Jump to content

Last versions of software for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008


WinClient5270

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

So where was it defined (and it was) that UXP wound NOT work under Vista? Because it seemed to create a lot of FUD.

 

moonchild did say vista wasnt compatible long time ago, but after he mentioned that their targetted kernel was 6 and above the questions were raised and he said "As for our support: support for features will be limited in Vista, but since it matches the minimum platform requirements there's no reason to change that on a per-application basis.
UXP applications including Basilisk and Pale Moon 28 should continue to run on Vista in the foreseeable future." as you can see for yourself if you wish to. So it should be supported probably but no one really knows what will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

But does the MP4 codecs work without installing LAV codecs?  Has anyone tried?  I know that Roytam1's v28 builds work.

Only with the 32 bit version of Pale Moon: 

HTpHRE8nTH_TJHQRo9J-cA.png

I'm not sure exactly when MSE & H.264 (Windows Media Foundation) compatibility was broken in Vista, but I've gone back all the way to v27.5.1 (released October 10, 2017) and the issue was persistent, along with the Directwrite issue. Roy's builds fix the WMF compatibility problem, but not the Directwrite problem.

As for Pale Moon 28 (still in beta), it doesn't work in Vista, at all. This could change in the future, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. 

Edited by WinClient5270
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WinClient5270 said:

Only with the 32 bit version of Pale Moon: 

As for Pale Moon 28 (still in beta), it doesn't work in Vista, at all. This could change in the future, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. 

So here's what we know.  Roytam1's builds of New Moon 28 x64 work and can use MP4 codecs out of the box.  But Pale Moon 28 Beta does NOT work at all, despite Moonchild saying to the contrary.

:o

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

So here's what we know.  Roytam1's builds of New Moon 28 x64 work and can use MP4 codecs out of the box.  But Pale Moon 28 Beta does NOT work at all, despite Moonchild saying to the contrary.

:o

 

all we can do is wait and hope that moonchild supports vista as he himself clearly knows that vista and 7 are alike and little to no work is needed to get it working if im correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dencorso said:

Don't hold your breath, though...  :angel

well moonchild claimed that we could see vista support for the future he also said basilisk and palemoon 28 would work so i dont know why he wouldnt do it :}

Edited by burd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If just K32* functions are needed for Pale Moon to launch on Vista, then PSAPI_VERSION=1 should be added to Preprocessor Definitions and the Minimum Required Version setting value changed to 6.00 or just deleted since Vista should still be the Visual Studio's default target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, burd said:

so i dont know why he wouldnt do it 

Because he couldn't care less. Then again, we have @roytam1's PM mods already, which do work fine, and he's committed to keep 'em coming and to give 'em support... reason enough, IMO, for us all to ignore moonchild, instead of caring for what he thinks/wants/will actually do. My 2¢, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had been otherwise occupied all day long, so only recently skimmed through the numerous MSFN e-mail notifications on this subject... :P My input:

On 6/27/2018 at 5:45 PM, Jody Thornton said:

Seems Moonchild has different ideas on Pale Moon 28 support for Vista.

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19524

It appears now that (despite features being limited on Vista)
that Pale Moon 28 WILL run. Perhaps Basilisk won't, but Pale Moon will.

Moonchild wrote:

Quote

UXP applications, including Basilisk and Pale Moon 28 should continue to run on Vista in the foreseeable future.

Really? English is not my mother tongue, but doesn't "should continue" imply they are currently able to run on Vista? 

This is the furthest thing from the truth! :realmad:

On 6/27/2018 at 9:15 PM, Jody Thornton said:

So where was it defined (and it was) that UXP wound NOT work under Vista?

Lots of places inside their forum; I did a quick search and I came up, amongst others, with:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15806

Quote

The platform will not support Windows XP or Vista.
Considering Vista is past end-of-life, it's unwise to still target this O.S. with a new platform.

This was when Moebius/UXP-T1 was forked from a Mozilla Platform 53.0a1 code snapshot; that snapshot was already devoid of any residual XP/Vista OS support, as the good (:angry:) guys over at Mozilla had already excised all relevant  code... MC team did absolutely nothing to restore at least partial Vista support...

