Vistapocalypse

I never owned a slow Vista laptop myself. Would you do me a big favor Mr. Dixel? Please never again quote one of my posts for any reason? You may rest assured that I will henceforth show you exactly the same courtesy! Thanks!!!

Please no more “joke” threads (or duplicate posts for that matter)?

Of course you could have simply consulted (or resurrected) your February 3 thread on exactly the same topic. Considering you just joined MSFN in January, you seem to have great difficulty remembering all of your previous posts - perhaps because you have tried at least four different versions of Windows since then?

I know for a fact that the component package version hasn’t changed in two years, and it most likely hasn’t changed since 3.5.1 was released on May 8, 2018. Therefore I cannot take Malwarebytes seriously when they claim to be “committed to continue support for Windows XP and Vista“ - but don’t get me wrong: Definition updates are certainly better than nothing! Since this thread has been bumped, I will summarize some of the bad news I’ve heard in the last several months: As pointed out by VistaLover in a recent post, versions of McAfee antivirus products that were old enough to work on XP/Vista have reportedly been unable to receive definition updates since January 1, 2021. Earlier in this thread, legacy versions of ESET were occasionally mentioned as an option. Unfortunately, an ESET article indicates that SHA-2 support is now extremely important. If we have any recent ESET users here, please tell us about your experiences! (As I have mentioned once or twice in the Vista forum, ESET 12.x might perhaps be an option for a Vista system with certain Server 2008 updates adding SHA-2 support.) Norton had threatened to cut off definition updates for their XP/Vista “maintenance mode” version after February 28, 2021, but evidently changed its mind by March 8. I don’t recommend or even know much about Webroot, but have come across their official download page for the final XP-compatible version. None of the products I mention above have free versions!? My own preference and suggestion would still be Avast Free 18.8 (or equivalent AVG version, which has the same engine). Of course that would not prevent you from using Malwarebytes Free for on-demand scanning if you wish. I know that Dave-H couldn’t use Avast on one of his XP systems, which is too bad because testing by independent labs showed that Avast Free was significantly more effective than Malwarebytes Premium or Webroot, and nearly as good as paid versions of Kaspersky, Norton, etc. (Kaspersky Free has never been tested AFAIK.)

Windows Update has managed to install a large number of updates then? Assuming the internet connection isn’t dreadfully slow, what browsers have you tried? (Perhaps the greatest advantage of Win7 is that it’s still supported by major browsers, even Microsoft Edge, for the time being at least.) Please try running sfc /scannow from an elevated command prompt and let us know the result. If it finds corrupt files that cannot be fixed, that would be another good reason to try another clean install (and disable Windows Update to test for sluggishness before updates are installed).

Does the date April 11 ring any bells? Today is the Fourth Anniversary of Windows Vista’s EOL. (Of course the 11th fell on a Tuesday in 2017.) I had joined MSFN a few months earlier, figuring (quite correctly) that this would be the last place on the internet where Windows Vista diehards would congregate. Microsoft Security Essentials was nagging me about the approach of Doomsday. I was in a very fatalistic mood, and selected a screen name and avatar to match. Oddly enough, I now feel sentimental about those days. Getting back on topic, VistaLover pointed out in a March 31 post in the XP forum that McAfee antivirus products old enough to work on Vista or XP have reportedly been unable to receive definition updates since January 1, 2021.

The thought of “too many pinned threads” has crossed my mind before, and also affects the Vista forum. I just conducted a quick survey, and the Windows 8 and Windows 10 forums manage to get by with only 3 pinned threads each. Windows 7 is 12 years old now, but its forum has only five pinned threads - two of which are February 15, 2009 posts by cluberti that are also pinned in both the XP and Vista forums!? Your posts are not bad, but I wish I could soon forget your current avatar! I’m not sure if I should pity that hideous mutant or give it a shotgun blast? Edit: XPperceniol has mercifully changed avatars again, muchas gracias!

I never actually attempted to install an IE9 patch signed exclusively with SHA-256 on Vista, but I doubt that it would be possible unless SHA-2 support was first installed. The last IE9 patch with an SHA-1 signature was KB4507434 (July 2019), which would not change the build number to 6003 like Windows 6.0 updates released in April 2019 or later (including those needed for SHA-2 support).

Welcome to MSFN! If you have installed all available Windows updates up to Win7’s January 2020 EOL, then that might be the explanation. Some of Microsoft’s security updates released in 2018-2019 (after Vista’s EOL) negatively impacted system performance. (The same thing would’ve happened to Vista if you had manually installed all the Server 2008 SP2 updates.) You could test that with another clean install of Win7 SP1 with Windows Update disabled to see if it’s less sluggish. Before trying anything that drastic, have you installed an antivirus on Win7? Not many of them support Vista anymore, but they all support Win7 and can make a system sluggish.

