win32

Anyway it looks like browserss is incorrect with regards to the OS requirements of Sputnik; the official site (https://browser.sputnik.ru/#personal) claims Windows 7 and up. Torch browser is still in the running, as it does officially claim to support XP/Vista (https://torchbrowser.com/faq) It does have a lot of stuff integrated into it which does not suite me well though. UPDATE: I just downloaded the current offline installer for Torch Browser, version 69.0.0.1674, dated 2019-07-08. Ran the installer off a USB drive to my laptop with Server 2003 (no Vista machines here, unfortunately) and it failed to copy any files to the SSD. So I opened up the installer with 7zip, then hunted through \$R1\$_11_\pack.exe\chrome.packed.7z\chrome.7z\Chrome-bin to find the browser. It wouldn't load because of the missing API AcquireSRWLockExclusive. The good news is that it is included in Vista! As do all of the other missing dependencies.

Yes, though the site is a load of popover junk: http://techgenix.com/DisableWindowsScriptingHostWSH/

Most of the browers on that list were last updated in 2015/16, but I found some obscure ones that have been updated recently and claim to support XP (Vista): http://browserss.ru/qutebrowser.html http://browserss.ru/superbird.html http://browserss.ru/torch-browser.html http://browserss.ru/sputnik-brauzer.html Everything else is too old or for 7 and up Please note that the giant green "skachat" button will not lead you to the desired browser and will download something else called "Elements". Oddly enough, what appears to be a link to the installer (for example, http://browserss.ru/assets/sputnik_browser_4.1.2811.0.exe) leads you to a 404 message.

I debugged 86box, build 1837 in Windows 2000 and Windows 2003. These are the calls that were made when keyboard input was sent to the application. Direct3D 9 rendering was used in both cases (keyboard input was still broken with the other rendering options): Windows 2000 (not working): LoadLibraryExW("C:\86boxopt\86Box.exe", 0x00000000, LOAD_WITH_ALTERED_SEARCH_PATH) called from "USER32.DLL" at address 0x77E1E4B4. LoadLibraryExW("C:\86boxopt\86Box.exe", 0x00000000, LOAD_WITH_ALTERED_SEARCH_PATH) returned 0x00400000. Windows 2003 (working): LoadLibraryA("user32.dll") called from "D3D9.DLL" at address 0x4E048847. LoadLibraryA("user32.dll") returned 0x77380000. GetProcAddress(0x77380000 [USER32.DLL], "DisableProcessWindowsGhosting") called from "D3D9.DLL" at address 0x4E048859 and returned 0x773C92BB. So, it won't be very easy to backport this functionality from the looks of it, if the completely differing behaviour is a clue. I do know that DisableProcessWindowsGhosting is not implemented in the extended kernel.

You should provide information about the specific hardware in your PC, since this machine has multiple configurations. But it should work, as I am aware that all the possible components do support XP x64.

I just had an idea; for open source software we could try recompiling them with Visual Studio 2005/2008 or anything else that will let us target win2k.

I wonder if you can help me with PCem/86box; both emulators don't accept keyboard input in win2k and eventually throw unhandled exceptions after enabling and disabling mouse input. I would be very satisfied if those issues were addressed in the next extended kernel.

Use WSUS Offline 9.25 to download all Vista patches, along with the applicable runtimes for VC++, .NET Framework and DirectX. You can even include MSE (which would work if tricked into thinking it's on W7, 99.9% sure) and Windows Defender definitions. I haven't done much research on either Vista or WSUS, but it does give you the option of creating an ISO or a folder on a USB drive with the updates. Or you can just copy the "client" folder to the Vista machine and run UpdateInstaller.exe. *note: the update files for x64 are ~3.6 GB uncompressed.

Have you attempted installing extensions? That's where I ran into problems with 360 Extreme Explorer. In the case of the issue above, do you have the VC++ 2013/2017 runtimes? That's the only reason I can think of for 360 crashing at start, that and putting some of the domains it connects to in the hosts file

I wish I could help more than I could, but I don't even have the room for a second monitor to test 306.81 dualview support for myself. Have you been able to actually test 306.81 with your card? Provided that it is fully extended core-compatible, with either the new or old sets of files. Windows 2000 supports something else inherited from win98, called MultiMonitor, which is similar to DualView but forces each graphics card to only provide one video output each. Although videoprt.sys from XP recognizes DualView in addition to the old standard, other components of the OS may still not recognize DualView. It could be a matter of replacing the display control panel applet with the one from XP for all I know. Other stuff is beyond my level.

