Vistapocalypse

I could only quote older threads regarding SSDs and Vista: Windows Vista with SSDs (2017) Vista is probably destroying my ssd (December 2020) Edit: Here’s another thread with very relevant answers: SSD for Vista (December 2019)

I don’t know of any Norton users here anyway (I use Avast Free 18.8), but it sounds like definition updates for the XP/Vista version (final revision 22.15.5.40) will end February 28 according to a recent thread at Norton Forums. Edit: Norton changed its mind?? I don’t know of any ESET users here either, but their support article Do you run ESET on Windows Vista or Windows 7? indicates that SHA-2 support will be mandatory by April 15, 2021. That is bad news for Windows XP, but of course it is well known here that SHA-2 support can be installed on Vista - but does ESET know that? Earlier today I posted a question at ESET Forums, ESET 12.x on Vista after April 15, 2021? which has received a couple of answers. ESET has no free version, but might still be an option for vanilla Vista with SHA-2 support.

That is good to hear. So the answer to your original question, Has Windows Update For 7 Get Shut Down? is No - but you must have SP1. I first learned that from Volume Z actually. Can you confirm that you had not manually installed any update pertaining to SHA-2 before Windows Update started to work (just SP1)? I also wonder what version of Windows Update Agent you have now. You may want to follow Volume Z’s earlier suggestion about KB3138612.

SP1 DOWNLOAD LINK

Now I wonder what KB2533552 is (not SP1)? ...Are you trying to install that because you got an error message trying to install SP1 as described here? SP1 does not appear to be prerequisite for that update

SP1 is a prerequisite for KB3138612, so the update may be “not applicable” because you are not running SP1. Other possibilities: The update is already installed, or you downloaded the wrong file. (The 32-bit version is of course the one that does NOT say “for x64-based systems”.)

If this is a new installation of Windows 7 RTM, then your very first step is to manually install KB976932 (a.k.a. Service Pack 1). The following Microsoft link might also prove helpful (although I doubt it): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/windows-update-sha-1-based-endpoints-discontinued-for-older-windows-devices-10b58bd9-5ba2-b23d-498b-139ce5c709af

I was under the impression that this topic is about using software that requires Win7 or above on Vista with the aid of win32’s extended kernel. It has become clear to me that you are not particularly interested in security software, and therefore see no reason why others wouldn’t be content with a legacy version of Malwarebytes. Personally, I am not very interested in gaming, but I would never presume to declare all discussion of PC games as being OT in someone else’s thread.

Consider yourself excused. I do not use or endorse Kaspersky products, least of all their free version that has never been submitted for testing by independent labs AFAIK. (However their paid products always get very high protection scores, which is more than can be said for Malwarebytes Premium.) Aside from a legacy version of Malwarebytes that worked fine on vanilla Vista, what other non-KGB programs are you referring to? It’s great that recent versions of Chrome and Firefox can be made to work, and I’m sure they have considerable security advantages over the legacy versions that supported Vista; but security software is another major category in which vanilla Vista has been left out in the cold. With the exception of Microsoft’s latest Windows Defender (which is reportedly quite effective), every antivirus in the world continues to support Windows 7.

You gave the same advice earlier in this thread. Are you recommending Malwarebytes Free (with no real-time protection) or Premium (with real-time protection that does not perform very well in testing by independent labs)? Of course 3.5.1 supported vanilla Vista and is nearly 3 years old. Is there no hope of using current versions of Malwarebytes for Windows 7 and above with extended kernel? To his credit, winvispixp sought advice before selecting an antivirus to use with extended kernel, but unfortunately not much good advice was available. If I understood correctly, Kaspersky didn’t crash until after “latest kernel32 x86” was added in an effort to fix WMP, but perhaps winvispixp could clarify that.

To be clear, your real PC is running Vista x64 with extended kernel? Kaspersky 18.x officially supported Vista and XP, and there have been reports that 19.x worked on vanilla Vista despite no longer officially supporting it. Of course those are not current Kaspersky versions. A general point: Kaspersky only submits their paid products for testing by independent labs, so the free version may or may not be anywhere near as good. (Avast Free has been regularly tested, and protection scores are only slightly below paid versions of Kaspersky.)

Frankly, that is false, and your screenshot is of some higher version that contains the EOL time bomb. As I already stated, it is well known around here that 4.4.304.0 did NOT contain the April 2017 time bomb. In July 2019, I posted a screenshot of that specific version working on Vista here. The only thing “not working” to my satisfaction was that it failed to prevent download of the EICAR test file more often than not, which is why I prefer Avast antivirus on Vista. (Also It Is Not Customary To Capitalize Every Word In America.)

