TSNH

You can easily get old versions from webarchive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150219225823/https://live.sysinternals.com/

There were at least 3 Windows 7 updates that claimed to add/update SHA-2 support in Windows 7: KB2949927 from 2014 - https://support.microsoft.com/kb/2949927 KB3033929 from 2015 - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3033929 KB4474419 from 2019 - https://support.microsoft.com/help/4474419 And some more info here: https://aka.ms/sha1deprecation Interestingly this Microsoft article mentions the 2019 update as the first one

https://msfn.org/board/guidelines/ 1a I cannot provide links to modified Microsoft binaries so all requests for that will be ignored

The link for the new version is the same as for the previous version

This is about the same question, since changing UAC configuration restores the old searchbar, but regardless your tweak is much better since it has no side effects so thanks for sharing it!

I've never got this error myself, but this might be because i've never had 32bit extended kernel installed, so you can try installing the extended kernel manually and skip copying 32bit files or restore your original 32bit files from .bak files and see if it helps.

Hi, read https://www.askvg.com/tip-restore-old-classic-search-box-in-windows-10-file-explorer-this-pc/ This worked for me in Windows 10 after i removed cortana. Unfortunately this also makes your UAC disabled.

Try disconnecting from the internet to install Windows using local account instead of Microsoft account.

It includes powrprof.dll and powrprofx86.dll so probably it has patches for AMD 15.6 drivers integrated. I've installed the x64 version and everything seems to work fine

Yes extensions work fine in Firefox. I only use chrome (Ungoogled chromium) for sites that have compatibility problems.

Extensions don't work with even earlier versions of Chromium on Vista so this one should be no exception. BTW. by 9.x and 100.x you mean version (ex. 100.0.4868.0) or build revision (ex. 966626)

Hi, what was the last build that you managed to get working and which one didn't start? The "latest" version: 100.0.4868.0 downloaded from https://download-chromium.appspot.com/ still works so I'm probably looking at a wrong beta/dev/canary level.

It actually seems that no files are missing! But why does it ask for downloading them if they are right there in the installer?

There is no need to download anything, because while .Net 3.5 installer asks for downloading .Net3 files, in fact it has all the resources already available in it. Thanks to @abbodi1406 for pointing this. To install .Net framework completely offline: 1. Before proceeding you may (or may not) have to install Windows XP service pack 2, Windows Imaging Component and Windows Installer 4.5 KB942288-v4. (I had them already installed) 2. Install earlier versions of .Net Framework like .Net 2.0 sp2 (offline installers are available). 4. Extract .Net framework 3.5 installer using 7-zip or similar program the widely available offline setup. It shouldn’t ask for internet connection now. 3. Install everything from dotNetFX20 and dotNetFX30 folders. 4. Install .Net framework 3.5 using main installer. It shouldn’t ask for internet connection now. 5. You can test some .Net 3 programs. For example Microsoft Mathematics 4.0 which is a .Net 3.5 application.

No, at least not yet

I was looking for some Vista-compatible laptop to buy and I found that Betawiki article (from my first post) climing that all the issues on Haswell+ were fixed in a Server 2008. Being very optimistic about this (since Betawiki is from my experience a reliable source of information) I replied to Jakob99's post regarding this topic. (My account was not even 1 day old at that time. so it indeed may look like a scam), but after following the discussion it's clear that I wanted verification of this information. The unnecessary drama around the topic has already made one person quit msfn (@vistapocalypse), but as usual the truth turned out to be in the middle. Anyway, I'm going avoid posting about unverified information even for the purpose of their verification, and I'm sorry to everyone who is for any reason feeling bad about my posts.

The original question: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183152-windows-vista-on-intel-haswell-and-later-issues/?do=findComment&comment=1210440 I understood the sentence as "Hi ! Could you (plural - forum members) please confirm or deny what he (@Jakob99) says ? I refuse to beleive that ,but still , perhaps we need to try" "I'm assuming he's (@Jakob99) talking about the rollup from August 2020" The correct interpretation was probably "Hi ! Could you (singular - @Jakob99) please confirm or deny what he (@daniel_k) says ? I refuse to beleive that ,but still , perhaps we need to try" "I'm assuming he's (@daniel_k) talking about the rollup from August 2020" That's how it all started

I said that the problem does not occur for me. It is @Ark_mage2180 ( and later @winvispixp) who reported the issue .

It is 4.5.6002.19424

@Vistapocalypse I would kindly advice that you to make sure that this decision is not dictated by the behavior of a single "dude", who is (intentionally or not) kicking you from the MSFN community. I'm sure 99% people here appreciate your dedication to the topic and you helped many of them. If there are more important reasons, it's ok, I (and probably everyone here) will respect your decision. Good luck with Windows 7, 8, 8.1, Linux (just not Windows 10 or 11). Happy New Year!

@D.Draker Hi, You quoted this post: And than you said So you were assuming that Jakob99 was talking about the rollup from August 2020, so I said that Jakob99 meant Windows 7 build 6519, because i thought that you are not really into Windows beta builds. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. About the 6003 update rollup: @win32 already said So i consider the case closed. Offtopic:

This means that the issue is not vanilla Vista related so no Windows update can help. I don't use kaspersky or msi afterburner, but I'm sure Windows Installer errors don't occur for me. The only possible reason that comes to my mind is because I don't have 32 bit extended kernel installed.

Windows 7 build 6519 is AFAIK the first known build to have the hal issues completely fixed. It's a beta build and was compiled between Windows Vista RTM and Windows 7 RTM so it has nothing to with a 2020 monthly rollup. From what I understand @Jackob88 has been wondering if the hal.dll from that build can be ported to Windows Vista to solve Vista Haswell+ errors. You can read more about it here: https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_7_build_6519

It looks like in your language version the "Program Files" folder is called "Programmes". Replace the osver.ini file contents with: [C:\Programmes\Mozilla Firefox\Firefox.exe] Enabled=1 FirefoxFix=1