Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dave-H
-
-
The script loads OK for me, but how can I test it?
What is it actually supposed to do?
0 -
I can't see anything obviously wrong with that, but I'm no expert on scripting, I'm afraid.
@NotHereToPlayGames is the man to ask.
0 -
-
Has anyone here actually got Dibya's patch to work?
I've found a couple of supposed sources for it, but they all seem to contain just original system files, with no apparent modifications made to them.
The instructions that came with one of them seem very strange indeed -"1. Place contents of the "For System32 folder
into C:\WINDOWS\system32; Replace .exe and .dll
files in System322. Enter "C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers", copy contents
of "For Drivers" folder (all .sys files) to the dictionary3. Enabling PAE
Click the start menu, then run (alternatively
pressing win + r). Type "C:\boot.ini" then add
"\PAE" at the very end of the last line of text.
SAVE the file!4. Reboot and enjoy up to 128gb of ram on your
Windows XP installation"The "For System32" folder contains all the HAL and NTKRNL dll and exe files used for various types of system.
They all seem to be unmodified originals.
Quite how putting all of them in your System32 folder (when only one pair is needed) will do anything other than produce an error message is puzzling!
0 -
I think we have to take Shane's word for it that the patch has been applied to Supermium 132.
As I said earlier, it's an ESR version, which surely should be capable of having the patch applied to it, as it should be fully supported until the next ESR version is released.
I'm not sure how we can test whether the patch has been applied successfully or not.
3 -
I can't remember the full details, but the wuaueng.dll I'm using is dated 2nd June 2012, and it is a modified version (for SHA-2) so that could well be the issue.
0 -
Thanks, very interesting.
My authorization.xml file has an expiry date in it of 2014-11-17, so it appears to have expired over ten years ago!
The article does say that the expiry of that file is not relevant on the XP version of Microsoft Update when using Legacy Update.
"Legacy Update hosts a proxy service to connect to this server, which we use on Windows 2000, XP, and Vista. Due to the way Microsoft Update is designed, configuring a custom server in the registry also inherently allows it to receive Microsoft Update updates. It also means the expiry doesn’t apply, because the authorization file is no longer relevant. This is the workaround we most likely would have used."
I don't know if that also applies with the workarounds I and others here are using, but the fact that the file actually expired many years ago would seem to indicate that.
So, why isn't it working any more?
0 -
So has Win32ss engineered the patch for Supermium, even though it's only at Chromium 132?
It is based on the ESR version, which should surely be able to have the patch applied?
1 -
Microsoft Update seems to be no longer working for me.
It had been fine, although I hadn't tried it for a long time.
Now getting error 0x80248015 as soon as the scan starts.
0 -
21 hours ago, vinifera said:
*facepalm
the vista experiment among id***
if i have to write it like so ...I do hope that remark was a generalisation referring to the software, and not aimed at anyone on this forum personally.
0 -
1 hour ago, user57 said:
hmmm in the past we had often a discussion about "32 bit is the 4 gb limit" or = 32 wires
32 bits can form 2^32 bits therefore 4´294´967´296 what represents 4 GBthe problem with that is that even in 8 or 16 bit´s there are so called selectors
those do actually still exits in 32 bit tooalso very important is that these 4 GB of possible "addresses" are not converted into that
rather the representing PTE´s and PDE´s represent to a 4 KB page (in old normal 32 bit style)so going with that if you have 4 GB/ 4 k pages you end up in only using 20 bits ! (20 bits * 4k = 4 GB)
a idea (very similiar to the discussion about 4 k sectors and 4 MB sectors with the harddrive(hdd/ssd))
would be just to increase the 4 K pages to 4 MB pages that would be 1024 times as much RAMthe discussion about this are elder thats why that bit (PSE (page size extension)) was 1 candidate to pass that 32 bit limit
the other candidate was the PAE bit (physical address extension)
here is 1 catch PSE can extend the 4 GB by increasing the page size (even with a 32 bit PDE´s and PTE´s)
