Vistapocalypse

This is one of the most useful Windows Vista posts anywhere! I realize that the topic is hardware rather than drivers, but NVIDIA drivers are not covered in Last versions of software for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 (another extremely useful post). This gives the impression that 365.19 was the one and only last driver version to officially support Vista, but that is generally only the correct driver for GeForce 400 Series and above. For GeForce 8 Series (I have an 8500 GT), and also 9, 100, 200 and 300 Series, the recommended driver version is 342.01 ( 32 bit 64 bit ). Despite its lower version number, 342.01 was released 7 months after 365.19.

Much as I would like to discuss world politics, this is obviously the wrong forum. I had actually wondered if my 8/10/2019 post might lead someone to conclude that I didn't know Yandex was Russian, thinking I had shown admirable restraint; but VistaLover was able to read between the lines. Nevertheless, it is impolite to ignore a direct question: Most definitely. No surprise that Torch won't run on Vista, but glad you were able to prove it without installing any PUPs.

Wikipedia agrees that Torch browser requires Windows 7 or 8, citing system requirements from Wayback Machine. Why would Torch Media now falsely claim to support XP and Vista? Wikipedia states, "Torch Media receives payments from companies like Ask.com to bundle potentially unwanted programs with the browser." The fact that Torch does not claim to support Windows 10 causes me to wonder if Windows Defender has a signature for Torch? Edit: The stub installer is not hosted at torchbrowser.com, and here's a link to a recent VirusTotal analysis. 2nd edit: Found an offline installer. It had not been analyzed at VirusTotal for a month (4 detections), so I reanalyzed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the highest Chromium version of any non-Chinese browser that works on Vista. I try to be cosmopolitan; but having grown up in the USA, I am suspicious of software from adversary nations. Speaking of which: member win32 mentioned Sputnik in a post above, which apparently isn't even popular in Russia (perhaps because it is state-owned).

Ahoy there! This topic would probably attract more attention in MSFN's Windows XP forum. Perhaps @dencorso would consider relocating it? XP has a larger community with more hackers. Your thread could use the Roblox link Support for Windows XP and Vista ending soon. Sorry, but I'm not a gamer myself.

For Vista and XP, this lawlietfox link looks much more promising: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lawlietfox/files/ESR/52.x/. I found Release Notes for an old version of Cliqz that might work on Vista and XP, but no download. Based on System Requirements, they have apparently not backported recent Firefox code.

I just downloaded July rollup KB4507452, and it is quite true that it only has an sha256 digital signature - which should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following this thread. However, if Born's blog reader Gero H. (or anyone else for that matter) has been updating their Windows 6.0 on a regular basis, then why was April's servicing stack update KB4493730 skipped? We might assume that Gero H. intended to conduct a test, however the blog post states nothing of the sort. Even more questionable is this: MSFN member @artomberus reported successfully installing v2 on his Vista x86 system in a June 15 post in this thread, having earlier installed v1 only to experience issues with it. (Personally, I'm still running Windows 6.0.6002.)

Have you even tested your real-time protection at AMTSO? I am now using a third-party antivirus because there is more to online security than getting pretty green colors in your 6-year-old MSE client.

I wonder if users running build 6003 with SHA-2 support have the same problems getting definition updates for MSE 4.4.304.0 and Windows Defender as VistaLover and I? (I don't rule out "upgrading" sometime, but I wish to create an up-to-date image first. I use my Vista x86 PC mainly as a DVR these days and have a backlog of recorded TV, so step 1 is "watch more TV" so I can delete those big HD recordings that I don't want on my image.) Believers in Windows Defender should certainly like VistaLover's post above!

Welcome to MSFN hereinthebubble. The thread Audacity 2.3.0 fails to run on Windows XP might be a good starting point for further investigation. Edit: A better starting point might be Audacity for Windows system requirements, which show that Vista is still supported (but XP support has officially been dropped). 2nd edit: See also Audacity Wiki's Windows Vista OS page:

Hope Imacri sees your second paragraph. As for your first paragraph: Platform Update is no mystery (and is not a Server 2008 update). I discussed it here.

I know how dedicated you and heinoganda were to keeping MSE working on XP, and appreciate that an XP enthusiast would devote time and effort on behalf of the handful of Vista users who might be interested (and I was your 1 download thus far). However, the intermittent real-time protection issue is a much bigger concern to me than the inconvenience of manually downloading definitions. I installed another definition update, visited AMTSO and found that real-time protection was not working (i.e. download of file eicar not prevented). I restarted the system, and real-time protection was working for some time afterwards, but later stopped working again. There is no indication of trouble in MSE's UI or in Control Panel > Security Center: all green. You just gotta find out the hard way whether or not it's really working. This issue does not affect scanning: Once file eicar has been downloaded, scanning will reliably remove it. However I want dependable real-time protection, and therefore will not be installing Wget at this time. As I said in my Tuesday July 16 post above (as edited), "Comodo and even legacy versions of Avast/AVG are looking much more attractive to me now." Thanks anyway dencorso.

Prior to editing, your post stated: Are you now saying that Windows Defender is in fact receiving definition updates on Windows 6.0.6003 with SHA-2 support? (Obviously WD would have to be turned on to do so.)

