Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


WinClient5270

Last versions of software for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008

Recommended Posts

On 9/7/2020 at 8:08 AM, surrodox2001 said:

http://foobar2000.org/changelog

Since the changelog doesn't say about touch, so yeah you make mod the exe to make it work on vista.

 

PS: I wonder what other applications that make use of bogus functions (functions that don't get used in the program) to break compatibility?

Touch functionality was already implemented in older versions, they just use load-time linking instead of run-time linking to those functions now because they're guaranteed to be available on Windows 7+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Virtualization Software, Oracle VM VirtualBox is listed as ONG; but a post at another forum strongly suggests that is no longer true for Vista (and perhaps not even for Windows 7). VB only supports 64-bit hosts now, so my old Vista rig isn’t suitable for testing. If anyone can identify the last version for vanilla Vista, please post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vistapocalypse said:

Under Virtualization Software, Oracle VM VirtualBox is listed as ONG; but a post at another forum strongly suggests that is no longer true for Vista (and perhaps not even for Windows 7). VB only supports 64-bit hosts now, so my old Vista rig isn’t suitable for testing. If anyone can identify the last version for vanilla Vista, please post.

Virtualbox 6.1 is running fine on updated vista install. Maybe he didnt have platform update installed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jaguarek62 said:

Virtualbox 6.1 is running fine on updated vista install. Maybe he didnt have platform update installed?

Thanks for posting so promptly! If you have tried the very latest 6.1.14 released September 4, then case closed: False alarm:blushing: Documentation regarding supported host operating systems was reportedly updated with 6.1.0, so any support for Vista x64 is unofficial now. The poster has a Pentium T3200 that may not support virtualization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

Thanks for posting so promptly! If you have tried the very latest 6.1.14 released September 4, then case closed: False alarm:blushing: Documentation regarding supported host operating systems was reportedly updated with 6.1.0, so any support for Vista x64 is unofficial now. The poster has a Pentium T3200 that may not support virtualization.

Yes, in fact here is screenshot for proof https://ibb.co/kMh6cpw

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaguarek62 said:

Yes, in fact here is screenshot for proof https://ibb.co/kMh6cpw

OK, VirtualBox support for Vista x64 is definitely still ONG! Now I notice the old Windows Defender icon on your system tray, and it looks like definitions need to be updated. If you are running build 6003 with SHA-2 support, then it should be possible to manually install definitions by downloading file mpas-fe from Microsoft. Does that still work for you in September 2020?

Edited by Vistapocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vistapocalypse said:

Now I notice the old Windows Defender icon on your system tray, and it looks like definitions need to be updated. If you are running build 6003 with SHA-2 support, then it should be possible to manually install definitions by downloading file mpas-fe from Microsoft. Does that still work for you in September 2020?

... Impatience is not actually a virtue, at least not by me... :P You've also asked me practically the same thing last Sunday:

On 9/13/2020 at 7:09 AM, Vistapocalypse said:

It looks like you were able to manually install definition version 1.321.787.0 created on August 6, 2020. Are you still able to manually install mpas-fe files? I only ask because of an AskWoody thread Defender updates no longer install on Vista, much of which sounds like baloney to me

In fact, I had already scheduled a detailed reply tackling the WD-on-Vista situation, but due to other things I'm into currently (coupled with an emergency visit to the dentist's :angry: ), that reply has been delayed... More to come when I find the time... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 1:44 AM, VistaLover said:

More to come when I find the time... ;)

@Vistapocalypse : A teaser/taster for now:

3pHqLqJ.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, so I finally got my MSFN account created. Today (or Sep 14, 2020, which is 2 days before) is a sad day for a Vista user on VMWare Workstation Player.

VMWare Tools 11.1.0 is no longer supporting Windows Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2, according to this documentation. https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-Tools/11.1/rn/VMware-Tools-1110-Release-Notes.html

What's more by adding salt to the wound, I just updated VMWare Workstation Player to 16.0.0 today, with corresponding hardware version number updated (by modifying .vmx file, changing virtualHW.version variable to "18"). Then I've found out DirectX 11 virtual hardware cannot be equipped on a Windows Vista guest, despite it supports DX11. :(

Capture4.JPG.47d6049bfd1e774254edc12cd43d3eb0.JPG

Capture5.JPG.c059b73647d916711225c37679f97106.JPG

image.png.a439b3684c6d31b3ffce67e63b75d969.png

 

I guess this is a farewell from VMWare dev team to Windows Vista. Those who run Windows 7/8/8.1/10 and corresponding server builds on VMWare Workstation as a guest could celebrate and cheer for DX11 support, but that party door shut for Vista / Server 2008 original users permanently. :(

 

Here are some additional information on DX11 support for VMWare Workstation 16: https://blogs.vmware.com/workstation/2020/05/directx-11-now-with-workstation-tp20h2.html

 

Edited by g_m_1990_
Minor screenshot changes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, VistaLover said:

@Vistapocalypse : A teaser/taster for now:

3pHqLqJ.jpg

Obviously you were able to install new definitions, but are you hinting that an older engine must be used now because M$ introduced one that is incompatible with Vista?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vistapocalypse said:

are you hinting that an older engine must be used now because M$ introduced one that is incompatible with Vista?

