Jump to content

Last versions of software for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008


WinClient5270

Recommended Posts


8 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

I infer that you have not tried Supermium on Vista x86, correct me if I’m wrong. The extent of your PC collection is rather OT.

I didn't, and I think I don't intend to. 3 or 3.5 GB of RAM isn't enough by any standards for the internet browsing. Supermium opens up a lot of processes. Wonder what they are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Browsing with low-RAM machines strikes me as common practice among MSFN members. I personally often browse with a smartphone with 32-bit ARMv7 CPU and 1 GB of RAM (obviously Android instead of Windows). Few bloated sites are the problem. Also have a laptop with 2 GB of RAM, runs 32-bit Win10, still fine for casual browsing. Not for the tab hoarders, of course.

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

Supermium opens up a lot of processes. Wonder what they are?

Tabs, extensions, various utility processes. The type is specified in process' command line observable by a program like Process Hacker, but for more details, one may need to study the browser's source code. Supermium apparently brings back --single-process command-line argument, so you might be able to make it run in single process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

3 or 3.5 GB of RAM isn't enough by any standards for the internet browsing.

You could try changing the BIOS setting to "allow memory remap:ON", it will give you 300mb of additional RAM for Supermim on a 32bit OS.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Tabs, extensions, various utility processes.

It's still way too many, comparing to other ports of Chrome that work on Vista without the EX-kernel. I was shocked by the screenshot, honestly, but anyways, maybe the dude is just a huge fan of running 255 extensions all at once, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, D.Draker said:

You could try changing the BIOS setting to "allow memory remap:ON", it will give you 300mb of additional RAM for Supermim on a 32bit OS.:D

Thanks, very good advice! So far, I only tried on a laptop that came with Vista x86, it doesn't have that setting, but my MSI mobo does, it freed up approx. 348 megs, I also switched off the internal graphics, thank you!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Supermium apparently brings back --single-process command-line argument, so you might be able to make it run in single process.

Thanks, people there wrote it slows down it to a crawl, but maybe they don't have a strong core CPU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

NortonLifeLock has announced that they will stop supporting Norton Security v22.15.x products on Vista and other older OSs that do not support SHA-2 code signing as of 22-May-2024.  See employee Gayathri_R's 01-Mar-2024 announcement End-of-Life announcement for Norton security software on Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7 (SP0) for more information. Note that Win 7 SP0 is Win 7 without Service Pack 1.

NortonLifeLock threatened to end support for Norton Security v22.15.x a few years ago and reversed their decision after customers complained but I think they intend to stick to the 22-May-2024 end-of-life date this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lmacri said:

NortonLifeLock has announced that they will stop supporting Norton Security v22.15.x products on Vista and other older OSs that do not support SHA-2 code signing as of 22-May-2024.  See employee Gayathri_R's 01-Mar-2024 announcement End-of-Life announcement for Norton security software on Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7 (SP0) for more information. Note that Win 7 SP0 is Win 7 without Service Pack 1.

NortonLifeLock threatened to end support for Norton Security v22.15.x a few years ago and reversed their decision after customers complained but I think they intend to stick to the 22-May-2024 end-of-life date this time.

Vista and Server 2008, they both support SHA-2 officially.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/2019-sha-2-code-signing-support-requirement-for-windows-and-wsus-64d1c82d-31ee-c273-3930-69a4cde8e64f

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dixel said:

Vista and Server 2008, they both support SHA-2 officially.

... That's NOT accurate to say :no: ; while both OSes are NT 6.0, per your linked documentation: 

Quote

we have changed the signing of Windows updates to use the more secure SHA-2 algorithm exclusively. This change was done in phases starting in April 2019 through September 2019 to allow for smooth migration (see the "Product update schedule" section for more details on the changes).

Customers who run legacy OS versions (Windows 7 SP1, Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 SP2) are required to have SHA-2 code signing support installed on their devices to install updates released on or after July 2019. Any devices without SHA-2 support will not be able to install Windows updates on or after July 2019. To help prepare you for this change, we released support for SHA-2 signing in starting March 2019
...

Starting in early 2019, the migration process to SHA-2 support began in stages, and support will be delivered in standalone updates. Microsoft is targeting the following schedule to offer SHA-2 support.
...
 April 9, 2019

Stand Alone update, KB4493730 that introduce SHA-2 code sign support for the servicing stack (SSU) was released as a security update.

Windows Server 2008 SP2

Windows Vista SP2 x86 & x64 Official Extended Support was EoL'ed on Apr 11th, 2017 ;) 

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-vista

It is indeed true that the WS 2008 SP2 targeting updates released some two years after Vista's official End of Extended Support can be installed manually on the OS and bestow SHA-2 support on it, but this practice isn't considered "official" by either the vendor (Microsoft) or the rest of the third party vendors (Norton in this case ;) ) ...

Kindest regards :P ...

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, VistaLover said:

... That's NOT accurate to say :no: ; while both OSes are NT 6.0, per your linked documentation: 

Windows Vista SP2 x86 & x64 Official Extended Support was EoL'ed on Apr 11th, 2017 ;) 

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-vista

It is indeed true that the WS2008SP2 targeting updates released some two years after Vista's official End of Extended Support can be installed manually on the OS and bestow it with SHA-2 support, but this practice isn't considered "official" by either the vendor (Microsoft) or the rest of the third party vendors (Norton in this case ;) ) ...

Kindest regards :P ...

No, you're wrong, please do some proper research before posting. For example, here's what WatchGuard tells us *officially*, I'm sorry for choosing official statements over your opinion.

Kindest regards :P .

"Update Required to Support SHA-256 Signed Drivers

Applies To: WatchGuard Advanced EPDR, WatchGuard EPDR, WatchGuard EDR, WatchGuard EPP, WatchGuard EDR Core

To keep security software up-to-date, the workstation or server must support SHA-256 driver signing. Some versions of Windows do not include this feature by default and you must update them£

"Windows Platform: Windows Vista x86 Windows Vista x64 SP2"

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...