user57

that one (sp1)? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26999 screenshots before (like before you clicked) and when the error happens (like at 10 % , like after the ending ect.) a smartphone picture is already enough too

its something for the 2000 forum, there is an extra entry for win2k

maybe someone should search where those images are hidden, maybe they hidden in resources that my documents is just a folder something like "C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents" the themes are useally in "C:\WINDOWS\Media" you can change these sounds to something you like the basic background should be in "C:\WINDOWS\Web\Wallpaper", here you can choose the folder + file is readed from if i want to test the soundcard in windows xp i useally go "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\My Music\Sample Music" and play beethoven if you want a certain ICON you may use exting extractors such as "iconsext"

it would maybe have exactly this in parameter "dwIoControlCode" https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/ioapiset/nf-ioapiset-deviceiocontrol https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/devio/device-input-and-output-control-ioctl-l the hardware itself has a control bus for this, a data and a address bus that goes back why every cpu and hardware (such as a hdd drive) use a buffer/cache and thats also how the CPU can skip 32 bit commands and use for example a quadpumped stream, then rather is limited to the BUS/device speed it longly dispatched the just "tick 32" tick/cycle to also say this that the FPU in the past already was 64 bit wide (while running on a 32 bit cpu), then mmx and the others apeared extending this up to 128, 256 and 512 (avx512) - that not include the cache tricks nor the logical hardware units

im not certain but controlment to a device in windows is very simple you open a handle to that device, and after that you can stream your data either as input or output the text field "hardware device to use" would be a indicator to have it that way that raise questions again , why we cant give that "device" it´s right I/O control code that is also done with the famous deviceiocontrol function (read write and control) then it should be doable

its nice to have something like that but also that depents on a grafic card, it dont give normal xp users what might have a 4 core cpu or maybe a fast 2 core cpu a way to look this it raise the question why certain LAV engines can do this and certain can not , it raise questions how they activate that or set the right parameters - it would be good to know, also if you want to use a different LAV version where it dont work to the second answer DXVA in XP-32 dont work at all - that sounds like a dead beef - that engine cant be used for XP - sorry not a big fan of the x64 version of XP, it had a lot less support therefore it is often a bit buggy. also you can set the compiler to compile a x32 program and then both works 32 and 64, but if you set 64 bit then 32 bit dont work then there is the 4 gb question we have talked about that and yes XP/or 32 bit can use more thats because PTE PDE are entrys to physical pages , its more then just a 32 bit wide offset - a ramdisc proofed that in 32 bit are im really the only person that could write out a h265 decoder with normal opcodes up to XMM (what are 64 bit by the way, running on 32 bit - later even 128 and 256 bit wide - and yes for 32 bit)? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44299401/difference-between-mmx-and-xmm-register

interesting point so the LAV is a engine to simplify the dx11 video engine ? there are such engines for GDI, they really made a lot of engines rather then using GDI directly, same goes for dx , its getting "upscriped" and slower

seems its a tryhard for that LAV engine what is vista or win10 ish but nobody seems to know so exactly where LAV placed its hardware acceleration, also the information in web around rather says it use direct11, on dx10 or dx9 it get messy "like nobody knows this so exactly" but to say it clear DX is already a engine and LAV is too - so it goes through at least 2 engines and dx use different modules when somewhat later (after it made a walkaround the dx modules) it enters ring0 - where also some the things dont happen so directly but that very well describes todays problem you run through at least 5 engines before you get to run something lets say LAV just wont work what then ? (ok sure there was not enough testing yet) there certainly some others, some want money well MPEG and even H266 have their inheritance somehow, AV1 VP9 are splits too from that h.265 new tricks have been added what is certainly right that at the same bitrate h.265 did success, im not sure about that h.266 yet - you would have to set it to its peak performance not medium vs slower there are some h265 decoders out there but it hasnt to be LAV or x265 for example that strongene h265 decoder but it seems they want money or at least when a company is involved

