user57

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should not exist" "this create some drama" "i have the copyright" "i will kill you" "you shall not do this" "xp is outdated" "why wasteting time" as we can see there are enemys of modders - whatever their motivations are so i do not think its coming from one of their arguments -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

well actually i do that to make the text easier to read - it seems that didnt work sorry but having the 24 picture / frame question now yes for a smooth video you need 24 frames (and yes 24 times 202´506´240 bits) US gone with 60 frames for TV, EU for 50 frames but 24 are by far ok for a common video but here is a good catch you actually can make 24 frames/pictures in 1/60 of a second (that dont make it 60 frames or with 1/50 seconds 50 frames) it just read out a picture from this world in 1/60 of a second and stores them 24 times (that looks smooth useally too) in well light you even can make 1/1000 or 1/2000 of a second * 24 times i had some big trouble to explain that in a photo forum after that created a mess and the 2 other things i pointed out (having a larger picture and going backwards result in more pixels) (electronic global shutter) (large sensors vs small sensors) - i actually was banned from that forum dont got me wrong i wasnt rude at all - but still that happend but later a other well known photograf pointed out exactly these things and 2 things happend : global/syncron shutters and bigger sensors nailed it - the images where supreme a big win for all less then 24 frames/picture make the video look odd by the way, you see the picture shutter or the people move like they where time skipped - but again taking picture with 1/60 speed is well - and dont need 60 frames you just have 24 picture taken with 1/60 speed

is that a new problem that apeared now ? in the end it has to be a common RGB buffer, RGB is something like the ultimate but it got a problem 1 picture is already very big 1 picture : 4096 * 2060 (4k) = 3 * 8 (RGB) * 4096 * 2060 = 202´506´240 bits older internet connections like 56k maybe got 3,6 kb/s sometimes 5,6 kb/s the same goes for the old sound formats RAW like .wav where pretty big, so when they came up with a .mp3 it was something a 56k modem can do so going back even with 100kb/s , a RAW file in RGB would be to much thats why they decreased the pixels and use compressions like mp4 RGB also has a lot of colors it can display for 24 bits it are already 16,7 millions (thats a lot of colors for 1 pixel) storerage also plays a role, it make sence instead of 24 GB file to use maybe 700 mb files (what are high compressed) thats why they still use compressions , a combinations of the things i just talked about even a stream service use useally a h.265 or maybe still h.264 codec and youtube also do so what youtube (and other website) actually do they use this address to lead to a certain video file this file in then played with a player (in case of chrome that player runs inside the browser) the player then has to decode the file to a RAW file (aka the RGB buffer) that begins with a single picture or RAW buffer or "RGB buffer" to mention is also the including audio codec file (what also is converted to a RAW audio file - what use tricks and stuff to "reconstruct" the audio) - very similar to a video compression if you ask me i wonder if youtube did something here. they actually tryed to avoid the consumer this to be seen / or known youtube itself rather looks like a commercial tv publisher now - thats bad news - because it suppose to be for the consumer (you! - tube ) - but more and more it goes into a different direction if someone noticed the lawers that apeared now and try to explain "what you now should do and what is right or not" is not a lucky apearence - it happend for this specific reason thats also why you see a lot of ad´s now and payable things the lawers in the past already won the lawsuit vs ad blockers - so i think they will take this one too (if they can - they certainly will try - because they will get money from the ad makers)

