don't believe they're an evil entity whose sole purpose is to abuse and torment its customers (though it does seem like it for the most part), but rather just simply trying to do what they think people (primarily their investors) want them to do. It's unfortunate that they seem to be out of touch with the vast majority of their user base, but that's the way it is, and there's not a whole lot that we can do about it aside form what we are doing (hacking up current versions of their products to make them more reasonable and/or hacking up older versions to run modern software they otherwise can't run, and to connect to modern services they otherwise can't connect to). c
  24. I think I have tried that, but it can't be set as the default shell and provide a taskbar and desktop, can it? I know of that forum. The work they've done there is remarkable, but the tools they've developed so far definitely still aren't reliable enough for day-to-day usage. I've never minded XP's icons, though I do like the simpler look of 98 and 2000's icons quite a bit better. It also amazes me that many of those icons are still embedded within the latest versions of 10, though they don't seem to be exposed in the UI as much, having been partially replaced with more updated equivalents (the "This PC", AKA "Computer", AKA "My Computer icon", for instance; The windows 98 version of this is my favorite.) c

  • Create New...