I surmise that you haven’t studied English very much, because I have no idea what information you are trying to convey. There is no new version of MSE: Even 4.10.209.0 has existed since November 2016. I was using it on Vista 4 years ago, but unfortunately it ceased to function in April 2017 due to Microsoft’s “time bomb” (see MSE For Vista Now Shows XP Nag Screens). It is well known that 4.4.304.0 was the last version that did not contain this time bomb, and that MSE definition updates have been signed with SHA-2 (requiring certain Windows Server 2008 updates) since 2019. So, what exactly do you mean by “the old version won’t work also”? I haven’t tried it since July 2019 and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, but AFAIK it is still possible to manually download and install definition updates for it.

Yes, that has been true since April 2017. Or do you mean to say that definition updates are no longer compatible with version 4.4.304.0 (released in 2013) even with SHA-2 support installed? That wouldn’t be very shocking either.

If it was a question of the best free antivirus for vanilla Windows Vista SP2, then Avast Free 18.8 would be my recommendation. (For more information and official download links see End of support for Windows XP/Vista at Avast Forum.) However, the original post states, “including the extended kernel,” which might break Avast for all I know. Avast system requirements formerly specified SP2 (and of course no longer mention Vista at all), so I wouldn’t suggest Avast for those who feel that service packs slow down boot time too much. (I believe Malwarebytes only called for SP1 or above in those days.) Avast 18.8 had a BSOD issue with build 6.0.6003 which I mentioned here, but Avast released a micro-update to resolve it. If installing Avast on build 6003, it might be best to use an online installer rather than offline due to the micro-update. Avast 7.x no longer receives definition updates (see Versions 8 and lower no longer supported at Avast Forum).

I do not use extended kernel, but I have followed those threads and can tell you that very little has been written on the subject of antivirus compatibility, so perhaps there is a real need for this thread. Dixel once suggested Malwarebytes 3.5.1 here, but did not specify free or premium. Only Malwarebytes Premium (i.e. the “trial”) has real-time protection, and btw their protection scores are not very good in independent tests, and 3.5.1 is a very old version now. If you wanted to use Malwarebytes only as a free on-demand scanner and use a real antivirus product as your main AV, then I would suggest version 2.2.1. It included an option to deselect the trial of premium during installation, and did not include the ransomware protection that did not work on Vista or XP. Edit: Definition updates for 2.2.1 were cut off in 2022, so stick with 3.5.1. If the idea of the extended kernel is to allow one to use any software that supports Windows 7, then in theory you could try current versions of any antivirus, since they all support Win7. (Avira plans to end support for Win7 and 8.1 at the end of 2021.) Of course in actual practice, an AV that does not properly support your OS can cause serious issues, so you should back up your system before installing an AV.

Here’s an old post at MSFN. I have not done this, but I trust WinClient5270: https://msfn.org/board/topic/179952-windows-7-transformed-into-vista-really-nice/

Personally, I have not used XP since I upgraded to Vista about 13 years ago, but I have enabled TLS 1.1 and 1.2 for IE9 on Vista. If you hope to turn IE8 into a good browser to use in 2021, then you are probably wasting your time. Here’s another link where this was already discussed at MSFN: https://msfn.org/board/topic/177500-upgrading-ie8-to-tls-12/

I never used Mypal (and roytam1 is not the developer), but if it works on XP, then it is not based on Firefox 68 (User Agent certainly does not prove otherwise). Maybe @feodor2 can tell you how to enable TLS 1.3 in that browser?

Welcome to MSFN. This question was most recently asked by Rod Steel in the POSReady thread: https://msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/?do=findComment&comment=1190517 There is no TLS 1.3 for Internet Explorer, but roytam1’s UXP browsers fully support TLS 1.3. Firefox 52.9 had optional support for an experimental draft of TLS 1.3. M$ cut off Windows Update for systems older than Windows 7 in October, which has also been discussed previously at MSFN.

The fact that Google never even mentions Windows 8.1 isn’t necessarily a good sign I’m afraid. They supported XP for 2 years longer than M$, which was more than they originally promised, but they never mentioned Vista until November 10, 2015, “as well as Windows Vista...starting April 2016.”

It might be a lot simpler to use a newer OS as host for a Vista VM, instead of the other way around.

I suspect that Chrome (and presumably Edge) will end support for Windows 8.1 at the same time as 7, just as they did for XP and Vista (vanilla) in 2016. Apple iTunes has already ended support for both, and Avira antivirus plans to do the same. (We might say that Win7 is the new XP and 8.1 is the new Vista, and many software makers may give 8.1 the “Vista treatment” because it has few users.) So it may be Windows 10 APIs that are needed by 2022. Of course I agree that Firefox support should last longer than Chrome, but how much longer will depend on the number of Win7 diehards who are using Firefox.

As discussed on the previous page (163), XP users may have to use 360 Extreme Explorer browser for rutube. RainyShadow also reported addon problems with latest NM 27 on the previous page. Perhaps the details he provided will help roytam1 to find the problem.

Maybe DanR20 only meant Windows 2000? VLC 4.0 will not support XP/Vista, but it’s still in beta AFAIK.