user57

win7 x64 machine, chrome 109 https://ibb.co/LznbN1b6

that just proofs it again, there are people around who fully intensional try to make bad influence i also tryed to point out girls and feelings and one of them trys for example over that (for example a guy did apear and tryed a different taktic, he scremed around i have the patent right - like rage out bla bla - only that these things at least dont work on me) - he had no patent rights by the way - he is trying to make bad influence a other thing is this win2000 question i often said that this is to much in more directions asking - it was a long road even for xp and we are a xp community - at least where we talked and where we post) - we can give win2k the codes - but they are around more like open source and so also it raise questions if you have a bad computer you in like every case can use xp i think they trying to make balast - in hope that the thing breaks up (i dont fall for that) i often said also you wasted a lot of energy into the win2k question - its not like that i hate win2k or something but i can see the other directions that user agent changer is no crime either - rather i think its a crime from them to read out a certain computer like - oh this guy has win2k - just trow him out and make him buy a new pc (betrayal, monopol, anti-trust) that they tryed it with a virus and bad influence is just showing that rather you should fix the last missing one - it dont seem a problem to me - why you would give these guys (who kicked your compuper) leave a open hole ?

we getting off-topic again but can you explain why ? that guy might wrote a other video where is said the oposite but the questions he answers to are asking it wrong (for example he is being asked for a short instruction list somewhere in the code - why it would be only made there ? people are seeing this problem quite often) 64 bit app´s result in bigger file sized because for example the offsets are bigger, there are things coming together (to avoid this they used the trick list, for example they didnt use always the full 64 bits or even 32 bit instructions) often x64 app´s in elder compiliers use a 32 bit instruction set instead of a 64 bit instruction set (shown in regedit_64.jpg) they are aware of this problem, bigger instructions means more demand, in the regedit (64 bit) case they use a 32 bit instruction set so in theory it is not even a x64 bit application, but it is bigger in size even tho some tricks where used then there is also useally the 4 GB question that is also a longer story in fact there are no 4 GB moves, or 4 megabytes moves, or 100 mbit/s these things are made via a assembly command and these are in common 32 bit or 64 bit (16 and 8 are only used if the data is smaller then 32 bit or 16 bit then 8 bit is used) now comes the good part about that, the cpu for example the TLB can see the incoming commands then there is actually no speed loss for example there was the a older question in "quad-pumped questions" in the LGA 775 socket question instead of pumping just 32 bit it quad pumps the 32 bit *4 aka 128 bit or more the cpu´s gone longly away from just a clockrate + the 32 wires 32 bit is not limited for 4 GB of RAM either (for the 32 bit move question it also would make no difference in speed or memsize) in a programming language it normally looks like this like memmove(offset1,offset2, 5 megabyte) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/cpp/memmove-in-cc/ but that is always being translated into 32 bit moves maybe 64 moves (but these are not faster, the reason i tryed to explain buffering and such) (the cpu can see the machine code commands and shorten them that also goes for 8 and 16 bit moves - via cache - via a different cpu shematic) , here are the norms for passing 4 GB of ram in 32 bit PSE (page size extension) and PAE (physical address extension) and paging/segments these exits since AMD athlon (1999) and for intel pentium 2 (1998?) https://msfn.org/board/uploads/monthly_2024_10/page_size_method_PSE.jpg.21624fe4f9fa5ef04f8f49d5bf6f8d52.jpg shortly said - these so called "virtual offsets (VA)" in 32 bit are not physical ones physical ones are made via paging why 4 gb isnt used for a 32 bit application then ? the reason goes rather back that in that time you barly needed more then 2 GB ram in only 1 application then you could see that microsoft didnt use the extra segments to its full potential - rather they used maybe a few kilobytes of it the next reason is the compiler, the compiler normally just knows the 32 bit offset it dont know how to generate a memflow over segments (the memmove command for example cant do that) so all the applications are compiled to have it with the 4 gb limit - but more would be possible there is no "continuous flow" question for the "32 bit move question" - 32 bit are a very small amount lets say we want to move 1024 (1 kb) that would make 32 times the 32 bit moves and for that reason if the compiler (or better said the compiled code) at some point would reach the 4 GB ram - but since its a very small piece of 32 bits (32 bits are 4 bytes - its a very small piece) the cpu could not even reconize the difference it then would just say ds:00000000 (0002:00000000) instead of ds:ffffffff (0001:ffffffff) but again a normal compiler do not know this method! also something you can test the speed if 32 bit and 64 bit are slower or faster is the heic encoder i wrote just turn off the hardware acceleration (then normal instructions are used) i can compile a 64 bit version if you want but it makes no difference the hardware acceleration use the hardware speed registers (MMX,SSE, AVX) and these can move 512 bit 256 bit 128 bit (depending on what your cpu can do) also they can interact - makes them a lot faster so in sence of speed you also dont find yourself in a better position for x64 https://msfn.org/board/topic/185879-winxp-hevcheifheic-image-encoderdecoder there is also a elder method called the ramdisc, but the ramdisc has to remap the virtual address space (it can use more then 4 gb of ram, but when it whats to see a other piece of that it has to make the pagein/remap) for a normal compiler you just set it from 32 bit to 64 bit but 64 bit applications give an error to 32 bit operating systems - so i think 32 bit has the advantage in that question you can run a 32 bit compiled app also on 64 bit - its like no problem - its not slower - often even a little faster and smaller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumping_(computer_systems)

