user57

im not a expert with SetACL.exe but that SetACL is something that suppose to be able to change that you might figure out it´s command line and how to use it https://helgeklein.com/setacl/ you might write him a message somehow you certainly can write a programmical solution too https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/file-security-and-access-rights

those 1G and 2,5G link devices useally dont reach that speeds from the internet lets say you have 50mbit and and 1g and 2,5g wlan router it only reach 50mbit then even if you have 50mbit the website often give you that speed either - depents but also happens you guesses right you can look what that driver is missing so you right too, yes you can add these functions to ntoskrnl but then you still have wpprecorder.sys missing and here i see a fault - very likely that wpprecorder.sys use even other system driver files and functions so you run from one into a other problem , you would have to look with that depencency walker also that wpprecorder.sys and there you probaly find high bonds with other win10+ drivers the other solution (to reach out that entire wdf0100.sys driver and its functions) you can write a other solution to solve the things (whatever this precise file is doing - but it always represents something) for linux it would be the same - but unlikely there you have insight in all 3 of the things you would have the old code of ntosknrl you would have the ntoskrnl with that missing functions you would have the wdf0100.sys code and you would also have the wpprecorder.sys code and even if it use a next sys file you got that code too so it would be about understanding what it is doing even if that not is possible it would be possible to combine all in 1 sys file in that case you would take all the functions and put them into wdf0100.sys or something they dont have to be split apart also to notice often some structures from drivers to driver have differences, that PAE patch had that kind of problem in that case dependency walker dont show this part - useally that tool is enough but to backport the entire driver from a assembly source is many many more work then just having the c code - a must say in same cased like dwrite.dll the exported function is a interface in this case you might see one import - but its a lot more of functions - its something to consider maybe maybe not dietmar´s approach was i think that he rewrite a own interpretation how to talk/control to that device that should be possible - however also big work - in this case having a working driver code would be worth a lot a must mention is that later windows always gone into a engine solution a engine solution also includes often severial files to solve the things up - that litterally ask for severial files i dont know the norms to control that either - that would be something to lern however the discussion recently about similar things always go like "talk" "we install a driver good to go" we might actually dont have this we are not in a RTL(X) support forum and asking for some drivers for a certain OS - it wont be as simple as that that acpi discussion also again rather wants to talk about a windows 2000 support, what is kinda bad for the XP community as i wrote about that kinda often

these drivers (like wdf0100.sys) represent something to make an example you can have a hdd/ssd on like win98 and use that setup of OS that is because the communication like input/output/control are often the same often the norms are also the same there a modded drivers and kernel extenders (the ones based on kernel-mode not the ones for usermode dlls) a such modded driver would be the PAE extension (there are some releases not all mod the driver itself or not very hard) so if somebody has written a driver only for windows 10 it might only run on windows 10 not always because functions are missing that c-runtime,std problem are also such things i wrote a code 100 % without a vista (or higher) function, then i saw that still vista functions where added up so i disassembled the code - what really made my code non functional and: https://msfn.org/board/topic/182888-how-vs-makes-working-code-still-incompatible/ thus the compiler connects you with functions you not even use, it auto generate them so this are some problems you probaly run in a must say is that i dont know the driver´s functions named here but if you want to port an entire driver is like big stuff, there often 300 functions so can you really handle that ? (and then if you dont have that open source not C it would be like pure assembly - what means even more work) so the other approach would be to look what a open source driver is doing (sure there are functions probaly even on linux - but this time you have insight (either its called function or what the related driver to with the device (in this case the RTL8126 chip)) and could write your own implementation and still its a lot to read out - even that way around a different approach can also be a kernel extender for kernel-mode there is this project: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183464-compiling-acpi-v20-driver-for-windows-xp-sp3-and-windows-2003-sp2-x32x64/ also to mention in this case the company realtek is a entire company - we are just a few people it is not always skill being asked - often teamwork and often size this is asking much and there many things thing on the table ... not only that realtek question from a different direction, why it always has to be the absolut maximum speed ? i buyed slower drives i even didnt change my BNC cable in the past just to have a few faster transfers i not even use a 50mbit internet connection - why ? just for 4k/60fps ? maybe 8k/60fps ? is the website even offering that speed ? or is it something else that is being searched ? win10 and 11 are slow for a reason, they have like very big engines for a next engine, scripts over scripts but that things shrink if you have a very powerful cpu - or sometimes a hardware solution for a codec (ok sure we have AVX or something) but still ...