well someone opened the image format question over SVG we made it to the heic image format (both software and hardware register based (not gpu (but guess what they are useally the same or the software controlled ones are useally a bit better because you can set them + being upgraded)), the same encoder can encode video too what we should realize that we cant skip the encode timing so easy actually it makes a very big difference how complex (aka slower) you set the encoder someone already did a graph showing that https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/968944/195952757-cd1cdab4-6c8e-46a3-b5ed-de7fcce1371f.png https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/968944/195952806-758d0240-020b-4936-ba09-d79e62bf0d3f.png very easy to see it that the image quality (measured in DB (higher is bigger 42 + are useally very good) increases using slower settings while the "fastest" is going with like less DB the "slow" is going with increasing DB so i actually did not want to have the settings faster faster fast ect. because to me it seems a fault to set these but we have some advantaged not only slow we can set the best (placebo) (strukturag only use slow later on) the increase in image quality increase for both (smaller file sizes) and (more image quality overall) using the slow/or aka the encoder settings that do more complex methods that aka take more time so you can pass jpg in both better image quality and smaller file size what i could do is using a pure RGB buffer (what is lossless) aka the BMP file format but a raw file done to PNG is already lossless, im not certain about all compress settings for PNG but the big one (0) is lossless so either having a .heic file you can convert it to a PNG file and see it lossless in the common windows image viewer, or making the .heic file to a jpg and also can open that file with the common windows image viewer what i came to realize is that the heic encoder also can be done others encoders like the AOM encoder or the SVT encoder (those create a .avif file) the methods are very similiar, i think for video avif might have an adventage now because it can use more methods for video - i do not think that is the case for images - but if someone can fix me up just do it with a BMP file we would have a better editing method, we could make the heic file to a BMP file and overwork that BMP in the common windows editor (and then just compress it again) (+ a editor is exactly doing this (you just dont see it useally)) but having video encoder question actually it was actually more difficult to make an image then a video, i think we could do a video encoder also - but that opens a big question to control all the formats is a little to much but a simple one that supports 1-2 formats and not much of settings would be possible not to say that there are h.265 video encoders already out there but the image encoder for .heic supporting xp was a new thing - and that engines removed up, no files needed at all (while the one from win10 need internal win10+ files) https://msfn.org/board/topic/185879-winxp-hevcheifheic-image-encoderdecoder/

from what i remember there once was a virus called CIH this virus deleted up the bios it was often claimed that the BIOS is a non programmable ROM but it was NOT - it was EEPROM aka a programmable "ROM" (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory) therefore a decision was made if the EEPROM bios where deleted then it used a backup what actually then was a real non programmble ROM that backup then was put into the EEPROM again that is actually programmable i do not know if that helps

this might be a good time to point out the 4 GB mem limit with a different example harddrives passed the 4 GB limit far earlier then the ram did (this one almost passed it in 1989) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives#1980s,_the_transition_to_the_PC_era so when the common assumtion is "32 wires / 32 bit" are just 4 GB limit that is not fully correct https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/minwinbase/ns-minwinbase-overlapped this structure has 2 , 32 bit (high and low) offset addresses that are combined to a 64 bit address so going with the logic "32 wires are the 32 bit 4 GB limit" -> according to this a 32 bit/wire bus can only address 4 GB - and therefore cant address more then 4 GB is also not correct i think everybody gets the point here, there was harddrives bigger then 4 GB before XP even existed - even a IDE bus with 32 wires+ is not limited to that 1 core of 4 ghz speed (with 1 clock/cycle/1s tick) already would be: 4000000000 * 32 bit bus - that would be 14 GigaByte/s a other good thing with 32 bit is that it is also a PDE question (a page directory entry base register) points to a list of "memory entrys" this PDE is changed every app/process/executable so what this can do is that these entrys point to a different location in the physical memory (and therefore we have 4 GB per each app) these dont use the same memory and can point into other memory - to point other the 2 (pse physical size extension, pae physical address extension) (these also can be combined) but the hardware can have limits or the software is not able to do so so you need both the software performing the code and the hardware having the needs paging and segments where some words in the past

dietmar make sure the chipset is supported intel is known for their incompatible chipsets

well i do not think it makes to many sence to have style questions but actually if you do change your style also the buttons and apearness changes up so in my opinion its not more then a style question - that you actually have also have by "control" panel then "appearance" in the very past if you got a UI from somewhere it might even had a few bugs or flaws as long chrome is working well, it rather seems a lluxury question to me

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/