user57

"Windows 10 was offered for free from its release on July 29, 2015, until July 29, 2016, for users of eligible previous versions of Windows. However, Microsoft continued to allow free upgrades for several years after that, officially ending the offer on September 20, 2023. Q: Is the upgrade really free? Do I need to purchase Windows 10 after 1 year? A: With Windows 10, we will offer a free upgrade to Windows 10 for qualified Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 devices that upgrade in the first year. "

looks simple to me, there was a reason win10 was free, and win11 also the article rather writes about security reasons the security how they define it is from a person the plan is probaly to get rid of the person who owns the computer so he can only do what they want the TPM chip was also a such direction, you getting "trusted" for microsoft being secure from you we know they had to be something wrong with it when it was offered for free after the establishment they might want money, but before only spreading is important

people like what people like, so i cant blame anyone for using vista for me the vista question was kinda different, i saw the sellings and xp somehow passed vista so i stayed on xp then windows 7 took over the place but windows 7 is just a problem fixed vista (thats why the versions nt 6.0 for vista, nt 6.1 for 7) 8 is also a vista but its real name should be nt 6.2 thats what win8 actually is the versions in between are rather like service packs to me but then microsoft made a big change with 10, as we all know it even was there for free so there had to be a big downside they dont want to tell us - today we know what it having the updates vista was ok, but vista had a bad start today its hard to say, but win7 8 and 10 have a lot of new "nt 6.x area" functions that vista dont have so vista might have a replacement to 7, but xp dont have a replacement

i readed me a bit into this by far not done yet first it´s impressiv much and a very big collection, good job the problem that you need sp1 to sp2 to sp3 or such things is solveable what these installer scripts use is that /.msu/.msi./.inf files for a installer script (some convert all files together like reg to inf ect.) the problem with that installer script however is that is is kinda slow, and it cant install in 1 step there is a thing before that installer script its the "install maker" ? such as InstallShield or Visual Studio Installer (those are very common to create a installer script) those are rather "build-together-ish" and make those scripts there 3 ways to collect that informations 1: from the raw/source file (for example InstallShield, Visual Studio Installer) 2: extracting the information from the .msi/msu or .inf files 3: debugging the installer and the next (non script) functions after the script installer (such as createfile, regopenkey ect.) one way for the files to do it in 1 step would be to use the MoveFileEx function with PendingFileRenameOperations the registry can be changed with the common registry functions then everything dont depent to go through the installer script i remember i once did that with a installer script in like 1998 and it speeded up the installer from like 10 min to 10 seconds a own installer then just dont need .net 1.0 .net 4.0, it simple can install what it wants those installer scripts have a next deeper set of functions those are the registry and file functions - kinda reminds me the discussions about engines and engines for a engine

1 way to solve this problem would be the firmware doing that on the harddrive you often do not have greater files then 4 GB each chuck but xp can handle file sizes greater then 4 GB / per file the overlappend structure is solving that 32 bit problem it use 32 bit dwords combined as "low" and "high" part https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/minwinbase/ns-minwinbase-overlapped a other thing is the rounding number if you fill 4 kb checks with a file of like 2 mb . something you can fill these 4 kb chucks with 512 kb checks (4 times) only the the very end of the file it can be that you only need 1-3 times the 512 chuck then the last chuck of the 4 kb chuck is just not used that actually dont fall into weight because its only a small piece what would be thinkable that it can exactly handle 2 TB instead of 4 GB is that a DWORD (32 bit) is involved, a idea would be the counter but figuring that out somebody can do ... there would be ways to get this out of a code microsoft published some of their codes - as ms did with their dosbox or their wrk a problem with a big project that dont have a project file is rather that it are many of files if there is no project file where you can scroll around and find the right code in this case it looks to me that the files have to be searched for their names then the structures and functions can be isolated depending how much they are splittered up but the ntoskrnl or windows is a big piece, to pull together all the functions, structs, defs and others parts of code is some work ... google has 300 000 pages for example but then you could actually not only look into the functions you also could compile the outdated ntoskrnl for example from server 2003 the code itself might actually be simple but my editor could actually not just open 300 k files, rather you need a program like visual studio, but vs wants a project file i dont think it just can open all the files at once (all tabs opened) then it probaly has to make a search function what search all the files via filecontrol (and guess what vs has a such thing)