there are a sum of reasons why kernel and usermode exits one would be if everything would be a kernelmode application - that would mean if that application crashes up - the entire OS crashes the other way around an usermode app can crash while the kernelmode is still fully functional then there was something in between they made something called driver but they was not function-wise they came very near to kernelmode functions but one important never was the case - they did not have kernelmode rights some post before this one opengl.dll and d3dX.dll are not drivers ! so to tell the next more important story api´s in kernel32.dll and such are also not they are simplyfied versions of the real stuff - (like engines, like interfaces ect.) if you have a createfile and a writefile chain (common api´s) this is actually not what the operating system is doing the actual system has a very different looking system for example it handles the I/O commands to the harddrive for opengl and d3d the real stuff does also not happen in there - later on it switches to kernelmode - and there to the real hardware is spoken too (in a other discussion there was a such thing too like we use the opengl video player and good to go - but we dont have insight in the video drivers(most likely nvidia´s)) so the same as for kernel32.dll or user32.dll the next things is there are ring0 restricted commands cpudid can be one of them if not set to usermode (what is possible) in 9x there was this .vxd drivers what got removed now its often only .sys (loading a different ending is possible but sence wise they are all .sys files)

it seems that it translated correct to me 2 things for example raise questions to me but that "WPP_GLOBAL_Control" it did not translate the access names instead "WPP_GLOBAL_Control->Flags[0x530] = (hex)" - that certainly works but no names just the distance also whatever this is "0xFF10060B" it might also has a name still that code will function i think so from my side and i do translate such things that sounds ok to me you will have a big problem still, it seems that dietmar needs an entire driver like this - what is like a lot somewhere in that dietmar related post i also saw some side drivers - there he also would have to get out the things the linux idea is not bad either - it has a working solution from what i understand ? so certainly you can repeat that one on windows

that´s a very important answer it just show how big the to do list really is even tho there are always guys around like lets make it for win2000, lets make it for vista lets make it work for win10 also we dont have that room free to make all of these things, in the supermium discussion for example it go like that to be honest you wasted a lot of your energy in win2000 questions in the past, a lot of time that is now missing here

it is possible to write a precise variant from pure assembly to c/c++, it only has a few limitations - but not in that the code that was written is not functioning a problem that can apear is that the write style generates different codes at other spots - so sometimes the code is not always written in the same exact style having the symbol file also tells the names of the vars and functions the AI however dont seems to be capable off for a human that is not easy as you ask for an entire driver - even 1 big function takes a lot of time (its assembly code after all, many and needs to be reversed back to c/c++ (what takes time)) - the AI if it would be able to do that would do all in a second or so

the compiler has to translate like c, java, phyton whatever to a machine code this code is by far not perfect. a solution to avoid this is to write that programm in assembly - smaller, faster - but a lot more to write - and a lots of math and logic the same goes for MMX,SSE, AVX the compiler probaly just cant write a 100 % code in avx if you really want that you would have to write the entire programm (in this case entire windows10/11) in assembly (aka AVX assembly code) - sounds impossible to me c is relativ a lot more near to assembly , java and phyton are script and engine-ish - even then phyton, java would call their functions (then it is already gone away from a real avx/assembly solution) c/c++ is faster then scripts - a well known old problem but important to say these new c++17 c++21 use engines and scripts - i would not call this c/c++ anymore - its getting a so called "high-language" - a high-language is a other word for a script or easier and in most cases slower solution

