Tripredacus

XP is like a deity here, even our own forum owner has taken his name in honor of the beloved Windows XP! Is this a conversation about Windows XP being used in IT (read: in corporate/enterprise environment that often has to follow some sort of security regulations that XP cannot comply with) or people just using Windows XP for fun, hobbyist, specialized products or general home use? There are many valid arguments as for why XP should not be used in a corporate environment, and you can probably bet that any such instances of XP in those environments are going to be because they run specialized applications that do not work on modern systems. You can win that argument. I don't think you would if you started arguing against a person's personal habits.

You weren't forced to use IE in Windows in the 9x days either. If that were the case, no one would have ever heard about Opera or Netscape.

Which controller is the one that your single physical disk is connected to? You can easily tell by using a portable "Device Manager" type program and having it set to view by connection. The ASMedia ASM1061 (at least the original iteration, the PCI-E 1x card) did support XP, but there may be no actual relation to this onboard controller that came out years later. I can't easily find a driver for that controller without having to download a bunch of stuff and look inside. That sounds like a job for You! For the other thing (VEN_1022) I didn't delve too deep into it.

It is impossible to make two instances bit-identical, but in general terms it is possible under Active Directory using Group Policy.

End of support means absolutely nothing to people who don't install updates in the first place. And funny that the author of that doesn't know the product history of Windows Defender. Perhaps not, considering they think Windows 7 will become unusable after January 2020. And I still wonder why MS hasn't been brought to task by the antitrust folks regarding the fact that Windows has antivirus built-in.

The primary thing that determines if and how laws are put into place in the US is wholly dependent on money. That is why this ruling doesn't do anything against the manufacturers. They are still allowed to create DRM and the other things that impede RTR (Right to Repair) such as using proprietary components, hiding information behind paywalls and drawn out processes, etc. The ruling basically has only said that the manufacturer can no longer sue individuals or companies that will repair one of their products that they will not, or who would charge a lower price. Which was what some companies have been doing. But companies like Apple had no real claim to the actual repairs. They take action based on other things such as the breaking of DRM, or using ICE to confiscate parts. Apple likely isn't the only one who is active in doing things like this, but they are the one that is most well known to me.

The caveat on this is that while "DRM-breaking" is now allowed, the methods and software for that breaking is still illegal to distribute. You are allowed to do it yourself, figure it out yourself and even reverse engineer the software/hardware to accomplish this, but you cannot tell anyone how you did it or make available which programs you made or used to do it. Basically, the ruling has put repair shops partly under the umbrella of the original manufacturers of the hardware, but still leaves out the hobbyist. Due to the restrictions on the hows/whats this has put a larger hurdle to hobbyists or startups than had existed before. Because "those that know" now can't tell, and I suspect if anyone at a repair shop gets caught passing their knowledge off could bring legal trouble for them.

It is between Ctrl and Alt on the left, or between Alt and Context menu on the right. If you are not using a "Windows" keyboard, those keys will not be present and there may be a gap. If you are using an Apple keyboard, either of the Apple keys should work as the Windows key by default. Clarification: The Windows key has a picture of the Windows logo on it.

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.