Dave-H

If you install Office 2016 (IIRC) or any later version you have to install everything, there is no way of selecting which parts of the suite to install as there was on earlier versions. If you have a version earlier than 2016, you can change the configuration using the programs and features dialogue. If you only had Word installed, I'm surprised that you suddenly got everything when the program updated, I'm sure that shouldn't have happened! Which version are you actually running?

Which version of Office are you running? Later versions it's all or nothing as far as I can see, I'm a bit surprised you managed to only install Word if you're using a later version.

This wireless driver works for me on XP - https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/NETWORK-CARD/INTEL/Intel-Centrino-Advanced-N-6235-PROSet-Wireless-Driver-Software-15-8-0-for-XP.shtml This Bluetooth driver works too (using the XP download of course) - https://www.techspot.com/downloads/drivers/essentials/intel-bluetooth/ HTH. Cheers, Dave.

On XP GPU-Z 1.95 shows ID information for both of my graphics cards, but strangely only the ATI card is identified by name on the "Display Device Selection" drop-down. The Nvidia card is listed just as a "Graphic Device" although the ID is correct, including showing the Nvidia logo! That may be because its driver isn't loaded of course (I only use one card at a time!) There's no information about clocks or memory for either card though.

Strange, I'm using CPU-Z 1.95, the latest version, on Windows XP (32 bit) and Windows 10 (64 bit) and on both installations it's showing my core speed as varying. The only anomaly I'm seeing is that the reported speed on Windows 10 is completely different from that reported by the Windows 10 Task Manager!

I just did a Windows Update scan on my Windows 10 netbook which has Office 2010 installed, and nothing was offered. I guess I'll have to wait and see what if anything appears next Tuesday!

OK thanks, I guess I'll switch over to it then as it's specifically designed for Windows 9x. Can't wait to see how my Xeon compares with an 386!

Just checked again and all is correct now. The spook has been laid to rest!

Off-topic here of course, but actually I've now found that I've already got a version of CPU-Z on Windows 98, version 1.76, which works fine. Is there any advantage to using the "Vintage Edition" apart from the fact that it's actually newer?

Thanks! I'm slightly puzzled though, I've run the updater, and one of the files isn't the same date as you've got. delroots.sst is showing 12th October 2020, and not 23rd February 2021 as on your image.

I had another scan later on, and got another update, KB2813347-v2! It looks like an update for the first update, if you see what I mean.

Wow, thanks!

Thank you so much for that. I tried it, and actually got offered an update, KB969084! I never thought I'd ever see the yellow shield in the system tray ever again!

FWIW I use HWiNFO. The latest version of that still works on Windows 98, believe it or not!

Yes, that's very clear, thanks. Anyway, I'm happy that I really have got the last XP version of the runtime now! I certainly rebooted after installing 14.28.29213.0, but I can't swear that I had also rebooted after uninstalling 14.28.29812.0. Maybe it needed that to actually uninstall the files, but there was no prompt to that effect. You would think that even if that was the case the 14.28.29213.0 installer would have just overwritten them, or thrown an error if it couldn't, they didn't seem to be locked when I deleted them manually. Bit of a rubbish install and uninstall system really, everything looked absolutely fine in the Add/Remove programs list!

Yes, on advice from @UCyborg I deleted all the api-ms-win-core-xx.dll files, plus ucrtbase.dll, vcruntime140.dll and msvcp140.dll from the Firefox program folder. This resulted in the error message when 14.28.29812.0 was installed. I then uninstalled 14.28.29812.0 and installed 14.28.29213.0, which appeared to work fine, but made no difference! When I checked I found that the files in system32 were still version 14.28.29812.0, so the uninstall hadn't actually worked at all! I had to uninstall 14.28.29213.0 again, and then delete all the files manually, and then reinstall 14.28.29213.0 again, after which the files were finally the correct version and the Firefox error message changed to "Can't load XPCOM", which is a different issue. Maybe it does actually need the earlier version that was bundled with it, but at least now it's not an operating system error message.

I've noticed very recently that some videos are now not working, but others are still working fine. The ones that don't work just produce a black frame. I can't see why some are working but not others.

The error I got when trying to launch Firefox 52.9 ESR using the system runtime with 14.28.29812.0 installed was - "FIREFOX.EXE - Entry Point Not Found : The procedure entry point CloseThreadpoolWork could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll." So I guess that entry point is probably there on Vista but not XP. There may well be others of course. I wish I could remember exactly why I thought that 14.28.29812.0 worked on XP!

OK, after testing with @UCyborg I've finally confirmed that version 14.28.29812.0, although it apparently installs fine with no errors, does not in fact work on XP! 14.28.29213.0 is indeed the last XP compatible version.

I sent you a PM.

I thought the last XP version was 14.28.29812.0?

It works, thank you so much! The only thing which doesn't seem to work in Firefox 52.9 ESR is the snapshot feature, which does nothing. Personally I can live without that! It sometimes doesn't load when you first load a YouTube video, but the old version I was using used to do that as well. Refreshing the page makes it come good and it's then OK on subsequent videos. Off-topic here of course, but I hope this will help others. Cheers, Dave.

Brilliant, thanks! I'll let you know if it works.

How did you "lower" it to 52.0? I'd be very interested to see if the new version can be made to work in Firefox 52.9 ESR.

What "hub site" do you mean? Link?