Tripredacus

Everything was already enabled except SSL 2.0. Enabling that doesn't make the warning go away. There doesn't actually seem to be a way to view the certificate, you just have to trust that the browser is right. (you can view the cert after continuing to view the page, but not while at the warning screen). It seems that none of the reasons above that IE9 shows is the reason for why you cannot connect to it with Palemoon or Chrome. That, instead, seems to be because SHA1 support has been removed from those browsers but is still present in IE9. IE9 identifies the encryption as sha1RSA, but does not seem to have a way to indicate which version of TLS or SSL that the router's web server is using. If this was present in the newer browsers, you would get a message similar to what IE9 gives, it would give to you a warning and you could still continue. But without the SHA1 support, the browser can't actually read the data from the router's internal website at all, which is the actual reason why the site doesn't work with Pale moon or Chrome. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/02/23/the-end-of-sha-1-on-the-public-web/ https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=6262 Now imagine if I had Windows Updates enabled, I likely would then have an IE10 or whatever that didn't support SHA1 either and I'd have to find a computer with an older operating system (or older browser versions) to log into my router.

Additionally, it is precisely that the hardware had not changed, but the software had. Over time, there was no reason to log into the router. It worked fine after I had it set up the way I wanted. The browsers do update over time, Chrome there can't be much done about, and Palemoon I do only as needed which is very rarely. Even so, at some point in between the last time I had to log into the router (I believe it is technically Draft N, to show its age) and the other day, the browsers had updated to a point where they would no longer allow the connection. If I didn't make it clear before, IE9 had no problem connecting to the router's internal page. It complained about the security certificate but it had a button to let me view the page anyways. That was how I went in to check the logs. It was only the other two browsers that refused to connect with it. I don't mind about the warning page IE gives. I will see about those settings and see what happens.

I ran into a situation last night that took me by surprise, and frankly it was not something I had even thought of being possible. It seems partly a "planned obsolescense" scenario regarding network devices and it could definitely cause someone a real headache should they not have access to an older computer. The example here is that I had noticed that my home computer was no longer online. I can see if my home pc is online because I have an IM account that is always signed in, partly so I can "IM Myself" links or things to look at later, but it also allows me to see the online status at home when I am not there. Yesterday, my home pc disconnected just before 10am and all day I had the worst thoughts pop into my head... "did i forget to pay the electric bill?" "did a sinkhole swallow my house?" things like that. When I got home, all was seemingly fine, my home pc was still turned on. Then I see my cell phone can't connect to my wireless network. I go to attempt to access the router from my PC's browser, but it times out. So I just reset the router by unplugging the power and plugging it back in. After a few minutes, my phone reconnects to the wireless, and my wired computers can access the internet. I decided to log into the router and see if there was anything in the log files showing any errors or whichever and then ran into the issue this thread is about. Neither Palemoon nor Chrome would allow me to even connect to the router. It showed me this message: ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH Only IE9 was able to connect to the internal page of the router, although it did show a "not secure" message and allowed me past. I can definately see a situation where a person could have set up their home network at some point, and cycled out their old computer to a new one, could encounter a situation where they wouldn't be able to log into their network hardware, and this can be a big headache. If anyone knows a way to get a modern browser to allow connection to a secure site that generates this error, post it here. For those interested: the router is configured for SSL internal page only, and external IP login is disabled. It cannot be administered remotely nor via wireless clients. PS: the log files didn't show anything from before the power was reset.

Does LTSC exist for any SKUs besides the ones in the Embedded Channel?

Version upgrades just come from Windows Update. So if you have made your settings to defer updates and have set metered connection, those may need to be undone to get WU to download the newer version. I do recommend that you do the upgrade while physically connected to a network, rather than over wireless.

It is on the github issues page: https://github.com/lucasg/Dependencies/issues/24 Regarding the Upgrading against your will... that doesn't happen anymore that I am aware of. So you only have to worry about pure telemetry, if that is your thing.

