64Gb Ram XP Patch here > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8TGI9QQCUYdVzdiLXdBVW1rWjg .

Found it on the internet,and unfortunatelly I lost the adress,but I've save it on my drive.

Disclaimer > I won't be held responsible for anyone bricking their OS by trying this.

By downloading this patch,using it,and potentially destroying your XP because you didnt back up your boot.ini, you agree that is solely your responsability.

Always do backups . Have an XP image at ready, backup your boot.ini in a text file,and be sure all your important data is safe.

That being said, if one follows those steps carefully (btw,I chose second method-you only change the last line in the boot.ini), nothing can truly go wrong,and in the end, you're gonna have a nice SP3 running on 8,12,or 16 Gb RAM,according to your memory installed .

I'm using it for a week everyday with no issues. 

And again, I think you guys are well versed in Windows,so it should be fine .

I wish I could find a link but there is someone somewhere who allegedly got (a browser based on) Firefox 53 to work on XP.

It's not a normal version, it uses some linux-like stuff and you can't just install it like a normal Windows application and therefore I couldn't get it to run.

But anyway, has anyone heard anything about that?

Can you recommend me a professional style UI theme for XP that is as readable as Classic, but still a step up in visual fidelity. There are many themes offered on the web that aim to make Windows look like system or fictional environment X, but they do not have good utility. I'm looking for calm colors of blue and grey shades, rectangular corners, well defined buttons. The main panels should better be some grey to avoid clashing with unthemed controls in older applications.

I have installed all official themes: Embedded, Royale, Noir, Zune. Zune is overall the best. But all these themes share the following two flaws. Title bars of active and inactive windows are too similar. it is not easy to find an active window among many. The button-face panel colors are too light (about 230 compared to 210 on Classic or 192 on Win95), which causes unthemed buttons without an additional frame as well as group boxes and raised/sunken panels to disappear. Disabled text becomes hard to read. There is too little contrast with button-highlight (pure white). This also a reason why I find Windows Seven hard to use, as if I was looking through a glass with reflections.

A good third party theme that fits most criteria is TangoBU3. But it is a little unpolished with vertical columns of pixels appearing on one side or between column panels and tabs.

Just wondering which antivirus xp users here like & use.  Thank you.

I am looking for a way to rename a file with the current date

Basically...

Take MasterTracker.xls

and make a copy , and rename it to June 6th.xls

and have this batch file execute each night and move the old date to an archive folder and recreate the file for that day

Is it possible ??

Rob

I have successfully manually updated WideVine on Chrome and XP, but Netflix is not detecting it as so. I replaced the two .dlls from Chrome 49 with those from Chrome Portable 61.0.3163.91 32-bit (direct download).

Chrome detects the updated versions, but Netflix doesn't seem to. It wants me to download them from Google which will give me the old 1.4.8.903 (direct download) instead of the updated 1.4.8.1008 (direct download).

What am I missing here? The method seems like it should be the same for updating Flash on Chrome and XP.

github.com/tumagonx/XPitory

This is a curation of opensource apps that works on 32bit XP (out of the box aka no patching needed). At the moment its still very few (hopefully continue to grow)

builds organized in the following directories:

NON BACKPORT:
last_working : no backport effort taken for later version, simply a backup for working version
mirror : backup for apps already works for XP

BACKPORT:
dynamic_port: executable depends dll/other separate component (This mostly for apps depends on QT, GTK or the likes)
static_port: executables are standalone (no dll hell included) , in a form of UPX'ed exe or 7z archive if contains multiple exes


LISTING:

static_port/mono : .NET 4.5 (including 4.6.x) Framework (incomplete) implementation
static_port/ogg123 : win32 port of all Xiph audio formats (ogg, opus, flac, speex) console player
static_port/dialog : Curses dialogs for CMD (GDI window version)
static_port/bpg : JPEG-killer wannabe image viewer
static_port/flif : PNG-killer wannabe image viewer
static_port/vipsdisp : barebone GIGAPIXELS image (tiff, jpg, png) viewer for low RAM
static_port/osslsigncode : cabinet/executable signer
static_port/theunarchiver : universal archive extractor/lister
static_port/rhash : universal hasher(support torrent too)

last_working/github : Github for Windows client

mirror/gldirect : GL to D3D layer

I'm looking to upgrade my current computer, which has a motherboard powered by a P55 chipset and the Core i5-650 processor.  This computer has been unstable since I had it (system clock running too fast, frequent program freezes and crashes and the occasional memory error dialog), using Windows 2000 and later Windows XP.  Memory and hard disk diagnostic tools never found a problem.
 