in PAE mode PDE´s and PDE´s are 64 bit (yes even in 32 bit mode), that´s one of the reasons why PAE can address more then 4 GB of ram
(to be more precise paging are mechanism´s there also some more things they play a role the CR3 register (also called the page directory base register) or the GDT, it would be to long to explain all
but lets stay like this for now)so let us take the next important step
in the old 32 bit system without PSE,PAE or "concrete use of segments", an app/executable had to use up the 4 GB ram
because there was a user-mode (ring3) and a kernel-mode (ring0) there had to be a part in kernel mode and a other part in user-mode
offsets are not a problem (as you can map a address like 0xFFFFFFFF to page 0 if you wanted)
deviding the kernel mode and user mode is important, if that would not be the case every crash on a normal app/execuble would be a entire OS crash (BSOD or wrose)
so the solution was simple
usermode 0x00000000 - 0x7FFFFFFF - kernelmode 0x80000000 - 0xFFFFFFFF
thats how the eldest 32 bit norms work
it is not to bad to have kernel mode ram because many modules actually need space in memory (its not like an app is just made out of the app itself
the app consits of many modules that also use ram internal) - also the video frame buffer often has a kernel mode area that takes memory for exampleso here we finally have our split 0x00000000 - 0x7FFFFFFF (2 gb) + 0x80000000 - 0xFFFFFFFF (2 gb) = 4 GB
the app/executable now has the problem that it cant directly use the kernel mode offsets (it certainly use them but rather passiv (its some memory you need less in your app))
for this microsoft then made the /3 GB option
in this one usermode has 3 GB and kernelmode 1 Gb (0x00000000-0xBFFFFFFF) + (0xC0000000-0xFFFFFFFF) = 4 GB
but now the important part
those offsets are not physical addresses !
actually you can map every of that "offset´s" to different places in memory (including the ones above 4 GB RAM)so thats why multiple applications/executables can use up the entire 64 GB of RAM (in j7n example he had 20 GB of 64 GB possible)
thats more then 4 GB of ram and the proofes XP 32 bit can do it that waynow we also have to mention the ramdisc solution, if you have like 20 GB of data and map then into the physical ram
then the ramdisc use a chuck-wise solution
it then maps for example 1 GB of that 20 GB data into an offset
(that goes like fast) (when it wants the next part it just maps the next part - but it is chuckwise)
now we have to mention the pagefile, in the pagefile windows stores memory data on the harddrive (HDD/SSD)
when windows wants it use exactly that trick (it loads the data from the harddrive into that virtual offset)
but this time there is an important differenz - the data is not from a RAM memory - it has to load that from the harddrive (and that is slow)
for a SSD its faster - but still not as fast as it would be in memory
so i guess some have reconized the increase in speed with SSD`s ? now you have a little more precision why this is the caseso now to the part why a "normal app/executable" actually dont pass that 4 GB ram ram limit
i already explained why it is rather like 2-3 GB ram + some kernel mode memory that is rather used like passiv
but now the reason why it actually dont go beyond the 4 GB ram in "just one application/executable"
here you have to know that all compilers form the past-now dont use segment selectors to pass that 4 GB ram
i never seen a compiler that would be able to do so.
probaly windows xp (even up to win10) dont have code for this either.
but here is the thing
normally in a code flow of a debugger you see a offset (or better called vitual offset this time)
for the code flow it use a register called EIP (instruction pointer) - the E stands for 32 bits - for example only IP for 16 bit and REIP for 64 bit (R means 64bit)
but here is the next catch ... the most common debuggers dont show the selector
but for the code flow the CPU use a combination of a segment selector + virtual offset (the one you see in a debugger for example)
this is called the CS:EIP combination - where CS is the segment selector (called the CODE SEGMENT(short CS) selector) EIP E for 32 bit and IP for instruction pointer
now might be a good time to call out a wiki page about that:
https://wiki.osdev.org/Segmentation
that CS selector is 16 bits wide (in 32 bits) and 16 bits means 65536 possible selctors ...