This is the only toilet paper you will ever need. https://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/hotline/20080315/etc_vistasp1nv.html

If the game itself doesn't say which version to use in a text file in the game folder, then the typical way of knowing which version is needed should be kept in the manifest of the exe. In this case, it would be sottr.exe and you would need a program that can view the manifest on there. If the developers were smart, it should clearly indicate the version of specific runtimes that are required. It is possible to do this simply by opening the .exe in a text editor or hex editor and search for "manifestVersion" although there are other programs available that can show this information in a nicer format. I don't know of a program to recommend, perhaps others know of some.

Technet should be gone by now. I think there is only MSDN subscription service left.

This process does exist with some situations even in previous versions of Windows. I can recall at least one RAID card that needed this unmount/remount process.. mostly because it used a dummy driver. Also any INFs that needed the KMDF/UMDF update would need that MSU added first, unmount/remount and then you could add the INF. The only page I know is on the Catalog site, but it does not show pre-requisites there. Only succeed/supercede KBs.

I have some doubt that the program would be able to find the files in the Skype folder. A program usually has a very limited search path when trying to find files: its specified working directory, c:\windows, c:\windows\system32, and any other path/environment variable specifically set by the developer. If installing the 64bit version of that redist doesn't solve that issue, you can manually put the correct files into the program's working directory.

Yay @Radish

We are wondering why blockchain is not in the list of stuff you don't like.

I have doubts that people are flocking to Apple due to Windows 10. I currently do not know any people IRL that own Macs. Instead I think that people would either just give up on computing entirely and use a tablet or phone. In fact, given wage disparity in the world, it would make more sense from a financial perspective if more people ended up buying Chromebooks over Macs. And while Apple likes to toot their horn about how many iPhones they sell, everyone knows that they are outsold by Android and other phone manuacturers by huge numbers simply because Apple just happens to sell the most (overpriced) expensive stuff on the retail market.

It looks like both like and upvote increase the reputation number in your info panel. I believe that the forum has an option to enable a "most popular post" type panel, similar to the Popular Contributors panel that appears on the forum index.

I'm sure I'll have some deeper impressions soon. I finally have joined the realm of the living (dead) and got a new workstation that has Windows 10 Enteprise installed. As much as I'd like to remain in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category, seeing how my job requires some Windows 10 crap, I figured it was worth a shot. I still kept my old computer tho, so I'm not Windows 7 free... yet.

It is not entirely this fact, more like saying N is backwards compatible (as a blanket statement) is more of pushing marketing speak. If Wireless N was backwards compatible, you wouldn't need mixed mode. Mixed mode is the function of the router/AP to use both N and previous types at the same time. When speaking in terms of this backwards compatibiltiy, you must be specific to the device and to the configuration. A, B, G and N are not compatible with each other. It is the interfaces that determine the compatibility.

@sdfox7 if your wireless G clients can connect to your wireless N network, then you have it configured that way, or in mixed mode. I run pure G and pure N radios at home, and wireless G devices cannot even see the wireless N radio.

You will get this type of message due to Windows either performing a series of actions synchronously and some lag exists that makes the next step in the process to occur before it should. Unfortunately this will result in Windows showing you a message like this and halt whatever it was doing. I see it most often when creating a new folder, and then rename it. Trying to enter it will open a message saying "Unable to locate 'New Folder'" even though the dir doesn't have that name anymore. My best recommendation for avoiding the message you get (and to avoid potential file corruption) is to not multitask when doing a file copy.