thats a interesting one , useally this happens due a bad and upscriped code going back without mmx and the others 1920*1080 (in RGB *24) RGB = 8 + 8 + 8 (bits) 1920 * 1080 * 24 * 24 (24 frames for smooth video) = 49877400 bits / 8 = byte / 1024 / 1024 = megabyte that makes 5,9326 megabyte / s * 24 = ~ 142 with a 32 bit tick that makes 37324800 hz = 37 mhz that is actually not to much even without the cache, mmx-avx and cpu technolegys (like quad pumped) a common cpu is working with predictions it collects the opcodes in a cache then the cpu decides what it physical processes - that makes the cpu a lot faster here is also where the 64 bit question came vs 32 bit - in first sence 64 bit might be faster because it can process more bits per tick. but actually the 32 bit cpu can see what is going on - and then is rather limited to a output limit (for the FSB to make an example the 32 bit cpu can not pump 32 bit instead it can pump 128bit (quad pumped) or even more) sure the decoder is not part of it, but some can tell the free room is a lot often we only have 720p , while 1080p are pretty acceptable already so i think the reasons have to be found behind that if it really gives the data to a grafic card it runs to many modules and code before it even is at that place the 8 bit (aka 8 +8 +8) is a old discussion too, there used to be the .GIF format question (what only had or has 256 colors) but 24 bit means 16 millions possible colors, instead of 256 i remember the discussion about that and 16 millions are by far enough you dont have that many pixels to differ lets say the lines are 1080 p (compared to 16´777´216 possible colors for each pixel) 1080 p is nothing even 8 k would not show the difference (either x or y direction) (16 mill/1080 are 15534 times more colors that even can fit into the 1080p line) seeing the picture even having 48 bit RGB i think that knowledge might about that have been forgotten some people tend to say that sometimes you have it a bit better for with 10 bit but theoretical thats incorrect what is correct is that the encoder/process might have not given the amount of pixels a different color) - that can happen but physical RGB buffer wise (thats what everybody uses - even displays itselfs use RGB rays not YUV) in RGB 24 bit is by far enough - having that said it sounds weird to me to use 10 bits per color having that said i think it must be inefficient code, how about you make the decoder ? it actually is open source at x265.com i do not think the the hardware acceleration question has to lead into something like "because the hardware accelerated picture shutter around" because of that it cant be done with a normal cpu/or XMM rather i heared out that actually nobody even has a precise idea how that "engine" really works (engines can be kinda slow, special scripted and some that jumps around in the OS) it sounds like the debunked question that you need a hardware de/encoder for h265 to even have h265 at the moment it seems that we dont know why it shutters around - if that cant be fixed there would be open source decoders

well i do not want to offer to do the work because its a lot to read and write out but someone certainly could do the job right : first he has to read out the CPU commands available that x265 has solved that the right way it goes to check MMX, SSE, SSE versions 2, 3, 4, 4.2. also AVX and AVX512 those are all the same by the way (its are always the same registers (XMM)- they just got extended and got new names) it is done via CPUID command i dont want to post the entire code because it takes to many space heres is a small view (its open source): PFX(cpu_cpuid)(1, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); if (edx & 0x00800000) cpu |= X265_CPU_MMX; else return cpu; if (edx & 0x02000000) cpu |= X265_CPU_MMX2 | X265_CPU_SSE; if (edx & 0x04000000) cpu |= X265_CPU_SSE2; if (ecx & 0x00000001) cpu |= X265_CPU_SSE3; if (ecx & 0x00000200) cpu |= X265_CPU_SSSE3 | X265_CPU_SSE2_IS_FAST; if (ecx & 0x00080000) cpu |= X265_CPU_SSE4; if (ecx & 0x00100000) cpu |= X265_CPU_SSE42; the next part is then about what cpu we are on and what we use if he has normal cpu commands he use normal CPU commands ... (slow) (but then you are on a machine that is older then a 233 mhz cpu !) if the code has MMX the code use MMX if the code has SSE the code use SSE if the code has AVX the code use AVX thats about the right way to write a decode routine and fills all the caps between normal up to AVX512 so someone actually has to write the entire decoder out (rather then use some engines, DX11 for example is also a engine, DXVA2 also sound engine-ish to me, in my opinion any kind of extra-modules are engine-ish) and it should do the job because the encoder (what is even a lot slower) gone from 10 mins to a few seconds (the decoder is a lot faster) the speed increase was very big probaly even MMX would be a good, however that was somewhere in the 233 mhz area that might be not enough but i think you guys get the point, if you have only 1 of this technolegys it might be enough i cant tell the exaxct requiements because that need to write all of this code first ... it also raise the question who still have a MMX cpu, at least SSE2 should be out there as SSE1 is somewhere around 400 mhz it really raise the question if a 400 mhz cpu (aka SSE 1.0) should even still be around that much i would say at least SSE2 should be around if not it would be detected what the CPU actually support and what not france made the same mistake he always told me like if there is no way to do this without having a engine or hardware that says "i do this" that is kinda wrong ... it certainly can be done with normal cpu commands to have a more deeper dig into, its are just logics that you actually can write in a c/c++ compiler not all have to be in assembly or sse, in the open source x265 it are rather the cpu intense logics that are written in assembly code using mmx-avx512 - the rest is plain c/c++ code there is no engine , no dll/extra module , no directx requied a proof is that the winxp hevc en+decoder can do this without any dll , any engine and without directx if you say what you made is just a picture, then you might be wrong too - the question rather was oposite it was finding a good encoder for a image - where that "video-codec" then was used but a video always is made out of pictures - so video-codec might not be a exact description also x265 is rather for video then for only pictures - as we see many videos and talk about this en/decoder so enough talked first finding the supported cpu commands -> then use right commands that are available-> maybe some misc code to fix the rest of processing code -> then into a RGB buffer

