user57

well i think you might should gonna turn the brightness and contrast settings a little lower, every monitor has that

it would be no wonder when some anti virus is coming and claim that to be either malware, virus, trojan horse, potentional unwanted software in the past that was a discussion when microsoft for example handle all results what are virus are - they decide , in fact many marked sams one core api as virus , or my version changer (while being complete open source)

that with the drive wasnt complicated to program you had a buffer to progress (that buffer being the data that is being written to that hdd disc) the hdd drive itself had certain commands it understand "like write or read" you processed it directly via IO command (aka "in" and "out" assembly) you had to a in BYTE(8 bits each)/WORD(16 bits each)/DWORD (32 bit each) - this got repeated with the REP command (repeat command if easy speacing) so here let me take this approach -> that IN OUT command write/read not directly to the HDD drive rather it write that to the CACHE of the HDD the firmware ... then progress it to a physical movement and electric pulse to the HDD head (ect.) so to make people understand why i have to say this first the CPU is a lot faster then the HDD is and the CPU as might i said in the past can translate assembly commands to a "different progressing" with different progressing i mean it can detect a 8 bit move and translate it to a 64 bite (or a lot more) move so now that we know that the HDD cant progress the speed power the CPU has (and therefore use a cache (+ i must say this method got increased up to fast bigger cache like 12 MB or more cache)) you actually read out the status code for the HDD (the hdd then tells you like "im doing this im busy (do not send me data again for now") this is a direct hardware approach the "new" ones a "engine" - yes engine you heared right - i say so because everything today is going through like 8 engines before doing anything (and yes i say it again stop that bullc... everything it filled up with engines today - use less of engines programmers) this "new" is done via a driver (pre driver) and a IRP https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/wdm/ns-wdm-_irp this IRP is then being progressed - but it still do that classical IN and OUT command just to say this is not a direct hardware approach but it gives the operating system a "standart code" it can operate with - its far less effective and therefore also have less speed (the reason you dont see this so directly is for example that cache reason) but enough about the disc and back to dietmars problem more directly i dont think we can see the reason so directly without having the right tools but the pci bus is fast enough there are certainly differences between PCI standarts either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_Component_Interconnect the SATA to IDE was already called out to be a idea that however raise the question what standart or norm for that older cpu is working https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA/ATAPI https://www.elektronik-kompendium.de/sites/com/0501021.htm https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmed_Input/Output this like we creating our first HDD

i was against discord/teamviewer from the beginning, but noone wanted to hear me this is certainly intensional by discord crew to remove these os´s - 100 % they could keep up a older browser version that only means they on the ride with the others who actually try to make this "spy ride" this is still up to date: there is a reason why they are doing this so guys keep looking if you asked for "real name" "email that requies a real name" "smartphone confirmation" "wants neccesary a server (where your data is logged) someone once said (there is no cloud its someones server)" "wants nessesary win10+" "wants a tpm chip" also keep a watching eye if they try to say we do this "spam" no thats not right there are other ways to have spam under control, the past has proofen so or other crap "you give us your smartphone number - good deal (no its not)" or "just install win10 (oh someone actually did what they want them to do" and it it wants a server in between - again "its not a cloud its somebodys server" -> they can look into this - peer to peer are one of their enemys , or self hosted servers teamspeak is a good example how a such problem can be solved - or how it once has been teamspeak allow you to host a server (not always there server (that is spying on you)) in between so they cant just get rid of the server and say it need this supernew +0 functions server (and discord dont allow you to host a server - why - i belive we know the reason) then they actually force you to do more and more things , more and more data from you , more and more that you should accept and nobody can proof these companys that they looked into your computer or chat (even tho you have a right to speak and no1 is allowed to hear into what you talking there - it is actually the same laws for a phone talk) "but you accepted this the company says" it is hard to proof a company that they did a such thing - near impossible - because they only trust you if you let them look your computer - but what is about their computer if you then figured out you face a lawer that trys to reduce the demage (its not like they dont do this - there are proofen cases that they did exactly this) - witch then end in some kind of talk "ah that wasnt so bad - its over now" (something like that) (just for the people - that they dont do that - or cant do that - or will not do that - no they do!)

