hydro2duo

Dunno, I just lost faith in FF for years, it feels like they ran out of inspiration since 4.x to do anything original so as to try to attract new users, failing to do so since Chrome was marketed way more easily, then proceeding to alienate all the people sticking with FF for its extensive functionality. It doesn't feel like it used to, it feels more like a "trend applier" that lags behind the big "trend setter" (Chrome) than anything truly original nowadays, and it's felt like that for me for some years now. I did give Quantum a go and it worked fine but didn't feel like old FF, felt more targeted to newer users

Through AU, it doesn't list any specific number. It is known IE9 depends on it, however - best bet would be to fire up a clean SP2, and check what's installed after IE9. Also AU on a clean Vista SP2 still works and everything's there as of 8am GMT+1 today when the "speedup" patches are applied, so that at least gives us time.

http://files.56k.party/vista64/sp2/ I have the installer (all language) for SP2 plus the platform update, I'm also looking to add a few others specifically for x64 on this server before moving it to a OneDrive or MediaFire folder eventually Feel free to tell me specifically what KB's to archive, I also included those in /fixwu needed for SHA2 code signing support for the next waves of 2008 SP2 updates

I suspect WU would still be up for Vista x64 but am backing up some important stuff that is likely to end up disappearing at some point in the future on http://files.56k.party/vista64/ While I'm not going to back up everything in MS's catalogue, if there are some important patches and stuff that need to be uploaded to the server please let me know. Eventually once I've completed the backup's update catalogue collation I'll probably stick it on OneDrive also, to give MS a middle finger up their own backside I don't have much resources so I'm not gonna back up x86 there at all as well I can't say anything about x86 patches application if it's any different to x64 (since I don't have it installed)

Isn't Vista/S2008's updates also multi-lingual too, this means we don't need to find loads of the same update packages...

Offtopic: I still don't particularly understand why HTTPS was so encouraged by Chrome and its derivatives (including of course Firefox since they ran out of ideas) all of a sudden everywhere since the middle of 2015, especially given the big countries will always find a way to decipher whatever's being passed through somehow via ISP co-operation or whatever... (The UK for example has banned end-to-end encryption on IM and some other platforms, so anything that claims to use it here actually isn't, they have to disable the encryption on the UK users' end so the government and such alliances can read it and not have to say anything about that.) Understandable if you're trying to protect against say a bank card interception of details by some nolife sitting in a basement intercepting it, but not everywhere should have to be forced to use it or be forced to drop lower. The only place it's needed is when submitting data since ISPs usually end up logging history/etc anyway...

New Moon only comes in a 7z archive, Mypal comes with an installer. Might also be worth out of curiosity looking over at the SeaMonkey 2.49.5 development because some FF52 Gecko post-EOL patches are there and the x86 versions still support XP/Vista (they are intentionally meant to be supported btw), you could potentially be a really good contributor to SM development in some way or another if ever you wanted to maybe :p

@Mcinwwl I’ve never heard that before, most people say they’re spend too long on a PC While Office 2007 isn’t supported anymore by MS, it works fine for most basic uses, honestly has a really good aesthetic and they haven’t pretended to support XP like when they deliberately released a botched Office 2010 update a while ago as said by @FranceBB. If you need to use a different software use a working LibreOffice, OpenOffice has been dead since early 2010 due to Oracle’s usual shenanigans.

Reminds me of how the iPhone 5c only has 3-4GB of usable storage after installing iOS 8. Also, I hate that W10 could cater to experienced users or something but instead decided to do the exact opposite, focus on people who’ll only go on mobile nowadays and cater to the needs of someone who has never used a PC before despite the fact they never will... BSODs tell you nothing now, for instance :/

Anything before about 2012 when it comes to Intel desktop chipsets work I think. My desktop has a H61 based Sandy Bridge era chipset from 2011 and has drivers for XP (and HD 3000 Graphics, amusingly still called a GMA at that point). Ivy Bridge chipsets probably vary but several definitely work (can’t remember about the IGP) while I don’t think anything’s really known about Haswell since most tests had issues with services not starting under XP/Vista. RE: the AHCI thing I wouldn’t be surprised if multiple copies are kept around (System File Protection) so...

Mini bug report: Serpent on Vista with Aero Glass enabled doesn’t seem to like the window bar around the minimise/close buttons for some reason - they appear the same as the default Windows style when maximised the window... no idea if this would be fixed given it’s XP targeted, though.

Yeah, the press seem to be very exaggerating about things - personally I feel like a clean OS install, fully updated and maintained in any case is good to go online if it can do so reasonably. I was mostly poking at how we ended up going from needing a small amount of resources for the OS itself, to needing at least a quad core from the 2010s to run the currently available OS. Even if I like Vista SP2 more than any other OS... it was too much of a jump in resource needs and it’s ended up for the worse nowadays where developers simply assume you can run it at maximum settings. Unfortunately Google’s road to becoming a monopoly is winning out against web standards and I wouldn’t be surprised if HTTP sites or such stop working at all soon...

