user57

very quick when that driver work on a different os, maybe there is a solution in acpi.sys, ntoskrnl ect.

i dont make these 3 things firmware, ntoskrnl lan driver control(filter/in between/engine driver), lan driver into these 3 things the questions and answers certainly fall coding wise i would be certainly enough, but i do not know how this chain actually is normed that certainly needs operating system debugging to see where and how the problem apeared the requied work needs presents like having the hardware and right toolset (like operating system debugger, the hardware, symbols, related code) since the ntoskrnl is published we would see where in the code the problem relys for the acpi.sys there is also full insight for the lan driver itself someone would have to know how it normally looks for the rather external firmware i would need knowlegue about this specific stuff, what i do not know about if its a acpi.sys problem of power managment having the right tools and being present i certainly could tell why the problem apeared sorry for not being more of help

at the microsoft update catalog there is no V3 version however there is a V4 version https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB942288 did microsoft upgrade these files the last 2 years, or is that V3 version requied ? downloading the V3 from the link of msfn.org the info tells its from 2009 while v4 from 2014

well i dont think the 13 gb are the size if you combine all to 1 installer these small installers always use codes and files that take "extra disc-space" also some are reppetiv that means also less disc space 2000 files definatly are some longer work but for a such size a programm would be a solution that maybe logs these KB upgrades (that still make it some work, but you are far faster when you just have a programm that says you what this installer in doing) in LLVM i had this problem it was around 130-180 executables/dlls/modules that had this version problem , so i made a small programm to fix all of these ~150 executables with that programm - that worked out if you do so you will have just 1 executable that install that office 2003 in 1 step actually if you want a more simple method this 1 is fast to do: you write a script (for example a .bat/batch file) where you says "run" kb1 /q (for quied and doing it) the next line follows "run" kb /q and so on... that dont make it very fast but that is still certainly better then downloading them and running them step-wise

oh oh

well astroskipper it might be in part off-topic but in sence of a installer question (that came out severial times in many topics now) then its not off-topic you made a very good job in creating that TLS 1.2 proxy however it would be possible to analyze the 3 kb upgrades (KB4230450, KB4316682 and KB4019276) to say it directly out these can be combined to just 1 installer (it are 3 installers) (the reason why its always many upgrades is because over time microsoft always released pieces of upgrades) thats because a installer only set registry entrys and file placements to do file placements and registry changed there are classical file creating and registry read/write functions (that also works if some extra registry changes are needed) i can do this, however i have like a todo list there is not that many room i can just do it everytime/anytime also it would be good to have people that can do this (there should be some) in case of this topic its a lot of small installers to analyze, its certainly some work - but that tls are just 3 upgrades and a few registry changes maybe the question should be made why nobody is doing it that way ? instead you mostly see a nice description how you do this with the KB upgrades and to manually create some registry entrys

the most of these seem to be "a classical microsoft KB upgrade file" here is such a KB upgrade (i took a KB upgrade (KB2922229) that use kernel32.dll) the first executable is just like a zip file "windowsxp-kb2922229-x86-enu_0e149634fac7cb51e39d557c60549bea43f027bc.exe" when you run this one it gonna make a temporary folder what useally has a random name i named it "KB2922229 - x86 - Windows XP - ENU - 07.04.2014" after that the first the first executable calls upgrade.exe in that folder (often with command lines options such as "/q" "/s" "/c") /q (quiet) says that it dont create a window and just continue the install (thats why you often dont see that process) https://www.file-upload.net/download-15367092/KB2922229-x86-WindowsXP-ENU-07.04.2014.zip.html the files in the "random name temporary folder" (named to : "KB2922229 - x86 - Windows XP - ENU - 07.04.2014") useally already say a lot without logging the upgrades activity the .inf files for example [SetupFiles.Common] spuninst.exe spmsg.dll update\spcustom.dll update\KB2922229.CAT "update\update.exe" "update\updspapi.dll" "update\update.ver" "update\updatebr.inf" update\eula.txt update\branches.inf [MustReplace.System32.files] kernel32.dll,SP3QFE\kernel32.dll [Product.Add.Reg] i do not know all of these but having those can be helpful in the progress what this tells us that this is just an installer but we actually only need to know what registry entrys this creates and what files are placed the rest can be ignored that was for that classical kb upgrade file however if we have a different installer then again we only need the reg and filemoves after we know that we can make a own installer the question is who is making the work (having many upgrades make it a lot of work) to either make certain you got all the file moves and registry entrys you have to use a logger and maybe a debugger after you have them its not very hard to make the installer again here is also the catch having all reg and file moves allow you to see what ones you actually really need and you can put them all together to just 1 installer (probaly make this 100 times faster in the end) then you also can skip the scripts - scripts are slow and often break up

