[WIP] Windows Vista Extended Kernel

[ThePizzaHair]

 

is it compatible with Windows Vista Polish (and other languages)?

[win32]

6 minutes ago, DJMateuszKwarciany said:

is it compatible with Windows Vista Polish (and other languages)?

It should be. Each NT6 system file is applicable to all languages, with the mui files doing the hard work.

[docR]

17 hours ago, WinClient5270 said:

Awesome! Can confirm that your method is working for me here on 78 ESR

Can confirm here on ESR 68.10 too

Edit:

And here's Waterfox Classic 2020.07

Edit: Still getting playback errors with Netflix, despite Widevine component being installed and enabled. Will try a user agent spoof with W7 or W8's user agent and see if that changes anything.

Edited July 27, 2020 by docR

[docR]

Finally after some UI tweaking, here's a side by side comparison of Wf Classic and ESR 68 displaying the HTML5test. Classic looks a bit crisper because I enabled classic font rendering in Classic Theme Restorer.

(still not having any dice with widevine)

 

[asdf2345]

24 minutes ago, docR said:

Finally after some UI tweaking, here's a side by side comparison of Wf Classic and ESR 68 displaying the HTML5test. Classic looks a bit crisper because I enabled classic font rendering in Classic Theme Restorer.

(still not having any dice with widevine)

 

Seeing very different scores, even on Windows 7

Waterfox Current (Basically 68 ESR) is on the left, Waterfox Classic is on the right

Edited July 27, 2020 by asdf2345

[docR]

13 minutes ago, asdf2345 said:

Seeing very different scores, even on Windows 7

Waterfox Current (Basically 68 ESR) is on the left, Waterfox Classic is on the right

Yeah, I know what Current is. I just recently switched from it to Classic. That's quite unusual. I've seen the test glitch out before and not display everything it should before, resulting in a lower score. But just a thought. Do you have Klite installed for codecs? I think Ff/Wf uses system codecs, whereas Chromium uses its own. Is DRM playback support "widevine" enabled also? Furthermore I manually enabled ShadowDOM in Classic, which slightly elevates the score. It's currently flagged as experiment though so tread with caution. dom.webcomponents.enabled

One more crazy idea. I see you have a spoofed user agent. Maybe try disabling it for that domain? Wf Classic back when it was versioned "56.x" used to identify as Firefox 60, but that broke a lot of s%$&

Edit: one other thing. Do you have the Platform Update for Windows 7? I think it introduced new codecs. What's your patch level for 7 and Vista? My copy of 7 is patched up to 2018, Vista is patched to January 2020 with the subsequent Server updates.

Edited July 27, 2020 by docR

[asdf2345]

7 minutes ago, docR said:

Yeah, I know what Current is. I just recently switched from it to Classic. That's quite unusual. I've seen the test glitch out before and not display everything it should before, resulting in a lower score. But just a thought. Do you have Klite installed for codecs? I think Ff/Wf uses system codecs, whereas Chromium uses its own. Is DRM playback support "widevine" enabled also? Furthermore I manually enabled ShadowDOM in Classic, which slightly elevates the score. It's currently flagged as experiment though so tread with caution. dom.webcomponents.enabled

One more crazy idea. I see you have a spoofed user agent. Maybe try disabling it for that domain? Wf Classic back when it was versioned "56.x" used to identify as Firefox 60, but that broke a lot of s%$&

ShadowDOM raised it to 443, but that breaks compatibility with virustotal, so I don't enable it. I also don't spoof my useragent, and I even created a useragent override in about:config for Firefox 56, and it still said I ran Firefox 60

Edit: I don't think I've ever used Klite, and I don't use widevine

Edited July 27, 2020 by asdf2345

[docR]

2 minutes ago, asdf2345 said:

ShadowDOM raised it to 443, but that breaks compatibility with virustotal, so I don't enable it. I also don't spoof my useragent, and I even created a useragent override in about:config for Firefox 56, and it still said I ran Firefox 60

.......Yeah I just observed that. Now we know what they meant by partial shadowDOM support

K try this. Search for general.useragent.override or whatever, right click and reset it. Then try again. It should not be reporting as Firefox 60, not for that website anyway. Do you have any privacy extensions besides uBo? Sometimes they alter or randomize user agents to make fingerprinting/tracking more difficult. Disable tracking protection too if you have an adblocker, they can conflict.

