user57

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

its a gamble you dont know the variables one varible to jump out would be corruption in similiar things there are bet´s - while the bet´s are being told/know whatsoever (or told to the managers team) the "team" was then told just to play defence - so you cant see the differens then the suppose to be the better team lost but that would be 1 condition to leave this there is also many things coming together, you defined a team based sport so a 1 good sportsman in that sport wouldnt win the match dayly form not included injuries missing people for that match sometimes players fit better to a different style then others doping plays also a rule, for soccer a good drug is cocaine (as it increases brain activity and power to the body) (you therefore have to define what would be good for this sport also, you dont need a bodybuilder - they would be to heavy) in the soccer example you have 11 people influencing the match luck is also part of this - if we dont call it luck then we call it momentum - there was such things where good teams have lost to bad teams so you wont have a clear answer

thats a simple function kernel extenders have it already somewhere however it would be better to use dependency walker to see if there are more

ok i give you guys the right answer the word clima or climate-change is totally missplaced it has its origins in something entire different to norm the first and easier one i will tell you guys what it actually really is the clima word is not the real word - so guess what you have to look what the "climate-debate" actually really wants/suggest and so on and what that is ? yes it are the so called : renewable energies like water power, like solar power, like e-cars, like wind energy (ha - so right to stop climate you have to do these things right ?) - and useally also the nuclear power hate - as you have to know the people who are behind this idea - they dont like nuclear power https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rTAIMTGnAyY so why is that happening ? or what is its real thing that started it up it is multiculture/united world and here is why when they made the mass migration and brought all the products to every place on the planet they found a problem for example the OIL so the right-politicians said something like if all seeking this - the oil will just collapse (aka all going to be west-system) so you can guess what the other side (the lefts) said to this ? they need a different power source - aka away from OIL ha - you guesses right - the so called "renewable energies" are their idea for this thats also why e-cars are highly interesting in a left thinking ... so the left had a problem - they want the e-car so they tryed real hard - many many years ... after some years elon musk suddenly apears (because a main question is also the money) - and guess what elon musk apeared and said something like "i have the money no problem" so it really raise questions of elon musk is even a right - the same also goes for trump - because more or less he actually might legalized marijuana schedule 1 to 3 (from stage 1 to 3 - no stage 2 would be to criminal) (the higher the number the less important the substance) therefore trump de-criminalized marijuana maybe even legalized it - a right politician doing that ? at least that would raise some questions but back to the e-car now a guy is here who suppose to have the money - but for them only that the e-car is happing is important (renewable energies) its not limited to oil by the way it goes for many things like electric current or more efficient houses (so they need less heat power) if the left dont get "renewable energies" they dont get their multiculture/united world (and the demand for more power sources is higher then ever for exactly this reason - and also will keep going up) and again climate talks are not the real thing - weather can be extreme in the us for example there can be a hurricane season either (i do not think even if all use renewable energies just like that - nope that would not stop extreme weather situations) when they had a bad year it suppose to be a climate question ? there are many of such things in the past the next earthquakes very certain will happen , here is one from 1962 (just a long rain period/weather/strong climate year) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3F49XEhFXU but my question is - having the real anwers - what will you guys do ?

politics, drugs, religion are trouble making things

this one probaly will stay with us: virustotal.com - you gonna upload your file (if the file was already uploaded the upload dont take any time) then all anti viruses scan that file for a virus after that you should know if it is a virus or not

considering the situation a build in User Agent changer would be an option, there might be some already around but if supermium run out of upgrades it would be better to have it now, instead later on in just not having it

hmm did you try the code i posted in page 1 ? for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/System/CurrentControlSet/Services/FltMgr, make sure that it has "Tag" [DWORD] value of "1" (0x00000001). = "HKLM\0, System\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\FltMgr\0, Tag\0, %REG_DWORD%\0,01,00,00,00", others : "HKLM\0, System\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Filesystem\0, NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation\0,%REG_DWORD%\0,00,00,00,00", "HKLM\0, System\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Filesystem\0, Win31FileSystem\0,%REG_DWORD%\0,00,00,00,00", "HKLM\0, System\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Filesystem\0, Win95TruncatedExtensions\0,%REG_DWORD%\0,01,00,00,00", it would allow you to make a fix directly

// h265 --enable-libvpx --enable-libx265 --enable-libaom // new image formats --enable-libwebp --enable-libjxl do ffmpeg handle these well in xp ? what with the LAV filters - guys, we would need people what make a list what works with this one BUT lav is a classical "programming engine" windows 10/ect. users are using in their programs to play h265 but its a engine written for windows10/ect. later on it get to DX11/CUDA ect. - where cuda at best has a few support but to really handle this controlment what comes afterwards we would need the handling for the cuda in ring0 it wont work with a limited function set that is provived in XP so either libde265 or maybe a reverted x265 would make the right decoding progress, cpu power wise you dont need that hardware acceleration (grafic card wise) for a decoder - a decoder useally can be just considered a player also h265 useally has parts written in MMX/SSE/AVX - those are a lot faster - it would be enough of speed if these things still need a discussion, people should come out with a discussion