i heared there once was a extra release windows 3.2 for chinese country only (useally there is only 3.1 or its better version 3.11)

i looked it up from vista to xp it are more then 130 functions that are missing even for redfox that dont include external dll´s such as d3d11.dll

64 bit: and rax, 0fe000000H 32 bit: and eax, 0fe000000H they did this like that ? the FE is are bits 31-25 ok but rax is a 64 bit registers the entire 32-63 bits would be left out, so they have to be certain that what they are changing here is only 32 bits the same question raise for the rcx move if it contains more then 32 bits the others are skipped the same for the next part , sure it depends what is being done here and what bits are need or not they should know what they are doing

windows wise even in user mode it use that overlappended structure (and this one has 32 bit dwords (high and low part) what result in a 64 bit address room) - drives make a good example why the 4 GB address room limit was already passed , because drives passed the 32 bit limit far ealier here comes the "pipe" question - a pipe simple says "do move me 4 gb 10 times" - pipe defined and thats not even what is happening for the hardware it cant move 4 gb so fast the hardware then it limited to like 10 mb/s (and actually need even far smaller pipes)

well thats why i came up with the idea to use a older cpu to have the most of the results if some dont understand whats going on: the disassembly instruction code is useally shown with 2 methods: method 1 : hexadecimal the instruction set goes like this: (instead of 12345678 or 87654321) it go useally like this: 21435687 (memory storeage) for instruction it useally go like this : 12345678 to (real) 78563412 the disassembler dont show you this on the bit code therefore hex 00 01 translate to 0100 what is bit 9 (or classical if you have the 0 its 0 + 8 (9) bit 8 ) (because bit 1 has name bit 0 (and it still has 9 numbers))) thats why dietmar made it correct "test edx, 100h == F7 C2 00 01 00 00" and "or edx, 100h == 81 CA 00 01 00 00" dietmar pointed out that he has a cache problem actually that raise questions , the cpu dietmar use dont got that command but the OS (winxp) might have used up a cache setting, that CPUID command if present holds cache information i do not know how that interacts with the RAM memory - maybe thats some work for the WRK but i do not want to study the function

useally those checks are not far away from the CPUID instruction itself the other way is to store that 2 results somewhere that can be for both (cpuid and "the mask check" 0x00200000 with the eflags (thats flag 21) ) and read them out later in first case you have to find the checks and make the code ignore them in second case you have to find the checks on other possible places the eflags are different from cpuid command there are some commands to control them such as popf, pushf,popfd, pushfd, pushfq, popfq, STAC, UCOMISD/UMCOMISS, VCOMISH, CLAC, COMISD, COMISS FCOMI, FCOMIP, FUCOMI, FUCOMIP the first is a mask check against the eflags the second is cpuid for CPUID it checks bit 8 in EDX (after the CPUID command) called the CX8 flag however there are many more information that comes with the CPUID command instruction for example the USE OF SSE, windows XP very certainly would use the other flags if they are all not set https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID i think i already wrote that somehow, you should change the CPUID result to a old processor result without any features and then let the code continue having that results then the code both can either store that result or make a check direct afterwards having that result flag 21 for eflags is the so called "Able to use CPUID instruction (ID)" flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAGS_register chappells worth to mention again https://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/windows/km/cpu/cx8.htm (and yes where chappel mentions the mask acquired: is actually the same solution i wrote up, this code is not from chappel he readed it out from microsoft code) maybe worth to mention is that 2 commands are not atomic either (i dont think that was the question) or 2 times cmpxchg would not work either

do change the posready registry entry change something ? POSReady is just a xp that had longer updates, it updates up older xp versions too https://msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/

i came to notice that in that screenshot i see 256 mb ram, it seems you had more success then the old 32 mb problem ?