I have thought about this for a long time, and concluded that it would be best if I split my workload onto two computers instead of one.  The first box would be a modern PC running a modern version of Windows, which will be used for video editing and storage (manual backups) exclusively.  The second box should be a high-performing "legacy" computer running a dual boot of Windows XP 32-bit and 64-bit, which I will use for basic tasks.  Unfortunately, "basic tasks" in this day-and-age have become quite hardware-demanding: H.264 decoding, browsing Facebook, etc.
 
It's this second box I'd like some input on regarding the hardware components that I'd use best.  I realize that it's possible to just take a Haswell or Skylake board and use generic drivers, but something tells me I can get better performance using "official" drivers as they are specifically written for individual hardware devices.
 
After some digging around and weighing specs against one another, I have already limited my search to the Z68 and Z77 chipsets, part of the LGA1155 socket range which is the most recent with official support for Windows XP.  The Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs fall into this range.
 
From what I can see, the only real difference of importance to me between the Z68 and Z77 chipsets, is the inclusion of native USB 3.0 by Intel on Z77 boards.  Since there are no Windows XP drivers for this, choosing a Z77 setup will limit me to motherboards that have an extra USB 3.0 chip by another manufacturer such as ASMedia.  But I don't like the thought of working on a system on which some things don't work normally, or need to be disabled in the BIOS or in Device Manager.
 
Question 1: the native USB 3.0 problem aside, are there any benefits for me to still pick a Z77 motherboard?
 
I already went ahead to find more information on the Z68 chipset, which raises a few more questions.  There appear to be two main versions of it: the "standard" version and the "Gen3" version, the latter supporting PCIe 3.0 if used in combination with an Ivy Bridge CPU.  Another advantage of Ivy Bridge is that it has improved onboard graphics (Intel HD 4000) compared to the onboard graphics of Sandy Bridge (Intel HD 3000).  On the other hand, I have read posts on forums stating that Ivy Bridge CPUs are running hotter than the Sandy Bridge CPUs.  Silence is an important factor for me as well.
 
Graphics-wise, I want:
- smooth playback of 1080p uncompressed video
- hardware-accelerated 1080p H.264 decoding (online videos on Youtube, etc.)
- smooth operations on multi-layered PSD images in Photoshop 7
 
Question 2: would the onboard graphics of the Ivy Bridge CPU (Intel HD 4000) be powerful enough to handle that, or is a discrete graphics card still required?
 
I have also done some digging with respect to graphics cards, as nVidia (my preferred manufacturer) has dropped Windows XP support somewhere along the line as well.  The newest supported cards are the 700 series as well as the GTX 950 and 960-based cards.  If a separate graphics card is still required, I was thinking of one of the following:
- Asus STRIX-GTX750TI-OC-2GD5 (19.6cm ~ 7.71in / 640 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX750TI-DC2OC-4GD5 (19.6cm ~ 7.71in / 640 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX950-DC2OC-2GD5-GAMING (22cm ~ 8.66in / 768 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX950-DC2-2GD5-GAMING (22cm ~ 8.66in / 768 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX960-DC2OC-2GD5 (21.5cm ~ 8.46in / 1024 CUDA)
- Asus STRIX-GTX960-DC2-2GD5 (21.5cm ~ 8.46in / 1024 CUDA)
 
I chose Asus STRIX boards because their fans don't spin below a certain point (65°C if I'm not mistaken).  All of these are marketed as PCIe 3.0 cards, but I have read on various forums that there is practically no difference with PCIe 2.0 in terms of gaming performance.  I don't do games, but does that mean they will still work as spec'd if I put them on a PCIe 2.0 slot on a "standard" Z68 motherboard?  I might save some bucks there if "Gen3" boards are more expensive.
 
Lastly, as far as the motherboard goes, I have the following "prerequisites":
- 1 PS/2 port for a keyboard
- 1 PCI slot, preferably at the bottom
- 4 SATAIII 6Gbps ports and 2 SATAII 3Gbps ports (requires additional controller as Z68 only supports 2 SATAIII ports)
 
I'd prefer not to have more than 1 or 2 PCI slots as they are usually positioned in such a way that not all PCIe ports can be utilized in conjunction with the PCI ports.  If I will ever need another extension card of any kind, I plan on going PCIe all the way.
 