dont tell me it cant make the hash in xp ? then it is likely it is created by the operating system, probaly in the TPM chip and somewhere via exported api or something however it is just a hash/algo - it has nothing to do with the OS a lot of solution idea´s that came up in the past (like the h265 question(for example over grafic-card) or like the nvidia kmdf/wdf question) the solution idea´s where not os independent - rather the idea´s where to give the xp drivers these functions so we running afterwards windows 10 rather then representing a os independent solution like the h265 image en/decode i put up to repeat that hash for a file checksum sounds very possible to me in this case someone probaly want to go for the TPM driver and some others drivers to add to xp to have this probaly certain function

good point, i often said going to start with v150 or something is a little to much

its getting off topic but you have probaly a wrong thinking about this there is a succesor system in this win2k question there was windows me - what where kinda bugged, also win9x dos direction stuff there was nt 4.0 and 5.0 - where these had a 32 bit base and no dos like 98 or ME then 5.0 was made to win2k so with XP it was about to get compatibility back and future on so in win2k you rather got a office look - it where slower then 9x aka win98 maybe me it was stable but there was also this VXD driver question a big problem there was that the go from user to supervisor mode where slow here XP could point because instead of int 2e - xp used the sysenter command (what is a lot faster) (while still can do the int 2e method too) also the entire nt 5.0 was improved - more function - while keeping compatibility - and more speed so 5.1 aka xp was the clear successor to win2k 5.2 dont really exit - its a xp they made with some server functions - its not bad but its not a real new invention then there was the vista question 6.0 slow, incompatible, parts where bugged that got fixed with 7 aka 6.1 - so 7 has more, is faster and more stable these are the successors the the subversions the most people got the code open source - if you want it for win2k you have it in your hands when i looked on firefox 110 i saw over 300 missing functions - thats basicly a lot dibya then said he want to change it "inside the code" probaly resulting in *6 the changes that being said these things are hard to make - its not like we could go there and just fix it in a few hours that e3kskoy7wqk guy has gone for that type of solution - it are really a lot of changes so what do you think ?

the new format has beaten up h264, jpg or jpg2000 maybe the other in between like jxr or jpg with 10 and 12 bit (instead of 8 bit) these are 3 common makers for the new h.265 format AOM (265) HEIC (265) AVC (265) SVT (265) smaller makers (rav1e, dav1d, kvazaar)? but a must say now is that these perform all same-ish if you look at these they perform almost equal: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/968944/195860125-aa639dca-43ba-426c-b11c-31945e4c0b41.png and again: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/968944/195952805-6e8a4f96-f2db-453f-857f-5fbcd583aef7.png the most tests on youtube dont show the encoding speed, slower actually means better the reason for this is that the algo, routines, methods (whatever we call all of them) for fast speeds are skipping the routines that create more pixels a must say for the 2 graphs above not the best settings are used ! (he use slow - there are 3 above that - slower, veryslow and placebo) so a very common problem you face on youtube is that either the encode time is not set to the best or the settings are not set to the best while the comparision then compares the images still side by side (like this is the absolution to compare this things) that i pointed out here, i often not even wanted to have the box for the speed: https://msfn.org/board/topic/185879-winxp-hevcheifheic-image-encoderdecoder then supposingly there is a format maker the claims to be better then h265 VVC (suppose to be h.266) but the compares then are often again not on the set to the maximum so in relation to this post - it would not be that important what maker exactly is used it could be either way - just one from the h265´s the decoders useally are not that cpu intense, the VLC player seems to can handle this problem sidely said the real comparison would begin if these encoders are set the maximum

chrome is a programm doing such a independent own solution, i think you can take either from supermium or e3kskoy7wqk they might already know more precise what exactly you need, IE8 with tls 1.3 would be a idea in theory