Yep. Just checked for myself. Based on some reports on youtube we lost the servers at 12:45 or 1:05 pm EDT (UTC -5). I'm starting to feel withdrawal. So who's up for a Microsoft Hearts LAN Party?

Unfortunately, as great as Vista is, it's been lost in the middle ground between XP and 7. DWM will put an end to the window tearing/artifacing that happens sometimes in XP. If you need to run DX10/11 games (older ones for the latter), Vista is good for that, but performance is reduced in DX9 applications. Video drivers were moved from kernel to user-mode, which allows the OS to recover from driver crashes, but in practice drivers for XP are very stable. Built-in MTP support, which will allow you to transfer files from newer smartphones and cameras. 2000/XP can have that through WMP10 but it doesn't work well with anything recent. SP1 and above can boot off GPT partitions (but not with pure UEFI; must use UEFI-CSM). Unfortunately I can't think of other useful Vista components that cannot be added to 2000/XP through third-party software and hacks.

Now 12:05 am in Redmond and I'm still getting whooped in reversi. I thought M$ wanted me to throw away my T41 with windows me and head to the Windows Store to pick up a freemium copy of Candy Crush. Or maybe they're giving a reprieve to the non-existent souls that do not inhabit Baker and Howland Islands, located in UTC -12.

Hmm. He did mention previously that the version numbers of those two files obviously did not match up with the other files, which may not sit well. I don't know if he changed them, but if not, try imagecfg (https://robpol86.com/imagecfg.html). The syntax would be: imagecfg -b *version number* *file path* Alternatively, you could try doing the manual inf install with the new files, then replacing them with the old files in WINNT\system32\drivers before rebooting. UPDATE: I noticed a 25% performance boost in Cinebench R11.5 x86 in XP x64 with 320.xx drivers over my 261.19 in win2k, so I looked at the missing dependencies against extended kernel/core: DisplayDriverExt.dll and nvdispgenco32.dll: one in setupapi.dll (SetupDiGetActualSectionToInstallExW) The nv4_disp.dll from 306.81, does in fact have no missing dependencies whatsoever. nv4_mini.sys (the 306.81 version as well), needs videoprt.sys. Doesn't exist in vanilla win2k but extended core provides it. With that in mind, I gave 306.81 a spin for myself with all original files. It gave an "invalid flags" error at the end of the install through device manager, and it appeared listed as the old driver version afterwards, but the files were in fact updated. Unfortunately my cinebench result went down further to 35 fps from 40, so I'm going back to the old driver. It is important to note that there were no stability issues, at least in my limited testing. This could very well be holy grail for those with 500/600 series GeForces, Quadro 7000s, and earlier Tesla models (for supercomputers).

That is strange, considering that as long as a matching hardware ID is in the INF, Windows 2000 will find it and try to install it, even if the driver is completely invalid for the purpose (as I discovered when I was desperate for a driver to pick up my Galaxy S5; hoping some random "Samsung" driver would work). In the official XP x86 306.81 driver package, the GeForce GTX 650 is listed in nv4_disp.inf with a hardware identifier of DEV_0FC6. Is yours the same? If not, replace any traces of that in the inf with the DEV_XXXX yours spits out in device manager. Any traces of "NTx86"/"NTx86.5.1" should also be purged from the inf. That inf still references stuff like "EnableWin2kDualview" and even "NT4MultiDevEnable!"

At 23:06 (UTC -05:00; 20:06 07/30/2019 in Redmond), I just finished a reversi game on Windows Me. Maybe I can have the last internet game to be played on the OS!