how about you finally instead could just make a fast installer to install all the upgrades, there is that unofficial SP4 - but here some upgrades are missing (you still have to install a few later) - and the method to install is slow instead how about finding all the registry changes and file entrys and making a fast installer - when we might never hear about that again and that problem being solved and for that TLS 1.3 you make a installer that installs in 1 step and then - it just works, rather then a proxy you make that crypto progress into the normal XP IE8 routines

do you might know why this is the case ? do that directx 11 these en/decoding routines somewhere in its modules ? or lets ask it like this how do it solve the h265 codec, like where and how also they say the classical h265 is already outdated: https://youtu.be/MtX0t6fY0uM?t=197 .AV1 (aom h265/or SVT h265) passed hevc in this video - HOWEVER ! that guy didnt use the best settings he can use - that rather disqualify that comparision however the next video is also from consideration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgteZRNb-A here you can clearly see that NVENC (Nvidia NVENC h265 en/decoder). lacks very behind if its a hardware print aka like a CPU it cant be changed - the other to say it again is just a other CPU if thats the case (but here again why would you then just not use a other core from your own cpu) in the other case the winxp heic en/decoder de/encodes h265 either with normal cpu command or mmx,sse or avx - that should be by far enough speed so to me it seems a very solveable question for that video player why nobody just copy paste the decode routines mmx-avx512 to make that happen ? these are open source at x265.com also the winxp hevc en/decoder proofs that this can be done , it actually decodes and encodes h265 little add: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl04U-SGUSY here somebody made a comparision hevc vs h266 you sadly dont see its settings , but if this is true hevc is better (and probaly faster, because h266 takes a lot of time to encode) in this one you can see the settings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etKLNu19iIU h265 veryslow and h266 medium that gives h266 a disadvantage ... however veryslow did encode that video in 10 second while h266 with "medium" took 36 seconds the video itself gives a clear winner it´s the h265 but a must say is that h266 wasnt with the best settings also you can see is that the h266 encoder is a lot slower (if the quality would give me the reward i would accept a longer encode time but)

