Jump to content

Dave-H

Super Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,441

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United Kingdom

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Dave-H

  1. Dave-H
    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!
  2. Dave-H
    Just checked again and all is correct now. The spook has been laid to rest!
  3. Dave-H
    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?
  4. Dave-H
    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.
  5. Dave-H
    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.
  6. Dave-H
    Wow, thanks!
  7. Dave-H
    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!
  8. Dave-H
    FWIW I use HWiNFO. The latest version of that still works on Windows 98, believe it or not!
  9. Dave-H
    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!
  10. Dave-H
    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.
  11. Dave-H
    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.
  12. Dave-H
    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!
  13. Dave-H
    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.
  14. Dave-H
    I sent you a PM.
  15. Dave-H
    I thought the last XP version was 14.28.29812.0?
  16. Dave-H
    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.
  17. Dave-H
    Brilliant, thanks! I'll let you know if it works.
  18. Dave-H
    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.
  19. Dave-H
    What "hub site" do you mean? Link?
  20. Dave-H
    YouTube is actually reasonably OK for me, the only thing which doesn't work is the video preview function when I put the cursor over a video in the list, which does work in Firefox 85, but not in Firefox 52.9 ESR. I use this UA string on YouTube - "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/51.0".
  21. Dave-H
    Thanks. I have tried different user agents on Facebook (I have an add-on which allows me to do that on a site by site basis) but they never seemed to make any difference. I don't want to use the mobile version of the site because it looks awful on my desktop. The new page layout has if anything made things even worse than they used to be, it's pretty slow and unresponsive even on Firefox 85! Why they use ridiculously bloated huge javascript routines on sites like Facebook is quite beyond me, I'm sure it's not necessary.
  22. Dave-H
    Yes, I use XP for online banking without a second thought. As long as the banking sites don't start failing with my browser (Firefox 52.9 ESR) I see no reason to stop doing that. I must confess that I've started to go over to Firefox 85 on Windows 10 for sites like Facebook, because they are crawlingly slow in Firefox 52.9.
  23. Dave-H
    I still use XP as my default OS, and hope to continue to do so for a very long time yet. I have to have Windows 10 as well now because I have programs I need, like Adobe editing and web publishing programs, which now will only run on 64 bit Windows 10. For general use I still much prefer the UI of XP though.
  24. Dave-H
    You were probably lucky to find even one driver that worked on XP! What's the problem with the driver you're using?
  25. Dave-H
    I've never found any reason not to use the latest released version. I do worry that one day I will not be allowed to update any further as my old hardware is deemed to be incompatible, but it's not happened yet!
×
×
  • Create New...