its one thing to print a RGB buffer to a screen, that is what directx video is doing what i wanted to point out is first that CUDA is doing the de/encoding (so basicly everything 99.99 % happens in CUDA, not in directx) then second is some parameters are different in directx versions, the example code already needed d3d9ex not d3d9 without the ex so it also could be that some parameters are just not supported in dx9, hard to say exactly thats why you can give that "RGB" buffer to opengl instead to directx that strongly speaks for windows xp´s directx9, however cuda if you want to do that with a grafic card is doing the important thing the RGB buffer we also could draw with a GDI engine - and thats why i said directx might not be the right question another point is that cuda can be done software wise with mmx-avx (so called XMM registers), those are very fast and by far enough for the purpose either en or decoding rather cuda is a hardware interpretation of a software .... thats it if it has to be a card, why not someone invent a PCI-E card doing the en/decoding ? we do not neccesary need a grafic card to do so - maybe a new hardware invention ? that with the high level functions is different to ask if you have paint - paint isnt making the drawing - it use GDI and GDI use NTGDI and NTGDI use internal functions what in the end go into the grafic card driver using a next engine would be a script that controls paint - that you see quite often that "pre CUDA" is a DLL , it probaly has a pre code for the real control to the cuda part in the grafic card - while cuda is being coded in a CUDA SDK - what is also some "scriptish code" to control the CUDA engine (and is like totally bond to dx10/11 and windows10/11) , the phyton version also only control cuda so hard to say what to call this ? a half-script language to control cuda ? a engine code to control cuda ? a simplified programming to control cuda ? i dont know what i would name it, maybe the others have some corrections for me and im happy to hear them why we have to be so indirectly ? why cant we just use cuda rather directly ?

these timers are almost the same just with different names

well maybe there should be a inofficial SP4 (including all of these upgrades also the posready ones) for all languages in a older past there was a ugly solution someone collected all these upgrades. and then run them via createprocess() function , that took 4 hours or something a better way would be to set the files and registry entrys manually via registry and file functions that 4 hours method just runs each update.exe (for every kb upgrade) over and over - until it has the 190 upgrades or something

if the life-cycles are meant, it would be better when the firmware to choose these that raise a certain question tho, if it splits the sectors with into less and more used sectors , then not just a few die on and on, rather the disc would then later die at once

greetings, i would make a better description like screenshots (smartphone pictures are also good). error messages, when the problem apears, do it work in part, KB or upgrade number, your windows xp version

at first it was a good fork for many codecs!, but at some time the engine question kicked in rather of being independent the "newer codecs" are done via engine and ffmpeg is no longer independent and those engines/apis/interfaces (whatever we call them) sit in windows 10, so they keep telling you to install win10 somewhat, somehow neither if its CUDA (what later on calls the high level functions in the grafic card driver(and is called something like "NVIDIA display driver: 551.76"), dx12, LAV engine that also goes for the other like vs2022(what used something called the c-runtime (that uses win10 functions, or the SDT from vs2020), python 3.10 + in future for the compilers today they trigger to use a engine code - that goes into direction of scripts rather then having a c++ code that is really doing the job manual (such as memory managment, file control) this script then is written with win10 functions ... those one-core-api.dll´s are also a such thing that is also the case for example for the nvidia SDK, this one is also to see as some kind of engine -> what then use cuda and d3d12 the HEIC image encoder also was a such thing, it was deeply bound into win10 engines and functions - but it was unbound to me this seems to be a method to get rid of the older operating systems instead of offering the real code - they offer script to do so (and those scripts use win10) - simple said it is not like there would be other ways ... there certainly would be for example if we would have the high level code of CUDA, or the programming control is not going with scripts, rather they are manually controled written - they it would be doable CUDA(and following up the driver) is just a engine that represents hardware video card encoding, such as VP9 or HEVC since CUDA is rather made for win10 its hard to use a code that use CUDA on XP - but the codecs VP9, HEVC are open source - CUDA is not a necessary requirement (and that even tho all the programs out there use this engine ffmpeg being one of them) if put the right way not having a video card is ok if you use a software based en/decoder (and mmx-avx makes such codes by far fast enough - its not like a software mode in a video game where everything would run just superslow) chrome have a such software based decoder for VP9, someone tryed it with 1 core and 2 cores - 2 cores being enough without a grafic card driver being installed (while when he had a grafic card driver installed even 1 core was enough) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y

