user57

the same downloader has 2 versions for SSE2 and SSE ? why it didnt go the common way like check if mmx -> use mmx , if sse -> use see, if sse2 -> use sse2, ongoging you can definatly make it so, the compiler like vs2019 use sse if not turned off but if you have a routine that use sse you can skip it if you need, therefore the opcodes are then skipped if you dont have sse you can use normal opcodes or a different mmx-avx routine to have the right functional code one way to emulate a 64 bit command with normal opcodes is doing it multiple times , and instead of a register you can use the stack or some memory space you can control that piece as 64 bit i think dietmar did a such thing regarding replacing the 32 bit command CMPXCH8B command, it is a command that can change 64 bits in 32 bit operating systems using two 32 bit registers if its the same downloader it might solve this issue

i think i have to understand the problem regarding oauth he wanted to get his emails with outlock - what is normal and common then microsoft aka hotmail.com added that oauth now it raise questions a : it need a second email for oauth / or login and pw for that oauth server b : it is just a mechanism that connect to that oauth server - where outlock dont have the oauth code - so it cant make this part and microsoft email just stops doing its job having that what they called a "token" to me it seems to be some hash then it can call with this hash, the server of interests and gather the data of interests that rather sounds like you have a login to some kind of server that says "this IP has sended me the right code - let this guy on your server" this sound all very old like a handshake with TCP SSL or a server that gives out something like "let this guy in" then your email such as a hotmail email allows you to see facebook, paypal, youtube - without having entered the password for facebook,youtube or paypal it raise questions where this oauth has its code , but the part that is making the question to the oauth server has to be on the users computer if its that it might be a module, a internal function, a hash maker in firefox, a certain code that is being executed that sounds insecure to me if someone has the right conditions can probaly just enter your facebook , youtube or wrose your paypal account this not only goes for a hacker, that also means people of interests can just make this with your account (such as the right people who have that trusted status - and that will not only be the police - and if so it raise questions why the police can just enter and look around in your facebook,youtube or paypal without having anything going on ...) so its a spy mechanism for the state - the more they know about the people the better they can enslave/control them (because guess what these people will have that mechnism´s - one might claim "on no i would not do that" - nope he will do he get a letter from a lawers and at some point he collopse, or something like "we dont do it yet/now" -> "oh see there in 2025 the terms of use changed now every people i want i can give this") so we cleared 1 question, why the do this - it dont give any security questions, rather it opens security questions and we know how this ends in a change of the so called "terms of use" - and then its done - you can be spyed

to me OAuth looks it just being a extra mechanism something like "shake-hands", that xp certainly could do if the mechanism is known where and how the picture OAuth only also shows a picture where your computer is asking their "OAuth-server" if everything is ok - this "OAuth-server" then communicated with the target (such as youtube, microsoft and others) when the OAuth with your computer was ok and the others (yt,ms ect.), then it grants access to the wanted resources like pictures and video that dont sound so special to me SSL or TCP-handshake is doing a similiar thing to me then it sounds like they just added a next one doing the same thing, with only one difference that a such mechanism is used 2 times

i have made a nice visual for the PSE (Page Size Extension) - the memory limit in the right part of the picture is from a older list of memory limits - that may or may not also include the other method (PAE Physical Address Extension) or both PSE and PAE combined the calculators show the related bits in 1010 binary format and in DEC for both 36 bit or 40 bit (since amd athlon maybe ? but somewhere around 1999 that started - now we have 2024) as you can guess PSE is 1 of the methods to reach more then 4 GB ram the other is PAE, a third way would be a second/3/4/ect. application (that then can address or point to different physical memory) interesting i find that intel lacked behind with 36 bits (64 GB) while amd already had 40 bit (1024 GB) also we can see that windows 2000 can have more then 4 GB ram, in that list it has 32 GB of ram (that also fits to the release dates of the cpu´s)

that might be interesting most cpu´s had 64 bit support while everybody used up 32 bit the speed maybe ? hmm no mainly because 2 reasons first normal opcodes are not that fast (you lose vs 32 bit even on x64 bit if you use MMX-AVX (we talked about fast cpu and compatible cpus recently)) then also you have more then 32 bits on that MMX or AVX registers (in 32 bit mode) then the next question kicks in high languages are rather made for making the things simple - but they are not fast c++ found a good compromise however it still lose to a assembly implementation so if somebody say i want to use 64 bits because that is faster then i must say no rather changing your programming language would speed up your code a lot (and also significant lower the file size) there is a big downside to assembly and maybe c++ but lets talk about assembly first, you need to know like a lot more of math and logical reason to do this also you need to write the entire code yourself (not like for (x=1,x<3x++)) you have to write this code this make it a lot more work ... - definatly a downside a other problem are engines, engines are useally simplier to program but also they not very fast (so that have to leave to if you ask for speed question) i dont want to talk to much off topic now but we had a such discussion recently (LAV engine) - but that is not true so directly it already are 2 engines (that LAV engine + the d3d9 engine) (and thats only the ones we certainly know of - maybe there are more) (now we have 2 engines it goes through before it even reach anything ... while we figured out that we dont even need that engine nor a engine to do so ) a other discussion is the memory limit and no the thing can be a little harder here i wrote about that already so i try to make it short this time in the past segments was a word (in like 8 bit and 16 bit (65kb) or 20 bit (1mb)) so the idea was to have a segment that points to 16 bit memory (65 kb) that * 4 bits (256 * 65 = ~ 1 mb) (i think some should have heared about that 1 mb thing somehow or seen somewhat) (here one for later to have one from wiki) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_memory_segmentation a segment is like a arrow -> segment -> 0 = 0-65 kb segment -> 1 = 65-131 kb so if one arrow points to a house and that arrow can aim for a different house you understand segmenting to call out this part, 32 bit has segment registers - but it would be rather a long story more into detail (rather talking about 4 kb or 4 mb pages (long mode) ect.) the most applications dont need 4 gb either, for sumatra pdf this is the case - you can set the compiler to x64 (chrome for example start up a an next application (always called chrome.exe) and having always new address room) but except that the file is more and that it dont start on 32 bits nothing is diffrent for sumatra pdf, and guess what you can run that 32 bit sumatra pdf on x64 too to me that raise questions why i would even compile a x64 version