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=114825#p114825

Quote

Supporting an O.S. that has no lifetime overlap with what is being developed is not a smart thing to do (... refers to Vista).
That has nothing to do with support for an O.S. that has 3 years of lifetime overlap with the platform (and in all respects has much less of a technological gap with continued support O.S.es coming after it). (... refers to 7).

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=18253

(Basilisk and Windows Vista; I urge you to read the entire thread ;) , but I've selected the following part:)

Quote

Unfortunately UXP's code base is already at this point very likely to be technically incompatible with Vista. This may yet be 1 or 2 things at the moment, but that number will only go up. Is it smart in that case to allow installation on an OS that we know is incompatible?
This also has little to do with Servo and Rust, if anything at all. There are plenty of components in our tree that are calling into operating system hooks. Even more so, to make things compatible with Vista you'd also have to send subsystem 6.0 signals to the windows SDK in use -- which inherently means that 6.1+ specific structures and features will not be used.
There is no way to do that without incurring a cost for supported operating systems there. As such if you want to do this, then yes, forking is the ONLY proper solution. The key points are that this "We don't support X" is not because of any arbitrary decision not to do so that would otherwise not have a cost -- there is always a specific reason beyond "it's EoL because the vendors said so".

Officially released Basilisk 55.x.x.x was never compatible with Vista; by pure luck (or negligence on their part), the compiler flags were such that lowering the subsystem value of the executables (6.1 -> 6.0) would allow for them to run on the Vista kernel, but OS integration was suboptimal; non-existing code targeting Vista resulted in WMF (and possibly other parts, e.g. EME, aka Widevine DRM plugin) being broken! :angry::realmad:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=132054#p132054

Quote

WE ARE However, going to drop Vista shortly after its end of life.
Unified XUL Platform will NOT Support Windows Vista. Thus, Pale Moon 28 won't support Vista. There are reasons BEYOND it's end of life that went into that.

And when in the start of spring this year they ditched Moebius in favour of UXP-T2 (now just UXP), they forked a Mozilla 52 ESR platform with full XP+Vista support and what was the first thing they did? Meticulously removed all that support (as it's always easier to delete existing code than write new one...).  Are we to believe that MC has just now had a sudden change of heart and he's willing to devote precious coding time to undoing the Vista massacre?  I'm not that gullible... :angry:

What's worse, in official Basilisk 52 + Pale Moon 28, they have amended their compiler flags/optimisations to fully ignore NT 6.0 (Vista/Server 2008); this has been already documented previously in this thread by esteemed member @WinClient5270, but it was also the result of my own tests weeks ago, when the first official builds were publicly released...

7 hours ago, UCyborg said:

If just K32* functions are needed for Pale Moon to launch on Vista, then PSAPI_VERSION=1 should be added to Preprocessor Definitions and the Minimum Required Version setting value changed to 6.00 or just deleted since Vista should still be the Visual Studio's default target.

Unfortunately, it's more than those... Inspecting latest (official) PaleMoon_unstable-28.0.0b1.en-US.win32[buildID=20180625093249] package with dependency walker, I am disheartened; focusing on just xul.dll module,  this has calls to 6 missing functions in kernel32.dll

GetCurrentProcessorNumberEx
K32EnumProcessModules
K32GetModuleFileNameExW
K32GetProcessImageFileNameW
K32GetProcessMemoryInfo
K32QueryWorkingSet

and to 2 missing functions in shell32.dll

SHGetPropertyStoreForWindow
SetCurrentProcessExplicitAppUserModelID

Main executable (palemoon.exe) has lesser issues, of course I wasn't bothered to check other DLLs... -_-

Similar results are obtained with official Bk52 releases...

And I emphasise again, it isn't only compilation configuration that needs to be changed to target Vista, it's actual browser code that needs to be rewritten to accommodate a fully functional, Vista compatible, application...