to be honest personally i dont think it make sence to have a police issue about a open source software if it is really a company secret it has to be hidden very well, in a diamond mine this is the case for example there have to be security so noone can just put the code open source (then maybe they have the rights to follow the issue in my opinion) if it lays open source around it falls under own fault legally - in this case its their fault not putting it on a safe place, furthermore they even put it out freely in the past no one would have a such idea to release their source code , per example if microsoft would have published their entire source code then it would have been copied ... but lets not forget that lawers/and lawmakers made changes here - but they dont have me on their side and never will i dont like the new lawers and their interpretation - maybe they have written weird rules on the paper but i also still belive im allowed to mod my legit buyed copy of windows - while they will keep telling me that i dont have the right to do this if that is the new world, then sorry i just dont agree very common it was a vs fight too closed source vs open source - or company vs free software the new interpretation is going into a different direction like free software(previous also often called open source software) falls under something like a copy right linux vs windows is a such example from the past, MS having a closed source while linux had a open/free source but let´s never forget the story behind that

i tested that website with a nativ win7 machine (with all upgrades) and a unchanged official chrome 109 supermium is already far above that, as seen even on win7 and on a nativ win10 machine with edge win10´s edge might show a few more, but not all while supermium shows all of them

hmm for some reason i can only type a few words - i removed the links and it is still not doing it edited for not can write the entire text

happy to see chappel again the first function mentioned actually tells a discrete use for that cmpxchg8b command in 32 bit mode making a 64 bit change (ExInterlockedCompareExchange64) the sequence chappel mentions is actually the same as the code i wrote chappel also says microsoft use that code if, if the cmpxchg8b command was not found chappel they says microsoft stopped to use to make that check since windows 5.1 (xp) (so we are a little smarter in that sence now) howeever the next part tells a downside, chappel says that needs a storage object for multiprocessors (that SLIST_HEADER structure actually might be a storage object) but actually i use 2 move for exactly what chappels mentions (64 bit PTE´s, i build up those entrys then move it 2 times (high and low parts) ), and it dont cause a crash for what i did use that that might need a confirm from others, maybe it is worth a try (and dietmar has a 486 cpu that one dont use more processors/hypterthreading - anyways) a thread/processor switch takes time if that would be random the entire kernel would interfere anytime - the biggest BSOD i can think of dietmar might can need the next part from chappel that mentions what microsoft is doing to test if that command is available he says microsoft checks (before winxp) that by masking the eflags with the mask 0x00200000 if that cant be done there is no CPUID command (that information is already "almost" enough to not use the cmpxchg8b command) but microsoft makes it correct if the first mask check can be done, microsoft use the cpuid command and checks for the CX8 flag - this makes certain if the cpuid command is available and also checks for the cmpxchg8b command to be available just in case the cpu dont support chmpxchg8b but actually have the cpuid command) i think dietmar can need that information if he makes his 486 (dll) he mentioned , and want to make the check correct

and the firmware translate this correctly ? it would make sence the the harddrives firmware actually know this and translates these to physical places on the real harddrive if the partition can filled with how you want to have the clusters, what is even the problem ?

Cixert creator of thread this has mentioned other methods it always came in to use bigger sectors, it it was mentioned again by Milkinis some say that already worked for them it is a similiar discussion: https://msfn.org/board/topic/176480-2-tib-limit-size-in-mbr-hard-drives/#comments user-mode wise it dont seems a problem to me since it use that overlapped structure it contain 2 times 32 bits (64 bits) offsets -> those get translated to a physical address on a harddrive (i think recently somewhere i pointed that out somewhere passing to 64 bit via a structure) https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/minwinbase/ns-minwinbase-overlapped that harddrive example makes a good example why and how 32 bit where passed, we know why there already where HDD discs with more then 4 GB - so actually we have a passed method because harddrive reached that areas a lot ealier then the RAM to be honest it dont look hard either since the function already can do that - sure i might not know about the windows driver for now ... but that raise the question why the driver cant do that it looks simple to me up to the point i know about it it just has to convert that 64 bit address given in the overlapped structure to a physical offset on the disc if they are 512 / 4096 /whatever "cluster-sector" size thats easy too , that just means you have more data that you actually can use with the 64 bit offset to make an example if the sector size was 1 you might would have have the 4 GB limit with a 32 bit offset, but that simply didnt use the other 32 bits (that are available) in case the sector was 512 with and now having a 4096 sector that means you have 8 times more space 4 gb (32 bit) * 512 = 2,19 TB GPT is a partion not a disc , a partion is a small file on the disc (in the past it was easy to currupt, you had bad luck if that one got demaged) - thats why you rather dont come to easy to access it