Judge Dread - All In The Mind

MAKE SURE SECURE BOOT IS OFF WHICH IT PROBABLY IS IF YOU ARE READING THIS, ALSO MOST VISTA COMPATIBLE MACHINES LIKELY DONT SUPPORT UEFI This took a while to do here properly but I figured it out in the end. This works on an OptiPlex 390 using Vista SP2 x64 and a HDD in UEFI mode, booted from a UEFI+GPT USB (made from the original MSDN SP2 ISO and Rufus 3.5). For some reason it seems to bug out when trying to install even to a clean HDD. It’ll complain about being unable to boot from the device on your machine and then fail to create the partitions correctly with an error. There is a way around this and it’s fairly strange to me... which likely pinpoints it to being a problem with diskpart’s conversion system to GPT and the Vista SP2 installation environment: on the disk/partition selection, open a command prompt window (Shift+F10) and type the following: diskpart list disk select disk ü clean exit exit DON’T TYPE CONVERT GPT! IT SEEMS TO JUST COME UP THE ERRORS AGAIN, ALSO REPLACE ü WITH WHATEVER YOUR DISK IS OF COURSE Now exit the installation process and reboot the machine (don’t force it off, just let it reboot and then open the computer’s boot manager to boot into the Vista USB. When you get to the disk select screen just press next and it works fine from there. Wait a while and it should eventually get you to the OOBE. Once you’re booted into the desktop tap Windows+R and open diskmgmt.msc, confirm the UAC prompt and right click your C drive’s properties to confirm it is using a GUID partition table If everything worked, enjoy! Some older boards supporting UEFI if they exist may want you to specify an EFI boot file, or if for some reason the entry isn’t made during the installation. Remember this is an EOL OS. Take obvious caution and read up on the subject as necessary, and don’t refrain from asking around/searching the community for help if you’re not entirely versed Note: While I wrote this for Vista it will work on W7 too the same way

Definitely not the best way to title this thread but here goes. In regards to the roytam1 browser installer I have a few bug reports to make: * For some reason, the update check doesn’t seem to fail if you aren’t connected to the Internet and creates the Program Files folders and shortcuts with no content anyway. I forgot to plug in the network cable and kept thinking something was wrong lol... * On Vista x64 the browser installs to Program Files (x86) even when choosing the 64-bit builds for some reason. I also have a few suggestions listed below: * Add an install path option that either installs to %AppData% directory or %ProgramFiles% directories, or allow a custom specification of where it goes. * Perhaps add a way to “update” the browser and register it as a default browser with OS file associations if the user chooses to do so. * (Not sure how this would be done) Check whether the system is 32-bit/64-bit and has SSE or SSE2 first and adjust the options presented accordingly (maybe add a flag if running the exe from the command line that can disable the check in case someone is downloading for another system or something). While this isn’t exactly major stuff, it sure makes it a lot easier especially for less experienced users to this sorta stuff who just want to get browsing on their older OSes and not too do much tinkering around? Thanks for any consideration @i430VX and thanks for making the install script/thing in the first place, it’s a good thing to have around

February/March 2015 is the cutoff point for me personally. For some reason I noted that installing security (or any) updates past that point on a stock SP1 install (no NTLite) causes a lot of resource usage spikes, possibly a deliberate manipulation to try to force people onto the 10 upgrade - much like how MS Update completely crashes on Vista SP2 when checking since, conveniently, 29th July 2015 without manual intervention (which was probably because Vista was dropped from the upgrade path, so MS wanted to make people buy a new PC with 10).

FF45.9 ESR felt quite smooth compared to most. 52 ESR on the other hand feels a bit too bloated and anything past 57, you might as well ignore and use a Chrome-based browser instead.

I have no idea why they don’t just bundle Chrome in new versions of Windows 10 with Microsoft branding and no other changes since the start. The fact they’re even trying to rebrand things like this is pure desperation and it’s not even like they can get anything out of it other than sharing the collected data with Chrome if anyone is insane enough to download this at all. A lot of the bad things that’s happened now like legacy XP-era tech still being used in corporate environments is mostly MS’s own fault for their early 2000s monopolistic behaviour, as well as the way they jumped from XP to Vista in terms of overall resource usage. Had Longhorn not been so ambitious at the start (they’d barely done XP), maybe things would have been a lot different. Vista and its successors gave no time for hardware upgrades in enterprise, everyone stuck to XP, and then when 7 came it was time to either continue using XP forever or change hardware, since it had been obsoleted by then already anyway...

I don’t think anything currently exists for this, but I’m also interested in something like this: the transition from the boot screen and then the welcome screen appearing in my face immediately just doesn’t feel right. It wouldn’t surprise me if MS simply dummied it out instead of removing it entirely, though, given there’s no fade-in to the welcome screen on W7, but is on Vista.