Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Vistapocalypse last won the day on August 20

Vistapocalypse had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

195 Excellent


About Vistapocalypse

  • Rank
    this ship is sinking

Profile Information

  • OS
    Vista Home Premium x86
  • Country


  • Country Flag

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Welcome to MSFN. As mentioned, you have posted in the Vista section rather than the Windows 10 section. It is odd that you are getting the same error code as Vista and XP, and I haven’t seen any similar reports involving Windows 10. This Microsoft link purports to explain why Vista and XP get that error code, but states that Windows 8 and later are “not affected”: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4569557/windows-update-sha-1-based-endpoints-discontinued
  2. Why did I buy a 32-bit Vista System in the spring of 2008? I wanted a more powerful PC by the end of 2007 and was aware of the theoretical advantages of 64 bit - but as you probably know, Vista was a big flop. I was hearing many bad things about it, and was even advised to replace Vista with XP after buying a PC! That sounded like a waste of money, so I decided to wait until Microsoft released a service pack for Vista. While waiting, I learned that software makers were very reluctant to develop 64-bit products because a large majority of XP systems were 32 bit and Vista was a failure. In early 2008, the best selling point for Vista x64 seemed to be, “You can still run 32-bit software on it.” Well you could also run 32-bit software on a somewhat less expensive Vista x86 system, so that was my decision at the time. (It was not until Windows 7 became the success that Vista never was that x64 really came into its own.)
  3. Welcome to MSFN Andrey. Unfortunately the release notes for CherryPlayer 2.5.2 (January 2019) suggest that it was hard coded to use Internet Explorer’s engine for login to YouTube and Twitch (having previously relied on an old WebKit engine). That was probably a better solution for Win7+ with IE 11 than for XP with IE8 (or Vista with IE9), although YT doesn’t claim to support IE at all these days. CherryPlayer adopted a Chromium web engine beginning with 3.0.0 in November 2019, but unfortunately that was the end of support for XP. It might be worth mentioning that the release notes for 2.5.3 mention a YT login error being fixed.
  4. The situation hasn’t improved since your June 17, 2019 post on the same topic.
  5. Malwarebytes Free has no real-time protection, but was probably the world’s best PUP removal tool. IDK if that’s still true, since my brain (with a little help from VirusTotal) became very effective against PUPs years ago. I never paid for MB Premium, which has real-time but does not score very high in independent testing (and 3.5.1 isn’t very current).
  6. No it doesn’t seem likely, because roytam1 makes builds of Firefox-based browsers that could have supported Windows XP if the upstream developers had deemed it worthwhile. Chromium is another kettle of fish. In another year or so, the Chromium Project may expunge support for Windows 7 (and perhaps 8.1 at the same time) just as they did for XP and Vista in April 2016. When that day arrives, some browser developers will swing into action because Win7 will still have many users and Chrome is more popular than Firefox.
  7. Yes, those discussions are mostly buried in the lengthy sticky thread about “last versions of software for [vanilla] Vista.” I don’t recall any issues being reported there either. Personally, I never used a version higher than 4.6.0 on Vista because I never especially wanted to run a program that required a higher .NET version. In fact I only have one program that needs 4.6, or else I might still use the 4.5.2 that Windows Update gave me before the apocalypse. But in these post-apocalyptic times, running software that officially requires Win7 is all the rage, and some such programs naturally need newer .NET versions. I wonder if the OP was trying to use a web installer, and wouldn’t be surprised if M$ has blocked those for Vista and XP by now. The OP started another thread on October 27, but hasn’t visited MSFN since then and may have given up on Vista.
  8. Have you ever tried Yandex 17.4.1? It’s a March 2017 version based on Chromium 57 with backporting for XP and Vista. It is fast enough for me on a Vista system with pretty high specs, but it might be interesting to hear your opinion of it.
  9. Like user Marc before him, JD is writing about Upgrading IE8 to TLS 1.2 (an old MSFN thread on the same topic). IDK about Outlook Express 6, but analogous procedure for IE9 on Vista can benefit Windows Mail. But as Marc pointed out, only a limited number of cipher suites are provided, so this solution might not be ideal.
  10. My guess is that those certificates have sha2 digital signatures only.
  11. Is this the “manual update” you have done? https://msfn.org/board/topic/181375-certifacte-trust-provider-error-installing-updates/?do=findComment&comment=1179898 If “the browser” is IE9 or Chrome 49, then lack of systemwide support for TLS 1.2 might be the problem.
  12. I think Cent Browser is also Chinese, but information about it is extremely scarce.
  13. I guess you meant to write “Friday October 30,” since September 30 was a Wednesday. I didn’t realize that WU was up in October. It sounds like M$ detected suspicious activity and took preventative action. Wonder how long it will be before M$ takes down all updates for XP?
  14. Not by default, and not the final version. I’m really just guessing that it’s a TLS issue, but maybe have a look at these instructions: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/06/15/how-to-enable-tls-1-3-support-in-firefox-and-chrome/
  15. Those browsers are all dinosaurs. The URL gets grade A+ at SSLABS, which tells us that it does not support TLS 1.0 or 1.1. I believe the browsers mentioned in previous replies support TLS 1.3, and wonder if you ever enabled support for the draft of TLS 1.3 in Firefox 52.9?
  • Create New...