Tripredacus

Only their CSS is on that domain that I can tell (it explains your screenshot) and it is using TLS 1.2.

Link removed, ISO not hosted by Microsoft website. Public warning, please read the forum rules.

Disk Management shows up in the Start button context menu on all versions past RTM that I am aware of.

I can't even imagine how some people are using the regular OS. I've been steering clients away from the desktop product and into the IoT products in order to mitigate those concerns caused by the retail OS update issues. At least in the LTSC products you won't get a major feature update like CBB or retail Windows 10, and you can even disable Windows Update quite easily with no real concerns for the future. So far this has worked out. In the OEM channel at least, this is the way to go when it comes to Windows 10 in my opinion. People may be able to stay on Windows 7 in the Enterprise channel, but this won't last forever. Compatible CPUs are already taking a hike and those who are willing to stay on older versions of Windows (as noted in the Register article) are also going to be staying with older hardware. And if you are in need of a large amount of identical systems to run Windows 7, you'll be paying extra to accomplish this, as the distribution channels will run out of CPUs and people will have to hunt through the secondary market for them.

Welcome to the MSFN!

Similarly, TLS 1.0 and 1.1 will be taking a hike from updated browsers: https://twitter.com/agl__/status/1051933087699881984 The links to the specific articles if you don't want to use twitter: https://webkit.org/blog/8462/deprecation-of-legacy-tls-1-0-and-1-1-versions/ https://security.googleblog.com/2018/10/modernizing-transport-security.html https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2018/10/15/modernizing-tls-edge-ie11/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/10/15/removing-old-versions-of-tls/ So at some point in the future, expect more instances of browsers not being able to connect to network hardware. Besides the wireless router example that I used, also think about people using old DSL or cable modems as other examples.

Get ready to spent at least a half an hour digging through "Settings" turning stuff off.

There certainly is a concerted effort to silence people who have questions relating to 5G and the possible health concerns. So the information that I posted does not invalidate that. This guy from PC Magazine is just one and the most recent/well known example. The reasons are not know, but I think that it is because it is fashionable to do so. The easy road of branding a person with a question as a nut or a conspiracy theorist instead of just answering these questions honestly and include data that can be verified by the appropriate scientific community. If government or corporations would just do this, it will ease the minds of everyone else that has a question or doubt who doesn't think that the government is being secretly run by space lizards.

The link you posted has been removed. It seems not to be spam, as in, it isn't selling anything, but its content is aggregated on many other of those useless/generic blog/websites and there isn't really anything of value there. Just to say it recommended Kapersky as #1 in all of the reviews. There has been some time since when this thread was made and the results of the poll may not be accurate to today. Someone who uses NOD32 would need to chime in on this, as it is the run-away winner... I personally still do not use any antivirus, besides Windows Defender that is built into the OS.

If you don't want to boot off the old HDD, go into the BIOS and manually set the boot order. If you never want to be able to boot from that disk again, even on original or compatible hardware, you'll have to remove its booting ability.

In the United States, there are signage on or near existing 4G or 4G LTE transmitters, it looks like this: An actual (stock) photo example: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/B6P4B3/a-sign-warning-about-radio-frequency-fields-B6P4B3.jpg The statue that the sign claims to be in compliance with is this, but as with all law-speak, I can't really see where it says a sign is required. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/1.1307 Addtionally, here is the section with technical details regarding Maximum Permissible Exposure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/1.1310 Safe distance isn't determined by any specific number, or general guideline. It wholly depends on the equipment, the power, etc. So the distances can vary greatly. I found a slide from a presentation that breaks down one company's approach to the different measurements and which type of signage to post. But these values only really exist within the same height of the transmitter. If you want a visualization of the general un-safe area, look up Fresnel Zone. As long as this area does not overlap with places where people are, there shouldn't be any issues in regards to health due to to the power in the air. The system is not designed to transmit to the ground, only through the air. As such, it is expected that even directly below the transmitter, any measured readings should be well within the safe zone, same as existing 4G and older setups. So the telecom company would only be able to put transmitters above houses. In my neighborhood, they would be fine to put them on the TOP of telephone poles because the heigh of a telephone poll is taller than the houses on my street. There are no three story or taller buildings. However, if they are placed somewhere between the top and say... the middle, this would put the 2nd floors of almost every house in the neighborhood into the broadcast zone and then that would be a real problem. I have seen some research on existing consumer 5G transmitters, and it seems there is around a 100 yard (300 foot, idk about meters) distance from the broadcast point in line of site to fall below that 20% example shown in the slide above. Of course, consumer transmitters and the ones used by telecoms may be totally different. More reading on this subject in general: http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/cellphoneqa.html

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.