can i ask why is having x64 important ?

to be honest i do not know all the user/system settings that are possible however the restriction that the other "users" cant do anything was a common want there used to be like a father giving his son his PC, making him a such "user" account - restricted , not followed to see everything , not allowed to install everything also on the most installers you can select "for all users(aka system)" or just "this user"

i think neither where that leads to, he should try to be the administrator and see if that happens there

on your installation you didnt set a administrator pw ? if empty you can just click ok there are programs and methods to remove that administrator password - maybe someone point it out some of those, its been a while for me since i do this - i never had problems with this as im always logged in as admistrator maybe: ? https://www.partitionwizard.com/clone-disk/windows-xp-password-reset.html

well it says check to free disc space that´s an easy one start -> my computer -> (rightclick local disc C:)) -> properties (free disc space) for the permissions you look the folders if something is wrong check all permissions C:\Documents and Settings\ C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\ C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\ you look there if you have the right permissions "All Users" describe you not logged as administrator you can try "right click and start as administrator on one of these installers" or you can change the user to administrator and see if the installation works there that is somewhere start->Log Off where you can switch the user

well if that is always the problem adding the algo why you not just write them to normal assembly commands ? that is possible making that hash/algo with normal commands dont cause more cpu intensity because they are only a small thing in the code MMX and all its followers are rather for cpu intense parts (such as a decoder or encoder, or a sort mechanism) - but just to make a hash ? that raise questions its going back to a old story - where the makers once had 2 cpu´s 1 with old but very compatible commands (that only got improved in speed) 1 with specific made for speed but no compatibility - almost nothing worked here - and if so they had to be entire rewritten only to do so - big cost = both where taken - the CPU can do normal commands and MMX+ commands now they already beginning to say something like hum now we have AVX we dont need SSE4 or SSE2 anymore to my opinion the answer is very clear - we can have both

you wrote "Problem is that when i tried to install Visual C++ 2010 Redist" but thats a own installer its called something like "vcredist_x86.exe" but then in the screenshots you tryed to install some kind of the "dot.net framework 4 installers" later on "adobe reader xi" that raise the question why you said the VC 2010 redist is the problem - while you tryed to install different things while framework said the disc is full or inaccessable adobe said something like it cant connect the update server (if i got this one it right) there are installers need internet access is it a windows 32 bit XP or a win 64 bit XP ? 32 bit framework 4 to try (KB982670): https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/ScopedViewInline.aspx?updateid=0d076fbf-33cd-4b86-9288-ab31899b74da 64 bit version (KB982670 x64): https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/ScopedViewInline.aspx?updateid=434aa8fa-b425-47a9-be5b-dd000b66c6ed one more thing about the x64 bit version of XP - that time everybody used a 32 bit system thats why there are 32 bit version of the next following operating systems that time we could not find any real advantage to a x64 bit system therefore x64 XP missing many fixes that XP got up to 2019 - the people didnt care about it much - seems microsoft neither you can run a chrome 32 bit version on a 64 bit machine np, but if you set the compiler to "x64" you cant run it in 32 bits - while giving litterally no advantage chrome is running new executables (aka starting up chrome.exe severial times) - and those all got 2-4 gb room (that is a lot for a app) 2 GB if you want just userspace , 3 GB if you use the large page version (then the userspace is 3 GB for each startet app), 4 GB if you include the entire address room directly however those executables can point to different memory - therefore it can pass the 32 bit limit of 4 GB , by starting up multiple executables (only 1 way of severial ways, as paging can point to different memory too(paging was a thing in the past - it seems it got forgotten there was for example a 64 kb vs 1 mb paging version, just to make an example)) let us know if these framework installers work or not ty

the lap-top "Lenovo G580" you described has sse but or we talking about the specs you posted below ? "AMD Athlon 600 MHz" that one only got MMX just to confirm are you talking about this one ? : https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/pd025312-overview-lenovo-g580

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)