the internet explorer 8 suppose to have tls 1.2 with some upgrades the standlone ie8 installer dont have tls 1.2 there KB4019276 is the upgrade for IE8 for tls 1.2 recently i wanted to test my installer, i looked on the windows update catalog and the biggest upgrade is ? the IE8 installer so i was thinking to try it on a bigger KB upgrade https://msfn.org/board/topic/187777-new-and-probably-a-lot-faster-installer/ look for kb4467770 + kb4019276 + kb4493435 + kb2598845 (english/us) or (GERMAN) there should be a downlink link there is a problem but - and im not certain where it actually come from if i use the orginal installer from IE8 almost no websites is opening (a few are opening) like theoldnet.com so i tryed both - the orginal one from microsoft and the one from me both have identical results (same goes if the side-upgrades are added) what i wanted to try is to test TLS 1.2 - but it dont do the test (either microsofts or mine) so hard to say where this is coming from - if you know i would be happy about that weird enough i have a .iso with sp3 with IE8 (without tls 1.1 and tls1.2) (like the normal IE8 installer (blank) has) there some websites are opening if you want to build in tls1.3 directly into IE8 you would need to figure out where the IE8 selects for example tls1.2 and at that progress you have to hand that over to your tls 1.3

someone did something like that from what i know it use a proxy where the proxy then handles tls1.3 https://msfn.org/board/topic/183352-proxhttpsproxy-and-httpsproxy-in-windows-xp-for-future-use/ it is build from openssl i think but he rather tell you the story

we talk a little away from each others, the "fix it" part was for notheretoplaygames not for K4sum1 and we have like 100 % the same meaning: "2) We-the-consumer can just slip back to a previous version - IT AIN'T GONNA HURT YOU ONE D@MN BIT TO USE A PREVIOUS VERSION." i totally agree on that one, but what notheretoplaygames also says is that he has to much of upgrades he says always something like "that upgrades go a little to fast" but here is where i tryed to point out you can fix this version trick - i dont have to repeat what i wrote about that, its a version trick in short again also you only missing the part with version 8 - thats the last one from the "common trick list" - there are certainly more - but having these would be ok for now and it does indeed work against that "fast upgrade problem" the other part regarding the user agent - if r3dfox has a problem with the new versions - yes the user agent is a solution that work against that - it might not fix it totally - but it would be a step into the right direction that same thing also goes for supermium - what is even the problem to searching for the value that is being added to not_a_brand with "version 8" ? thats the only thing you missing, its only 1 thing

fact is some of them are doing this, and they will do this in the future why you just cant fix it ? what stands against that ? you leave up an option you certainly can fix - so to say i also understand it its a one time fix, its not like you have to bring out 150 versions of it ancient or not they are doing this but that i already said and the other thing both firefox and chrome have these - why we can not compare them in that matter ? what they are trying is a version check - while they offer zero new functionality a solution for this idiocy is to fix exactly that - a changeable version then they no longer can point out that bullXrap instead they have to rely on a new functionality - what they often dont do its like with a d3d9 vs d3d10 question - there is barly any improvment either video or 3dmodels and what they would do they would make a check for d3d10.2 and say - ha see now this dont work anymore for what purpose ?

hmm when you either stuck, dont want to make more of releases, coming to an end, versions dont go high quickly then it might be time for the same thing as in the supermium then it would be time for a user agent changer, build in

ty notheretoplaygames (picture 1) in the first 2 pictures i can see 2 different things at the first upper picture the "file edit view history bookmarks tools help" looks like a menu having that at the spot of the "window title" (picture 2) then "file edit view history bookmarks tools help" has gone downwards its no longer at the part of the "window title" instead at the window title now it has "Customize r3dfox -- eclipse r3dfox" and below it shows "file edit view history bookmarks tools help" it very much look to a menu (picture 3) in your second post you are showing v151 where the windows title is not showing "Customize r3dfox -- eclipse r3dfox" instead it shows what it shows in (picture 1) the menu "file edit view history bookmarks tools help" is at the window title in the second post (picture 4) does not show a differens so we can discard this one that also refers to a common problem devlopers often have (also supermium) often something is coming in like "this dont work - then like nothing else - no pictures - not where it happens - not how it happens - not even what the problem is - and often the most important: how it is to reconstruct to happening" - but rather you need to reconstruct the error - so you can see what the problem is

the title bar is there with correct names and reacting correct ? dont sound to bad for me it somewhat looks like the window title bar - i dont know if NotHereToPlayGames means that if it is that problem there are solutions that draw a "tab like title bar" - sumatra pdf use one for example, if that is the problem it certainly is solveable maybe someone put up the right pictures - like version before - like chrome 151 normal on win10 (representing a visable working picture, so everybody know what is meant), how it looks on redfox (might already be posted), a normwise representation what is suppose to be or how it suppose to look like