user57

youtube dont play on that "ISO IE8" either but it opens a website: https://ibb.co/93VK03sm - somewhat it is working - like on many other websites they are not fully functional dont get me wrong im not trying to make IE8 to a IE11 or Chrome v150 so that youtube works tls1.3 directly into IE8 (rather then a proxy - maybe a nice checkbox like it has for tls1.1 and tls1.2) would be a idea but since there is chrome version 150 for windows xp - that would raise questions to do so what i was trying to do it to test out the installer for function, so i looked up that windows update catalog for the biggest of all the upgrades available - and that was the IE8 (blank) installer with around 17 MB size then it seems to have fully functioned - so i tryed out the IE8 - to compare results i have tryed a .iso with IE8 (that one opens at least in parts) it dont seem to be a problem of the installer from me - because in this case the normal IE8 installer from microsoft would have worked so i was wondering what really is doing that difference

its the same result

i have a little problem with it, i dont know so exactly where that problem comes from i have tryed some websites, but only a few are working like theoldnet.net or Toastytech.com then i compared the results for google.com or youtube.com with a common sp3 iso (that has the IE8) here it comes up with a certificate question, then it opens up the website partly functional https://ibb.co/tP2K2nk7 but when i do that with my installer always this happens: https://ibb.co/t10jkBD there is just no certificate warning, it just says always connections failed now the tricky part - to determinate if that can come from my installer - i tryed the orginal IE8 installer from microsoft itself and again just connection failed no certificate questions - so its not a problem of the installer itself then i tryed a certificate upgrade (to be precise this one:) https://www.file-upload.net/download-15599016/rootsupd.exe.html but that also did not do the trick - it just says nothing about certificate´s - just connection failed what im doing wrong ? or what is going wrong here

its nice to have a other chrome for windows xp, seems that i was mistaken i wasnt looking for e3kskoy7wq´s browser because the title just says something about win7 "Firefox and Chromium running on Windows 7 by e3kskoy7wqk" but i tryed it out, it definitely works, the performance looks a bit slower but that is probaly a other discussion i also looked for the v54 i had in mind in the past it seems to be made by TaoKaiZen, where this skia discussion in the past was around https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2018/01/advanced-chrome-542065300.html

you can compile it up yourself ? it is open source the link you showed is not for windows XP its for windows 7, its not a chinese version above supermium windows have internal numbers where XP is version 5.1 it came to a lot of changed when gone to 6.0 (vista) 6.1 (windows7) and 6.2 (aka win8 and 8.1), windows 10 suppose to be 6.3 but they called it 10 win7 is not far away from 8 and therefore not far from 10, while going back to xp is a lot more, windows 7 is just a improved vista

supermium is still an elite achievement, i remember the discussions with the Skia Engine in a Chinese forum "TAO-KAISEN" or something like that. here the discussion was still with Chrome 49 - that was the last official version of Chrome to XP. they actually failed to revert it back to GDI, but I had made it back then - since then I haven't seen the website anymore. Only then did I see many Chrome versions appear for XP from version 49 to 144 is way of a gap the jump is like very huge i wonder it even got that far actually there is also the firefox question, but it seems that things are not easy there either - but people are trying - from what i remember it was over 320 functions without the one-core.dll´s (not the one core api from sam) with one-core.dll i mean the side dll´s that compilers compile up its not simple stuff, if it would redfox would already have done the goal of v144 firefox it often sounds like every problem related in xp around can be solved in like 1 second without any problems first thing that came to mind is that xp needs a browser - if i had to choose firefox or chrome i certainly would have choosen chrome other things would be a better solution for the PAE/PSE or even more then 4 GB space in only 1 executable, the 4 k sector question, a h.266 codec, maybe WPA3, maybe a newer nvida driver, a smaller idea would be TLS1.3 for the IE8 without a proxy (but we have chrome so why) a second browser would at least be for me not on the priority list because there is one around already, first when the other things are solved then at least for me the firefox quesiton would apear if not we need just more people doing these things, then more things could be solved quickly i think everybody has a open eye what we can do for a chrome in xp, maybe you can offer some code too

not every server offers 500mbit/s often they also have a limit they can offer, therefore they often limit a speed per user sometimes the executable also dont reach a such speed, a browser is a executable if a ISP has a own test server this server might be from the ISP itself or one choosen by them while others dont reach that speed either, having 500 of 500 mbit available is a lot when i had 16k in the past i only reached about 12 k in the speed test