so the combination 16:32 or CS:EIP would be 65536 * 4 GB - that would be theoretical 262144 GB that it could select(+ you have 6 of segment selectors all in range 0-65536)
but here is the catch windows (either xp - 10) dont use this to pass the 4 GB limit
the only things windows actually did with these registers is that they point to small pieces of memory (like the EPROCESS structure)
that is possible - but it leaves out the use to pass the 4 GB of ram limit by just using a few kilobytes with that method ...here is an example where microsoft accesses a small piece of ram using a selector :
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220919-00/?p=107195
(the problem with the way this is used, it not used that to pass the 4 GB ram limit, rather is use that as small memory storage)
so the next step:
back to the app/executable as mentioned there is no compiler that actually generate the useage of segmentation ...
therefore you would need a specific app/executable that can do so - and that means chrome still would not pass the 4 GB ram limit (because it cant use segmention)
(and then you also would need the windows operating system code also to control this kind of memory managment)also to mention is the FPU unit even the elder ones are 64 bit (or bigger) in modern cpu´s they are 512 bits (AVX)
so actually you can make 64 bit moves in 32 bits or calculations, compessions like h.265 do so
also some routines are written in the FPU, for example cpu intense sort mechanism´s - you might heared MMX, SSE ect.so in short 32 bit has 64 bit commands that it can use over the FPU unit (what is actually done sometimes)
it can pass the 4 GB of ram over multiple app´s/executables
it cant pass more then 4 GB of ram with just one app/executable - unless it use a chuckwise method (like the ramdisc) - the segment registers are actually not used to pass the 4 GB ram limit(that also goes for win10 32 bit)
so i tryed my best to explain this as simple as i couldThank you so much, but I'm afraid that is pretty much all completely over my head!
Do you know why the /3GB switch cannot be used with the RAM patch applied?
0 -
Having now reviewed things, I've come to the conclusion that increasing the apparently available RAM won't do anything at all to help with my crashing browser.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've researched, the problem is fundamental, and it's because it's a 32-bit browser on a 32-bit system.
My understanding now is that 32-bit processes are limited to accessing 2GB of RAM, and that remains the case regardless of how much RAM is on the system.
All the RAM patch will help with is running more processes simultaneously, it won't help at all with giving more memory to individual processes.
The Facebook browser tab is constantly running out of memory because of the FB Purity add-on, which is eating huge amounts of it.
It appears that there's nothing I can do about that.
Although it caused other problems, unfortunately, the only thing which helped was using the /3GB switch in boot.ini, which I gather allows a process to access 3GB of memory instead of 2GB.
I've tried using the /3GB switch with the extended RAM patch, but the system then just BSODs on startup, so I assume that configuration isn't an option.
Am I right here, and there's actually nothing I can do about the browser problem?
Thanks, Dave.
0 -
New release 132.0.6834.226 R5.
This release was expedited to cover critical vulnerability CVE-2025-6554 (#1486).
Some other changes were made:
(#1480) - "Web Scrobbler" extension should now work on Windows XP, as well as other extensions that create notifications
(#1473) - Favicons should no longer slide out of tab bounds when dozens of tabs are open in a given window
(#1483) - Support for custom tab and new tab button shapes that are derived from an scs file are disabled by default after some users experienced performance declines after their introduction. This functionality is now gated behind the --enable-advanced-customization switch.Unless someone tells me that CVE-2025-6554 (#1486) is really important, I think I'll pass on this one.
1 -
Sotwe.com is working fine here in the UK on Supermium 132.0.6834.224 on XP.
3 -
Members are reminded of forum rule 1a.
1a. This is not a warez site! Links/Requests to warez and/or illegal material (e.g., cracks, serials, etc.) will not be tolerated. Discussion of circumventing WGA/activation/timebombs/license restrictions, use of keygens, or any other illegal activity, including, but not limited to, requests for help where pirated software is being used or being discussed, will also not be tolerated. Offenders may be banned on first violation.
It is expressly forbidden to post links to, or to discuss, any form of warez.
1 -
In case anyone is interested, here attached are the two pairs of files used on the system by daniel_k's patch (hal2.dll and ntkrnl32.exe) and the '64G' patch (hal64g.dll and ntkl64.exe).
I'm afraid I don't know how to analyse them to see just how similar they are.
Looking with CFF Explorer, the dlls certainly do look very similar (they are exactly the same size), although of course not identical.
