XPerceniol

Just FYI.. https://support.malwarebytes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360039022313-Malwarebytes-for-Windows-v3-support-for-Windows-XP-and-Vista "Malwarebytes is committed to continue support for Windows XP and Vista for as long as Microsoft allows us to" I would never ever use KGB software under any circumstances.

I, surely, (but please don't call me Shirley) would have to concur ~off topic~ I will admit, Vista has been peeking my interest lately. Been doing some research today in search for a legit installation and I don't like what I"m seeing - sure, in a specific part of the world known for scamming, I see lots. I've been scammed in my lifetime about 4 times, and have 'donated' (haha) about 2 grand. Actually, not too bad considering people have been taken for so much more. Anywhoo.. Back to regularly scheduled programming.

Again, your advice is very much appreciated, and I agree, time to just enjoy life...Lol I've run and scheduled chkdsk c: /f /x and will reboot later and keep my fingers crossed. Thus far after running chkntfs: The type of the file system is NTFS. C: is not dirty. So I'm Feelin' Groovy

Oh.. I greatly appreciate your help with my (trusty old) Dell Optiplex 745. BootExecute reads exactly as follows: autocheck autochk * I currently have autochk in the system32 folder - version 5.1.2600.5512 But, guess what.. I just noticed (literally just now) that my current user didn't have full permission to this application... EDIT: Sorry I forgot to say, I did indeed run those parameters out of curiosity; as well. I normally just run chkdsk c: /f, but i decided to give chkdsk c: /f /v /x /i /c a shot to see. So, I've been reading this article today.. https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000139147/windows-unnecessarily-performs-a-chkdsk-after-a-server-reboot Admittedly, this is moving a bit beyond my knowledge.

... Checking file system on C: The type of the file system is NTFS. WARNING! I parameter specified. WARNING! C parameter specified. Your drive may still be corrupt even after running CHKDSK. A disk check has been scheduled. Windows will now check the disk. Cleaning up 1 unused index entries from index $SII of file 0x9. Cleaning up 1 unused index entries from index $SDH of file 0x9. Cleaning up 1 unused security descriptors. Oh well.. You were right @RainyShadow, it wasn't Acronis, I removed it - along with other crap I wasn't using and slimmed out my system to the basics; and as you can see, Its pretty clear I have 'issues' (with my computer, of course hehe...). But, seriously, I'm not experiencing anything weird (yet). Just to clear up this thread. It 'is what it is'.. as they say. I'm totally distraught...I'm so not :p

Ugh... Well.. I temporally thew Acronis out of my life and just going bare metal XP. As I said, of course, I'm well backed up. Later today I'll do another full scan and see.

Hey guys.. Thank you very much for your replies. I've attached my log file in case anybody wants to see it. Yeah, I'm not all that worried really. You know what.. I do (sort of) multiboot - Acronis True Image preloads a very light linux based kernel at root level that preloads prior to Windows. For those familiar with it, after the machine starts up, I have the option to press F11 to load the recovery program (if enabled). Honestly, It does sometimes give me trouble, and I've had to boot to the CD and again re-enable the F11 Option. The program has saved my butt countless times, but I don't actually need it to be installed on my computer...booting to the CD loads the program just fine. I really appreciate the reassurance bootex.log

Oh well.. upon researching "unused index entries from index', it certainly looks like I'm not alone. Somebody wrote this: ROFL.. sort of falls in line with my OCD anyway :) just 10 times...I'm going for a record of (at least) a thousand times...haha! Ok...never-mind.

Oh; and.. Primarily, I use Vipre Antivirus, malwarebytes and superantispyware (only when absolutely needed, then I promptly boot them out in safe mode)...and all give me a clean bill of health. I wouldn't exactly say I'm losing sleep over it.. Lol :) Thanks in advance for an advice/suggestions. L8r, guys.

Hello and nice day MSFN community.. So.. as of late, when I run 'chkdsk' I'm getting the following errors in my log-file. I'll try to attach my log-file if I can, But below is what (slightly) concerns me. Cleaning up minor inconsistencies on the drive. Cleaning up 11 unused index entries from index $SII of file 0x9. Cleaning up 11 unused index entries from index $SDH of file 0x9. Cleaning up 11 unused security descriptors. Luckily, each time I get: 0 KB in bad sectors. I've done the full 'scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors' and - boomshakalaka - I'm dandy on my Seagate ST3750640NS SATA Hard Drive. Any thoughts.. TC ~Sal

~Off-topic~ Do you have any evidence that Roytam1 builds are in fact guilty of this?

Yikes...

Welcome.. lots of info here re XP and Visa; so you came to the right place. TC

Welcome.. see ya round the forum(s)

Wait... there is a life beyond MSFN...? How come nobody ever told me this information....I'll see if I can buy one...I think I have a coupon.

Well.. I found this article interesting re WebAssembly. https://github.com/stevespringett/disable-webassembly So.. I'll roll with WASM disabled. I see no (considerable) degradation in performance with it enabled - the risk doesn't seem worth the benefit to me. I went ahead and grabbed the last two builds form you to keep in my archives in case that project is discontinued. Thanks roytam1 for your time and hard work.

Quick question.. As it turns out, I just happen to have "WASM" (user_pref("javascript.options.wasm") set to (its default) "True"on New Moon28.10.2a1; however, on Serpent52, I had it set to false. So, I've spent some time researching {webassembly firefox} on duck~duck~go...HAHA... and I see good (security related) reason(s) to have it disabled - though is said, disabling it decreases performance on modern web sites. I don't know why I didn't catch this sooner, but digging around today, I discovered the inconsistency with regard to my browsers. Considering our maintainer has it enabled by default, do you folks recommend leaving enabled? Thank you..

Yes, respect @xper - change is inevitable - I fully understand that. Its the struggle to adapt to change (both online and IRL) that is easier said than done.

Ok.. I'm now going to steer away from that thread about "missing buttons", and since my question now pertains more regarding privacy/security vs workability/functionality - I suspect going forward, its going to be 'that' trade off. Yes, it is a tad unsettling that in this day and age, we do (in fact) have to give up some of our privacy (both online and in real life) to enjoy all the "latest and greatest" the world has to offer. Its a new trend moving further away from privacy, and I recon that one day, our privacy will be (almost) completely eroded away as the younger generation enjoys throwing their entire lives (personal business) out there without a care in the world in full view of anybody and everybody ~Apologize for the rant - I could go on-and-an~ Going over the prefs I had to remove last night to get MSFN functioning properly, I've been adding them back 'one-by-one' to see where the issues (or conflicts) begin, and the following 6 entries are what appears to be required (set to opposite of what was my previous configuration below in Firefox based browsers) to display everything correctly now here. user_pref("gfx.downloadable_fonts.disable_cache", true); user_pref("gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled", false); user_pref("gfx.downloadable_fonts.woff2.enabled", false); user_pref("gfx.font_rendering.cleartype.use_for_downloadable_fonts", false); user_pref("gfx.font_rendering.graphite.enabled", false); user_pref("gfx.font_rendering.opentype_svg.enabled", false);