If nothing more there.... Create new profiles for each. And again make sure you have that platform update on 7. And again patch Vista at least until its April 2017 EOL.

Also, if you could do me a solid. Search mf.dll and mfplat.dll

right click -> properties. What are their fileversions?

[asdf2345]

5 minutes ago, docR said:

.......Yeah I just observed that. Now we know what they meant by partial shadowDOM support

K try this. Search for general.useragent.override or whatever, right click and reset it. Then try again. It should not be reporting as Firefox 60, not for that website anyway. Do you have any privacy extensions besides uBo? Sometimes they alter or randomize user agents to make fingerprinting/tracking more difficult. Disable tracking protection too if you have an adblocker, they can conflict.

If nothing more there.... Create new profiles for each. And again make sure you have that platform update on 7. And again patch Vista at least until its April 2017 EOL.

Also, if you could do me a solid. Search mf.dll and mfplat.dll

right click -> properties. What are their fileversions?

I don't spoof useragents with addons, I use general.useragent.override, and that's what I tried using to make the website identify me as Firefox 56. I do have some privacy extensions, but as far as I know, uMatrix and Privacy Settings don't change the useragent. Also, I'm not going to bother disabling everything to get like 40 or so more points on a test that I don't care for.

I'm running a not really up to date copy of 7, so the dlls might be a bit older, but they both have the version of 12.0.7601.23471 for me. I checked the ones in C:\Windows\System32

Edited July 27, 2020 by asdf2345

[docR]

5 minutes ago, asdf2345 said:

I don't spoof useragents with addons, I use general.useragent.override, and that's what I tried using to make the website identify me as Firefox 56. I do have some privacy extensions, but as far as I know, uMatrix and Privacy Settings don't change the useragent. Also, I'm not going to bother disabling everything to get like 40 or so more points on a test that I don't care for.

I'm running a not really up to date copy of 7, so the dlls might be a bit older, but they both have the version of 12.0.7601.23471 for me. I checked the ones in C:\Windows\System32

Fair enough. Tho if you want to port back Media Foundation codecs to Vista, you really should extract them from post-platform update 7. For ref my fileversion is 12.0.7601.23896. Then just change the major/minor versions in CFF Explorer from NT 6.1 to 6.0.

[asdf2345]

Are there any x86 pre-compiled files? I'd really like to try getting Discord working on Vista, and I have a pre-Chromium 73 copy.

[win32]

12 minutes ago, asdf2345 said:

Are there any x86 pre-compiled files? I'd really like to try getting Discord working on Vista, and I have a pre-Chromium 73 copy.

There's an x86 kernel32.dll, but it's far from ready. The only thing that has worked with it so far is the versions of oCam that didn't work natively on Vista (just needed SetThreadErrorMode). But now it does so it's a moot point.

[asdf2345]

5 hours ago, docR said:

Fair enough. Tho if you want to port back Media Foundation codecs to Vista, you really should extract them from post-platform update 7. For ref my fileversion is 12.0.7601.23896. Then just change the major/minor versions in CFF Explorer from NT 6.1 to 6.0.

What about the two other files you mentioned in a earlier message? msmpeg2adec.dll and msmpeg2vdec.dll?

Also, I've found mf.dll and mfplat.dll files with a version of 12.0.7601.24460, would those work?

Edited July 28, 2020 by asdf2345

[WindowsVista]

Thank you very much for creating this extedned kernel update Win32.

Windows Vista finally has a brighter future with better program compatibility.

However, when I tried to launch Roblox to test to see if that runs, I get an error message regarding a missing function in ntdll.dll and kernel32.dll

I believe the ntdll.dll was due to the fact I may have made an error whilst changing certain stuff in cff explorer.

However, I have nothing to complain about since this project is only in its alpha stage.

I was just stating this as a possible suggestion.

Best regards.

[asdf2345]

Just now, WindowsVista said:

Thank you very much for creating this extedned kernel update Win32.

Windows Vista finally has a brighter future with better program compatibility.

However, when I tried to launch Roblox to test to see if that runs, I get an error message regarding a missing function in ntdll.dll and kernel32.dll

I believe the ntdll.dll was due to the fact I may have made an error whilst changing certain stuff in cff explorer.

However, I have nothing to complain about since this project is only in its alpha stage.

I was just stating this as a possible suggestion.

Best regards.

Roblox is probably a x86 application. If it is, that's why you get the error