well there might be a better solution these are so called "installers" a installer has the job to copy files to some place (or rename them while reboot - if it is a system file) the second job is to set the registry changes the first ones are often like a ZIP file (like KBXXXXXX) , it gonna "unzip" the files in there to a random folder , there it useally starts the installer (useally something called update.exe) those are like in your case many files (what all set files and registry entrys (depending on what that certain KB upgrade file has inside) ) a better way is to find the latest files (to give an example would be kernel32.dll , some installers install the same file more times) so you make your installer always using the latest files from the KB/or upgrades so you make your installer doing set all the files + its registrys entrys its some kind of work since you have many files - but that is doable to do so you have to make a collection you first gonna get the files (that you have) and you have to look what "installers" have to done first so you collect what the first installer did (files and registry entrys) then you continue on this list so in the end you have a list where all the files go (then you also can see where you dont need to place the files multiple times) for the registry its a bit more tricky , you just gonna look what the first installer do (that installer probaly makes important entrys , with either the upgrades or the app cant function) so you have to look what all the installers so and delete here you make a successor list when you have that its not a big deal to make a new installer (yours will be at least 10 times faster in installing that app too) that certainly will solve the problem you have and will never ask again for that files , you will just have 1 installer and that will do it happy to hear the others meaning

well we took the .heic image format, c++"standart 23+" compiler was taken, google chrome was taken however a video H.266 codec (.266) both video and image is missing AVIF (.avif) are also still missing (the methods are very similiar to heic but) there still open questions, maybe the others point out some things too (dibya for example wants to take firefox) a other thing we could need are new ISO´s, not these what spawn upgrade installers after they installed SP3 - no thats not what we want we want these files being installed due the windows installer while a few other things dont have very elegant solutions the TLS 1.2 for example, i thought i make a installer out of that (instead of installing 3 KB upgrades and creating registry entrys manually) the directx10/11 maybe 12? sometimes seems to have problems too or need the OCA you could improve some existing codes too the OCA recently came up with an experimental version (that still has many bugs)

https://www.speedguide.net/faq/what-is-the-difference-between-kilobits-and-kilobytes-166

we never shall forget that XP is a OS that was fixed, upgrade and patched for 20 years - thats the longest time i can think of for a OS - in this case XP is rather unique that reduced exactly these, also the security is very high - there is a reason why nuclear silo´s use windows xp and not win10 even for a virus problem (that you downloaded and executed) that could be a problem - it might no longer knows so exactly what to do for older vaccines like the POX-virus they use a trick for humans the POX virus (for humans/and apes) get put into a COW´s body (win10), therefore the virus mutated to fix for the "new operating system" but back into a human body the virus forgot what to do, it is now like a alien in a wrong body - it no longer know what to do the virus who was in the COW put back into the human (xp) is no longer dangerous for the human that might also be from consideration, some exploids, bugs or viruses might no longer work on XP either dietmar described recently how to do install all the XP upgrades, but however i think dietmar should rather make a ISO that do not need the a upgrade.exe and has all the files within the windows installer that is certainly possible, someone called out nlite ? but even if we would not have nlite, we can actually see what these upgrades are doing (it useally are just renames of files and registry entrys)