Welcome back to MSFN crazyal12. (I had never even heard of MSFN the last time you posted.) No, the Update tab in the UI doesn't accomplish anything for me either. Are you running Vista 6.0.6002, or have you "upgraded" to build 6003 by installing recent Server 2008 updates? Downloading manually seems to be the only way to update MSE 4.4 definitions now. Your link should be fine AFAIK, but I have actually been using this page. I always save the file, then right-click and run as administrator. The instructions say "a file extraction dialog box appears" but I haven't seen it. My only other tip is don't hurry to delete file mpam-fe because "disk activity" may take a few minutes. I have updated definitions once more since my previous post: When I first saw your post, I thought you really must be crazy to ask a question about MSE 4.4 after reading my previous post exposing its current shortcomings. However I visited AMTSO again before replying, and MSE performed much better tonight - presumably because of the new definition version, or else some sort of glitch that resolved itself:

Imacri, since few if any of your Windows updates have been replaced in the last 27 months, why don't you uninstall one April 2017 patch (other than a speed-up patch) from Installed Updates, then test to see if Windows Update can fetch it back for you? Of course it might be wise to first download the installer from the catalog in case the test fails! My comprehension of the MS article is no better than yours. ____________ IMO this forum now needs another thread for those who wish to establish their own archives of Vista updates from 2009-2017. (There is no need for even earlier patches because the only prerequisite for the SP2 standalone installer is SP1, and the SP1 standalone installer has no prerequisites.) A question was posted on June 19, Windows Vista - post SP2 updates, but no one replied. See Description of the Platform Update for Windows Server 2008 and the Platform Update for Windows Vista.

I just installed Security Essentials 4.4 (sans SHA-2 support) and thus far it appears to be the same story: No updates except by downloading manually. However I am still able to receive electronic program guide data for my Windows Media Center with TV Pack 2008 at this time. (There has been no "legacy" EPG data for XP Media Center or Vista sans TV Pack in North America since July 2015, although AFAIK legacy data is still available in the UK. TV Pack utilizes the same data format as Windows 7.)

I have recently installed MSE 4.4.304.0 on Vista 6.0.6002 (i.e. no SHA-2 support) for testing. Thus far it appears that automatic definition updates ain't gonna happen, even after manually installing initial definition updates. I wonder if @WinClient5270 or anyone else running build 6003 with SHA-2 support is having more success with MSE definition updates now? (If anyone running build 6002 is getting automatic definition updates, then I need to troubleshoot.) This MSE version is nevertheless still usable at this time (unlike more recent versions featuring the EOL kill switch), if you don't mind bookmarking the definitions download page for daily visits. Edit: The news is even worse: MSE 4.4 with engine version 1.1.16100.4 flunks every Features Check at AMTSO!? Granted, MSE has no anti-phishing and never was as good as Malwarebytes against PUPs, but before Vista's EOL I used MSE 4.10.209.0 and it was able to pass AMTSO's drive-by downloads test. MSE 4.4's real-time protection only detects the EICAR test file when I click on it after downloading. IE9's SmartScreen Filter is actually more effective at preventing the download of the test file. Comodo and even legacy versions of Avast/AVG are looking much more attractive to me now.

This has also been discussed in another thread, beginning at https://msfn.org/board/topic/175262-last-versions-of-software-for-windows-vista-and-windows-server-2008/?do=findComment&comment=1164333.

It has already been attempted: https://msfn.org/board/topic/175262-last-versions-of-software-for-windows-vista-and-windows-server-2008/page/37/#comments.

I just visited your 360 Extreme Explorer link, but it gave me a newer download version 11.0.2116.0. Have you tested that version on Vista yet? I seldom use Vista for web browsing anymore, but I wanted to analyze the installer. FWIW it gets a "green light" at VirusTotal.

NextPVR 5 is now in public beta, but does not support Vista. There is not yet any need for a legacy download link because the current stable version 4.2.4 does support Vista, and the developer has not ruled out further 4.x versions.

My guess would be "yes," but I don't own a non-SSE2 processor and therefore don't actually know. If running dear old Vista on even older hardware was a great idea, I'm sure that more people would have upgraded 11 or 12 years ago instead of sticking with XP. I see @erpdude8 has already responded to your Windows 7 thread, and I have no idea who else might have an answer for you.

@artomberus reported issues with the original KB4474419 in his June 4 post. Perhaps the June 11 version has fixed those issues?

Just one more thing about May's updates: The security only KB4499180 file posted 5/11/2019 was replaced by a new file version posted 6/3/2019. The KB article still states "Microsoft is not currently aware of any issues with this update," so I can only speculate about any changes. Since this was the BlueKeep patch recommended for Vista, and since monthly rollup KB4499149 was not replaced, it seems likely that changes were made with Vista in mind. Edit: Upon closer inspection of the x86 version, the digital signature still says May 10 and the extracted text document still says File Version="1" It's hard to believe that another Patch Tuesday has arrived, however the new updates have not been released at this hour. I hope that another forum member will step forward to do the honors this month.

Great news! Double posting should generally be avoided, but this is big news for both threads. I feel much more positive about the Windows 6.0 build-number change knowing that it does not preclude using the most popular third-party antivirus (albeit a legacy version). On a sadder note, there are probably Avast/AVG users running Vista out there who do not follow this thread, but heard about BlueKeep and took Microsoft's advice to install KB4499180, got BSODs, and wrongly concluded that installing Server 2008 updates on Vista is a very bad idea. Edit: AskWoody members might want to post here.