user57

https://www.file-upload.net/download-15542984/fileextd.dll.html that fileextd.dll a old file you dont see that often, the kernelex.dll must be a custom kernel extender

did you make the capacity test ? https://www.nextofwindows.com/how-to-verify-sd-card-capacity-on-windows

so it was on a ethernet cable or parallel "printer" cable? maybe the printer has a bad usb performance, are patched files involved (the PAE 128 GB extender has other usb drivers for example from vista) therefore you should repeat that usb performance test with a different OS, but maybe the same hardware of the computer

hard to say when you dont know the entire thing - but the firmware definitely has potential to fix a such related problems - but as said there might be more of things still involved

a alignment is made for a "piece of area" if you have a "align area" for 1 MB (aka 1´048´576) then 2048 sectors of 512 bits would fit in there (or 256 sectors of 4k (4096)) if you dont have a "align area" that rounds up correctly it might lead into a sector, cluster, track, cylinder, whatever in between a other if you have a area like 4k (4096) * 4 = 16384 but you made that area +1 then the area overlaps into the next 4k sector then it use up 5, 4k sectors while the other data is not used, maybe corrupted the 512 bit and 4096 bit sector question been around for a while now, the hardware/firmware can also handle this - in this case this in then made in the harddrive/firmware not the operation system anymore if the firmware handles that right it can emulate logical and physical sectors - a drive is made at least of 4 maybe more parts (cluster, cylinder, sector, head) - its a combination not a single piece like "i want this specific sector, like just an "offset you enter - and thats it? no" " this is very common for other electronic parts to translate something like this for example a "logical address" to a "physical address", or segmentation (thus 32 bit can write past 4 GB) where the electric signals in the ram apear is then part of that -hardware piece-, the hardware piece control that or in case of a harddrive in hand´s of that firmware - what later then translate this to a physical thing on the harddrive - thats it this also make the -32 wires question- come out again - a USB only has 4 wires (where 2 are rather a power supply - if you notice the light on your usb mouse it probaly get powered by this, the smartphone charge should be also a such example), rather 2 wires of the USB are used for "transfer and control - what then is limited by frequency that wire can do" - but a usb cable can write to a "terabyte + harddrive" - you dont need always 32 or 64 wires to do this (with 2 wires you would have a offset 2*2 = 4 , 4 wires 2*2*2 = 16) (there are such model´s who use 32 wires and control wires - but it is not always a must - if i remember right with FSB there was something done the ram only had 200 mhz but "quadpumped" its 800 FSB (that might bring out someones memory´s) - the cache and the TLB of the cpu can do this) i wonder why no-one has made the related change in the windows xp operating system yet - basicly it sounds simple to ask the harddrive what sector-size it uses (sometimes called the AF (advanced format)) but its just 4 k sectors the term "AF" sounds a bit to high for my opinion after that the right controlment for the 4 k sector has to be written - if it reads out a different sector size it handles for that size that was returned - if its 512 then its 512 if its 4096(4k) then its that size https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/backup-and-storage/support-policy-4k-sector-hard-drives the x-box solution maybe ? if not it was like "everything is a paragon driver problem" it might be solved to a 16-18 TB harddrive just going for the sector size of 4k, the other might can be ignored for now

actually i have often delays opening a youtube video with my win7 machine it might actually has something to do with this but im not sure useally it are around 10 seconds that problem apeared rather recently

to me to that sounds very weird, but when fixing a pc problem i often had someone putting it that way this would be a case for a "being on the place" for a better meaning the idea to use a cable is not a bad idea, but if that connection problems persists in that case it´s likely to be that device i would disable wlan in that router, just in case someone of your neighbors somehow can connect to your router

ok next besides assembly would be c++, windows drivers, physical harddrive knowledge and how its programmed to (not engine/api like createfile and writefile or script like "copyfile c:\a.txt c:\b.txt) to write this to a windows xp driver you also have to have knowledge about pe headers sections, relocs ect.

right NTSTATUS NTAPI CsrNewThread(VOID) { return NtRegisterThreadTerminatePort(CsrApiPort); } while CsrApiPort is defined as HANDLE (HANDLE CsrApiPort;) in this case that CsrApiPort variable is empty

it looks like someone has tryed to debug a driver without having any knowledge debugging is not something you can do without any knowledge its not easy stuff either for example its a lot of math, its not like a script language a bare minimum to start with would be to know assembly https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~pannain/mc404/aulas/pdfs/Art Of Intel x86 Assembly.pdf but that´s the bare minimum its not stuff you can just do, like lifting a few weights around, or trying some drivers or some different versions, maybe putting a few different hardware types into a pc you litterally trying to make a own CPU - and not just putting it into a computer no you making it this time a-z

there CsrNewThread is just a redirection to NtRegisterThreadTerminatePort if thats all you just have to use NtRegisterThreadTerminatePort, xp has that function

