Vistapocalypse

So you would speculate that MSE 4.10 users running Windows 7 might see a shorter period of nagging before EOL than MSE 4.10 users running Vista did (see MSE For Vista Now Shows XP Nag Screens)? It seems more likely that Microsoft never "upgraded" MSE to extend the EOL time-bomb feature to Windows 7, perhaps in order not to trigger a wave of downgrades to even older MSE versions.

After searching other Windows 7 forums, the answer to my original question is clearly "No." Apparently, the EOL features that Microsoft baked into MSE more than 5 years ago applied only to Windows XP and Vista!? MSFN member @heinoganda might perhaps have some insight to offer. You are clearly writing about MSE 4.4 (signed October 24, 2013), whereas the nagging I asked about wasn't introduced until MSE 4.5 (see Microsoft Security Essentials to nag Windows XP users). I have no doubt that definition updates compatible with 3-year-old MSE 4.10 are currently still available, but Microsoft has made no announcement regarding their future availability.

Personally, I prefer real-time protection that can consistently detect a file that is known to be included in definitions for testing purposes; but as you have said, to each his own... Regarding your one Windows 7 installation with an MSE version that is less than 6 years old: Has MSE started to nag about "support for this operating system is ending"? Even the latest version 4.10.209.0 is now 3 years old, so MSE might perhaps be described as abandonware - and btw I have searched in vain for any promise from Microsoft that definition updates will continue after January 14. Judging by the tray icon, an update was being attempted; but my July tests convince me that it was doomed to fail (although dencorso proposed a solution for that problem, as you know).

Thank you for clarifying that detail, VistaLover. I suppose we both have too much time on our hands. Burd is probably using 6-year-old MSE 4.4.304.0, which I couldn't recommend after my July tests.

The amber icon means "Potentially unprotected," either because your definitions haven't been updated or because support for your operating system is ending. You could always open MSE's UI to determine the reason. In the latter case, you might want to check whether the two computers have the same system date and time.

The Cuphead screenshot you posted at Imgur shows a Microsoft Security Essentials tray icon in a "Potentially Unprotected" state. What version of MSE are you using on Vista? It is also surprising that your Vista desktop still has a Dropbox shortcut.

I ask because MSE started to nag on Windows Vista about 90 days before Vista's EOL, and it is now about 90 days before Windows 7's EOL. Here's a screenshot taken in January 2017: The link led to https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14223/windows-xp-end-of-support, but perhaps Microsoft will redirect it to something more suitable for Windows 7 - although there has been no MSE upgrade.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-information/windows-message-center#343 WMC is not supported on Windows 10, so this change mainly affects those running Windows 7 Home Premium or Ultimate who use WMC as a DVR. The relative few running Windows 8.1 with Pro Pack will apparently be shafted, as well as anyone still running Vista Home Premium or Ultimate and using TV Pack 2008 (I might be the last TV Packer remaining AFAIK). Of course there are third-party DVR programs such as NextPVR and MediaPortal, but (1) in North America you would need a Schedules Direct subscription for EPG and (2) only WMC supports DRM for North American cablecards. Other than buying a Tivo or renting a DVR from your cable provider, the only solution for issue (2) might be EPG123, which would again entail a Schedules Direct subscription.

Was this requirement already present in version 6.8.2? It might be a good replacement for Skype in any case.

Have you tried newer versions of Viber on Vista? They probably won't work in light of Viber | Supported platforms. Is it still possible to download version 6.8.2 from viber.com? I see a download link for Windows XP at bottom right of Download | Viber, but it gives even older version 6.0.1.5. However some third-party sites have 6.8.2.

I'm glad to see that someone is still interested enough to post a list of the latest updates. Thank you Kwasiarz. It occurs to me that no one ever posted a list of the September updates. Of course the September rollups have now been superseded anyway, but it might bear repeating that there was a second servicing stack update, KB4517134 , that should be installed before any newer updates. Nevertheless, it has come to my attention that Microsoft has continued to modify KB4474419, and v4 of the update was posted yesterday.

OT really, but Chrome required SSE2 long before that (see this 5-year-old post).

Welcome back artomberus! Note at Calibre's Download for Windows page confirms what you are saying.

I'm sure it was this final sentence that earned your post so much positive reaction (certainly not your very pertinent observation that Vista won't run on Intel processors produced within the last several years). One of the two Serpent browsers was derived from Moonchild's deprecated Basilisk Moebius, which in turn was forked from Firefox 55. However, Firefox 55 was not an extended support release, and its final update from Mozilla was actually months before Firefox 52.9.0 was released. At least some Firefox 52 ESR updates could not be applied due to milestone differences (pardon me for not searching through a 192-page thread in order to provide a citation, but it's in there somewhere). This browser is arguably less secure than those that are essentially Firefox 52 forks (the other Serpent, New Moon 28, and whatever the modified version of Borealis is called these days). Whether those Firefox 52 forks are more secure or less secure than Firefox 52.9.0 is anyone's guess. At least some components have been moving targets - but are any cybercriminals actually targeting such old Firefox code these days, considering that Windows XP's user base has also been declining precipitously?

