Dave-H

This topic is continued here.

Thanks Den, just splitting the thread into two sounds like a very good idea. Please don't choke on any of those nuts!

Thanks Den! I'll have a look at doing that if I can find a suitable point to do it at.

I have already changed the thread title to perhaps be a bit clearer as to what the thread developed into. The first post was actually about a specific issue with Flash six years ago, and I think the thread only developed into a more general reference thread for Flash and Java later. As it was @dencorsowho actually first posted in that thread, maybe he can see how his first post could now be modified to better reflect the present purpose of the thread.

Thanks! The Java version I'm using on XP is Java 8 Update 251. That works fine (with a manual install, the installer hasn't worked on XP for ages) but needs one incompatible file (sunmscapi.dll) replaced from the previous version. Other people have had later versions working, but it's a lot more work, and personally I didn't think it was worth the trouble! Current versions are completely incompatible with XP AFAIK. I'll look into clarifying the first post of the main thread about it.

As its name suggests, that thread isn't just about Flash, it also covers Java (and Shockwave).

Just an off-topic note, not relevant to XP, but I just updated my Firefox on Windows 10 to version 85, and all support for Flash has been removed, so it doesn't even recognise the plugin any more.

Thank you!

There were, but I was only offered four of them. That happened last month as well, that one update was not offered to me. I tried again this month installing the missing one KB4493142 manually, and again got a message that it didn't apply to my system.

I'm in the process of doing the same with my Asus X102B netbook, which had a rubbish AR5B125 wi-fi card in it, 2.4GHz only and no Bluetooth! I've bought an Intel 6235ANHMW card, which I believe and hope is a suitable replacement. It does have drivers for XP, but the later APP6P-700973 card which I first considered does not.

FWIW my installation of Google Chrome 49 is still happily using Flash 32.0.0.465, using the modified PPAPI plugin file, presumably over-riding its own internal version. I haven't knowingly done anything to make that happen, now or in the past.

I guess if you were using an older version of Opera or another Chromium-based browser you might need it on a later operating system? IIRC earlier versions of Google Chrome which did support Flash had it build in, and therefore didn't need the plugin, but I may be wrong there.

Have you tried generating a special password for Outlook 2003 in Gmail? In my experience older clients will now no longer work unless you do that, even if they do support TLS v1.2. I'm afraid I've only done it with Yahoo, but I know there is a similar process with Gmail. If you go to Gmail webmail I expect it will be somewhere in your account settings.

The Windows 8/8.1 ActiveX Flash Player was always a separate download, but I've always assumed that it's functionally the same as the one for earlier systems. It's probably because it has a different way of installing into the operating system than it has on earlier versions of Windows..

Glad to hear that you fixed it! @heinogandais still a member, but hasn't posted much in recent months. Try sending him a personal message.

You can check your installed certificates by going to Control Panel>Internet Options>Content Tab>Certificates. Or, perhaps easier to see, run "certificates.msc" which should give you a Management Console snap-in with sections to see the installed user and system certificates.

Long time no hear @soporific!

Thanks, good to hear that from someone who actually uses Gmail!

There is an increasing problem with the compatibility of older e-mail clients with modern systems due to increased security restrictions. As a diehard Eudora user, I know that all too well! The most obvious one is that many e-mail providers now mandate at least TLS v1.2 support to interact with their servers. If Outlook 2003 doesn't support TLS v1.2 that will be an immediate show-stopper with many providers. The other issue is that providers will only support older clients if an "app specific password" is used, which has to be specially generated for the program. This is used on the client login instead of the normal password that you would use to login to webmail. As an example, the option for Yahoo Mail is on the account security setting page. I know Gmail has a similar option, but I have no experience with Gmail I'm afraid. I think on Gmail you have to do something to enable the use of legacy clients too.

Windows 98SE here on a triple boot machine with XP and 10! Keeping the retro stuff I've had installed since the 1990s alive. And well, just because!

Yes, but the Flash files are all still present as far as I can see, although it no longer works because of the time bomb. I would expect a future update to actually remove them, and the associated registry entries as well. I don't think that KB4577586 has been automatically implemented yet, although as you say it may well be included in a future monthly security patch. As far as I can see it wasn't in last Tuesday's patch (KB4598242), and there's no mention of Flash in the patch documentation.

The Flash embedded in the operating system stopped working last Tuesday on Windows 10 as I expected, but that may just have been because of the time bomb in the Flash files. I guess a future OS update may well actually remove all the Flash files as well, at the moment they do seem to be still there.

Belated thanks for that, yes it does work! So, it's not really an "off line" mode then! I still can't get it to work with the 2020 version of the cab file, I just get "0x800B0100 No signature was present in the subject" all the time, even though it's supposed to be SHA-1 signed. The 2019 version works fine.

It's a very good phone, looks really stylish, and as I said before, very compact as well, you hardly know you've got it in your pocket! I really like the principle of clamshell phones, as the screen and keyboard are intrinsically protected when they're folded up. The camera's not great on it, but few were at the time it was current. It does have an SD card facility, which wasn't at all standard then. There's a "slide" version too as well as the "fold" clamshell, but that's enough off-topic!

Thanks, I corrected your post as the whole post was the link! That isn't the phone I had, and I now remember that Nokia confused things horribly by calling two completely different phones by the same model number! This is the one I have.