to avoid the problem that windows10/11 progressing very slow they compiled their internals with AVX but somebody can tell that even tho these instructions (AVX is far far later then MMX or SSE) elder systems still progress a lot faster i find that part funny these instructions (mmx is like *1,4 maybe *4) avx is often 50-500 times ! and even tho windows 10 and 11 run pretty slow - the hardware requiement is very high a other problem the xp maybe 2000 and on "communitys" will run in is that even new browsers like supermium need over 200 MB of RAM below i took the specs of a 350 mhz computer also a must say is that the youtube video player often needs a dual core at minimum of speed to run fluent (unless you set back to 144p or something) roytram said it right the compilers are not even made to just compile only for these SIEMENS SCOVERY 212 300: Harddrive: 8GB CPU-SPEED: 350Mhz <-- RAM SIZE: 128MB <-- as we can see these specs cant even fulfil to run the program and 200 megabytes ram is not the limit - it would be like a common value - some websites take already much more then 200 mb of ram

near to hear, but the link is says that picture is not existing, it might also say something about private only

the todo list for XP is like extremely high, so high that we probaly never have all done there also like not well solutions that could be improved that being said to port redfox like v122 or something contained over 300 functions thats a big job its not a small thing (like the assumtions like that often going around) the science is probaly to high ? sure i could do not but its not like a small thing that can be done in like 5 minutes im unhappy to see that i would be the only one - rather i want some being able to do so but everytime it goes around, we just llvm, we use a openglwrapper, we just use LAV - works its by far not that simple to me it would be a fault to go to win2k, it take away the power we need for XP if we would dig in all the named OS´s we would be just stuck forever and have not a single thing done also notice - there are guys around who only try to ruin us - i noticed that severial times (dont want to make do many connection o tell to much here) but a idea to try to give a trouble would be to ask for a win2000 support and its not like a small problem like placing a few dll´s or files - no its not you little ask for many work - like building a a house a bigger for free the others did not share their codes with us, i did share the codes - but still vista and win2k´s are unhappy like that firefox function roytram literally wants me to write this function for him i do not think win2k is a good idea because xp is a well successor too, there are like numbers nt 4,0 5.0 and 5.0 named to win2k so why would somebody now come and ask for nt 4.0 ? after that xp apeared called 5.1 - it had by far the most support the x64 version never was extremely popular - if you follow the progress the patches and ugprades are a are lot less so like everything leads to XP aka 5.1 you actually can install xp on like every win2k computer - xp is even faster for example because the sysenter command that was added in xp a issue with win2k was that its performance was slower then win98 i do not think they want something good it might be just a split up method so i would warn if that somewhere somewhat is to see it would be time to show us what you guys got - the codes for xp are around the internet already - the others i dont see that much around - instead of always asking us doing your job

hmm sorry for the link to microsoft directly, it was because i gave that duck ai the question what functions mingw actually use (then it gave win10 and this link as answer) (because on the mingw website there is just nothing what mingw actually support with what version - just nothing) the UCRT and the SDT in visual studio 2019 v16.7 - in the most cases worked for windows xp (and is like c++21 or something) the code is visable too, however if you edit it it has no effect (i wrote that c-runtime article for that) this is because microsoft hides a .obj file - and this .obj file contains static code in this case so the edit just dont have any effect - but that would be possible with some things from the trick-chest so the other idea would be just to extend that ucrt/sdt ect. a bit to reach a working version your approach is a good idea - just pumbing in some more info very interesting project

i will follow the happenings to this one with interests i like that something is happening here MinGW is something for linux, at least normally "MinGW is a development environment that allows you to create Windows applications on Linux by using a cross-compiler" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows so that one raise questions special the wiki webpage only talks about windows10 so it would be very likely that it actually use a "hord of" win10 functions if not you should explain us why this is not the case

? it shows "About" in all of the 3 to the top left

"I tried llvm 10 and it puts code for modern windowses" did you consider that .obj trick ? https://msfn.org/board/topic/182888-how-vs-makes-working-code-still-incompatible/ (this also includes for example a newer style of the SDT) for elder versions to be set the compiler ignores some .obj files (you can set like xp instead of the UCRT it is theoretical also said that this is the c++17 + style - but that style not only include certain c writeforms - that styles use internal codes that are often only written for win10/ect - the UCRT up to like VS2019 16.7 worked in most of the cases in XP) however then it cant use many functions and fails to compile it is made so that the code dont compile and dont work if you dont do that