one way would be that instead the counter 4096 sector size is not repeated if it is a "virtual 4k sector, that has 512 sectors" = it would have to repeat that 512 * 4 if the counter then just access the next 4 k sector instead of sector 513-4096 then it would mis-align them same goes for the oposite "using 4 k step writes on 512 sectors" = it would try to write 4 k on a 512 sector - that would interfere with the next sectors, and leave out 3 512 sectors a buffer overrun oder underrun is also possible seems a matter to understand the entire OS file routines but something else is to see, xp actually handles over 4 GB size here * 512 = 2 TB so hard to say but it might use a 32 bit offsetting while that overlappend structure (what is used on like the entire file functions on xp) has a 64 bit offsetting it tends to say "4 gb * 512 sector size" maybe the issue is small, sure it could be more of problems hard to say to write a such routine (either 4 times 512 or 4k) would be very simple but

the problem with directx is that we dont have dx10/11 or 12 for xp directx10/11/12 is a closed source so we cant see into that engine, so it might end up in a stuckpoint (if you put it the right way "it ask for dx10/11/12") but maybe directx or opengl is even the wrong answer from what i seen in the code its not opengl or directx doing the job its the CUDA engine that gives the RGB buffer to the opengl or directx engine so we might put it the right way you dont need a grafic card to encode / or decode an image or video (the HEIC en/decoder from msfn is proof of that) CUDA is a engine for a grafic card, it makes control/input/output as engine directx/open - uncertain for now - but from what i think its just a engine that gets the data from CUDA if we might think that "software mode" is to slow, no not this time because mmx-avx are from the same nature they 10-500 times faster then normal opcodes thats more then enough to make it fast enough this time so what does CUDA do ? cuda controls a grafic card unit that can make en/decoding of common video formats that sounds good so far - because if you want have something done you want a hardware unit to do the job but nowdays we have many cores - what also can be seen as a hardware unit (that is programmable) while a pure hardware unit is like a print - once printed it cant be changed but the formats are being upgraded - for example CUDA cant en/decode the h.266 codec the grafic card doing the encoding is kinda new, its not like a video game what hardware accelation is from like 1995 or something the video card doing that for a video en/decoder job is not to long ago, and many modes are not supported either the CUDA engine itself is not well supported for windows xp so going that direction might just lead to windows 10 then there you have the right grafic card driver, the right cuda engine, and dx12 so you dont have to deal with any other questions then again, i pointed this out in a other post for a nativ solution we would have insight to the nvidia driver what actually controls the grafic card then we would have a OS-independent solution (high level functions) i dont see this at the moment like at all. when the problems already where spinning around in a LAV engine that makes 3 engines - and no grafic card control was touched at all so at the moment its spinning around in these 3 engines - not where the needs actually would rely a strongpoint could actually be that directx9 dont look that much different to dx10/11/12 so it might could be given a RGB buffer from the CUDA engine - but the CUDA engine for XP is not being upgraded by nvidia https://youtu.be/W3zfb8lLDH0 https://youtu.be/p8387-gu37s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ-0XBqRxuc the problem i see is that already a next engine came but here is the problem : DX11->CUDA->GRAFIC-CARD-High-FLevel-Functions OPENGL->CUDA->GRAFIC-CARD-High-Level-Functions this time: MPV engine->CUDA->GRAFIC-CARD-High-Level-Functions so everybody can see the problem the high level functions are not touched (neither is CUDA) (MPV calls up cuda ? no ...) we had to sort out a similiar question, at first it was like "you need a grafic card doing this job" it took a while until everybody had an agreement that this is not the case - also not for speed (software mode) basicly this only leaves the software option, in avx ect. its by far enough of speed this is not done by a engine like directx, cuda or video card high levels functions its like the RAW control of the RGB buffer for a video player doing the decoding maybe encoding if wanted