to call it out more precise regarding the "normal" "classical" "opcodes" every cpu on a 4x86/or newer then a "486 cpu" has certain command s (that useally can solve already anything) this means whatever the hardware can do, you can write in these commands (also 64 bit movements or even more bits - 1 topic for that would be dietmars 486 on xp topic) the same also goes for 64 bit commands or logical units the main CPU is very busy but and has a lot of side code to solve in the past you had like lets say 100 mhz what are 100 million ticks * 32 bits (by far enough for a RGB buffer 1920*1080p) (because they where barly side stuff) over this run the OS, other running stuff, many side code + your encoder/decoder to do now the job with classical CPU commands/opcodes/whatever we call them takes a lot more time (thats why with the hardware acceleration the speed is boosted like 1-500 times) with normal opcodes and a lot of engines and stuff (os, background activity ect.) this goes a lot slower the encoder/decoder for the winxp heic en/decoder without hardware acceleration only use normal cpu commands! you rather would have a chance if you specific write all the routines in pure assembly to speed that up but thats a lot of work ... - and we have mmx,sse/version XXX, avx (those are partly even written in assembly in small pieces) at some point me and a few friends came up with the idea what video player might can be used for XP i called out ffplay one of the others was MPC-HC (this one from this thread) mpc-hc used to be relativ self contained - but when vista apeared mpc-hc gone into the wrong direction it used up a lot of engines and stuff (multiple times) -> (like a lot new apps do) (and before you just needed to add a certain codec -> works -> good to go) those take a lot of CPU power too - thats why a lot of new stuff with similiar code is often a lot slower there just to many engines and scripts that "should solve the stuff" to also come out with this point lets say we have a RGB buffer with 8+8+8 = 24 (bits) now we have 1920 * 1080 * 24 = 2´073´600 / 1 frame (common resolution at the moment, maybe 4k near future) nows lets take 24 frames 2´073´600 * 24 = 49´766´400 - thats we we need for a smooth video (to mention also shortly you can take 24 pictures with 24 * 1/50 seconds record time) now lets take a look back 32 bit * 2´000´000 = 64´000´000 2 million representing megahertz already 2 mhz would pass the requied hardware if it was directly only to progress this 24 frames (and no kind of side stuff - ok maybe the encoder code - but thats the only one !) in past times you rather had a more direct appraoch today you run through many engines, an entire OS many parts get scripted up you didnt have that many engines, scripts, other codes and the OS before even anything happens in the past so a hardware unit specific for a such thing needs a lot less hardware and even a lot less cpu power then a common 4 GHZ * 4 (cores)(what is 4000 mhz) just running wildy anything - is what we useally today have that means if you have a specific hardware unit it only do what it needs to do also the logic will be fittet to whatever the software encoder/decoder do you dont need to control any engines you dont need to control any windows api you dont need a OS you dont need to control the window or read out the settings you have no weird security clash that slows down your code you special dont need a even bigger software (such as win11) you dont have background software that runs in the background and takes your cpu power thats why i pointed out just haveing a cpu inside a grafic card would with a programmable code, would rather just be like a next cpu but actually today we have multiple cpus - so actually we could give a certain cpu this job(s) a next part from consideration is that software can be upgraded and maybe new functions got added there are actually many SAO, GOP, CU, CABAC, BICUBIC and many other tricks then you might even have a new codec such as the h.266 and directx11 or that hardware GPU would be outdated already (actually i didnt see real proofs that this codec is a lot better) but they say so: https://www.maketecheasier.com/h265-vs-h264/ then you would have a printed chip you cant change - the other way if its a own cpu + command set - then again i have a different meaning about the "just a extra cpu" then we just could use a own cpu too also worth of mention is that the CPU´s cant just split up the work its not as easy as it might sounds , often the result of the calculation before is needed for example you cant split the work for pixel 1 into 1/2 pixels being done with cpu 1 and the other half with cpu 2 what multiple cpu´s are good at, are in data movements because you can say "write me 50 % of this file in cpu 1 and the other 50 % with cpu 2" if your file now is big enough so 1 cpu cant handle that anymore, 2 cpu´s will do that if your network card however dont progress enough speed you still limited to what cpu 1 can do + the network speed limit can shrink the speed downwards again but everything aside - what speaks against FFPLAY ? it has more new stuff also it support a wide spectrum of codecs FFPLAY is engine"ish" but maybe it would be a candidate ... software actually looks better in some youtube examples : https://youtu.be/5rgteZRNb-A?t=72 however i dont know how that hardware encoder progresses itself - is it a own cpu ? is it a hardware chip that has hardware units specific for that h266 codec ? do it use a fast setting (for example to have a continious picture over 24 frames/s?) 1 more thing in 1 example someone somewhere compared heic with medium setting vs best (slowest) (h266) setting if not the best setting is used the compare might be useless - we could make a compare medium vs placebo and placebo would win - somehow this dont make sence regarding placebo - yes it improves the pixels a bit - special when challenged to a smaller file size (i looked at that results)

