Dave-H

Yes, and they stopped me using the username I originally wanted to use too!

It's relevant here at the moment IMO, as long as we don't have a long discussion about browser cache location options developing!

Please be aware that mention or discussion of illegal activity is forbidden here.

Yes, and I won't hesitate to do so again. We do not allow political debates, and certainly not slanging matches, in technical threads here.

Back on topic now please.

If you mean the current certificates, there's probably no harm in doing that, but you need to make it clear that they will need to be updated at some point, using one of the several mechanisms outlined here. I've always used heinoganda's updater, and it has never failed me, but I know some people have had trouble with it.

Surely there's no point in integrating the actual root certificate updates in your project as they are still being regularly updated. Any you include will become outdated quite quickly. It would be much better to include just the actual updating mechanism, so the latest versions can always be retrieved.

True there haven't been any actual program updates for 3.5.x for many years now, but Malwarebytes support would still help you if you had problems with it. I suspect it's that which will now end, if it hasn't already. That's a different issue to the ending of pattern updates for the program.

Unless and until this actually happens, I'm not going to worry about it! Do bear in mind that dropping support for version 3.5.1 is not the same as withdrawing pattern updates sent to it. All that means is that if there's a problem, Malwarebytes will no longer help you to solve it. Again, I see no reason to drop pattern updates as long as the pattern file format is compatible with the program.

I think those of us using Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1 on XP (the late great dencorso was also a fan BTW) have always assumed, perhaps naively, that Malwarebytes would not pull the pattern updates for the program without some notice being given. Unless and until they perhaps change the format of the pattern updates to a format that 3.5.1 does not understand, I can't see any reason why they would do it. If the format does change, I can see that they wouldn't want to carry on producing the old format as well just to keep compatibility with 3.5.1, but you never know. This was posted less than a year ago, which looks hopeful in the short term, as does this. Don't worry, I'm under no illusion that pattern updates will remain forever, and I know they could be pulled at any time, I just hope there is some notice given.

I've just checked the Malwarebytes installation on the XP side of my netbook, and there the component package is version 1.0.365! That was installed from exactly the same installation file, so I guess it's nothing to do with that. Looks like that installation must have updated itself at some point, and the other installation didn't for some reason.

I re-downloaded the offline installer file from Malwarebytes, and the file I downloaded is identical to the one I've already got, which I downloaded in 2018, so it doesn't look as if the installer has been updated. Very strange, I wonder what the 'component package' actually is?

That's interesting, I wonder why my components package appears to be older than yours? I would have thought that's something which should have automatically updated. I will re-download the offline installer and see if the present version is different to the one I have now. If it is, I will reinstall it.

This is what I have at the time of writing. AFAIK, Malwarebytes have always said that this version will be supported and provided with pattern updates until further notice, and there's been no sign of them moving to change that. There have been a few scares where the definition updates stopped coming in, with a red triangle on the system tray icon, but it was always resolved once people posted on the Malwarebytes forum about it. It was always caused by backend problems, but as you can imagine it did worry people!

To be fair the 'necropost' was only reported today, when it was already three months old!

@emila67 You are aware the previous post to yours was 18 years ago?!

I've been using Malwarebytes Premium on XP for several years now. It's not free, but it just works. Strange how people have very different experiences with these programs on their systems. I never had any problem installing MB Premium on either of my XP systems, but my main desktop absolutely refused to work with Avast or AVG! They would install fine, but the main service refused to start, and I never found out why this was. I too spent ages on their forums and with their technical support, and apart for the vague 'some people do have this problem on XP' no answer was ever found.

It would help if we knew exactly what game you're actually referring to!

Rule 1b clearly states - "Respect the requests of companies who do not permit redistribution of their products without express permission - including unmodified hotfix/feature pack packages. Download sources for official software should be from the vendor directly where possible. Posts made containing this type of content may be removed immediately without warning, and offenders may be banned on first violation." As you clearly don't care about the rules here, I would remind you that you could be banned for this. Consider this a public warning. Further infringements will not be tolerated.

The 'Escape' map doesn't work for me on 360Chrome 13.5 but the other examples do. The WebGL test passes.

Off-topic posts removed. This thread will be immediately terminated if it degenerates into an off-topic personal bickering fest again.

You have your own thread about this in the Windows 2000 section, where it should be. You can tag any contributor to this thread in that thread. The same will happen with Windows 2003 should the contributors here deem it to be necessary.

@WinWord2000 Off-topic posts moved here. You have already been warned once about posting off-topic Windows 2000 related posts in this XP/2003 specific thread. There is a thread for this issue on Windows 2000, please use it in future.

Topic locked.

Ah thanks, so the 'OS fakes' modification prevents that happening I assume. I guess it's not relevant to my Lenovo Flex 10. Cheers, Dave.