Dave-H

He's edited his first post since it was first posted. I was pretty sure that Partition Wizard was in the list originally, and CPU-Z, and I thought it was a list of things that didn't work! Partition Wizard has now been removed from the list. Sorry if I misunderstood it!

Just for completeness, CPU-Z 1.90.1 also installed and works fine on XP for me. I'm afraid that and Partition Wizard are the only programs on your list that I have installed.

Wow, thank you for all that testing @bphlpt! Interesting that Opera Next 23 on Windows 7 produces the same result as Opera 36 does on XP, no background video, and yet Opera 65 works fine. IE11 is the only one that refuses to display the site at all, and it's the same in Windows 8.1, but fine on Windows 10. Bizarre!

Just as an aside, Partition Wizard 11.5 installed fine for me on XP. It was an update from version 11.4, if that makes any difference.

I must say that I knew about the first bit, but had never read the second bit! I wonder if any other restaurants do that? Still, as long as the staff are happy! Personally I never add tips to credit card payments in restaurants where it isn't included in the bill, as I want the money to go to the people who've served me, not to the restaurant owners! Anyway, back on topic, I've now tried in other browsers, and for the record the site works fine in Google Chrome 49 on XP, and in the latest version of the Otter browser. Opera 36 strangely displays the site but without the background video on the home page, so maybe that's what's causing the IE11 problem.

Could be, but as Windows 7, and certainly Windows 8.1, are still supposedly fully supported systems, why do they not have the necessary certificates for IE11 to display all current websites? I hadn't heard anywhere that IE11 is not now considered to be a current supported browser, and it does still work on Windows 10!

Thanks very much @bphlpt, that confirms what I found. I don't use IE now either, but this actually came up on a friend's Windows 7 laptop, where he does still use IE11 as his browser. I was surprised to find the same problem on Windows 8.1, and even more surprised to find that the problem isn't there on Windows 10, all apparently with the same IE11. Very strange.

I just tried accessing the website of a UK restaurant chain using IE11 on Windows 7, and it would not connect, saying there was some sort of security error, which couldn't be overridden. The address is https://www.cote.co.uk I thought perhaps this was because IE11 is now becoming obsolete, especially when I tried it on my Windows 8.1 netbook too, and got the same error. However, I just tried on IE11 on Windows 10, and it worked fine! Can anyone else confirm this, and has anyone any idea why it would work on Windows 10, but not on 7 or 8,1, using apparently the same Internet Explorer version? Thanks, Dave.

Quite! Surely the reason many people stick with Firefox is because it isn't Chrome!

Well I don't think that anyone could deny that Flash has had a pretty good run! The end had to come sometime.

I'm not sure why the problem of the incompatible SHA-2 signing is only a problem with Microsoft Update, and not with the standalone installers. Obviously I'm very glad that the standalone installers still work, but why don't they fail as well?

Microsoft Update didn't take anywhere near as long to complete its scan as it did when we had the issue before, it wasn't hours and hours like it was then! It just took several minutes, which is unusual now. I did get a yellow shield with those Office updates this morning, but they failed again when an attempt was made using that interface. I have now installed them all manually and all seems fine, but what a PITA! I guess we will always have to do that in future if what @Mathwizsays is correct. The second update (KB4484160) seemed to take forever to install, but it got there in the end!

I think we may have a problem with Microsoft Update here. I wasn't offered any Office 2010 updates with a yellow shield today as I expected, and when I ran MS Update after scanning for ages it eventually offered three updates. Security Update for Microsoft Office 2010 (KB4484127) 32-Bit Edition Security Update for Microsoft Excel 2010 (KB4484164) 32-Bit Edition Security Update for Microsoft Office 2010 (KB4484160) 32-Bit Edition None of them will install, I've tried twice. They show as failed as soon as they download. The error is 0x80096010, which apparently means "TRUST_E_BAD_DIGEST - The digital signature of the object did not verify". That does not sound good! I have a horrible feeling that we may now be blocked because of out of date certificates. I ran @heinoganda's certificates updater this morning, i hope that didn't cause this! EDIT: Just tried with HTTPSProxy disabled, just in case, same result. I guess I'll have to try installing from the standalone installers for the updates tomorrow (off to bed now!)

It has been for some time, I updated to it three weeks ago.

It's only updates that replace MSO.DLL that you have to worry about, all others seem to be OK, and should still be applied IMO.

Thanks guys, maybe it's just me then!

Is anyone else seeing this quite often on the forum? It usually appears when I go to the link for the "Windows XP" forum. If I try again it's always then OK. Been happening for a long time now, and seems to happen at all times of the day. Just wondering if anyone else had seen it.

Yes, great to know that's possible to do, but just going one version up doesn't seem really worth it. Accepting that "Quantum" Firefox versions will never run on XP, it would be good to be able to go to version 56, IIRC the last non-Quantum version.

Apologies @jaclaz. You said "Thank the good guys developing Android for removing this useful feature, the good guys developing Windows for NOT providing drive letter/file access via MTP and the sheep common people for not having made a big fuss about it." I read it that MTP had been removed altogether, but I guess you just meant that access by drive letter had effectively been removed. Cheers, Dave.

Yes exactly, which is what the other thread said didn't exist any more in newer versions of Android.

Off-topic for Windows 98, but I was a bit puzzled to read that first thread. I have a Galaxy S7 Edge phone running Android 8.0 (Oreo) and it appears fine as a storage device on my machine, both on 10 and XP (not Windows 98 though!) The thread says newer phones won't work like that as later versions of Android don't support it. It doesn't get a drive letter, but it appears in Explorer and both the SD card and the internal memory can be accessed fine.

Thanks, I'd forgotten about the uninstallation complication with that add-on! I've never bothered to remove it on my Firefox, but it is disabled. It actually says that it can't be verified, not that it's incompatible. I don't think it's doing any harm as it is.

IIRC that's a pretty obsolete extension. I would just uninstall it if it's actually in your extension list. It's probably marked as incompatible with Firefox 52 anyway.

Anyone fancy this, if it were possible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_T80ZVD7e8 No, me neither!

It annoys me too, especially when people say their software still supports XP (and probably Vista too) when it actually no longer does!