why it always has to be a hardware based encoder/decoder in the grafic card ? it sounds like only the grafic card can do a such thing or must do this i longly discussed that with france he keept telling me you cant use the SSD as memory(or aka using the drive as memory while i pointed out the speed of SSD´s might be good), need a continuous flow or it dont work, also there is no software implementation and that it is hardware based and cant be done software, "you cant split it" actually nothing of that is true! reality is that hardware can emulate a software code also reality is but hardware code can be written to software code so now having these things cleared up we have the most important parts and why no mmx, sse4 or avx hardware registers (those are up to 1-500 times faster) these are hardware registers for speed (also the logic is better/faster), the others opcodes are rather classical nature (they have a lot more supported cpu´s for example) this is a preview i made its not complete. now has multipass, but important to us might be that it make use of hardware registers (it search up if it find mmx, sse (severial version) or avx it always choose automatic what newest (and fastest hardware registers) it can use if you turn hardware acceleration of it took over 10 min for a 55 MB picture, while with hardware acceleration it was done in seconds https://www.file-upload.net/download-15382972/WinXP_HEIC.zip.html a pure hardware implementation is certainly possible, that will be cost intense but every process has to turned into the hardware unit some are rather small and repetitious it is possible to control a memory unit also it raise the question for upgrades, the software has shown that it could improve the pixels with upgrades the hardware cant do that, if you print that hardware into a chip its permanent - there is no room for upgrades (and im aware that the cpu can be a own computer with own software - but no i think thats the same thing as if you just use a different computer/chip) your hardware at some point would be old and the software now makes better resolutions - then what ? regarding playing a video a lot less cpu power is requied, the question rather sounds how much actually is really needed to decode the h265 video but a normal cpu can control a 1920*1080p RGB buffer very easy (even older cpu´s/gpu´s from like 1998), high resolutions could also be done that time - while also with all the controlment code to do this

you should read the post - its made for a reason into the XP channel because it actualy works for windows xp, also we made that win11 software compatible with windows xp that is written in that post we should mention the new c++ standards while vs 2019 was bugged some c++ styles - while LLVM was not even c++ 11 counts as new, while LLVM works with c++26 what is a fictional future standard https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B26 worth to mention is also that you can use VC6 a very classical win98 and xp used compiler - where you can set LLVM 17 https://media.getintopc.com/2017/01/Visual-Studio-6.0-Enterprise-Edition-Latest-Version-DOwnload.jpg in the past it was rather called VC6 instead of VS6

how about our modded LLVM v17 ? https://msfn.org/board/topic/183588-project-saphire-dragon-port-llvm-and-clang/#comment-1218991 it has win11 c++ standarts - you may read the story but it can do all new stuff win11 use as "requied" also it can do a little more then vs2019 v16.7 (last xp working one) - what is somewhere around late win10 standart

we know the request (IOCTL_STORAGE_QUERY_PROPERTY) that fills up a structure called STORAGE_ACCESS_ALIGNMENT_DESCRIPTOR and that one has BytesPerPhysicalSector even if XP dont have this it would be easy to implement this the xbox guys write something about FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING is not working, the microsoft website isnt clear about this but (cache). it dont work without a buffer lets say the disc is 2 mb/s fast it actually has to use a buffer because it cant write the entire buffer in 1 step (what is probaly bigger then 2mb), also it needs a buffer that is being processed or it would not know what data to write rather it sounds to me that this cache means a internal system cache and the other use a cache from the exe/module itself (therefore the xbox guys rewrite dont work for this flag - but they can do it it should not be hard) then microsoft write this: "optional file offset in the OVERLAPPED structure, if specified, must be for a number of bytes that is an integer multiple of the volume sector size. For example, if the sector size is 512 bytes, an application can request reads and writes of 512, 1,024, 1,536, or 2,048 bytes, but not of 335, 981, or 7,171 bytes." but there is no such name in the overlapped structure - weird, maybe they should clarify what exactly in the OVERLAPPEND structure is meant but whatever it dont sounds hard to me either to set the query 4/8 times 512 byte sectors and the oposite way, to write a c++ routine that do something like this is very simple and lets say XP has this function/offset/structure/structure-entry it might can use it if not we can add the query function either in kernel or userlevel its going like this : deviceiocontrol -> nt/zwdeviceiocontrol -> transfered into IRP that request is then send to the disc/hdd/ssd whatsoever 512 * 8 = classical 4096 , that result in 16 TB but why not even bigger sectors ? 24 TB is the biggest "normal" harddrive at the moment (to make some examples: the seagate exos x - x24 24 TB, WD red pro 24TB, seagte skyhawk ai+rescue 24 TB) and already 8 TB is a good value to work with - its usally enough storage (often you have enough with discspace with 1 TB, for rather normal work)