you have the values ? 100 megabit are around 12,5 MB/s 250 megabit are around 31,25 MB/s 1000 megabit / 1 gigabit are 125 MB/s but often these values are not reached

are the registry files oddly big ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry to free some resources is a idea, even if they are not much but actually i never heared the registry being to small a good idea useally is to show a reconstructable error for the other people to try and see the german description you posted in one of the links dont show a error, rather it shows how to change a registry setting, and specific names the pagefile (Auslagerungsspeichers) the same thing with the page to microsoft - there they dont describe a error - they rather describe differences between windows versions and 32 and 64 bit modes and the last one from microsoft tells you to install KB2567018 - what fixes a problem if that registry PagedPoolSize is wrongly set (common is 0 - probaly means system controlled)

that opengl method being talked about is a dll wrapper in theory it can be the compiler (LLVM) the more likely problem comes that the compiled dll (in this case the opengl32.dll wrapper) malfunctions asking for the compiler it would be worth a try if that problem has been fixed (you have v17 now) but as i said i dont think that to be the problem the last parameter might have something related to LLVM but not its code compiler that LLVMpipe seems a specific code to me, that might malfunctions - but if that would be the problem you would have a newer version to try if its LLVMpipe its not the compiler - it has nothing to do with the "compile progress of firefox" only a certain option - to begin with something we would have to start at some point - not just fully functional and version v148 the actual state is to notice here - the code not even compiles up, what means this specific function would come later on what also raise a important question, if that LLVMpipe is a certain code then it actually might use newer settings (what xp dont have)(and then malfunction, also it might just break and not apear even partly functional - in this case you have to fix out the problems related to this step by step)) how exactly that webgl function on XP normally function (if it work do it use the normal opengl32.dll with the specific setting? or have that normal opengl32.dll ever had that specific extension setting being functional?, the picture actually shows d3d9.dll (direct3d 9) to be set not opengl32.dll) opengl32.dll is not a driver the real driver apears later on (also d3d11.dll is not a driver either) the real code like cuda driver (nvidia) control apears far later on so now we have to sort the things to me it seems someone tryed to compile that openglwrapper up and placed it to mypal and then said LLVM cant be used for the compile at current standpoint that seems to be wrong questioning - to me the LLVM compiler seems to be useable - that specific function would be a different question for the firefox compile a big problem was that the previos described .obj trick - what the LLVM compiler would be useful feodor2, ok we could fix the version question it is asking for 1.52 - it would be worth a shot with LLVM v17 instead of LLVM v3.4 (greyrats) or LLVM v12 (1.52 requiements) now its your turn again guys, to bring your kind of stuff questions and problems to the next part of discussion --- also i might add this seems to be a similar fault idea i was seeing in a other discussion in that case it was : d3d11 -> kernel-mode cuda then it was : LAV_filter -> d3d11 (and user-mode based cuda) -> kernel mode cuda the problem is that LAV_filter is a windows 10/11 solution , that actually use ring3 cuda and d3d11 (that xp dont have) - also the cuda driver in XP kernel-mode is not like the ones from 10/11 - they are far older versions so the idea probaly was "i use LAV_filter" -> works - but no the LAV_filter is not independed its a pre-engine that use up win10-ish code internal - that dont work for xp - having that in win10 would so i have to tell the other story in short the next idea was "using ffmpeg" -> works now comes a different part of story - ffmpeg was independed in the past, self-contained but in newer versions ffmpeg use cuda, d3d11 and other win10 codes so the truth is ffmpeg is no longer self-contained you guys see the similiar problem ? in that LLVMpipe its the same fault a 3 time - its like "we use that engine - works" - in win10 maybe so what i did i explained that these thing all use win10/11 depending codes - they are engines, api´s, interfaces, dll´s, whatever we call them (we dont need a more precise description for these) so what fixed that is a own controlment of the codec (x265 for example or libde265) - those are fully independent the other solution they wanted dont work mainly because they dont have CUDA in kernel-mode (cuda kernel-mode is what controls the grafic card) - its not opengl.dll or d3d11.dll (this are pre engines) - later on they go through a first kernel mode thing called win32k.sys and later on the provided video card driver (useally a .sys file) often its a nvidia driver (one word about the user-mode cuda - nvidia made some user-mode functions that can be called - what later on controls the kernel-mode cuda (but the user-mode cuda.dll is a pre-engine - and very old in version on XP) ) - this cuda.dll is user-mode based - but somewhat have the same name - but its not the same cuda as the kernel-mode cuda so to do this someone would have to write a own cuda controlment that controls the grafic card - what sounds nearly impossible - unless you would have insight in the nvidia company´s driver code i tell this story beause it shows the same fault, and with this information we might reach a better level where the problems really are here it was like "opengl+llvm" = works (the others was like "+cuda" = works or "+ffmpeg" = works or "+LAV_filter = works)