here something comes out that we discussed a lot newer installers of .MSI installers (microsoft standart installer or MSI) for example (these are very common) this is a installer ENGINE and engines are often bound to versions, or operating systems - what is a great disadvantage - also engines are slower then real code so in this case you have to lern that installers engine - you never know the real thing behind it, its like with the "you need a graficcard to decode h.265" or LAV question this is because newer codes or coders use a engine to solve the things installers in general only have 2 important things to do , registry entrys and file movements (thats the most common basics for them) a checkbox like this is simple to make, then you can choose "not these files, not these registry entrys" for a human language they often not have a well solution, best here is to have something that replace the text strings - not a weird engine what will be if they change up their version to one that is not compatible with vista ? that .inf installer from microsoft can install too

we talked about this one, unlike a few people said it has nothing to do with /PAE their idea was probaly that 32 bits should be the limit for a 32 bit operating system but it is not that way around it is because a drive access is made via settings (i/o request) these things are then set before writing anything like cylinder, cluster, sector, head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder-head-sector it is a combination not just 32 bits and the end in reality some of these "parameters" are 16 bits (aka 65536) only going for the sector size (what often and normally is 512) sounds a simplier solution 512 * 32 bit´s = ~ 2,19 TB 4096(4k) * 32 bits = 17,59 TB the disc can answer how big the sector size is so to gather the information how exactly the sector size is, it has also a request (devices often only work like this I/O + settings): https://msfn.org/board/topic/181911-read-gpt-hard-disk-on-windows-xp-solved/page/24/#comment-1276376 there are bigger harddrives then 17,59 TB now, maybe they increased the sector size again only going for that sector size change might be a simplier solution, then going for all of the parameters other talk about that 4 k sector question https://msfn.org/board/topic/186666-windows-xp-and-sata-hard-drives-with-4k-sector-size/#comment-1277156 we have better answer now ? im certain i can do this one, but its lots of work its not done with a mouseclick everybody is busy with something supermium with his, roytram with firefox, dietmar with wlan there are only limited people around, if somebody wants to do this we happy if somebody is doing this one

we have to discuss a little bit computer history the recent events tend to say that a certain thing is about to get forgotten even a completed master's student with focus on java makes the defintion wrong: https://ibb.co/1G11jJ63 so we have to tell the actual story again in the past you had to get someones computer IP so you could comminicate with him this went like this : your IP -> the other guys IP it then had different words but definition is always the same "p2p, peer to peer, IP to IP, ende zu ende" only a little later you could go a server or ask for someones IP, sending a request or the server gives you the IP number of your friend list this then changed in like 2006 after that they needed something simple to read into the people chat! so a simple mind comes also to an easy idea - we set a server that "fishs" the messages (packets) and then store them on their property this today is called often "cloud, whatsapp server" - but these servers are collecting your messages in elder ICQ versions (like 98 versions) you could see your friends like, the the server only sends you the IP from the other (thus you communicate p2p) - if you wanted to send a offine message you get warned that this message is stored on their ICQ server the new servers are fundamentally different - everything goes to their server neither how we call it thats not p2p, IP to IP, ende zu ende still they trying to get rid of the information (here the picture again) https://ibb.co/1G11jJ63 the difference is that the server is not there then p2p is defined, but the picture says as if the server can collect the message/packet is p2p - what it is not it is IP -> SERVER(collects everything) -> other IP so we can see how simple minded that actually is - they just put a server in between - thats all i see a problem with this because the server is property of a company what do what they want with that (like this is our server, terms of use say we are allowed to use your data for advertising/ect.) - its hard even to proof them a miss-use but it not suppose to be like that - just if you given a letter to the post office - its not their property - and they are not allowed to open it up then recently i had problems with that discord it always asking for real names, smartphones, real email and smartphone verification so i gone way back, back to IRC in IRC you can use peer to peer with the so called DDC chat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Client-to-Client but it dont work anymore, it might be blocked by ISP, the router or maybe the operating system someone then pointed out that ports are blocked by a router what is not the full information in either linux or windows you have so called packets and a recieve and a send port so in theory you cant login to the IRC server because both (send and recieve ports are blocked) https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock2/nf-winsock2-send https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-recv it might have a list or a reconizing to allow the IRC ports (both send and recieve) this connection via DDC fails but so they have erased it, it will be a lost skill or a lost knowledge!? to me it seems like that the definition is wrong if a server is involved - otherwise it goes directly through wires, maybe a wire relay device shaft (like a switch for example do with your ethernet card) but not through a server the completed master student (desinformation maybe?): https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JAF5f-Q2gGY