i actually do not think they have any advantage in terms of security, windows 10/11 is a open door because they have automatic updates there is a reason why nuclear silo´s use XP instead of 10, if someone is about to emulate the update server then he could trigger the nuclear silo in sence of a external attack XP is very safe because all the security flaws where upgraded away XP might dont got an advantage if you are running a virus over a download but that rather comes over different aspects, win10/11 upgrade their virus list always - but that they have to do so only shows that win10/11 are not secure - or they would not need these having a virus that operates on win10/11 might also just not work because it might have missing functions or dont know where to make its flaws win10/11 security talk is rather coming from a different view, it try to get rid of you as owner of the computer - that driver signature is a such things , but also that UEFI boot it makes sure not you run what you want it makes sure it runs microsoft & friends - is that what you want ? a computer that is not yours the entire "sandbox" how chrome and firefox call them are nothing but a parameter for win10/11 what then is set to the app/module itself (it dont do that for you, it do that so you dont see what the apps really do) if 10/11 have a security aspect - yes then against yourself and for microsoft + friends/persons they like at the moment/ms choose who the so called sandbox features of firefox and chrome are bugs from the browser itself, it is not the operating system job - if that can happen something is wrong with the code in the browser and the browser has security flaws if russia would use win10/11 guess what - they would either call microsoft and tell them to stream a virus on their nuclear silo system or they already have a software for that and here xp got an big advantage as long you just work from a external attack XP is very secure, holes that existed where fixed - no automatic forced os upgrades, no windows firewall as static integrated unit that can upgrade itself from external calls, no automatic forced anti virus (again open door) - many software of microsoft today can do these automatic and forced upgrades - all count as open door, while all other software are also allowed to do their automatic upgrades (and what if they use this to stream a virus ?) in XP you can close that gap, you can refuse the connections either windows or any other software - and if you need a certain upgrade you can download it and install it on demand (but never forced) therefore there are no backdoors they can just dig in and do what they want you also have to see it like that there was a reason why microsoft gave win10 for free - there was a big catch and a very big downside - and today we know what it actually is by doing so they can do what they want, they can spy when they want without you having known they can force you what you do on your computer - others get marked as virus malware or maybe "potential unwanted software/they then decide that this is" (and guess what says this the anti virus software - but that rather comes that only microsoft & friends control what a virus/or other word is) https://www.borncity.com/blog/2017/01/01/windows-xp-und-uralt-computer-kontrollieren-atomarsenale/ https://qz.com/602928/floppy-disks-and-windows-xp-nuclear-weapon-technology-is-hilariously-out-of-date (and no out of date - using win10 if the upgrade server would somehow be emulated = nuclear doom) the reason why xp i already called out xp has no build in backdoor such as the windows 10 anti virus the firewall or the auto upgrades for the os - there is just nothing they could dig into xp if you download a virus from somewhere and execute then maybe ... - but noone would do a such thing with a nuclear silo

not being present at the place can also be a problem i cant see anything there must be a way the other operating system drivers are solving this when i cant see where and how the problem exits i actually cant make a conclusion where in ntoskrnl/or other system driver the connected problem might be it give us a hint with not having the right Vendor number, that probaly the right place to look

https://woshub.com/manually-install-cab-msu-updates-windows/

https://msfn.org/board/topic/177500-upgrading-ie8-to-tls-12/page/6/#comment-1270411 we might have stuff to talk about this again, roytram was right about that ksecdd.sys driver its a crypto system file involved with tls 1.1/1.2, that also explains why the picture roytram posted has algo code inside a problem of using the data section, code section or maybe the others is that they are not used all the time - better is to extend the last section or adding a section here we know now why that problem apeared, the realted guy probaly used the IE8 with the TLS 1.1/1.2 upgrade (however often it is like that, they say "i installed xp and this error happens") - but no it probaly was due the IE8 website started up or at least having the IE8 with the tls upgrade installed - that what has triggered that a plain xp would not have the error so i would like to make the question to the guy who posted that error - did you actually start to webbrowsing and then that problem came up ?