interesting i heared problems like this severial times now but often it was a xp64 issue there is a relativ high chance that you might try x32 (upgraded sp3+rest) and see of that problem also apears on the 32 bit version because some did have similiar problems and using 32 bits did not have that problem in the next step the x64 bit version was fixed up xp64 was getting far less upgrades, fixes and patches 64 bit operating system where not popular that time, thats why there are 7, 8.1 and 10 x32 bit versions

well i could write more to the sumatra pdf code itself but its his drag and drop function, if it was working good before he made some changes here too (a rollback is certainly always possible, but it raise questions to do so) it might be just something simple cant say that without reading the code a while if nobody ask him he might dont react the chance is better to ask the author more directly https://github.com/sumatrapdfreader/sumatrapdf/issues sumatra pdf´s author actually got many of "issues/bugs" of all kinds of nature ... cosmetic, inperfection, crashes ect.

maybe this should be solved in chrome internal if chrome has choosen a weird path and a weird version, it would be just to combine the these 2 as strings https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/nf-winbase-getcurrentdirectory we also dont neccesray need a batch file we could use registry control functions to, to either create,change reading the entrys there would also be a way to list the entry of a certain folder (that not only includes files it also has the folder names inside there) that would be a classical createfile / findfirstfile / findnextfile chain

one other way is saying that you dont understand, in case you really dont understand, simple then no problem IDA re wrote a lot into that direction but actually i readed it up , he actually writes like he know stuff but he provided like absolut zero to proof if he even is that guy he describes to be for example he presented not a single line of code, and assembly only for code optimation ? sounds a bit fishy to me the story keeps ongoing like that where people kinda reacted like to smell something fishy too if he trys to create a mess i dont fall for a such trick one more things women are of "feeling" nature therefore they more likely to fall for something that falls into that category

looking the first page it says it has that 0xA5 error maybe not the exact code do you maybe got the test for 32 bit ? to me it seems the list of error codes seem to be less for 32 bits

im maybe the wrong person to ask for a bug in this .sys file there used to be something in the background services that backup files if they dont have the same checksum, it then used the backup file if not windows make use of the backup file drivers have 2 checksums that crc32 (pe header) check and a other driver signature checksum from what i remember but in xp the second driver signature wasnt important, but if that crc32 checks fail it wont load the driver for replacing system files mircosoft use a "rename after boot" ("SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Session Manager") you have to create a REG_DWORD = 1 to that is called AllowProtectedRenames there is a key(string) that is named "PendingFileRenameOperations" here you can set your system file renames that useally what the installer do (if you use a KBXXXXXX upgrade you can see what entrys it made at this place) microsoft use the MoveFileEx function (what do exactly this) with parameter MOVEFILE_DELAY_UNTIL_REBOOT i do not know if that helps

is there a german XP with all the upgrades up to posready 2019 ? if not you may could make us one ?

well just to create some information we had severial attempts regarding XP mods that rather came over a psychological effect the guy(s) maybe girl(s) actually just tryed to find a point to get RID of the mods itselfs, often they had not even a programming clue "this should not exist" "this create some drama" "i have the copyright" "i will kill you" "you shall not do this" "xp is outdated" "why wasteting time" as we can see there are enemys of modders - whatever their motivations are so i do not think its coming from one of their arguments - rather their goal is getting rid of us - and sorry that i do not agree they sometimes even offered a bit information - like they are making some kind of research what we can do or what not - with other words they where rather gathering info and tryed to make bad influence to me this seems rather a next attempt to get rid of us (trying to find a point "where this can be done")

well that means that the problem do not rely withing the changes i did to make sumatra pdf compatible with xp that drag and drop function is imperfect also on win10 if you rapidly open and close tabs with drag and drop it comes up with an error aka "sumatra pdf could not open this pdf file" there i suspect sumatra pdfs authors drag and drop function is inperfect it rather raise the question if i change the sumatra pdf author code itself to fix this up thats a different kind of change, rather i get a sumatra pdf coder then the GUI i already told looks more imperfect on vista/7 (more then in xp) that the GUI looks well on win10 is probaly not an accident

