Jump to content

Root Certificates and Revoked Certificates for Windows XP

heinoganda

By heinoganda
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts


dencorso

dencorso

Posted
Posted

As of recent months, I've been noticing all browsers in general are using more memory than before, on x86 (= 32-bit) OSes. This is valid not only for Basilisk 52 (a recent one from @roytam1, of course) / the old, good, FF esr 52.9.1 / 360chrome v12 on XPSP3, but also for the old, good, FF esr 52.9.1 / IE 11 ( :puke: ) / Chrome  93.0.4577.63 on 7 Ultimate SP1 x86, on various machnes. In particular, Chrome  93.0.4577.63 on 7 Ultimate SP1 x86 has now the habit of giving the infamous '"Aw, snap" and "not enough memory"' errors before crashing and burning, then accepting to display the same page that led to the error without issue, on restarting Chrome. All that said, it occurred to me you might have had a broser open when you updated the certificates and got the error, @Dave-H, and, if so, the culprit would probably be the browser itself, not heinoganda's program. Just a theory, of course, but it might as well actually be the right explanation for what you saw. If so, we'll see more like events in the near future, I'm afraid. Obviously, by now, every webpage developer presumes everybody and their aunt have x64 OSes and plenty memory available to hold heaps of bloat their bad programming may throw at their users. :crazy::wacko:

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roytam1

roytam1

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, dencorso said:

As of recent months, I've been noticing all browsers in general are using more memory than before, on x86 (= 32-bit) OSes. This is valid not only for Basilisk 52 (a recent one from @roytam1, of course) / the old, good, FF esr 52.9.1 / 360chrome v12 on XPSP3, but also for the old, good, FF esr 52.9.1 / IE 11 ( :puke: ) / Chrome  93.0.4577.63 on 7 Ultimate SP1 x86, on various machnes.

blame javascript for that.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Scienceman2000

Mr.Scienceman2000

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, dencorso said:

As of recent months, I've been noticing all browsers in general are using more memory than before, on x86 (= 32-bit) OSes. This is valid not only for Basilisk 52 (a recent one from @roytam1, of course) / the old, good, FF esr 52.9.1 / 360chrome v12 on XPSP3, but also for the old, good, FF esr 52.9.1 / IE 11 ( :puke: ) / Chrome  93.0.4577.63 on 7 Ultimate SP1 x86, on various machnes. In particular, Chrome  93.0.4577.63 on 7 Ultimate SP1 x86 has now the habit of giving the infamous '"Aw, snap" and "not enough memory"' errors before crashing and burning, then accepting to display the same page that led to the error without issue, on restarting Chrome

Some sites uses js that makes browser explode on 32bit. I have had similar issues on some sites recently. For example adding item to cart on certain stores makes browser lag like crazy. I usually block js but some sites for example stores need lot of js to even basic function. I have contacted them about site having too much js and they say "upgrade your hardware" as response. And many times site I am talking would not even need js to work if were coded properly.

6 hours ago, dencorso said:

Obviously, by now, every webpage developer presumes everybody and their aunt have x64 OSes and plenty memory available to hold heaps of bloat their bad programming may throw at their users. :crazy::wacko:

More like they assume everyone got 1gb/s fiber connection. Before sites used to have basic version to older browsers and modem users, then they were crippled off with bloated sites. 10mb worth scripts and other useless stuff in top of images and others may not be issue to many, but not all got high speed internet. Some areas I worked on got slow DSL and you are lucky even to have internet in cell network on that area and having bloated site as only option really makes life harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dencorso

dencorso

Posted
Posted

Well, I, for one, have already drawn my line in the sand:  7 Ultimate SP1 x86 and XPSP3 are my last MS OSes. For anything x64, I'm already using debian buster (which actually has no x86 version, only x64), And if the other side requires both Windows and x64, then, no, thanks, nothing they may have to offer is for me, period. Molon labe! 

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pangoomis

pangoomis

Posted
Posted

"unofficial" refers to inclusion of non-free binary firmware blobs for some hardware (you would know that if you read the info there), here's the official version (Debian Buster is Debian 10):

https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/10.10.0/i386/iso-dvd/

In fact, the latest Debian version (11, bullseye) still has the i386 version as sparty411 points out:

https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/i386/iso-dvd/

Official Debian website still prominently shows i386 as one of the available versions:

https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/index.en.html

Sorry for the off-topic, but dencorso is incorrect regarding Debian and 32-bit version availability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainyShadow

RainyShadow

Posted
Posted
On 9/15/2021 at 7:47 AM, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

More like they assume everyone got 1gb/s fiber connection.

I have exhausted my monthly traffic (100GB) at home and have been stuck at 256Kbit/s speed for almost a week now.

Loading even a basic-looking page sometimes can take ages.

I used to clear my browser cache several times a day before, but got to keep it currently to avoid at least some waiting.

Couple days more remaining until i'm (hopefully) back to normal speeds...

 

On 9/15/2021 at 9:01 AM, dencorso said:

I'm already using debian buster (which actually has no x86 version, only x64)

I updated my Debian Jessie to Buster some time ago, all works fine on my AthlonXP :P

 

On 8/11/2021 at 10:39 PM, Humming Owl said:

I know the author has been offline for a while and I would like asking anybody, who can answer, if it is possible for me to link (to the 360EE thread) his comment concerning this tool to solve the certificate problems that new people may have.

You can freely use this guide.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Scienceman2000

Mr.Scienceman2000

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

I have exhausted my monthly traffic (100GB) at home and have been stuck at 256Kbit/s speed for almost a week now.

Loading even a basic-looking page sometimes can take ages.

Well I used to have 3g connection with 20gb limit then fell to gprs speeds, definitely wont miss it and was happy to get better (more pricey) service plan. Funny how web bloat has increased. Back in day I was happy to 128kb/s connection which felt so much better than 56k and was fast even to many users. Biggest issue like I said is devs these days assumes all got same setup as they do and do not bother optimising. Site can be size of small video file JUST FOR TEXT!

One site that might be useful to check weather is wttr.in. It is minimal weather site. If you block js works even faster. Here example how it looks.

wttr.PNG.d59d577caa1dbc67a4269f9727eae07e.PNG

Just block JS and that loads blazing fast on any browser and connection. I can render that on my Nokia e90 communicator built in browser too. Also it got v2.wttr.in for detailed information and v3.wttr.in for weather map near your area.

For email use it over IMAP with offline copies of messages, it saves lot of bandwidth.

Despite I got 100mb/s connection at home I prefer minimise network usage so got bandwidth to things that actually needs it not to run soydev sites.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...