submix8c

BAHAHAH! At the very least, the OP? ...and BAHAHAH! OK, then. I'm out.... Nothing here to see from me... move along now.

Take a nap, -X-... Clarification - Original links (post#1) no good. Replaced with non-XP (the "newer" version) ones. Web Archive, when using original links for the search, yields XP ("correct" version) when using the March dates (since they're past the October "true" dates" but before the "replacement" of newer version). I will contend that the link I gave for getting the Latest Definitions is correct (I hope) "assuming" they're common to the "correct" version and the "current" version. HTH -edit- Also (per your edit above) "That was then, this is now". They -did- pull a "fast one". The "good" one has gone the way of the west. Let's just say this would be equivalent to an -immediate- removal of the Windows 9x "corporate" pages.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" After all, EOS is EOS, and this -may- be more of a preference, or just plain "negligence". IOW, who cares now? edit - and see dencorso post about "other" reasons...

OK, I'm confused... you ARE aware that there's a rather LARGE defintions file that goes with it, more than likely comes with Windows Update? You -did- say you got "updated" to Version 4.5.216.0, right? (The supposed LAST XP one is as stated above - V4.4.304.0.)

1 - @-X-: the Web Archive (ORG) link in the CodeBox -is- the October one, just prior to MS "updating" to exclude XP. I'm aware of the versions. Trust me, I checked by downloading both of them (and the Filehippo one) and comparing to the originals from the first link. 2 - Yes, Flasche, I would like to know how that's possible too? Maybe I'm missing something as well? Guess I'll have to "test install" and/or maybe inspect the EPP.MSI? -OR- maybe that you installed on POS Ready (still supported)?

Sure (two paragraphs up, third from bottom)! That was the primary question/request/topic intent. Along with associated "general stuff" and "speculation". Seems (on the surface) MS hasn't been more forthcoming, even at EOS.

OK, found your "solution: but it won't be Fully Unattended (probably) - http://tzs108.wordpress.com/2006/04/05/making-an-xp-full-install-disc-from-an-xp-upgrade-disc/ HTH edit - other references - http://superuser.com/questions/96999/windows-xp-pro-upgrade-version-but-no-previous-version http://www.duxcw.com/faq/win/xp/clean.htm

Western Digital - NO jumper for Master with NoSlave! It only applies IF you have a Slave! Single on Cable - No Jumper Slave - Set Slave Jumper Master+Slave - Set Master Jumper CableSelect - Jumper it Only (both drives, if two) with appropriate Cable/MoBo CS will work, but as suggested, it seems to me safe to avoid it (I always do) -unless- it's a silly old Compaq that for some odd reason requires it. (See jaclaz' links..) I have several of those and the associated docs, so that's how it works. Fools you, don't it?

Got a little curious about the EOS and Activation issue. I found this Topic (scroll down) that has a "supposed" exact quote - http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-windows_install/future-windows-xp-activation-support/8b64edf7-8146-e011-9bac-78e7d160ad4e?msgId=bae49a41-9b46-e011-90b6-1cc1de79d2e2 Note the date is March 2011. Now the question is - is this going to be true? We are there, now is this "quote" going to be honored. I haven't seen it yet. Further, this article states otherwise and only indicates Retail Activations (what-the-what? no OEM?) will continue (apparently via Servers). http://www.zdnet.com/windows-xp-end-of-support-in-april-three-more-questions-answered-7000025151/ This, too, flies in the face of the first link (does not discuss Retail/OEM) - http://www.pcworld.com/article/250774/will_i_be_able_to_activate_xp_after_2014_.html Additionally (a variation) - http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2013/09/25/when-will-microsoft-end-windows-xp-activation/ And another (no mention of Retail vs OEM) with Official link given. http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/ccaecaf9-697d-4315-b41f-abedd88afb4c/windows-xp-activation-after-8-april-2014?forum=itproxpsp Now, what's odd is that Activation so many (most) times needs a Phone Call to Activate. Additionally, the Genuine Check is still tied to Activation (AFAIK). Curiousity begs the questions - does Phone Activation "hook" directly to an MS Server or is it simply an Algorithm (appears to be) to detect if valid or not -and- where would they store "too many activations"? Methinks that this particular subject is being beat up and MS is changing its mind an awful lot. Indeed, they've back-tracked on MSE Updates (extending it) but "yanking" the MSE Install for XP Downloads. Please note that the links reference SpokesPersons. Based upon findings of Market Share (XP is #2 behind Win7) my own conviction is now that EOS has passed, they're still in a tizzy. Please note, I'm not asking for "thoughts" on this or a wide discussion. (Opinion/observation - what a mess they made of this.) BUT, inquiring minds want to know - Activation? WHAT is the REAL answer, Microsoft? If anyone can get a definitive answer (aside from what is already available) as to HOW they propose to do this, I'm sure many (reference Marketshare) would appreciate it. Final note - many of us remember how long it took for MS to -finally- obliterate Win9x EOL Updates. More than likely this will apply to XP as well. On that subject, only time will tell. (I'm hating posting this Topic already...)

@Flasche - Bear in mind that MSE is (kind of) "embedded" in Vista/7/8 (as Defender) and is designed (now) for Vista and Win7. It's (in essence) an "improved" Defender. Strange that it's not available (AFAICT) for Windows8. Unless Win8 has the "improvements" buit-in. Please refer to this (scroll down to "difference") - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/frequently-asked-questions-about-malicious-software

Hmmm... Have you tried "InstEd it!"? It's doable (usually an MSP file is simply replacement modules anyway) if you take the time and learn how-to. O/T - this is Topic is starting to go O/T...

