Jump to content

Dave-H

Super Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    66

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United Kingdom

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Dave-H

  1. Dave-H
    There is no problem using other languages than English in personal messages here as far as I know. If conversing in German is more comfortable, use that system.
  2. Dave-H
    My copy of 13.5 has a bottom status bar.
  3. Dave-H
    Thanks for the suggestion, but I think it's now fixed. I cleared the history (by deleting the 360History file) and the newly generated one seems to now be OK. I guess something must have got corrupted in the old file. So far so good, I'll let you all know if it malfunctions again! Cheers, Dave.
  4. Dave-H
    Thanks everyone, it looks as if it's just me! It has always been like that AFAIK, although everything else on the history side seems to be working fine. There's just no ongoing history for the current day, because it thinks that yesterday is today! Maybe I will just try clearing it all and see if that fixes it.
  5. Dave-H
    Just a quick question to those using all versions of 360Chrome. When you look at the browser history, is the last date displayed the correct one? When I do this in version 13.5, it shows the previous day as the current day, for instance today it's showing - TODAY - SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2022 Today is actually Monday, September 19, 2022! This means that it's impossible to see pages you've visited earlier in a day, as they are not displayed until the following day. Just wondering if this is happening in all versions of 360Chrome. I am using ArcticFoxie's not 'un-Googled' version of 13.5. Cheers, Dave.
  6. Dave-H
    Thanks, new thread here.
  7. Dave-H
    @Jakob99 This thread is specifically for discussing the development and use of KernelEx for Windows 2000. Please discuss driver problems in a new thread.
  8. Dave-H
    FWIW it doesn't work in Google Chrome 49 either (ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH). It probably needs a later version of Chromium. It works fine in 360Chrome 13.5.
  9. Dave-H
    It all still seems to be exactly the same to me on FF 52.9 ESR. Still a collapsed posting area which can't be used, and the quotes on posts are not collapsed. Also some images missing.
  10. Dave-H
    Back on topic guys please. I know I made a post about Firefox Sync myself, but I didn't anticipate that it would trigger a discussion! I'm sure we could have a whole new thread about browser synchronisation systems on XP compatible browsers, but that's not what this thread was originally about.
  11. Dave-H
    Thanks @Mathwiz. I also use the latest Firefox on Windows 10 on my desktop, and on the Windows 10 side of my dual boot netbook, which also has 52.9 ESR on its XP side. So Firefox sync allows me to keep things like bookmarks and passwords in sync on five different installations, including the Android Firefox on my phone. Having said that, I have recently gone over to using 360Chrome as my default browser on XP on my main desktop, simply because FF 52.9 is now having more and more problems with sites!
  12. Dave-H
    Not a paf version I'm afraid, but let me know if you'd still like 1.53.
  13. Dave-H
    FWIW, I've been using DTaskManager for many years, and it is very good, but I found the latest current version 1.57 to be very unstable on my XP system. Give it a try, but if you have problems, I have a copy of the previous version 1.53 which works fine for me.
  14. Dave-H
    Thanks for the heads-up!
  15. Dave-H
    Confirmed here. @xper Has something been changed in the forum coding recently? It was all working fine in Firefox 52.9 ESR quite recently, but no longer does. Thread moved.
  16. Dave-H
    OK, the thread's locked. I didn't immediately notice that the message boxes had changed, though looking at them again now you mention it, they are a bit bigger than before, which is better for legibility. Presumably the windows do have to come up on screen large and then shrink to the top left corner?
  17. Dave-H
    BTW, do you think that this thread can be locked now? It doesn't seem to have any future use.
  18. Dave-H
    I have to say that I haven't noticed any particular changes, but of course I never saw the original and new versions side by side. I do have quite a powerful machine, so the original programs would have worked pretty fast I would have thought, I certainly wasn't aware of any unresponsiveness or lag anywhere.
  19. Dave-H
    Just to report that I complexly removed the original version and deployed the new one, and everything appears to be still working perfectly! Great job @AstroSkipper!
  20. Dave-H
    I don't really know what to say! I'm amazed that any prospect of getting Windows 98 Update working again is remotely possible, I would have thought that Microsoft would have deleted all the necessary files from their servers years ago, but if it is still possible, then great! Mind you, I never thought that Microsoft Update would ever work again on Windows XP, but it can be made to do so, and it does!
  21. Dave-H
    Thank you!
  22. Dave-H
    Much better! I keep meaning to ask you, why do the filenames of Configure PopMenu.exe, and Setup Min2Tray.exe have spaces in them, but the others don't? Not a problem of course, just wondering if there was a reason for that!
  23. Dave-H
    Certainly OpenLANSet.exe and CloseLANSet.exe aren't much liked by the scanners!
  24. Dave-H
    As I said earlier, the thing which some scanners might think is suspicious behaviour is the opening and closing of the IE Proxy Settings function. If you left that out temporarily, if that's possible, it would be interesting to see if you got a different result.
  25. Dave-H
    I wish I knew, I've never used VirusTotal before, but I guess they somehow run the file past many different scanners which they might be scanned by if they're downloaded and executed. There are obviously only a minority of scanners there which show a negative result, and I wonder just how many files are deemed to be completely clean! It could be a fundamental problem with batch files being called by the executables, I would guess that batch files are perhaps considered to be intrinsically vulnerable, but I'm only guessing here. What you can do about it, well I'm afraid I have no idea, this is outside my knowledge I'm afraid,
×
×
  • Create New...