cab files work a little like installers https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/dism-operating-system-package-servicing-command-line-options?view=windows-11

it depents what is being opened again, while others got no solution (like the disc question from cixert regarding the 512 sectors) it looks simple to do that aka "addressing a 512 bit/maybe byte? and writing 512 bits there - ongoing repeatment) - the idea then was just to use bigger sectors like 4 mb sectors i dont see a problem with using 4 mb sectors, however i think xp might have a static value for this. so it has to be changed in the operating system maybe the next idea was that the firmware actually emulates/translate higher sectors to lower sectors / and oposite so far there is no solution regarding that discspace question while others have solutions like that TLS 1.3 , but it would be better to have it into the crypto modules itself (so a better solution would be good) - also the files that are used to say that make the entrys regarding TLS 1.2 seems to be a little wrong there are 3 upgrades posted doing the same thing (also TLS 1.3 was taken by having newer versions of chrome already) the codec question also has open questions - there are some solutions but some are missing for example the h.266 (both picture and video) or h.265 regarding (.avif) (.heic was taken) is it really a bot ? if so he actually makes XP stuff

regarding that tls 1.1/1.2 there are at least 3 named kb-upgrades outcalled that are said to be doing the tls1.1/1.2 install: https://ibb.co/XVmRCHh but as we can see they probaly not, or the tls 1.1/1.2 where already included and it was a while in there so it came also with the other upgrades (what could be - somehow i still have some doubts) in case of Cixert - we certainly can tell that these are reppetiv , also the installers take some discspace (that shown example is only a small part of the entire IE8 packs, but done in 1 step - already in this example that would save 3 times the discspace) also when i did this with a other program the install speed gone up like 100 times, no odd checks, no reppetiv files, no weird double/triple/ect check, no all the time load of self-extrators , no calling up kb1 to 100 times even tho the 3 kb upgrades that i took for the example have 3 different names they are the same pieces - just in a different version "state"

here is why the registry entrys might create the so called checkbox for "TLS 1.2/1.2" but the algo/keys are not just some entrys that are shown to the internet explorer that KB4019276 has dssenh.dll, ksecdd.sys, lsasrv.dll, rsaenh.dll, schannel.dll, secur32.dll those are crypto files and TLS is crypto/algo/hash/checksum/sig those are probaly the core of TLS 1.1/1.2 there are 3 upgrades i found posted on this forum kb4316682(14.05.2018), kb4230450 (30.05.2018), kb4493435 (15.03.2019) in the microsoft catalog they are listened as "internet explorer 8 upgrade/security upgrade" to me these 3 seems to upgrade the IE8 therefore the IE8 has to be installed before these can be installed, it raise questions if these are for tls 1.1/1.2 and if so it raise the question if not just the newer one can be installed kb942288 is listened as security upgrade however the files tells us something else to me msiexec.exe seems to be a automatic installer (aka .msi installer files) because the microsoft installer works like this "msiexec.exe /i "C:\example.msi"" kb4467770 only includes winhttp.dll winhttp is an interface https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winhttp/about-winhttp it actually names "WinHTTP 5.1: Supported SSL protocols include the following: SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, and Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.0" but says nothing about TLS 1.1/1.2 it would be good to know if this winhttp.dll/interface is needed or not i do not know this web interface but i know it is doing the HTTP request however i do not know if the older versions of this interface can work independent of TLS 1.1/1.2 or not (aka if this winhttp.dll is a necessary relation to TLS 1.1/1.2) it would however tell a possible bond how the IE8 was connected to the crypto modules (dependency walker however do not find any loads regarding the named crypto modules) i would be happy if some more knowledge comes out regarding these things