user57

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

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.