off-topic but not for the company and a company sell this data for a lot of money to other company´s - we not talk about peanuts we talk about millions if age and other things are also known it makes them easier to find their target group - where they then for example try to sell products related for that group

i now combined the IE8 installer + kb4467770 + kb4019276 + kb4493435 + kb2598845 surprising it are a lot less of entrys the main installer of IE has over 9000 entrys the other 2 (10 mb and 1,4 mb size) only have around 324 and 18 entrys i might actually missed something, because in these 3 kb-upgrades i could not find the tls 1.1 and tls 1.2 entrys at least they are not in the .inf file ... i think i found why the entrys are not there it has version 6.1 (win7) there the newest side upgrade for IE8 is kb4493435 and that one seems to have that error fix is to change to 5.1 (aka xp) "HKLM\0,SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Internet Explorer\\AdvancedOptions\\CRYPTO\\TLS1.1\0,OSVersion\0,%REG_SZ%\0,\"3.5.1.0.0\"", "HKLM\0,SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Internet Explorer\\AdvancedOptions\\CRYPTO\\TLS1.2\0,OSVersion\0,%REG_SZ%\0,\"3.5.1.0.0\"", IE8-Blank + kb4467770 + kb4019276 + kb4493435 + kb2598845 (ENGLISH) https://www.file-upload.net/download-15597216/IE8_combined_ENUS.zip.html IE8-Blank + kb4467770 + kb4019276 + kb4493435 + kb2598845 (GERMAN) https://www.file-upload.net/download-15597217/IE8_combined_german.zip.html how can i test tls1.1 and tls1.2 for function ? there are barly any websites running the IE8 anymore theoldnet.com and toastytech.com are running

interesting they do not talk about missing functions only of different problem "driver submissions for WHQL certification" from what i remember there was problems with the driver signatures in win7 there was a older version and a newer version (what later got used in windows 10) you actually could fix that problem in disabling the driver signature, then you either could use a elder driver or a newer driver - then it did not make a difference you also could load up multiple drivers (like from nvidia and blackmagic design)

i do not think so from what point on you are coding it or how do the code actually looks ? if you code a usermode based code it probaly use some "cuda dll´s to name one nvcuda.dll" - if it dont have the right functions there it already fails there they might use already functions that win7, xp dont have the same goes the the kernelmode programming (to name one involving driver nvlddmkm.sys) (both missing functions, or os missing functions) - cuda is a code there that control the graficcard going from a usermode solution probaly ends then right way because the kernelmode cuda cant do it either here somebody probaly tryed something on usermode: https://discuss.pytorch.org/t/error-loading-c10-cuda-dll-or-one-of-its-dependencies/208539 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-programming-guide/index.html unless you have insight into the nvidia code it will be hard depending on how independend you want your solution for a short term smaller gap maybeing in fixing some of the missing functions, would be a idea there are also some other grafic cards makers who dont have nvidia´s cuda

that might be something for j7n we recently disgusted a related problem in relation to your question often new drivers use a engine that is written for a engine in newer windows (like 10+) this is called a kmdf driver or wdf engine https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/wdf/building-a-wdf-driver-for-multiple-versions-of-windows https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/wdf/kmdf-version-history it often comes like this and says something like "install windows 10/11 i got this" but its not true reality is that it is a software engine not a hardware but the maker (nvidia) dont open source their driver (for whatever reason ? they sell hardware after all ?) then important to see there is a usermode cuda what later gets translated to kernelmode cuda the kernelmode cuda controls the real things like input output and control (like settings) (that are the 3 basics) and this part is not operating system based - the real questions would be like how the nvidia driver is doing that, or what is the real code ? they do offer a SDK but that SDK dont offer the real thing - its a pre-engine and highly written for win10+ having the right control codes i/o could be done from any operating system - but we dont have that cuda is the real code that control the things on the hardware video card then somebody said they managed to fix your answer: https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/3-posts-for-extending-win7-on-new-hardwares.89805/ notice also nvidia can change that cuda functions or versions

the 64 bit question again a problem with 64 bit applications is that they dont run on 32 bits but you can start a 32 bit application in a 64 bit system (and these 2 things combined give 32 bit a good advantage) most likely it is just a setting to be changed (at least in the most common programming languages): https://youtu.be/N2XIf_TUmMY?t=459 (x86 is 32 bit, x64 is 64 bits) the performance for x64 useally is not better thats why many many xp users never used the 64 bit version of windows xp you can also see this trend in the released kb-upgrades - for the 32 bit version of xp it are a lot more x64 rather came its first "real" apperance with windows 7 - and even then many still used the 32 bit version so rather windows 10 ?