YES :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

YES :yes:

In that case I upgraded my reaction to your post. :worship: I wonder if they have done the same thing to MSE (as they once did for XP). I don’t plan on using either of them myself, but I’m sure someone will want some instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

I wonder if they have done the same thing to MSE (as they once did for XP)

MSE offline definitions file (mpam-fe.exe) and WD offline definitions file (mpas-fe.exe) both share the same engine, file mpengine.dll (currently at version 1.1.1730.5); no need to wonder anymore... :P

Edited by VistaLover
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

MSE offline definitions file (mpam-fe.exe) and WD offline definitions file (mpas-fe.exe) both share the same engine, file mpengine.dll (curently at version 1.1.1730.5); no need to wonder anymore... :P

@SIW2 might be interested in this development, since he still thinks MSE 4.4 is fit for use on Vista. (I do not.)

I actually have a TLS question about old Chromium browsers in general and Yandex 17 in particular: Is it the case that Yandex 17 only supports TLS 1.2 insofar as there is systemwide support for the protocol, i.e. insofar as Vista users have followed in your footsteps with respect to adding TLS 1.1 and 1.2 support for IE9? (I’ve tried googling.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 6:53 PM, Vistapocalypse said:

I actually have a TLS question about old Chromium browsers in general and Yandex 17 in particular: Is it the case that Yandex 17 only supports TLS 1.2 insofar as there is systemwide support for the protocol, i.e. insofar as Vista users have followed in your footsteps with respect to adding TLS 1.1 and 1.2 support for IE9?

I'll remind people here that I'm not actually an authority on Google Chrome and Chromium derived browsers, having been from the very start a Mozilla Firefox user, first (2005-2008) on a WinXP desktop and then (2008-2018?) on this Vista laptop... This is to clarify that I haven't followed closely Chromium's development during that era... :(

I've learned quite a few things from XP users of Chrome 49, and it's true that specific [old] version (officially the EoS one for XP/Vista) does rely on OS resources/libraries for secure connections (which involve both available TLS protocols and available cypher suites).

Contrary to what Google (the No.1 enemy of the Vista OS, by far :realmad: ) believed, WinVista != WinXP, so having a fully updated Vista SP2 OS with TLS 1.2 support will grant you more accessible websites using Chrome 49 on Vista, thanks to Vista supporting more cypher suites by default and, on top of that, having SNI support that WinXP lacks... But all this is probably a moot point already, because Chrome 49's rendering engine is antiquated by now... To conclude, yes, Chromium 49 can only go up-to TLS v1.2 on an updated Vista system (with KBs targeting WS2008 originally :whistle: )

At some point further down its development, Chromium disengaged to a degree from OS libs where TLS support is concerned, so that Chromium 57/58, upon which Yandex Browser (YB) 17.4/17.6 builds, comes with bundled/native support for the TLS protocol.

I haven't used YB 17.6 (portable) here for many months, having long ago switched, first to 360EE v11 (Chromium 69 based), then to 360EE v12 (Chromium 78 based) and currently testing (beta channel of) 360EE v13 (Chromium 86 based). YB 17.x has other significant shortcomings by now, affecting Google Web Store (GWS) support :(, but that is part of a future post about YB 17.x ... :P

By default, YB 17.6 supports TLS 1.0+1.1+1.2, provided by its own (Chromium) libs (i.e. non-dependent on OS TLS support, kinda like Firefox); but there is latent TLS 1.3 support, too, which can be enabled via a browser flag;

OXyldmw.jpg

The problem is that YB 17.6 was released at a time when TLS 1.3 hadn't been finalised yet, so it only supports a TLS 1.3 draft preceding the final one (i.e. RFC8446)

Testing on dedicated TLS testing sites you get mixed results, depending on whether the test site detects pre-final TLS 1.3 drafts or not; SSL Labs client test picks up pre-final TLS 1.3:

j40jmLU.jpg

... but Browserleaks

MyqziUl.jpg

... and pinterjann DO NOT!

DKb55hQ.jpg

As a closing note, if you want to disable lower, deemed currently insecure, versions of TLS, you can launch YB via a shortcut containing the following flag:

--ssl-version-min=tls1.2

or

--ssl-version-min=tls1.1

if you want to disable just TLS 1.0 ...

Edited by VistaLover
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...