Will Moonchild deliver? I think not... (and until PM 28 "stable" gets released in the final quarter of 2018, Vista user-base will have dropped even lower to merit his support considerations...) 

@WinClient5270, if memory serves right, I recollect you having registered previously in the Pale Moon forums (about an issue with Visual Studio 2013 dlls affecting PM 64-bit, that I had identified for you...); perhaps the best way to clear the FUD once and for all would be to post in the linked thread (by Jody) and ask plain and simple what MC's definitive decisions are; not his thoughts/intentions, but if he's actually determined to support Vista in PM28 (at least in the same level he supported Vista in PM27); please don't hesitate to convey some of my reservations/points I raised here :rolleyes:; full WMF+MSE support on both 32-bit/64-bit Vista architectures would be a must; UXP (unlike Tycho) is suitable for that, if they're willing to undo the damage they did to it  concerning Vista; these days, noone wants a browser that won't play back embedded audio-visual content...

Here's hoping...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2018 at 9:34 PM, WinClient5270 said:

_aLUhWnoRYyHNLy19UHRuw.png

Windows 95 says when the subsystem version in executable file's header is higher than OS version that this program expects a newer Windows version, but NT systems say that it's not a valid application.

I wonder why is that. Maybe due to the fact that NT could/can historically run on different CPU architectures and they just put the same error regardless whether it's just version mismatch or CPU for which the EXE was compiled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 9:53 PM, VistaLover said:

@WinClient5270, if memory serves right, I recollect you having registered previously in the Pale Moon forums (about an issue with Visual Studio 2013 dlls affecting PM 64-bit, that I had identified for you...); perhaps the best way to clear the FUD once and for all would be to post in the linked thread (by Jody) and ask plain and simple what MC's definitive decisions are; not his thoughts/intentions, but if he's actually determined to support Vista in PM28 (at least in the same level he supported Vista in PM27); please don't hesitate to convey some of my reservations/points I raised here :rolleyes:; full WMF+MSE support on both 32-bit/64-bit Vista architectures would be a must; UXP (unlike Tycho) is suitable for that, if they're willing to undo the damage they did to it  concerning Vista; these days, noone wants a browser that won't play back embedded audio-visual content...

Yes, that's correct. The VS 2013 issue happened around this time last year, and Moonchild fixed it, no questions asked. 

I will post in the thread that Jody linked when I get a chance, probably tomorrow sometime. I highly doubt Moonchild will put any extra effort into supporting Vista. From what I've seen, his mentality is basically "it either works, or it doesn't... we're not going to support it if it breaks". However, like you pointed out, it's strange that he said that Basilisk/PM 28 should continue to run on Vista, because they've never ran on it to begin with. Basilisk only worked after I modified it with PEMaker, however after version 2018.03.21, it began requiring Windows 7+ exclusive functions so that was the end of the line. Perhaps Moonchild's statement signals a possible restoration of Vista support in a future beta of Pale Moon 28? I doubt it, but I guess we'll find out -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to get the latest version of ShareX (screen capture software) working in Windows Vista:

  • NOTE: This method is confirmed working as of JUNE 2018. It could stop working with any given update to the software, as Windows Vista is not officially supported.
  • This method was originally discovered and documented by MSFN member @VistaLover earlier this year. However, the June 1, 2018 server crashes have caused his post to get deleted, so I'll be re-documenting his method in this post.
  • You must have Microsoft .NET Framework 4.6.1 installed for this to work. You can download it here.

1. Visit this page and download the latest portable version of ShareX (12.2 is the current version at the time of writing this).

2. After downloading, extract the .ZIP file you downloaded and open the resulting folder.

3. Open "ShareX.exe.config" file with Notepad. It should look like this:

lHdfC4RkQB_lRgJvh_1Evg.png

4. Change ".NETFramework,Version=v4.6.2" to 4.6.1

5. Save the changes you made to the file, and close Notepad.

6. Open ShareX, and it should now work just fine in Windows Vista! :D

a5RxpG0eSRqpGmCU-zao3A.png

Edited by WinClient5270
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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