Csr functions useally came from csrsrv.dll i think CsrNewThread is just a different name for CsrCreateThread those are often very similiar to CreateThread or NtCreateThread it would be about looking its parameters and purpose for exact detail, but xp has many of these functions https://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/windows/win32/csrsrv/api/process/thread.htm

do i understand this right ? the youtube downloader for xp (aka yt-dlp) only could get the h.264 format in windows xp ? but the chrome-player (thats the thing what plays the video from youtube ect.) seems very capable to do the "h.265 codec" one of the h.265 decendent´s is called VP9 - in xp the browser (like supermium) it also could not handle VP9 ? when i tryed the "KI" the KI did the same thing to nicolaasjan what the KI did to me, it pretended like to know the problem but everybody could say something like the KI say like "it is because the fluctuation in the internal functions" -> but basicly that says nothing, rather to write something like this describe "he/KI dont know either" the KI did the same to me i asked it up what REG_MULTI_SZ_APPENDED is and why these can have 2 constand´s then it firstly say "that is right" - but the correct answers would be that it is not - the inf installer has a own set of constand´s that´s why it has 2 constands - it has nothing to do with a c++ compiler or the registry constand´s nor the registry functions so the KI told me some bullcr.. and i was more confused then before (but we get the point the KI´s answer said it like it knows that, but actually the KI dont) VP9 would be doable it is open source, openssl if it has a age-problem would also be doable - there would be the possiblity to write the cryptografic instructions if they are in SSE - then you still could translate them to normal instruction, that also would be possible in sence of vista-10 function - we would have some on our list - one example would be the SRW-locks, those dont exits in XP but there implementations that works (they are function tested) it would depent on how many functions python would be asking from what i understand it was going like "hmm python 9.11 + didnt compile up anymore" now we done !? so do we know the problem more precisely ? openssl ? vista functions (in this case what ones) ? vp9 ? the thing with the frames should be mentioned, a video is not a game in a game i could not even play with 60 frames even with 80 frames i could reconize that framerate with 100 frames it was ok but a video this is however not the case often 24-30 are enough - the motion blur rather depents on the shutter-speed a shutter speed is not a framerate a shutter speed is how many pictures are taken in a certain speed like 1/60 thats 0,016 seconds to take 1 frame you dont need 60 frames to make this happen you can take 24-30 frames of 1/60 frames either (in 1 second intervals = 24 frames with 1/60 taken pictures) if you dont want the motion blur at all you take at least 1/500 for barly motion blur, 1/1000 for close to none , 1/2000 for no motion blur at all for fight scenes that look well (then you just take 24 frames that was taken in 1/2000 speed) 1 thing to tell here is that often for 24 frames also 1/24 shots are used 1/24 can make the picture to wash (not only motion blur) - higher speeds here dont have that problem so much or not at all if very fast - but they do not depend having 60 frames - in this case you can also have lets say 24 pictures/frames taken with 1/1000 speed what you can say about a faster shutter speed is : it tends to sharpen the picture (if the iso dont has to be increased) sharpen the picture also means the video looks sharper or better - a video is just a picture repeated 24 times (sometimes 50 or 60) but in a video that is often not as reconizeable as with a game - that would remind a 3d-object discussion and a 2d video discussion - while 2d would do just fine for a video more frames are not bad ... but the benefits are mostly (at least for video) are not that high anymore - and not to compare with the frame discussion from a game however for shutter speeds of that level you need a fast lens the so called t-stop or f-stop, an alternativ would be to be in a good light (like sunlight) (in older movie´s you often see that they used outdoor lights to have a better iso, that was when FILM was still around - i saw them and even in a shadow scene the video looked very bright - that was because a outdoor light was used) if either you have a slow lens or a bad light you have to increase the iso - and increasing the iso means less pixels and less dynamic range! (dynamic range means that the texture in bright and dark parts have more detail - a problem special small sensors have - thats why they use tricks - one trick is to take multiple pictures at different shutter speeds - and overlap them) so far i have not seen what is really missing, so more information would be very welcome

its not a security measure, its security against the user or "non-microsoft" (if i remember right they had always a grude against a bootkit (even when it was totally legal)) so they decide what you do there - that would describe it right i would not call it security for that reason - its a missleading term that trys to confuse and lead it to a different discussion point its a old talk like about the monopol position microsoft is taken action for (not the first time) there was something like that even in very past times like with netscape - where microsoft where sued for taking monopol positions after that list they doing that then is very long - its litterally about billions of money where microsoft where sued for this surely this is about child-abuse or terrorism ? i dont think so - its just a company interest - calling out that is the same missleading term - if you would accept it like that you actually ruined yourself and fall for the trick