i actually dont want to tell the programs i worked with but i can say that this program where made with install shield and a measured the install time with a simple clock, also that was like over 20 years ago like win2000 times a description "installer" useally defines just to copy the files to a locating and its registry entrys after that a programm is called installed - thats pretty much it the installer from me dont need multiple updates.exe´s in this case i just tryed the installer for function - for this i have taken the biggest of the KBXXXX upgrades that was the IE8 installer (the first one) so for now its just the IE8 without the other files and registrys entrys (but it can be combine in just one installer.exe - it also can be done to multiple installer.exe´s) install shield is a installer maker its is like a script - to simplify the always apearing installing question that being said install shield is not just a programm that do things in a fast speed - scripts in general are slower then code the next thing that comes up is not that a install maker, inf or trusted installer defines the real thing the real thing are registry entrys and file movements - thats what they are doing in the end and for that same reason the installer i wrote is like absolute in the functions itself (they are non others) the others are scripts that are being translated to file movements and registry entrys they might have different names and look differently - but they are not the real thing that inf is useally created from a script too, there are other ways to make a inf file but useally it comes from a script after that to that inf file it writes AddReg=(name of the piece part - something like "cd 1" or "files related for IE8") after that at that spot are the registry entrys https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/install/inf-addreg-directive thats what the inf installer do for files it use https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/install/inf-copyfiles-directive as you can see it dont progress even a api function with giving its parameters it has stored a string into that inf file - what later on it translate to the real thing the real thing are registry and file functions to name just one: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winreg/nf-winreg-regsetvaluea this apears nowhere in the inf files - therefore the inf also can be called a script it translate that inf file text to the real thing (but its going through like a lot of things before it even is there) - and that sums up the other part it make it sound that microsoft - just has the better programm and mine is just like bull.rap that registry entry is for an app that dont reacts (not how fast it can open and close): "WaitToKillAppTimeout" he might start up the upgrades.exe´s - if it are 150 or something it has to load this entire thing 150 times - sounds a lot of time to me if so he also cannot install them all at once - the probaly need to do it in the right order (like zick-zack) one thing to mention is now the win10 and win11 gone every into direction of scripts and engines - that was often pointed out this is a old story of a such thing but the story is the same for the engine like "do me install win10" my lovely engine - that defines a engine not the real thing

thats a very interesting point because actually it takes often longer then 50 minutes, i remember 4 hours with a older machine this effect i also noticed on a programm it normally take 12 min to install but after i isolated both registry and file entrys it did it in 8 seconds the method for that programm rather did not a inf style like engine - it just took the right values and go lets say it installs 650 MB with a drive from the 2000´s its 10 MB/s to 20 MB/ with 10 mb/s to 650 MB that makes 65 seconds install time that makes 1 min so certainly to expect the speed increase is very massiv im certain it will reach that speed because the cpu can make the functions from the installer i made with a far higher frequency then 10 MB/s the inf installer from microsoft makes sence if it just has to work, or it are just 1 upgrade or a few - but for a bigger combination hard to say 50 minutes are not very acceptable

you have that lock functions, i gave the xp ones to you - there are some around a few around are disfunctional, other have specifical bugged, while others only part work (like cant handle 4 jobs in 4 cores) if you could undef them from global namespace thats actually a good thing - then it can search the XP or maybe the vista ones the problem with this is that they not only apear in this part of code then you might code around a lot but still end to the .obj trick the .obj trick i described here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/182888-how-vs-makes-working-code-still-incompatible/#comment-1203133 long story short - it has a static .obj file hidden somewhere (and skip reading the code) thus it cant be edited, scoped - for that part of code you shown - that might work - but not with the .obj file part question what is a .obj file in a compiler the compiler reads out the code and generate .obj files (these are then linked together) in this case the .obj file have been pre-compiled - and the vs2019 compiler then only links against "their .obj file" so that should be this trick explained so very likely if you use that rewrite method - you end up in this one this has nothing to do with rust or whatsoever