that GUI bug might be also in the normal sumatra pdf 3.5.2 release i noticed a slight view GUI bug in win7/vista (not win10) - more i could not test (maybe in 8.1 ?) (it is functional but so the sumatra author might not have taken care of vista and 7 anymore) in windows XP the GUI is in-perfect but looks mostly normal and very ok and acceptable and is functional if that problem is meant i only could use a pre version to fix that up (but that is rather work for the sumatra pdf author - it happend due changes sumatra author did with the GUI) you should test the orginal sumatra pdf first to see if it has these problems the sumatra author has a open forum for problems regarding his programm if you descripe a different GUI problem you might send me a private message with screenshots to that drag and drop problem i noticed that one a bit, if we talk about the same one (but rather it sometimes dont drag and drop always with the first try in 10 that is bugged too - it might accept the file but then you get a error that sumatra pdf could not open that pdf file) - but also you need to test the sumatra pdf i builded up in a win10 machine first if that same problem apears there = there is already 50 % the reason are the changed for the XP mod then you have to try it with the normal (unchanged official version) also on win10 if both (official and xp modded) have not that problem in win10 - it is a NOT reason related for the changed xp mod if both (official and xp modded) have 1 working and the other is not working - the reason is with the XP mod (100 %) that part might come from what sumatra author called (//hacky but works) the code didnt look so well in this solutions and ended up in a OS specific reaction (this is normally not what you want - rather that would be bad programming)

there are only a few disadvantages for 1/1000 or maybe 1/2000 (thats when the motion blur totally vanishes up) fight scenes are good with that, moving rainwater is a bit in disadvantage but in my opinion it looks still ok but we talking about 1/60 a lot of cameras however has to increase their iso , what means less resolution , you actually either need a good light or fast lens older cameras had like F3.2 to be a fast lens but thats not really true, rather F1.4 is fast and smarptphones because they actually got a fast f-stop samsung F1.5 and others F1.7 they have a very fast shutter speed for their videos the hobbit was made with 48 frames and it looked very smooth its a compromise instead of having 60 frames you can have 24-30 frames of 1/60 shots

thats right, but i think we already mentioned that that flag test was for the CPUID command to be there and that it is in EDX bit 8, CMPXCHG8B (compare-and-swap) instruction however the emulated CPUID command needs more things to be set the SSE instruction set would be a such example, or XP belives it can use SSE commands, the cache dietmar already figured too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID you right if that eflag (bit 21 flag) is not available, like 99,99+ % CPU´s would not have the cmpxchg8b command but we should not make a false assumtion that the CPUID(or cmpxchg8b) command is not used on a different spot because it sounds like it would automatic not use that cmpxchg8b command - as microsoft said they didnt care so their compiler or code might just have used it anyways from what i remember cpuid can be a ring0 privileged command, it maybe cant be executed in usermode/ring3, if someone remember this exactly i would be happy to see me corrected that would not be a problem either as can write a programm that actually use a driver , that then sends the result back towards our usermode programm

hmm yes why not we could actually write a program that test for CPUID, and that cmpxchg8b command

what roytram said was correct but, there is a cpuid instruction at that driver spot do we know if the CPU change actually has that cpuid command ? he said he changed his Am80486DX4-100NV8T to a 100 MHz SV8B a few minutes before seeing your message and it works!! that 8B i dont know what it stands for but that cmpxchg8b has that 8b in its name certainly there are specifications around somewhere if these CPU´s have that instructions or not - but how we know ? it might not be published, maybe lost/forgotten you actually often dont see what the CPU really can do if a 486 cpu might have 64 bit FPU registers you might can set 64 bit in 1 instruction i remember that different assembly commands have different cycles - also based on technolegy that being said it was common to show how many cycles an assembly command needs - or even if the cpu has solved it with less or more cycles there are some FPU commands that set quadwords (64 bit - and yes on 32 bit OS), but somehow you would have to load the bits into the FPU first the most common compilers just store 32 bits from the FPU (first you useally dont need more - second the FPU internal has more bits(im not certain about the 486 cpu)) in the end the instruction choose how many of that 64 bit floating point value is stored at the 32 bit location (the FPU then calculate the value for a 32 bit location with a bit less "precision") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp891.pdf