I just saw the edits to your posts and although I just paved over my sandbox, @tomasz86 has tested some of the post-258.96 drivers already: 261.19 works perfectly for me, but it seems that 306.81 may do fine with a couple files copied over from an older release. 306.81 supports up to the GeForce GTX 650 Ti/GTX 680! edit: then I read some more and heard about potential instability and reliance on unofficial updates. Nothing is for sure unless someone with a 500/600 series GeForce + > 4 GB RAM comes forward

Oddly enough, when I discovered that I was getting an FX 3800 in my workstation, I actually put Windows 2000 as a filter for the driver search on the NVIDIA site and found 261.19 (December 21, 2010), which I posted in the "last versions of software for Windows 2000" thread. The changelog indicates that it is the very last one for Windows 2000. I used 258.96 with my GeForce 210, and @tomasz86 listed a few later versions that are working to some degree somewhere in the USP 5.2 thread. Initially, I was unaware that official win2k support stretched that far (NVIDIA started listing their drivers as XP-only in about 2007 or so) and used @blackwingcat's driver. I wasn't satisfied because I'd get a blue screen every time I'd try to stand by or shutdown.

Another thing that bugs me is the last set of official NVIDIA drivers seems to cause the OS to get stuck in third-stage boot on "preparing network connections" for about a minute or so. I observed this behaviour on two separate machines with a GeForce 210 and a Quadro FX 3800. Turns out that is the NVIDIA display driver helper service starting, which isn't really necessary. Disabled that and startup time dropped from 3:40 to 1:38! I also decided to investigate my CPU overheating issue, which has been exacerbated by a recurring sequences of heat waves with low temperatures near 25 C (room temp in the low 30s). A fix to the issue was to disable turbo mode, which caused CPU temps to drop by about 10 C under load. When a newer CPU with turbo implemented through dynamic frequency scaling is used, Windows 2000 will run it constantly at turbo frequency. Once I disabled it, the OS was able to properly make use of enhanced speedstep, idling the CPU at ~1.6 GHz instead of 3.2 GHz.

I haven't tested it yet but I do believe that it is definitely possible (WMP 6.4 coexisted with newer versions in 2000/XP x86). I think some media player installers had a hang-up about Server 2003 so you may have to fake the OS version to be win2k, which may work with compatibility mode or if not that, blackwingcat's fcwin2k. And if installation fails, just copy the installed folder from 2000 or XP x86.

Add DAZ Studio to the list of 3D modelling software that still supports Windows Vista: https://www.daz3d.com/daz_studio/ Requires registration to download, but is freeware, where they earn their money through plugins to the base program.

Backporting x64 drivers to x86 will need recompiling. And that won't happen unless the drivers are open-sourced. Fixing up the existing x86 drivers to support large memory addresses would require disassembling by someone who knows what they're doing, if that is even possible at all. (I'm studying in the wrong field) And Creative is a company known for bad drivers and attempts to quash unofficial driver writers who fixed the shortcomings of their official ones; that business decision was reversed after universal scorn. WAIT, did I say unofficial driver? For 32bit XP? Yes I did! https://danielkawakami.blogspot.com/2017/01/sb-x-fi-series-support-pack-40.html Hopefully they work better with PAE though again, home users running x86 Windows with full PAE are an incredibly small group. Even in the days when Server 2003 as a workstation was a thing, many people had 2 GB or less RAM.

And they're back! But they are lacking in a few sections.

You may be able to use the last XP drivers but the likelihood of success is very low because XP x86 was never made with large memory addresses (>4 GB) in mind. Server 2003 x86 drivers would be a good bet (because they have to deal with large memory addresses), if they existed, which they don't seem to being a consumer-grade component. The Realtek drivers probably work better with PAE because their onboard audio is included in workstation (though probably not server) boards where one may consider OSes that do fully support PAE. Or maybe the driver developers were just open-minded.

I wonder if deleting the offending chipset USB driver installers (wellsburgusb.inf, cougarpoint.inf etc.) from the installation media would force win2k to install the generic drivers in setup? In any event, a hassle-free installation experience with Windows 2000 is possible with X58 (and its derivatives, 5500/5520). Hex-core Xeons for these boards are cheap and competitive with many newer CPUs in multi-threaded performance (due to Intel sticking with quad-cores for consumer-grade stuff forever). Unfortunately, Windows 2000 boot time increases with the number of threads because it doesn't load drivers concurrently like XP and above; with 12 threads you will add a minute. Another issue is that my CPU warms to nearly 80 C after a few hours of use, even with the KB919521 reg tweak. That is why I'm moving over to the Windows Server 2003 OS family. However, it would be very nice to stay on Windows 2000 for its 20th anniversary, which is coming up very soon.