TSNH

I've just tested Firefox 100.0b9 and 101.0a1 (released today) on: Windows 7 sp1 with no updates newer than 2015 installed (KB3033929 SHA-2 update) Vista 6003 with extended kernel and KB4474419 SHA-2 update Both versions work on Windows 7 On Vista only firefox 100 works, while 101 displays the following error when any tab is opened: I don't know if this error is SHA-2 related at all as Vista actually utilizes a newer SHA-2 update.

Copy the following text into notepad and save as .reg file, and than apply it Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes\Apps\Explorer\SystemNotification\.current] @="C:\\Windows\\Media\\chord.wav" You can swap C:\\Windows\\Media\\chord.wav with path to any other .wav file you want (use double \)

Do those programs work also on unmodified vista? (I'm wondering if I should include them in the list that contains only programs that need extended kernel to run)

Intel Pentium B980 also doesn't have virtualization. Before changing the BIOS you have to search the internet for CPUs supported by Asus X55A and make sure it's even possible to swap them since on some laptops the cpu is soldered to the motherboard. I wouldn't recommend messing with bios before you are sure everything will work and I can't help you with this as I don't have Asus X55A.

Hi, It looks like the cpu that comes with your laptop by default: Intel Celeron 1000M doesn't support any virtualization technology, so running any x64 OS in virtual machines is not possible and performance on any virtual machines will be significantly lower. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-X55A-SO223D.102423.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Celeron-1000M-Notebook-Processor.87690.0.html You may consider upgrading your cpu to at least i3 (still has to be ivy bridge), but first search the internet to see if it's possible for your laptop model. Keep in mind that most likely you will have to change your BIOS

Another thing to consider is that office 2013+ uses sppsvc - a Windows Product Activation service introduced in Windows 7 which would have to be backported without breaking Vista's activation system. (Office 2010 had it's own licensing system), and I'm not sure if this will be possible in the near future.

https://msfn.org/board/topic/181696-software-compatible-with-windows-vista-extended-kernel/?do=findComment&comment=1210574

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