that NdisSetCoalescableTimer seems a timer function for me, it might work without that specific flag be set it has the same KTIMER structure as in KeSetTimerEx and xp has this one https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/wdm/nf-wdm-kesettimer https://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/windows/km/ntoskrnl/inc/ntos/ntosdef_x/dispatcher_header/timercontrolflags.htm if that DPC parameter is in use xp also has the KeInitializeDpc, the same goes for KeInitializeTimerEx https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/wdm/nf-wdm-kesetcoalescabletimer

that might be a good point to point out that this false flagging is done quite often, what was not case in the past because at some point it did not have to be a virus, trojan horse, keylogger it has to be "potentional unwanted software, malware" - what this is they defined but rather going into a direction where software gets marked what is not on the want list after that they just flagged unwanted programms as virus, also coming over the anti virus software i could not even run the heic en/decoder in a win10 vmware test machine because all it said is that this executable is a virus, this was the case with many other 100 % virus free software i compiled up - other such as the one core api are also flagged as virus - even tho its open source its a monopoly

youtube got taken over by the mainstream, there where no commercials, no weird real name asks, or telling your phone number, and no lawers that tell you that is right that is not youtube still has some good things left but things start to take over directx9 and 11 dont look that much different either: https://youtu.be/W3zfb8lLDH0 https://youtu.be/p8387-gu37s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ-0XBqRxuc thats because it rather come down to how well the 3d-models are made, directx just render a 3d object over a engine called d3d version xthere certainly are some things where a very few things are better, but overall it cant really improve the textures from the 3d object

samuel has done a well job with his one core api even unlike me hes a very active guy, he really works on stuff sometimes he wants a bit much, but as everybody can see chrome gone way up i remember the old discussion about the skia engine and why it broke it up, that was for chrome v54 now we have 133 - thats way of a gap who wants a short look back just what have been achieved: https://archive.org/details/advancedchromev54.20.6530.0 that version actually was a long stuckpoint

i really dont understand the hate for the old operating systems why someone cant go online with a win98 machine using IE6 ? it was never a problem even win10 apeared, neither it was when win2000, xp, vista and 7 where out it seems it wasnt enough to take out the IE11 either, they took just a google chrome fork called EDGE but then the problems apeared rather in like 2018

the 2003 server version might actually a well solution, because its the same type of windows 5.1 to 5.2, but rather useally xp had more of upgrades https://github.com/Skulltrail192/One-Core-API-Binaries/issues/255 if it does work well it might be a well solution already, i remember seeing some discussions too

right it dont in sence of GPT but rather that was going into the xbox solution, jaclaz talked already started to talk about it to pass the 2,1 terabyte limit it might be a solution to pass that 4 GB * 512 sector size = 2´199´023´255´040 + sector 0 = 2´199´023´255´552 what are ~ 2 terabyte if the solution has to be GPT wise, paragon might done something already if it is open source it would be something to work with in xp there is that overlappend structure, it has two 32 bit high and low parts from that spot on it looks well for xp, but you actually dont see what happens next useally it is this chain : deviceiocontrol -> nt/zwdeviceiocontrol -> transfered into IRP if xp makes the right request it might work (IOCTL_STORAGE_QUERY_PROPERTY), fills up a structure called STORAGE_ACCESS_ALIGNMENT_DESCRIPTOR, that structure has BytesPerPhysicalSector HANDLE hFile = CreateFileW(DeviceName, 0, FILE_SHARE_VALID_FLAGS, 0, OPEN_EXISTING, FILE_FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS, 0); // getting the handle to the harddrive/disc/ssd/device STORAGE_ACCESS_ALIGNMENT_DESCRIPTOR sad; // that is that structure what is filled with the sector size static STORAGE_PROPERTY_QUERY spq = { StorageAccessAlignmentProperty, PropertyStandardQuery }; // right i/o control codes ULONG BytesReturned; // just a unused dummy DeviceIoControl(hFile, IOCTL_STORAGE_QUERY_PROPERTY, &spq, sizeof(spq), &sad, sizeof(sad), &BytesReturned, 0); // common chain to call the request i

what happend to the bigger sector solution ?