well that with the GPT might be wrong idea in this case the idea was for a MBR with bigger sectors - even tho the title was supposed for reading the GPT partition GPT has not really a use except the higher possible disc space the idea that came around was just to increase the MBR sectors, the boot or read of GPT partition would be a different question then that paragon driver is made from a public driver, but it dont increase the MBR sectors that driver probaly emulates a next disc, where that driver makes read and writes if the windows driver really cant do that only then a driver change would be needed

well i dont know what this firmware is written at but even if it would be a pure assembly code i certainly can change that code to all of the needs i suspect for the firmware a c/c++ (there are some differences in these but they are not big and i know them too) , combined with some assembly code i certainly can understand those codes and change them , but its something to read into - i dont know all the disc norms but thats something a programmer can do i was involved in chrome gdi, supermium, llvm,sumatra pdf or that heic image encoder to say the least it took some time to read into that codec, but the code i actually understand https://msfn.org/board/topic/185879-winxp-hevcheifheic-image-encoderdecoder/#comment-1254293

since its finalized you should write a protocol and make a release you told us it´s acting oddly slow ? maybe you should try the code i posted up it actually can be that the reaction sometimes, 1 effect can be that the subtraction dont cause it to pop/push that well then might a escape or other logic has to take it out happy to see that you found a new section to use too, i told you its risky just to use other ram and the one you had where used roytram gave you the right solution for this happy to see the 486 working well interesting to see XP actually choose 32 MB instead of 256 MB caches useally makes the the computer faster https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winioctl/ns-winioctl-storage_write_cache_property https://www.seagate.com/de/de/support/kb/disabling-the-write-cache-feature-in-windows-2000-xp-vista-and-windows-7-187751en/

i could write assembly or c++ to a firmware but i think i need a drive to test

this is a good time to talk about the CPUID command that command returns info about the processor it stores that information in EAX, EBX, ECX, and EDX very interesting for WINXP might be the PSE flag and the PAE flag with this interesting result as we always have it around somewhere "32 bits or wires are the limit for 32 bits" that guy actually wrote it like this: "Summary of 32-bit paging": "This allows a maximum RAM configuration of 252 bytes, or 4 petabytes (about 4.5×1015 bytes)." and it tells us win2k actually used up these methods "Windows 2000 Datacenter Memory Limit 32 GB RAM" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSE-36 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Size_Extension we might can but OS, CPU and BUS/RAM have to do so but back to the cpuid command it has information what commands can be used or what "technology" is available for this cpu this includes if it can make that cmpxchg8b command in EDX MMX (flag 23), cx8(flag 8 = cmpxchg8b), (pse(page size extension) flag 3), pae ((physical address extension)flag 6) , in ECX (AVX (28), sse4.2 , sse4.1, sse3) and so on the operating system useally should know if that command in invalid if it just continue it might use SSE or the MMX commands, what should cause a BSOD so rather be safe and store them up with a CPU result you actually made with a cpuid command script from a old CPU (a script for cpuid is easy to write and around in web) maybe from a late 486 cpu (what we can google that those are to be said to have the cpuid command) then you know for sure what those CPU actually gave back as result (the few flags maybe if that cmpxchg8b was avaiable you can just delete up) then you fill up either the registers or where windows store that information, then the OS/WINXP can react to that information, if WINXP actually dont have a reaction, if the command was not correctly reconized, failed, ect

cpuid not an essential command however you should set this command to values the OS/WINXP can act related to a 4x86 cpu https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/cpuid ttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID

you dont have to neccesary use a near jmp, short jump it is distance based with signed byte (-127 +127)