Sure, they're trying to kill it off! http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 #2 - XP - 27.69% #5 - Vista - 2.99% #1 - 7 - 48.77% #3 - 8 - 6.41% #4 - 8.1 - 4.89%

Please note that my comment/links indicate an entirely different problem (with associated warnings by rloew, myself, jaclaz, dencorso, et al). As long as you don't have such conditions you should be safe. As far as the netbook's requirements, I can't remember if the Aspire One KAV60-AOD250 (undoubtedly similar) I worked on at one time allowed for the BIOS to be changed to "PATA" mode (it had a SATA drive as well). Indeed, it had Windows XP Home on it (stock OEM with Recovery Partition and all). Whether that's useful or not, I don't know. Still, the Patch would be well worth it.

Hmmm... So, would you be satisfied to have the LOGO.SYS "pulled" from Win98 and placed into the "C:\" of Running Win95? You -seem- to be inistent on -modding- the Win95 IO.SYS - why? Especially in light of the fact that ANY file conforming to the "standards" given at the link are adhered to. Seems like a pointless exercise.

OK, folks... they pulled a fast one on us. The links WERE ok and the filedates WERE October 24, 2013. They have since been "updated" (even the contents as viewed) to specifically exclude XP. The Version of the "wrapper" has even changed. FileHippo is the correct one (as compared to EXACTLY before they did switch-a-roo) for x86. The definitions link givenundoubtedly still stand. The XP x64 version has gone "poof". Lucky me, I got them both before MS clobbered it. edit - for the XP (Vista/7) x64, Web Archive saves the day. http://web.archive.org/web/20140329150023/http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/3/8/A38FFBF2-1122-48B4-AF60-E44F6DC28BD8/ENUS/amd64/MSEInstall.exeAlso note, entereing the Post#1 x86 link also yields a March date that is still valid (same as Filehippo). A comparison of the NEW vs OLD (either x86 or x64) clearly shows what changed, if anyone really wants to go that route. Whether "support" for NEW could be forced by "modification" shall be left up for debate. Any takers? Note that it would involve upacking and -maybe- modding the EPP.MSI (and perhaps others or replacing?), even -if- it worked. HTH

Errr... it MAY have been the one that rloew also participated in that had the wrap-around bug when using some combo of Logical Drives in an Extended Partition. As I said, there were several of us involved in that. Not really sure if it also involved NTFS paritions or not. Something about the pointers incorrectly being translated. No time to find it now, but it WAS a problem. (NOT SATA!) "Ghost" drive letters was also part the subject AFAICR. I nearly blew my OS/Data due to it. Gotta bounce a little and go. Just pointing out another "potential" glitch (may not be tagged anywhere in the "pinned" list). edit - AHHH! I believe this is the one. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/153194-installation-of-2tb-hard-disk/ and another related. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/144947-phantom-drive-letter/ and another (find "phantom"). http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118119-patched-iosys-for-9xme/page-2 You may not have a problem after all?

Hmmm.... AFAICR isn't there a limitation of partition size, regardless of size of HDD with the patches? I'm referring to the "wrap-around" problem we encountered with the 98SE stuff (I had "participated" in that topic).

"Roll your own" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOGO.SYS Create one according to conventions and place in Boot Drive Root. edit Guess you'll just need to find an "image", download it, and "modify" accordingly. HTH

JFYI - HP Scanjet 4300c (flatbed Scan/Copy/Print) - a "special" procedure to get it to work (two install files). Have been happily using it since the day I got it - from a thrift store for $5USD and a "spare" power supply (wall wart). Had a heck of a time figuring it out (note the second EXE had to be done in Safe Mode for some odd reason). Scanning Software says "PrecisionScan LTX". Also does OCR (text). Sometimes drivers work, sometimes they don't.

Interesting. But why "frustrating"? Gub4DOS+Firadisk, using RmprepUSB, works just fine. Have you looked at the Tutorials?

:angrym: Where did I "basically" say that, other than "NO I was NOT the first"? I specifically said in the link I gave (to said Topic) that you CAN get directly from MS. I specifically stated I downloaded from -X- DIRECT LINK and the one that did NOT say XP (the "pull-down" from the MS "Get It" link)). REREAD THAT THREAD! HERE is the -only other reference- made by me re: MSE (post #2) - http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170823-most-antivirus-programs-to-support-windows-xp-past-end-date/ Twist all you wish, you have only asked questions, made opinion (currently FUD), stated that YOU have done such-and-such, asked for help, and NEVER actually "contributed" as you stateed (except AFAICT a couple of MS links). You've had the exact same attitude with both jaclaz and dencorso before (using search post for membername). Oh, and my head is not brown, it's Blond. Back up, go back and look at your own posts and tell me I'm wrong. Yes, I will no longer respond to you (after I and others have assisted you in the past) becuase my head (in your opinion) is brown. Have a nice weekend.

No, I did not. -X- did (his topic). http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171498-need-microsoft-security-essentials-grab-it-now/ However, you did here. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171524-windows-2003-performance-and-security/ Yes, it might.

Be aware that I had just yesterday downloaded all of the XP x64 (known) updates "through April" and the all begin with "WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP" so, who knows? Again (as stated elsewhere), this is only Saturday after April Patch Tuesday. Again (as stated elsewhere), "Patience is a virtue"...

See jaclaz above. And obviously NOT "officially supported" by... MS! It's all about the VENDOR, or are you not aware that many MS drivers are from... the Hardware Vendor. Hence, "it all depends". 'Nuff said!

Again, No, they are not. It's only Saturday after Patch Tuesday and this is all "speculative" FUD. As for the MSE, that -appears- to be based upon several factors, since I (and others) was able to get there from here -and- prove it's the SAME DOWNLOAD! Maybe you didn't actually READ the whole thread? PAGE IS STILL THERE! (jeez, dude!) :ph34r: ... :zzz: edit - "Patience is a virtue."