If anyone with the necessary skills can compare them properly, I would be very interested to know the results!
0 -
So it would be a waste of time installing daniel_k's patch on a uniprocessor machine anyway?
I wonder why he bothered to include the option!So, do you think the two patches I've tried are actually doing exactly the same thing, so there's no advantage of one over the other?
One isn't making the extra RAM any more accessible to programs or the system than the other, for instance?
0 -
OK, I decided to have a try with daniel_k's patch to see if it produced any different results to the one I was already using, which was linked to here.
It took me a while to get it installed. As I have a multi-boot machine, my file paths are not standard, which caused the batch file to fail.
For instance, the batch file contains many instances of the path "%SystemDrive%\Windows\".
As my Windows XP installation is in D:\WIN-NT this did not of course work!
The author should really have used "%WinDir%" I would have thought, unless I'm missing something.
Do be aware of this if you try to use this patch on a system which doesn't use the standard paths.Anyway, once I'd edited the batch file so all the paths were correct for my system, it still didn't work.
It said it couldn't open SP3.cab, so couldn't extract the files it needed to patch.
Why I do not know, It warns that it needs to be run as Administrator, but apart from the fact that I am of course an Administrator user on the machine, there is no option to run the batch file as an administrator as far as I can see when the installation is on FAT32 drives.
Maybe that wasn't the issue, but I could execute the commands fine manually in Command Prompt, the batch file just didn't seem able to do that itself. Very strange.Anyway, I did the whole thing that way, manually executing the lines in the batch file one by one, and it all seems to have worked.
Everything looks exactly the same as with the previous patch, the browser is still falling over on Facebook.It's certainly a much more complicated install routine than the patch I was using first.
How the other patch does it by just using two extra files added in System32 and a simple modification to boot.ini is a mystery to me.
In the daniel_k patch, you have to specify what sort of machine it is (ACPI Multiprocessor in my case) to get the right HAL files.
How the other patch does it without having that specified is impressive!I'll let you know how I get on now with this patch.
Cheers, Dave.
0 -
Linking to pre-activated versions of software is forbidden under forum rules.
Links and name references removed.1 -
I must say that I couldn't see anything obviously wrong on reboot12's video either, no crashes or error messages.
Is Explorer being sluggish the only issue?
I've been using Explorer a lot since I applied the patch, and I've not noticed any difference in performance, apart from the USB issue I mentioned earlier, which now seems to be fixed.Incidentally, I've now determined what specifically is causing the out of memory problem on my browser.
It's being caused by my Facebook Purity extension, which is why it was only happening on Facebook!If I disable the extension, the problem goes away.
Of course, that isn't the answer.
It works fine on the 64-bit version of the browser on Windows 10.
The issue still is that although the extension might be causing high memory use in the browser, now that it supposedly has 16GB of RAM to play with, it shouldn't still be running out of RAM!
1 -
OK, I substituted the USBPORT.SYS file (I used the one in Dibya's patch) and everything seems to be fine with the USB connection now, working normally.
Thanks for the tip!
0 -
Thanks.
I will try to find the version of USBPORT.SYS I need, and report back!
Is there any reason to think that daniel_k's patch is any more likely to solve the browser problem than the one I'm using?
0 -
Of course, I have now found an issue!
When I connected my mobile phone to the system by USB, and tried to transfer some files to it, it didn't work.
It went through the motions, but wouldn't actually copy any files.
Eventually I had to kill the transfer.
I tried again with the normal memory configuration, and it worked fine.
So it looks as if the USB problems much mentioned here are happening with the patch I'm using.
0 -
Thanks.
That is, of course, the $64,000 question.
Is that patch actually providing 16GB of RAM on my system, or is it just appearing to, with some or all of the extra RAM not actually accessible?
All of my system analysers (and I have lots of them!) say that I now have 16GB of RAM, but how can I test that this is actually properly usable?
0
ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.2036 rebuild 1
in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
Posted
Not working here either.

If I try with Supermium, it does work,
With that, there is code in the box next to the run and reset buttons when the page first loads, which is not there in 360Chrome.
I thought uBlock might have been causing the problem, but disabling it made no difference.
Don't know why this is I'm afraid.