Vistapocalypse

Kodi can reportedly serve as a "front end" for NextPVR and other DVR software, among other uses. I never used Kodi before, and frankly don't know of any reason why I would want to, but curiosity recently got the better of me. The download link for Kodi 17.3 under Content Consumption Software in the list appears to be broken. Kodi has stated that 18.x does not support Vista, but there is a 17.6 at http://mirrors.kodi.tv/releases/windows/win32/, so I decided to give it a try. The installer soon gave me an error message: Some of you are probably thinking, "Vistapocalypse never installed Platform Update, LOL. Probably doesn't know how to solve why has vista stopped automatic updates, LOL." Not so fast: True, if I search for KB971644 in Installed Updates, it cannot be found; but that is because Platform Update's four components are listed separately there: Could it be that Kodi's last Vista-compatible installers were never tested on Vista? There are numerous Kodi "support" threads indicating that hapless Vista users were the beta testers. and that this issue affected all 17.x versions. The solution was found here: run the installer in compatibility mode for Windows XP SP2, and it works! Here is a screenshot of Kodi 17.6 playing a .ts file: Of course I could have played that old recording in NextPVR or VLC anyway. I did not take the time to figure out how to send live TV from NPVR to Kodi, but I have no doubt that it could be done. The developers devoted a great many words to saying Goodbye Windows Vista, but I dislike long goodbyes. Goodbye Kodi. Thanks for making an uninstaller that does not require Platform Update.

One thing I still use my vintage Vista system for is watching and recording TV, and I wonder if the list needs a DVR/PVR category. (Of course there are hardware requirements: a suitable TV tuner of some sort, but hardware is OT here.) Vista Home Premium and Ultimate included Windows Media Center, which in most cases was not really different from Windows XP Media Center Edition. Some later Vista systems shipped with TV Pack 2008, which was almost equivalent to Windows 7's Media Center. (The first page or two of a 2015 Green Button thread might be of interest to some Vista users.) Of course Media Center with TV Pack is only supported insofar as Microsoft/Rovi are still providing electronic program guide data, which might end when support for Windows 7 ends. For those who are running Vista Basic or Business, or who wouldn't dare to download TV Pack from a third party, or who have TV Pack but are dissatisfied with Rovi's North American EPG data, or who want something that can be used as a "back end" for Kodi (formerly XBMC), one alternative is NextPVR. I recently installed the current 4.2.3 version of NextPVR on Vista, and I'm very satisfied with it. This was the first time I had a reason to install .NET Framework 4.6, which is now a prerequisite. The 4.2.3 installer will install Visual C++ 2017 for you. Newbies may find this software to be not very user-friendly, but MSFN members generally seem to be the kind of users who could handle it. You may have to download one or more decoders, e.g. in North America you are going to need an AC3 audio decoder (perhaps AC3Filter or LAV). Unfortunately there is no free guide data for North America beyond the several hours' worth that can be obtained from over-the-air ATSC broadcasts, so a Schedules Direct subscription is highly desirable.

The last version of NextPVR compatible with XP and still available for download is 4.0.4, released in July 2017. (You would need a TV tuner to make use of this software, which is similar to Windows Media Center.) Beginning with 4.1.0 (March 2018), NextPVR required .NET Framework 4.6, and NextPVR 5 requires .NET Core.

Some details were given in a November 2018 thread on the same topic: https://msfn.org/board/topic/177934-install-office-2013-on-windows-vista/?do=findComment&comment=1156349. If OP has Win7+, problem solved.

Cooperation from XP enthusiasts might be helpful in many cases, but in this case has resulted in confusion. IE9 does at least support HTML5 (but not MSE), IE8 of course does not. I can't seem to find an official YouTube statement regarding final deprecation of Flash Player, but know of no reason to disagree with the OP of this thread. Support for Chrome Frame ended 5 years ago. When it comes to my own vintage Vista system, Chrome Frame would be as unwelcome as an Alien facehugger. The obvious workaround is to use a different browser for YouTube, but +1 for wishing this wasn't necessary.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Windows Vista, sdfox7. Certainly anyone who follows Server 2008 Updates on Windows Vista is aware that the cumulative updates for IE9 are compatible with Vista, although we probably have members and visitors who haven't bothered with all that, Did you get Windows Update to deliver all the post-SP2 updates for Vista as explained here? IE9 kinda needs Platform Update, and there were circa 200 security updates. As you know from your expertise with XP, it is possible to add support for TLS 1.1 and 1.2. VistaLover wrote a tutorial: Enabling TLS 1.1/1.2 support in Vista's Internet Explorer 9 . However, if that Inspiron is running Vista x64, then VistaLover's instructions might be missing something (see here).

Dave-H, would you mind testing the 11.0.23 plugin with IE8, if you haven't already done so? Looks like @jumper scrutinized the Changes to base system requirements link I posted earlier and is concerned about support for IE8. If there really is an issue, then a slightly earlier 11.x version might be advisable for IE diehards. (Note: 11.0.22 was noncumulative, so one would have to apply 11.0.21 first.)

That's good to know. (It also works on Vista.) OP should note that the 11.0.23 patch in your link was released in November 2017, so "2016 or newer" is satisfied; and Acrobat Reader DC has been less popular anyway.

Support for Windows XP was dropped beginning with Adobe Reader 11.0.09 (Changes to base system requirements). WinClient5270 posted a YouTube tutorial explaining how to install Acrobat Reader DC on Windows Vista, but unfortunately stated in a pinned comment, "Note: this does NOT work with Windows XP. The DLL wrappers are compatible with Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008 (original release) only, making this method unviable on Windows XP" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkjzWT3uEa0).