im not certain what you even want to accomplish, so lets give it a try the area you opened dont seems to have anything to do with the registy for example PAE (physicaladdressextension) that has nothing to do with the registry there are some info already in this forum about the 4GB limit and the PAE discussion the registry dont store files into the RAM the registry is made to store data to the harddrive this is why the size in registry have some limits for example the data that can be stored per "key value entry" https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sysinfo/registry-element-size-limits these limits however dont show what the software that sets these are limited to unlike a other myth going around PAE has nothing to do with the HDD (now often SSD drive) limit of around 2 TB (512*4GB) this is because even a 64 bit system cant just move 100 MB or something - at beast 64 bit - what is a very small amount thanks to the TLB and other harddrive stuff the hardware such as the CPU can detect if this is coming - and translate these to bigger transfers like 512 bit or even more the 4 GB ram limit or PAE where already often discussted here in this forum, here are a few: https://msfn.org/board/topic/186531-winxp-pagefile-with-16gb-ram/#comment-1274484 https://msfn.org/board/topic/176356-simple-xp-32bit-64gb-ram-true-pae-guide/page/8/#comment-1280589 https://msfn.org/board/topic/129999-32bit-windows-not-usingseeing-all-4gb-ram/ to make it smaller, there are no 4 GB moves there are theoreical not even 32 bit or 64 bit moves this is because the the ram is made of at least 4096 (4k) (the common mode) chucks currently XP can pass that 4 GB ram limit with certain patches, but only over multiple executables (it can have then 4 GB RAM for each running executable/app/module) if you want to do that with 1 executable a must say is that a compiler would not know how to do this noone have done this before, its certainly some work to bring it to work and most importantly all builded executables (such as games, apps, webbrowsers, chattools) are limited to their compiler (and these dont know how to do that) a pagefile is the harddrive being used as memory storage, it can store data at the harddrive and pull it in or out on demand (pagefile.sys) this is a piece wise method, but so you can also go beyond 4 GB writes transfers as said are made in chucks - they are never like "move 1 GB" - that is not possible the compiler transfer a such code to 32 bit moves (4 bytes per tick(in theory)) - for 64 bit it would be 64 bit (8 byte) but that problem has been solved by the hardware long ago - thus 64 bit or 32 bit have the same performance the FSB for example there was a nice story with QUADPUMPED what it actually did ? it just pumped the data 4 times

that one ? https://releases.rs/docs/1.52.0/ it names LLVM v12 i made v17.0.1.0 https://msfn.org/board/topic/183588-project-saphire-dragon-port-llvm-and-clang/ i need a bit more information about greyrat´s answer in the forum he links is like old LLVM versions from 2015 (the oldest version on LLVM github is LLVM 7.1.0 and is from 2019) and writes something about a LLVM driver - i do not understand that part - it might be a missunderstanding LLVM is a compiler that generates a code, its not a software driver if a function is called and returned not possible or something it might be an different problem LLVM is newer then VS 2019 (v16.11) (LLVM v17 is from Sep 19, 2023) and allows more modern c++ styles then vs2019