i have shortly looked into that cuda/cuvid code, i expected it does set (control, output, input) - and yes it is doing exactly that it is right that a grafic card that supports a codec is needed to make use of nvenc/nvdec (or with other words if you want a grafic card doing the de/encoding you need a grafic card that can do this) what seems a missconsumtion to me is that you need a grafic-card to make a de/encoder - that is just not right the example code is totally bond to the dx9 video engine // Create the D3D object. "Direct3DCreate9Ex(D3D_SDK_VERSION, &g_pD3D)" to this point it dont look to bad for xp (dx9Ex video engine) (and in the end maps a RGB buffer to that dx9ex engine) but it can be expected there is a deeper code (inside the d3d9/11 dll), where you if you use that engine code actually dont see what it is doing there the code itself, is also mixed up some parts initialize cuda/cuvid while other gather the d3d9/11 video engine so this method use both (d3d video engine + cuda/cuvid engine) (it is mapping the cuda/cuvid engine to opengl/d3d video as RGB buffer) it would be possible that the driver simply dont have the right control code and just returns 0 or not function it could be that if the right parameters are set, that these are just not being processed (either nvcuvid.dll, d3d9.dll or the driver version) the nvidia driver either user or kernel level is closed source, makes it hard to overview and dont allow a direct controlment with high level functions (what also only do set control/parameters,input, output) for ffmpeg i looked around for the NVDEC/NVENC engine, ffmpeg use up these engines (ffmpeg is not independent) rather ffmpeg is to understand as command line that if it wants to use NVDEC/NVENC ffmpeg then calls up these engines so ffmpeg isnt doing it alone either or "just can be used on xp" the user engine/api seems to be at nvcuvid.dll what then calls a function inside that nvcuvid.dll like this: cuvidMapVideoFrame(&hDecoder, nPicIdx, &cuDevPtr, &nPitch, &stProcParams); but this is a low level function it dont tell what nvcuvid.dll (and all its followers such as the video driver) actually really do https://github.com/tpn/cuda-samples/blob/master/v9.0/3_Imaging/cudaDecodeD3D9/videoDecodeD3D9.cpp https://docs.nvidia.com/video-technologies/video-codec-sdk/11.1/nvdec-video-decoder-api-prog-guide/index.html then website for a devloper making use of NVDEC/NVENC tells us this: Software: Windows 11, Video Codec SDK v12.2, NVIDIA display driver: 551.76 this seems hard to me it tells a driver version that xp actually dont have (551.76) the SDK might be able to do it without opengl/d3d video (as cuda/cuvid maps a RGB buffer in the end, why would it have to be a opengl or d3d video engine?) but a new SDK tends to use new api sets (and here is where it says something about win11) it might actually already use win10+ apis in the SDK already the driver and the nvcuvid.dll (the newer versions) might also be used up with win11 windows api´s a real solution would look totally different we would need the high level functions that control the nvidia driver then we could set the right parameters/controlcode, input buffer, output buffer (RGB) the control code, input buffer, and the output buffer can be done in a player then that would be very os independent solution and could make use of nvidia grafic cards that support hardware de/encoding it will be exciting to see what happens now

it is for MPC-HC ? then the question apears if it play the h.265 codec i do not know specific details as "CUDA" is closed source but if i get it right cuda makes: control input, control and output so if the driver isnt doing that the grafic card isnt talked to it dont has to be a grafic card but, its a plain c code (both en and decoding) - the question raise how fast that actually runs the code written with mmx-avx instructions are very fast but for a player only the decoder would be needed https://openrepos.net/content/lpr/libde265-hevc-decoder

i dont have insight in this project but is dump_ntoskrn8.sys even part of the ACPI 2.0 driver ? sounds like a kernel extender but i do not know

what about this player ? https://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/3.0.20.html