well it raise questions why they are not able to make it xp compatible, they are deeply into this stuff is it a problem of skill ? like somebody just used someones code that was wrote for win10, or a must to a certain engine version (that would also be a python version) it also could have come that python is a scriptish language like java - if you do write a code there it might just depents on the java engine personally i have never seen this to happen with a normal c++ style but going a little of-topic - this is bad for vista 7 and even 10 users - this version around play might just hit them at some point either - that might not be now but that would be a thing - they are trying with the vs2022 version already (and trying to get rid even 10) if it comes over a next newer python version then you run into the same problem - again it raise the question if you have insight into the real code - not just it´s low level/script functions

from my understanding (is not absolute - or maybe someone just correct me up) it has 5 main things related to the harddrive cylinder cluster track sector and head those get translated by the firmware of the harddrive to a LBA address the LBA registers seems 48 bit in total what makes sence (since its 3 times 16 bit = 48 = 48bit LBA) (LBAlo, LBAmid, LBAhigh) those are a combination, the real thing not neccesary always needs 32 wires, it actually could use less wires to transfer the data either the speed rather would be limited to what these wires can progress by frequency a USB stick for example dont have so many wires (even tho running with a 32 bit os or maybe 64 bit os) https://techdiagrammer.com/wp-content/images/usb_a_wire_diagram_hihdn.jpg but we getting the point - we not neccesary need always 2, 32 or 64 bit wires this formula often came up: LBA = (C × HPC + H) × SPT + (S − 1) C, H and S are the cylinder number, the head number, and the sector number LBA is the logical block address HPC is the maximum number of heads per cylinder SPT is the maximum number of sectors per track lets say the sector is 512 bytes then you can multiply the indicator by 512 with 4096(4k) by 4096 that would also not be limited if you have a track containing lets say 1000 sectors the next track then would point into a next 1000 sector track if then the sector 0 would have 512 bytes then the indicator 0 would point into track 0 and sector 0 the same things would be the case if its a head a cluster or a cylinder this cylinder sector head would actually be translated by the firmware to a pysical position - that would be like its job it also can do this software side - it actually dont need to have these things - as long they are transtated correctly by the firmware of the harddrive for a drive it seems that you have to set these things before you output your data stream (outsb (byte/8 bit), outsw (word/16 bit), outsd(dword/32bit)) if you see a code like "move me 4 mb of ram" - no its not doing that that way for memory there are useally 32 bit moves (this is a small piece of data) - this then is repeated as soon 4 mb are reached for the harddrive it seems that you actually dont have just an "offset" you have to set where first - then you write the output again either 8 bit 16 bit or 32 bit wise the reason 8 16 32 bit maybe 64 bit or even 128 bit (sse) are not slower is because the cpu/hardware can detect this progress and translate this to a faster progress (aka faster speed) what xp (or windows useally give us) at usermode is the overlappend structure - that one is made of 64 bits it probaly gets translated into the right progress that the harddrive is needing ... here the logic would play a role - maybe they limited it to a dword (32 bit) * 512 (common sector size) = ~ 2,19 TB that with the 4k sectors are not a bad idea because then the data just increases 8 times 2,2 * 8 = ~ 17,52 TB it would be nice to have insight into that paragon driver, there was also a 3 tb+ unlocker from asrock, the information might be out there somewhere

i think it originates from this kernel extender : it allow some drivers from 7-10 to use on xp, but i do not think it can fix your sound card driver problem dont forget that win7 is a successor to vista, win7 is just a extended vista, win7 has more functions while holding same compatibility after win8 the next windows versions gone a different direction for xp its a different story it is successor to win2000, and the previous nt versions also server2003 originates from xp

so just using the right paragon driver solved it up ? thats good news that the /pae question related to that problem would be finally closed

i dont think that will work in this case you litterally asking to write a driver for that specific device, without having knowledge of that device (like that company that created it has) if its not a open source driver sounds a close to mission impossible to me porting an existing driver is not easy either you are likely to create all the missing functions that win8 driver lacks in windows xp - what actually is a lot of work also you could ask their driver devlopers if they are doing that - but normally they ignore a such request

i do not know python but if its like a normal compiler it searches for a main() or winmain(), the next error talks something about __main__ looking these 2 lines might be of interests it seems to be some kind of call "PyInstaller.__main__" a import useally is a function that a modules exports (such as a dll (or dllmain()) or in case of executable winmain) combined it says in "PyInstaller" + "__main__" was not found or pyinstaller was not reconized as "package" File "C:\Users\Admin\Documents\GitHub\xl-converter\misc\pyinstaller\PyInstaller.py", line 15, in <module> from PyInstaller.__main__ import run "ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'PyInstaller.__main__'; 'PyInstaller' is not a package [end of output]" one way i could think of this is happening is that winver in the peheader is set to 6 or higher (6 are vista and 10) in this case a executable caller (such as createprocess) cant open the module - also from consideration the answer from compilers can sometimes not be very precise, it also could be a small type error/syntax error near that area aka PyInstaller at spot __main__ however i do not know the syntax in python