can somebody explain why the "rust" questions always apears i remember this one i was looking at the code and saw the imports at some place then k4sum1 wrote: this is rust but that wasnt even the problem the problem was that .obj file trick by doing that .obj trick a change to that function is blocked (cant be linked together) as i tryed to describe - thats the trick if it aint doing that .obj trick the functions can be linked against ours (thats why i made the c++ side file with the 150 functions) whatever rust is doing is limited to win32 api functions and engines that part was never a rust problem i do not understand why he said "that is rust" - it looks like we have a missunderstanding but here is why i keept saying - you need to talk - its not smalltalk (like you asking me to know youtubedl code - why?) we need the to put the right questions together the more i had to solve like "lerning rust first" - that opens more questions means more things to do this is not a must if you can talk it would be possible to change the compiler to not use that .obj file (either ms´s or llvm´s, maybe the others) the approaches to do so are different - that was suppose to be the next step on the list but to all that think about that "new compiler problem" the story i have to tell is a little different the new c++ styles cant do anything that the pre c++ cant do they are often only different write styles ... that being said you have to know the next thing the next thing is that it not always is a style question what microsoft and others did here is that these compilers (for example the use of STD functions) they changed up the code one example is the MUTEX - you can use a mutex (atom) method in like windows 98 (there are solutions like that like a threading-modell) - then they are the SRW locks (these are vista-ish but work on xp) but more importantly here is what they did the MUTEX (and others like file, registy and other control code) where changed to use vista, win10 or win11 functions this is uncommon - that method rather describes a script (like java and other high languages) high languages have a problem they are slower then the others - thats a must say shortly so here is the normal thing instead of SDT functions these functions normally are written out like not do "SDT file control" you write a controlment aka createfile writefile this code is now changed into that SDT/c-runtime ect. yes it is in there (with a win10 implementation ect.) thats why they used that .obj file trick this is to block the backchange - so it always use up these win10/11 ect. codes thus they bring up these problems again its not like there are not already fully functional MUTEX/ect. functions - they exits hope this was helpful

the LLVM (v17) i made would be an option, it would be newer then VS 2019 the idea was to connection the functions as usual with the compiler itself there are certainly different ways to solve that specific problem, one solution is samuels one core api solution a other solution would be to rebuild the import table and connection them via assembly dibya was trying a programmical solution, he tryed to lead the calling functions to his function and then to our functions - but it are over 300 functions - and maybe at some point the .obj trick apears (description below) so the approach i did was to connect these via the compiler (see below why this dont just work - but it is doable due some approaches anyway) to do so i wrote a file that compiles up with the firefox code, the missing part was for now the connections the problem mainly came from the common problem, in VS2019 microsoft made a hidden .obj file (for those who read this and dont know what this is - a .obj file is a file with functions - the compile generate these and connect these) and here is microsoft´s trick for many functions (like c-runtime) and maybe some SDT functions - microsoft force this .obj file to be used after that you get a error "already defined in (that microsoft .obj file) i wrote about in a other thread, because you can edit the code - but when i changed the code nothing happend this is because the code is not readed - it just use that .obj file - it never read out that code (the code is already pre-compiled in that .obj file) to start with version 140 or something would probaly be to much, from chrome i think we started one at v80 or something - then going upwards (mypal for example is still on v68) i dont exactly remember what compiler was used - but it had that .obj force problem - its not coming so much from the compiler itself, rather that .obj trick since the firefox community is getting annoyed - just to roll over this one is not that simple - its work that has to be investigated - if it would be simple someone would already have done it for me i have a lot on the list, having severial chrome´s raise questions to solve this one from what i remember you dont want to talk much you just want to have it done in like 1 min otherwise you where quickly gone - not having it solved shows that there is a huge problem in just solving it up i was not making smalltalk i tryed to figure out the things that are needed, but going like that it can be done quickly, then you might should proof that firefox isnt doing well for them just to kick in new function at the cost of users - one of the reasons it became less popular the discussion about the HEVC codec also gone like this - the discussion rather gone like "just build it in there" - but it are things to dig in - the chrome question for example took 2 weeks to compile up - just first to type something r3dfox is a nice project so why firefox with a newer version is not happening ? at least v80 or something

i do not know about this but status codes are not always bit´s often they are like error codes in this case the entire piece is compared - not just 1 bit of it

i would ask samuel about this, he has a good base about this it would be interesting to hear his meaning to this problem

was i really the only person that could do it ? from what i remember i wrote 150 functions or something but then rather going for XP that code was used to create a vista version so i think the guys who can do this might should come out now