Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Dave-H

Platinum Sponsor
  • Content count

    1,705
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

About Dave-H

  • Birthday 03/31/1953

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x86
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

4,027 profile views
  1. Newest Adobe Flash and Shockwave, and Java, too!

    Thank you so much Stephen, that's great! I wasn't aware that there was an update 152, it was never offered by the updater, perhaps it was considered to be too minor an update on 151. I downloaded your file, and will probably now uninstall 151 and install 152 from scratch, and hope we get a working updater for 161 at some point.
  2. Yes, that's exactly the Search Companion, although I don't use the dog (Rover IIRC!) I've now determined that this problem does not seem to happen in Safe Mode. The XP Companion is always there. Whether this means that it's nothing to do with the new kernel system files I don't know. Is anyone else, with Windows (Desktop) Search 4.0 installed and activated. seeing this?
  3. Newest Adobe Flash and Shockwave, and Java, too!

    Thanks! I'm not subscribed to that thread, so I hadn't seen that. It does look like a compatibility problem of some sort. The install log says - ERROR: Exception with message 'Dll.cpp(48) at Dll::getFunction(): GetProcAddress(D:\WIN-NT\system32\user32, SetProcessDPIAware) failed. System error [127](system error 127 (The specified procedure could not be found))' caught Also, rather less helpfully, I can see - ERROR: Exception with message '' caught I wasn't aware of this happening before, but a post on the other thread says that a modified installer was produced before by blackwingcat (presumably mainly for Windows 2000) so I hope that can be done again this time, if it's only the installer that has a problem and not the Java system itself. I was hoping to unpack the installer and get at the MSI file, but no luck. Fortunately I still had the offline installer for version 8 Update 151, so I've just put that back for the moment.
  4. Something very strange has happened to the Search Companion on both my XP machines. If I select Start>Search>For Files or Folders the XP Search Companion comes up as usual, but only once. If I close it and select it again it's reverted to the old-style Windows 2000 looking Search Companion. Once that's happened I can only get the XP one back again by logging off and on again, but again it then only works once. As I said, this is happening on both my XP installations, one of which has only KB4056615 and KB4056941 installed, and the other of which has the Office and .NET updates as well. I do have Windows Search 4.0 installed on both machines. I've checked all the relevant registry settings and they are all fine. I of course had a nasty feeling this was a consequence of installing KB4056615! I uninstalled the updates, but the problem didn't go away. Is this happening for anyone else?
  5. Newest Adobe Flash and Shockwave, and Java, too!

    Has anyone managed to get Java 8 Update 161 to install from the installers on XP? I've never had any problems before, but now the offline and online installers just run and then close, without apparently doing anything. There's no error messages, and nothing in the system logs about it. Has XP finally been blocked or is this perhaps to do with the latest MS Windows Updates (I hope not!)?
  6. OK, I've tried formatting the USB stick as NTFS, and I'm now also getting the error message if I try to copy a file to it. Frankly I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over this as long as that's the only problem caused by the NTFS.SYS update. I can't see that I would ever need the stick formatted to anything other than FAT32, which seems to work fine.
  7. The only options I'm being offered to format my USB stick are FAT32 or exFAT. I don't see any reason to format it to NTFS, which I assume I could perhaps do with Windows 10? The only reason to do that as far as I can see would be if I needed to put a file on it that was bigger than 4GB, and I can't see that ever happening!
  8. I've tested with a FAT32 formatted 16GB USB stick on my main machine, copying and pasting files to and from it and deleting files from it, and no apparent problems. This is the machine where the OS is running on a FAT32 drive however. I will try with my other machine where the OS is running on an NTFS drive later.
  9. But if I have successfully installed KB4056615 on both of my machines, and neither of them is now showing any ill-effects, why uninstall it? Surely if it's (apparently at least) doing no harm, it's still better to have it than not to have it?
  10. I've had no problems like that thank goodness (touch wood!) My main machine is running XP on a FAT32 drive, not an NTFS drive, so this may be hiding any potential permissions or ownership problems, but having said that, my netbook is running XP on an NTFS drive, and that isn't showing any issues either. Maybe I've just been lucky!
  11. Just as a matter of interest, as there was apparently no update for IE8 this month, did the machines that didn't offer the three Office updates find their updates very quickly, or did they still scan for hours, which appears to be normal now if any IE8 or Office updates are outstanding?
  12. So are you saying that MS tested what the effect of this Windows/Microsoft Update "adjustment" would be on XP machines pretending to be POSReady/WEPOS machines, six months before XP came out of support?! That would imply that they knew people would be able to carry on getting updates with a simple registry tweak, and took steps to make it as awkward as possible for them! Surely MS couldn't have been that devious.....could they?!
  13. I don't think anyone really knows why there is such a problem with some updates on WEPOS machines now using the online update system. It certainly did work fine for ages on modified XP machines. I think the problem suddenly started happening a year or two ago, for no apparent reason. There was a theory that it was solely because of the Office updates, which are not actually supported on POSReady machines, but the IE8 updates are causing the same problem and they surely are supported, so that can't be the whole answer! I do wonder if this is happening with "real" POSReady installations. I would imagine that many machines with embedded Windows run 24/7 unattended, and are set to update automatically if internet connected. I can just imagine them running for days on end looking for updates! It has to be a bug somewhere in the update system, but whether MS now have any interest in fixing it seems unlikely as far as we're concerned with our hacked machines!
  14. If you have the same Office configuration as me, you should now have installed KB4056941, KB4056615, KB4011201 (for Office Suites), KB4011607 (Office Compatibility Pack), and KB4011605 (Office Compatibility Pack). There are also three .NET security updates, KB4054173 (.NET 4.0), KB4055229 (.NET 3.0), and KB4054178 (.NET 2.0). If you haven't got those installed, your system will probably still try to find them, assuming you have those .NET versions installed of course. If your CPU usage is still high that will probably be the reason. Personally I switched off automatic updates as soon as I started using the POSReady hack, as I didn't want to risk any possibly incompatible updates downloading and installing without my knowledge.
  15. Yes, one of my machines needed the switch to get a full install, the other one didn't. Strangely it was the relatively basic single processor machine that needed the switch, not the more complex dual processor one!
×