Your link basically says that Slimjet is as bad as Chrome (perhaps a bit worse). If Chrome contains "spyware," then a browser containing spyware now has 63 percent market share. OP yoltboy01 evidently likes Chrome very much, and would go to great lengths just to use a slightly different but still obsolete version released in 2016. Personally, I would never recommend "Advanced Chrome."

If Microsoft announces a grace period for MSE users on Windows 7, as they once did for Windows XP (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/15344/microsoft-antimalware-support-for-windows-xp) but not for Vista, that would of course be useful information to anyone hoping to use MSE 4.4 on Vista or XP for more than one year. Otherwise, I would still assume that MSE definition updates will end on January 14, 2020. Meanwhile, MSE users on the supposedly unsinkable Windows 7 should expect to see the amber warnings that were originally the topic of this thread beginning in October - unless they downgrade to MSE 4.4 to avoid that indignity.

Unwanted MSE client upgrades are only possible if Windows Update is set to "Install updates automatically," hence no real need for any registry change on Vista. If you check for Windows updates manually and are offered an MSE upgrade, you can simply Hide the update. I don't think there will ever be another MSE upgrade: version 4.10.209.0 is already more than 2 years old and support for Windows 7 will end in January 2020. I would presume that MSE definition updates will also end at that time, although some bright person might perhaps devise a way to convert Windows Defender updates.

Hello yoltboy01, I share your fondness for Windows Vista, but the obvious answer to your desires is to buy a Windows 7 product key and upgrade (except the browser versions you mention are very old for use on Windows 7). Chrome is not a developer's project. As you already know, developers were able to backport a few open-source Chromium versions that did not support Vista. I tried Slimjet 11 and 12 (based on Chromium 51 and 53 respectively) on Vista x86 when they were new, back in 2016. If no developer's project is satisfactory to you, then you could always become a developer yourself. Regarding IE10 for Vista, see https://msfn.org/board/topic/176927-internet-explorer-10-on-vista/. Regarding Office 2013, see https://msfn.org/board/topic/177934-install-office-2013-on-windows-vista/. Regarding Firefox forks that are still being actively developed (including a build of Basilisk based on Firefox 55): https://msfn.org/board/topic/177125-my-build-of-new-moon-temp-name-aka-pale-moon-for-xp/.

I'm not a Steamer, but this thread in the Windows XP forum has more to say: https://msfn.org/board/topic/177702-steam-for-xp-in-2019/.

Regarding AV for Windows Vista: I never used it myself, but Vipre posted a Notice in February 2018 that version 11 would not support Vista, and their system requirements have since been modified to exclude Vista (support for XP having been dropped much earlier). If I believed in paying for antivirus protection, I might consider ESET or Webroot for Vista - but I wouldn't consider buying more than a 1-year license at this late date.

@Ruan: Does Sandboxie still work on Vista? Let us know if there's a version that won't work. If you are still avoiding the Meltdown and Spectre patches for Sandboxie's sake, that might have been the issue here.

I think IE10 is still supported on Windows 8.0. I'm also curious, but knowing won't help with IE9 on Vista.

Thanks for trying anyway.

@WinClient5270 has often mentioned a program called PEMAKER by MSFN member blackwingcat, e.g. in this post demonstrating that official Pale Moon 28 won't work on Vista. I don't really know, but strongly suspect that any iTunes version recent enough to support iOS 11 also won't work on Vista. As I recall, iTunes wasn't working very well on Vista four years ago, which is why version 11.1.5 is still installed on my Vista PC (but obviously I don't use it to support mobile devices).

Well I tested IE11 on Windows 10 and it can play YouTube videos despite what that link says, so spoofing IE11 might work for IE9 on Vista. Edit: Spoofing IE11 does not work.

This issue is probably related to the fact that YouTube no longer supports Internet Explorer - not even IE11: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/175292?hl=en. Of course Google owns YouTube, and Google won't be happy until everyone is using Chrome. I have even seen reports that YouTube deliberately slows down Edge and Firefox. Of course IE9 has been "deprecated" for years (Oops! Your browser is no longer supported), so this issue isn't very shocking. I don't blame you for wanting to use IE9 as your main browser, especially now that it is the only browser that works on Vista for which security updates are still available (although the updates are labeled "for Windows Server 2008"). I wonder if you have looked at this thread: https://msfn.org/board/topic/176902-enabling-tls-1112-support-in-vistas-internet-explorer-9/?

Since this thread is too long to read, I will link you to a November 23, 2017 post (p. 16) from which I would infer "No": https://msfn.org/board/topic/177125-my-build-of-new-moon-temp-name-aka-pale-moon-for-xp/?do=findComment&comment=1147622

Have you noticed that MSE client development has completely ceased? I assume you are using 4.10.209.0, which is the same 2016 version that you and I both were using on Vista when Microsoft's time bomb ticked us off (so there has never yet been a version that could not be installed on Vista: they just won't work anymore). Meanwhile, Windows Defender for Win 10 has reached version 4.13, which does not bode well for Win 7 users (but is perhaps OT here: sorry Jody).

When I mentioned reports by Mathwiz of elevated CPU usage using MSE 4.4 on an XP virtual machine beginning here, I didn't mean to suggest that you should uninstall MSE ASAP. You had mentioned that "performance felt a tad slower" and I thought it might be MSE rather than a bad Server 2008 update. (I hated to see your FrankenVista thread thrown into disarray by one report of a program not working properly, but here we are.) Any real-time protection is going to consume some system resources. A better reason not to use MSE 4.4 might be that the installer was signed Oct. 24, 2013 - although it might be quite effective with today's definition and engine updates.

If you are still using Security Essentials 4.4, you might be experiencing the same elevated CPU usage while browsing that Mathwiz has complained about in the Windows XP forum (evidently the definition updates are getting larger).