Yes, it was the end of support by major browsers more than anything else that drove users away - not that Vista ever had a market share comparable to XP or Windows 7 in the first place. It sounds like Firefox 52.9.0 (released in June 2018) must have been the last straw for you. Devotees of Firefox and related browsers might forget that Chrome is by far the most popular browser, and it's been 3.5 years now since Chrome ended support for Vista and XP (and almost as long since Opera 36 was updated). Oddly enough, IE9 is still supported due to Server 2008 SP2 being supported until January 2020; but this support for Vista's "official" browser is of limited value because IE9 is obsolete. There is a school of thought here at MSFN that online security is reasonably good as long as a developer is making modifications to one or more Firefox forks that can be used on Vista or XP, but I never embraced that idea myself. It seems to me that only Google, Microsoft and Mozilla are in the business of updating browser code for the sake of security, and not even the Chinese have managed to backport Firefox Quantum AFAIK. There is now also an alarming scarcity of non-Chinese antivirus products that fully and officially support Vista and XP. Frankly, I had only rarely used Vista for web browsing myself since early 2017; but have lately been emboldened by installation of Sandboxie 5.22, which I'm using in combination with Avast 18.8. (Both are legacy versions, but both were free.) Sandboxing your browser might very well be the best security solution.

They have indeed revised their main page recently; but Sandboxie 5.22 (signed Oct. 30, 2017) was the last version to support XP and is also the version I am using on Vista. It is also the only older version that is available for download at sandboxie.com. Your post inspired me to attempt to register 5.22, but https://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?RegisterSandboxie now redirects to the main page, where clicking Buy merely invites one to download the latest version that does not support XP.

I'm surprised that no XP enthusiasts in this thread are sandboxing their browser for added security. I have passed the 30-day point where nagging begins, but will continue to use the free version.

Oops! The new SSU only has an sha256 digital signature, and April's SSU is a prerequisite for such updates, hence KB4493730 apparently must be installed before KB4517134 in any case!?

It sounds like you didn't reach this conclusion until Vista's market share slipped below 0.5%? The avatar I selected upon joining MSFN in January 2017 almost seems outdated now: Average users have abandoned ship, and all that remains are a few enthusiasts singing hymns on the main deck. Do we still have more market share than Windows 2000?

I'm not a gamer, but Vista SP2 with Platform Update supports DX11. Cuphead reportedly requires Geforce 9600 GT or higher (which would rule out my system in any case).

I'm always hesitant to resort to third-party downloads, but there is a collection of old Yandex full installers at https://www.filepuma.com/download/yandex_browser-628/versions/3 including 17.6.0.1633.

As erpdude8 has recently pointed out elsewhere, there is a new sevicing stack update KB4517134 this month that replaces April's KB4493730. This SSU should be installed before the September rollup. For those who have not yet upgraded to build 6003 by installing any updates released after March 2019 (e.g. me), I would dare say it should be installed instead of April's SSU. I am now convinced that KB4474419 is of no benefit whatsoever to those running Vista, although V2 at least causes no known issues (see this June 15 post). In order to manually install Server 2008 SP2 updates released in July 2019 or later that only have SHA-256 digital signatures, all that seems to be required is the SSU mentioned above. Windows Update appears to give Vista 6003 the cold shoulder even if SHA-2 code signing support is installed, e.g. see the P.S. in Ruan's August 21 post and ensuing discussion. If anyone disagrees with my conclusion, please explain.

Oops! I came across this at https://help.comodo.com/topic-72-1-772-9552-CIS-Installation.html:

I just came across this at https://help.comodo.com/topic-72-1-772-9552-CIS-Installation.html: (I'm currently using Avast 18.8 and Sandboxie 5.22.)

I do not need anything personally, having long ago manually edited my Vista x86 registry according to VistaLover's instructions. My point was that those instructions, and therefore @greenhillmaniac's Reg file, are insufficient for Vista x64. The information provided by Lambo should be sufficient for greenhillmaniac to make an x64 version of the Reg file, but it appears that he has not yet done so. If you want to manually edit your registry, a disciple of VistaLover posted instructions at another forum that include the additional edits needed for Vista x64. However, you should not expect too much from IE9 even with this enhancement.