Yes, greenhillmaniac has a repository for Vista updates (see this post for a link) and another for Server 2008 updates after Vista’s EOL (see this post for a link).

Sounds like Serpent is the right browser for you, assuming XP is the only OS available for your work.

The solution is obvious. There is no need for 150 open tabs! Bookmarks are very useful.

Microsoft’s official explanation says error code 80244019 means, “The device cannot connect to Windows Update.”

It’s pretty clear that M$ does not want Windows Update to work for anything older than Windows 7 SP1. At last report, SHA-2 support did not have to be manually installed in order to get Windows Update working for Win7 (but it must be SP1 rather than RTM), which raises doubts about the official explanation - which btw still does not list the latest error code 0x80072EFE.

There were most likely no new updates for XP today. The link I gave says WebAdvisor is free, but also gives discouraging system requirements, and I notice an exclamation mark in a red circle on your system tray McAfee icon...

@xpandvistafan OT, but fascinated to see a McAfee product in your IE8 screenshot, since that AV ended support for XP/Vista about 5 years ago. A quick search suggests it must be a legacy version of McAfee WebAdvisor, which now requires Windows 7 or later and IE10 or later. What version, is it still working, and can it still be downloaded?

True, in fact a screenshot was posted in October 2020 thread about Among Us.

Minimum Requirements: Windows 7 and up. Recommended Requirements: Windows 10. https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/360035131371-Minecraft-Java-Edition-system-requirements- This was already discussed in a December 2020 thread, End of support for Minecraft on Vista. Edit: Also some discussion on page 70 of the lengthy extended kernel thread in January.

I see you are using Avast. That must be an XP screenshot, but Avast would also be a good choice for your Vista.

Welcome to MSFN. If this issue only occurs at a limited number of websites, then those sites might possibly require TLS 1.3. Firefox 52.9 supported TLS 1.2 by default, but also had optional support for an early draft of 1.3 (roytam1’s browsers have better support for 1.3 though). To activate this option in Firefox: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/06/15/how-to-enable-tls-1-3-support-in-firefox-and-chrome/

I believe 7-Zip is developed by Igor Pavlov, but who among us hasn’t used it? Of course it’s open source, so not very likely to contain “KGB spyware.”

I hope that roytam1 will consider starting a part 3 thread in the near future. As I recall, his original thread was locked after reaching the staggering length of 199 pages, thanks in large part to OT posts. The present thread is now nearly as long, again largely because of OT posts. MSFN is an international forum, and some members are not very proficient in English (including some who live in the US), and it is not reasonable to expect them to read a 200-page thread before asking a question that has very likely been answered before. When part 3 arrives, I hope that MSFN members will refrain from posts that are not related to roytam1’s browser builds, e.g. perhaps Yandex browser warrants a thread of its own? Google’s detractors might be interested in this: https://msfn.org/board/topic/181995-united-states-vs-google-antitrust-suit/

Thanks for posting! I’m not a Webroot user and not sure exactly when they posted system requirements listing nothing older than Windows 7, but it must have been rather recently. Good to know that 9.0.29.62 works on Windows 6.0.6003 with or without extended kernel! If you are registered at the Webroot Community, by all means post a question there about support for XP/Vista. As you probably know, there is no known way to install SHA-2 support on XP. Webroot has reportedly been signed with SHA-2 exclusively since 9.0.27.64. “However, installation to Windows XP and Server 2003 is still possible using installers that are only signed with SHA-256.” The version on your XP system dates back to late 2019. Are its definitions being updated without problems?

Found some more information about that: https://answers.webroot.com/Webroot/ukp.aspx?pid=17&app=vw&vw=1&solutionid=3565&t=Windows-XPServer-2003-digital-signature-FAQ Web-root actually seems aware that Vista can support SHA-256 if “the latest” updates are installed.

OP winvispixp already posted March 6 that Kaspersky Free 18.0.0.405 seems to be working fine now. One wonders why an MSFN member running Vista x64 with extended kernel would need to consult the Norton forum for advice? Norton may have “reversed” (or delayed?) its decision to cut off definition updates for the “maintenance mode” version this month, but I certainly would not suggest buying Norton with Vista or XP in mind now! I actually did try Panda six years ago, as a result of which I had to reinstall Vista, which is why I never suggest it. One of the replies to my ESET question states that Panda does not use dll modules, hence does not require SHA-2. An administrator said ESET “might work” if SHA-2 support has been installed on Vista, but ESET isn’t free so I’m not inclined to test it myself. The final version to support Vista was 12.2.30.