If you are wanting to add the drivers post-install (so that the drivers do not exist in the install image) there are multiple ways to do it. The first is the method that I use, where I am using DISM to apply the image to a partition. Then after the image is deployed, I can use DISM to add the driver to that offline installation. Like so: DISM /IMAGE:C:\ /ADD-DRIVER /DRIVER:z:\folder\driver.inf In that example, the driver is actually stored on a network share. Some drivers may be required to be copied to the ramdisk first before adding them this way, but so far I haven't run into any of those. The second example is to make Windows do this work for you. There are various ways to do it, there are multiple unattend settings where you can specific a Synchronous command, or you can use FirstLogonCommands to do it. In this case, the drivers need to be accessible to the OS, whether they exist as a folder inside the image or if they are copied in afterwards using DataImage (which I have not tried in many years) or some other method. Then you can use a DISM command like so: DISM /ONLINE /ADD-DRIVER /DRIVER:c:\folder\driver.inf You may need to use the DISM from the ADK to do this, and if so then you would need to use absolute pathing to DISM.exe so that Windows doesn't try to use the one that is built into the OS. There is also an unattend option you can find called DriverPaths in Microsoft-Windows-PnpCustomizationsNonWinPE, which lets you specify a network path for where the drivers are stored, and Windows will add them to the image IF you are installing to Audit Mode. There are various other ways to do it also, but an all-in-one option for installing different driver sets for different models of computer are outside of this general scope. If you are wanting a driver to be installed for a notebook, such as a touchpad software but do not want this software installed to a desktop, then you will need to use separate answer files for each or go down the path of creating (of finding) a system capable of detecting different hardware and using different deployment options.

There is no rule breaking here. Abandonware certainly exists. The definitions on those websites are correct, but their uses of the term in sentences are misleading.

I had to look it up also. But the page I read was quite general about it. It does not talk specifically about software, but works. The reason being that Windows 95 and Windows 10 being really the same software... it is possible to go even longer for earlier versions but it didn't cover this at all. I'm sure it is buried in the law someplace.

Do a visual inspection of barrel capacitors on the motherboard. These are the ones that look like there is a + (or three pronged "mercedes benz") shape in the top and the tops are silver. They should all be flat. If any are raised or have discoloration on the tops, then this may be a problem. If you are not certain about it, you can post a picture. Another situation where I have seen this has been with the RAM. You can try having just one stick inserted and rotate them. Also you can try turning the computer on without any RAM installed. Of course, the computer will not boot with this type of setup, but it should still turn on. Some computers may have an audible beep code when no memory is installed. There are various other things that can cause this situation, but when it comes down to it, one of the main components is failed or failing. The only time I have seen this issue where there wasn't a component failure, was due to a grounding issue. However, on a previously known working computer, this is usually not the cause. BUT, while you're in your case, good a time as any to get any dust out of there! And you know, if you do end up posting a picture of the insides and there is dust in that picture, I'm sure someone will point it out!

As the rights holder, it is up to Microsoft to decide whether to enforce their copyright. Just because a company does not appear to do anything about people pirating software doesn't mean they can't. At any time that they feel like, they can come down on people who are distributing or hosting software (in part or in full) that they are not allowed to do so, including who disk images (as in this instance) or ISOs, updates, hotfixes, individual programs or files, etc and when they end up doing this, the person who is caught cannot claim that it was OK because nothing was done about it in the past. I'm sure most people would agree that the idea that you'd have to wait 95 years for Windows 95 to enter into the public domain is ridiculous.

I have seen a stock Windows 10 do an upgrade in 18 hours. Stock meaning that the system was setup just to test the upgrade process. The software was not "used" as a person normally would and nothing additional was installed besides drivers to make flags go away in Device Manager. The fact that the average time it takes a stock system to do a version upgrade is 4 hours out to say something. But we all realise that the OS is much larger these days than in Win98 days, and the OS is doing way more and there is a lot of overhead. People do not compare current technology to old technology, or properly efficient old technology because they have no experience with it. We know examples of how a new install of Windows 95 installed onto a 5400RPM hard disk could take 5 seconds to boot to desktop, and this speed can only be matched these days by having an immensly faster boot disk and a tuned OS, be it Windows 7 or newer. The cheats that the industry use to speed up "boot" time by making the computer enter hybernation at shutdown do not count! Hardware has certainly gotten better, but a lot of software really hasn't.