the answer from the developer is not bad, but he also say he dont know it so exactly either but i would have to go with close to nothing to just write something to this connections are made via winsock - here TCP/IP procolls and TLS (aka the named openssl) can be involved if its a winHTTP request the HTTP request also sends what OS you are on - some actually then refuse the connection if they see this that would be changeable the idea going to a changed python yea - i also said that - even tho i had much less useful detail´s a other small idea is to look if the same code work for a other OS, if so its likely the internals (the functions that come next) somehow mess up thats also what the python devloper said with other words the openssl problem might be possible to determinate by just trying a different OS - if it has the same code then its not openssl a problem i can see here that this rely´s on script functions (low level) the next tier functions are deeper (like the named winsock) if its somewhere at this spot you need to debug these functions - and see why they are breaking up this is the other problem i talked about - if you would have a normal c++ style you could see the most internal functions (instead of only "connection failed" or something like "urllib3.connection.HTTPSConnection object at 0x032F9910>: Failed to establish a new connection")

wasnt that dietmar´s terretory ? it is nice to have a kernel extender that provide these missing functions or maybe a missing piece that might be a solution there is maybe a different approach to solve this problem - a driver from that company today´s OS such as win10 provide standart functions to solve this for a device - then something like this project just works without having a own driver the problem we faced here is that win10 has newer codes in the relevant drivers - its like a standardized code to control certain devices the problem with that is that this is not very OS-independant the most drivers/or and devices useally define 3 basics: writes control read these are somewhat somehow written into that standardized code a driver from the company could also provide the same thing - they neither have to bind a such driver to windows 10 functions it would be doable - then they might would have a few more customers if lets say a XP see their product he could see "xp driver present" or something like that and buy it up like that it is like limited to win10 maybe you could ask in their forums about this

im not someone who programs in python but they say its intensional to drop support for python 3.9 the commits say that they could support it still (so also that devloper says there) ... but they dont want to and that error says it has to do with "urllib3" of python - what is part of their removement in newer python versions they say everything below "urllib3" is dropped urllib3 would be the thing to look for, like what functions of other then XP they used here - and if you can make this version compatible with xp

that´s a important thing to talk about again often newer app´s depending on side things, like runtimes(c-runtime, sdt), they require cmake, they require a new c++ style (not only the ones that allow new types of writings, rather something like "currentpath" - this is going into a direction of a script rather then a language (in java a scriptish language that is for example the case)), they requie a new version of compiler like vs2019 or even vs2022, they require a engine like "cuda, like dwrite, like LAV", MinGW,maybe also a second programming language like masm thats only to name a few ! it rather are even more those rather also are already bond to win10 or win11 like directx11 is for example so this is a problem you have today if only one of these things break up (in this case python) it might be a direct end - if more break up you have a even bigger problem the reason behind this are scriptish languages (what c++ in newer styles is also going into that direction) - and its going very into that direction a elder style is very independed of it´s operating system, like something "currentpath" would have a own code rather then somewhere in the code "std:CurrentPath" -> that might looks small but its not - that code is getting translated to a "real next code" what then up uses windows functions ... - its not faster it´s like an illusion that looks small and the knowledge is getting lost how these functions actually work - so a new programmer will always come up with the std:CurrentPath (or whatever std´s, c-runtimes, engines) there now are ... in a bigger program there are then many of these things - you cant just unbound all of them - a older compiler would not compile them, and a newer compile (translate) them to win11 functions ... so it might be better to have a solution in a normal c++ style - then you are fully independed of all these things - they cant just release a new phyton version that you have to fix - then you have the control about your code ffmpeg in the past was relativ independed today it´s going a different direction it begin to use engines rather then having own routines that can do the things today ffmpeg is rather like a command line - and internal it already started to use many engines and these use win10 functions, drivers, dependencies - up to some point i found ffmpeg a very nice tool, today im a bit disapointed of it a few years ago i mentioned that problem - now we face it again

i would suspect that paragon driver is a filter driver filter drivers are something between the OS and the HARDWARE it can perform the same actions as the OS can do with the hardware there are those IRP requests where filter drivers often would be if the controlment is taken from that spot the paragon driver has the control so putting things right, the paragon driver actually could handle the harddrive instead of the OS (in this case xp) then interact with the OS and show it as if the harddrive can control more then 2 TB of discspace this might have a problem but, it needs that paragon driver in that case to figure out what the inner XP code is doing is more of work, that require a lot of debugging - i think we might have candidates to do that