Jump to content

[WIP] Windows Vista Extended Kernel


win32

Recommended Posts


BEX errors usually tell that you have a non-Pentium CPU or a CPU made after 2008. They did some nasty stuff to the iCore family processors. Some "antivirus" or copy protections added to the CPU ?

I have examples where certain software works on Pentiums (including Haswell) while throws this exact error on iCore family (even on the 1st iCore gen.).

That's why I try to avoid the stupid "iCore" , it's defo NOT for hackers , lol . Some AMD may work OK , but not the modern ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, D.Draker said:

BEX errors usually tell that you have a non-Pentium CPU or a CPU made after 2008

Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 was released in Q1'09, so, yeah. The error does not appear in default Vista kernel, anyway.

3 hours ago, D.Draker said:

Some "antivirus" or copy protections added to the CPU ?

'Execute Disable Bit', or NX bit. It has nothing to do with copy protections or antiviruses.

Edited by SigmaTel71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SigmaTel71 said:

 It has nothing to do with copy protections or antiviruses.

This is where you are dead wrong . Intel has plenty of nasty stuff backed into their CPUs for a long time . 

"The software protection" ..."unique application isolation technology"..."remote attestation is an important "security" feature"

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/tools/software-guard-extensions/overview.html

Now ,as an example, we could look at some random cheapest CPU from the early 2015 which already got it !

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/88179/intel-pentium-processor-g4400-3m-cache-3-30-ghz/specifications.html

And this is only a tiny part that they told us officially . Who knows what other crap they backed in ...

And don't forget about the dreaded IntelME.

"Intel® Identity Protection Technology" -allows to create your unique fingerprint , for example used in browsers.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/645981/intel-identity-protection-technology-based-token-provider-for-rsa-securid-software-token.html

Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX) "provides hardware enhanced protection"

I wonder could it be the cause for the well known bug Vista x64 not starting up well on Haswell and up , with or without the kernel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

And don't forget about the dreaded IntelME.
Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX) "provides hardware enhanced protection"
"Intel® Identity Protection Technology" -allows to create your unique fingerprint , for example used in browsers.

Can you name anything from this list that exists in this God forsaken LGA775 socket stub? Are we talking about year 2009 or 2015?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SigmaTel71 said:

Can you name anything from this list that exists in this God forsaken LGA775 socket stub? Are we talking about year 2009 or 2015?

As an example , LGA775 has IntelME backed into the chipset since 2006-2007. There's plenty of information about it , you could find yourself . I wrote about the newer CPUs here because it's on-topic , since we have problems with Vista x64 not starting well on Haswell+ . And I'm afraid there's literally zero active people in this topic (now I know except you) who would be interested in LGA775.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

I wrote about the newer CPUs here because it's on-topic , since we have problems with Vista x64 not starting well on Haswell+ .

I have my old i5-4570 bench nearby, if it has anything useful for Vista, let me know.

49 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

As an example , LGA775 has IntelME backed into the chipset since 2006-2007. There's plenty of information about it , you could find yourself .

Got the specs (datasheets) on Intel Series 3 chipsets, well, that's true, but from what the community says over on MacRumors, there is no need to panic at least on P35 chipset, which is used on my GA-P35-S3G mobo.

Quote

Generally, Core 2 systems were safer in this respect because, from what I can gather from research and verification (and not official documentation, courtesy of Intel), the ME was typically only included in chipsets that supported vPro. This is part of where things weren't as tightly integrated; if vPro / AMT wasn't present on the system, then there was no need to include the ME either, at least on 965 and P35 chipsets (2006 / 2007).

But all those Intel ME or AMD PSP things don't bother me much as I don't process any highly confidential or top-secret machinery things on my home computer. If I did, then I'd care cutting/disabling this out. Fingerprinting? To be fair, I have some experience over web developing, and to my perspective, fingerprinting is barely possible to avoid unless you visit websites that explicitly don't run any analytics through JS or cookies.

 

My vision on the web stuck around early 2010s, when JS was utilized only in an hour of its need and cookies were mostly about personal settings and autologin tokens, and as my opinion can't be heard by millions of '(dead) internet' visitors, I can't do much but keeping things in top shape for time period I want to design. I target early 2010s experience, so I expect myself doing 'nice developer' things as they did in early 2010s.

Edited by SigmaTel71
Decluttering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

what does it have to with the ex-kernel for Vista ?

I can guarantee whatever I do on my websites will work almost flawlessly both in browsers requiring extended kernel (and even ones which don't).

 

That was my expanded answer on fingerprinting, anyway. I'll spoiler that to declutter.

Edited by SigmaTel71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SigmaTel71 said:

I have my old i5-4570 bench nearby, if it has anything useful for Vista, let me know.

Well you could try to run the updated (*fully updated*, they like to call it that here) Vista x64 and see if it loads fine. From what I've been reading on several topics on MSFN , several members , including @win32 wrote the problem supposed to be solved after you apply some mysterious updates (which they never tell what numbers they are exactly), yet it don't , at least for me.

For example , there is a member daniel_k , who wrote the problems were gone after "he updated", and when I asked him what updates he applied exactly , the topic was locked !

He just wrote : "Mods close this thread." Marvellous , right ? Have a look for yourself.

https://msfn.org/board/topic/179810-download-links-for-all-vista-sp2-32-bit-and-64-bit-updates-from-windows-update/?do=findComment&comment=1217154

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

Well you could try to run the updated (*fully updated*, they like to call it that here) Vista x64 and see if it loads fine.

So my prerequsites are completely vanila Windows Vista SP2 installation I should update through Windows Update somehow or an update package I'm not aware of? After complete update procedure, what should be done? Just test if it does not refuse to boot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SigmaTel71 said:

So my prerequsites are completely vanila Windows Vista SP2 installation I should update through Windows Update somehow or an update package I'm not aware of? After complete update procedure, what should be done? Just test if it does not refuse to boot?

I wrote - several members said that Vista x64 startup failures were "fixed" by some "magical updates" , but no one tells which updates exactly and I don't know too , honestly I have my doubts , I tried to update to 03.2019 and 12.2019 and it only made the startup (black screen) worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, D.Draker said:

I wrote - several members said that Vista x64 startup failures were "fixed" by some "magical updates" , but no one tells which updates exactly and I don't know too , honestly I have my doubts , I tried to update to 03.2019 and 12.2019 and it only made the startup (black screen) worse.

It seems there was a partial fix, with regards to some timing things, but ultimately, I found that in practice issues persisted. And stability seems to vary based on the CPU. I've heard that 9700K is incredibly bad.

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...