to me the normal ones with update.exe seems to be made with Install Shield from VS6 it generally is not very fast the inf file you showed to me might got 500KB but only contain 10 registry entrys the newer ones seems to be made with install shield from VS2010 - that one is even slower how we would call them "install makers ?" the sfc manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_File_Checker#Usage might complains that its files have been replaced, but it cannot undo the install because the ones in dllcache are also overwritten either way if you reboot, clicked it away or accept - the installation has worked at least in my tests if you remember how to skip the sfc manager (from what i remember in the past it was a registry entry) i would be happy to know it again i useally dont have the sfc manager on - it takes cpu power and diskspace but even for a iso i reconized a lot longer install time the iso however works with the same filesize (often like 650 mb for a CD) - this is just because it dont replace the files - it just has the files the registry entrys are certainly more but still if mine can install in 0,3 seconds or 3 seconds for 91870 for 60 seconds it would be 1,8 million why the one from microsoft - still would take a lot longer?

it can replace system files or protected registry files like a trusted installer can do (inf is probaly a trusted installer) those KBXXXXXX upgrades are like a zip file (actually you can open these with a winrar or something) those come always with that update.exe - what is microsofts inf engine installer (it can do the same - registry and files) the problem with it is it calls up many internal functions, and also read the entrys from a file (memory is a lost faster) - its like a engine with a lot side stuff and bounces around very much (to bring them into memory with a very fast progress i brought them to the compiler itself - so i also needed a engine that can do similiar to microsofts) exactly this problem sum´s up, i have seen around 150+ kbXX upgrades - that being done with harkaz method took me 4 hours in the past that being said 9187 entrys took the installer from me 0,3 seconds in the very past i did something like this in the past (it was a programm and i readed out its registry entrys and files, just not "inf style like") the install time gone down from 12 min to 8 seconds so that being said even 1 min install time would be a lot better then that - far away from 240 mins it certainly would be possible to use the code from me in a different installer and compile it up there so now the next important part you have like many KBXXXXXX upgrades with always a update.exe and the registry and file entry´s are contained not at update.exe but in a file with a .INF ending and here is the thing - if you collect these entrys you can combine that entrys to 1 installer = SP4 installer (aka 150+ kb upgrades installed with just 1 installer) if you just want to do IE8 (with all the other side upgrades) then only IE8 you also use that installer code to install a few registry settings - or a programm you like to - you just have to know the registry and file entrys

the good with my installer is that you dont need to install anything first - directly and everything no zick zacks, no start ups, no weird slow engine that 9187 entrys where progressed with a 1 core cpu in around 0,3 seconds - thats very acceptable lets say all registry entrys would have 91870 in total it would be 3 seconds for files it it will be a little different story - but a lot of steps should also be faster it seems to work at least with the few tests i did i have the IE6 as test installed and then installed on a english system and a german system : https://www.directupload.eu/file/d/9256/hw59rpff_jpg.htm https://www.directupload.eu/file/d/9256/rrtwbm7c_jpg.htm https://www.directupload.eu/file/d/9256/6vtmdi6l_jpg.htm https://www.directupload.eu/file/d/9256/ld8onvao_jpg.htm https://www.directupload.eu/file/d/9256/trh8q5hi_jpg.htm now it would be a question of collecting the registrys entrys and files entrys and then a sp4 or something would have a nice solution a such list is used with a .iso often

how many exactly to relation to redfox is missing ? the project had like 150 small projects that being said a few might not be problem to add the 150 where made by the cmake project file maker (standart settings) - i saw are few where left out, so hard to say still the questioning regarding that linker problem would rather be to edit the .obj file trick it would be a read through where exactly the compiler has that problem (i certainly can rewrite that code) so one actually could also compile it on a win10/11 machine too and just have the modifications you made a huge jump from v128 to v146 ? seems something has happend here how the the xp version going ?

in very old days when i still used a 56k modem, for better pricing i changed the provider (it is just a diffrent phone number) but one thing i remember from that time always when i opened the IE then i was liked to their ad-website (not the website i entered) so they definatly can redirect you, for newer times i noticed (against that "illegal" discussion - no they did not ban this) instead in my country they redirected viz.com - just a website that offer anime - where is the "illegal" ? they really think we are stupid

https://www.whatismybrowser.com/detect/what-is-my-user-agent/ this is what their server is getting to see if it see WIN98, WINXP or something a lot servers just cancel the connection there are not limited to the OS information it also can be the browser information or x64 - or combined like i dont want firefox 110 anymore if + win10 better is to change all of these with common values very often just a newer version of browser just do nothing new at all