These are the boards I had in mind:
- Asus P8Z68 Deluxe / Gen3
- Asrock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3
 
The Asus is a bit overkill with the dual LAN and Bluetooth features, but their other boards in the Z68 series don't offer everything I need.  Long-term durability is also a concern as the PC will be left turned on 24/7.  How can I tell if a motherboard is better or worse equipped for continuous operation?
 
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Hi. I wanted to share with you these drivers,for any XP die-hards who might have an Intel Haswell (HD) graphics.

I have them on a CD,and I tried them numerous times with 100% succes on my HD 4600.

Note > one needs to install .Net framerwork 3.5 on XP ,BEFORE installing the drivers.

They are ,as I understood it, for embedded Intel profiles,but they work perfectly ,to my knowledge.

32/64 bit versions available.

Here they are > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8TGI9QQCUYdd3B2M2s2X2xjQUU

Hello nice people!

Should the XP user community have a thread about the latest version of applications (and runtimes and so on) that run on well updated but unmodified XP sp3? As inspired by
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/133014-last-versions-of-software-for-windows-2000/
because more and more software editors drop the XP compatibility, so just now would be the right time to write it down.

This might need someone who maintains the thread for readability, maybe to keep a front page with the raw information.

What do you think?

So new build and new thread.

Today's build with portable LAV libraries.

Place LAV dlls (av*.dll) in same place as palemoon.exe lives.

Official repo changes since my last build:

-Clobber for Brotli/WOFF2 update

-Fix some comments (no code change)

-Enable Brotli content-encoding by default (https only).

-Pull woff2 upstream update.

-Update Brotli decompressor.

My changes since my last build:

- Upgrade Mozilla NSPR and NSS to 4.16 and 3.22 for (hopefully) faster AES operations

32bit:

http://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/palemoon-27.6.0a1.win32-git-20171002-e68ab5b3d-xpmod.7z

LAV dlls are in separated package (extracted from K-Lite codec pack 13.5.5)

http://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/lav.7z

64bit:

http://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/palemoon-27.6.0a1.win64-git-20171002-e68ab5b3d-xpmod.7z

LAV dlls are in separated package (LAV Filters 64bit 0.70.2)

http://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/lav64.7z

So I have a Dell dimension L667r, and It has Win95C on one disk (the original disk) and one day i was bored and put in a second HDD and installed Windows Fundamentals for legacy PCs on the new disk on a FAT32 partition. I do not have an option to choose the OS when the PC starts. The windows 95 drive and it's files are intact. Removing the WinFLP drive and starting the system results in an error, obviously added by the WinFLP installation that reads something like "Windows couldn't find the boot disk blah blah blah.) While experimenting, removing the Windows 95 drive and applying power gives an error message that says something along the lines of "INVALID DISK. INSERT BOOT DISKETTE INTO DRIVE A" However, with both disks hooked up, the system boots into Windows FLP (and nothing else) just fine.

I'm generally more or less knowledgeable about computers, but mucking around with the bootloader is out of my field of expertise.

Any suggestions?
 

I happened to stumble across some links in Mozilla's FTP, and came across some Firefox builds that were never officially released.

For example, I downloaded the ZIP file for US English Firefox 45.9.1; I believe the final public release was 45.9.0 because I couldn't find the release notes for 45.9.1. I wonder why 45.9.1 wasn't officially released. Firefox ESR 45.x is unique as it is the final ESR to run on SSE only processors such as the Pentium/Pentium II/Pentium III.

http://bucketlister-delivery.prod.mozaws.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr45-win32/

In there, the very first build is 45.0:

http://bucketlister-delivery.prod.mozaws.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr45-win32/1456425508/

The last build:

http://bucketlister-delivery.prod.mozaws.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr45-win32/1497368434/

You can find the other earlier/later builds here:

http://bucketlister-delivery.prod.mozaws.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/

You'll notice I have deliberately spoofed the user agent for Firefox 52, so I don't get silly messages that my browser is out of date.

Hello.

I'm struggling to create a private key in order then to use to sign a PowerShell Script and I would really use some help on this.

Firstly I wanted to be able to run PowerShell scripts without having to lower PowerShell's Execution-Policy and in order to do that one should have to be able to sign scripts.

Therefore and after installing the Windows SDK I'm trying to create a private key (and then a certificate) in order to be able to sign scripts.

But this fails likewise:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\SDK\v2.0\Bin>makecert -n "CN=PowerShell Local Certificate Root" -a sha1 -eku 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.3 -r -sv root.pvk root.cer -ss Root -sr localMachine
Error: Can't create the key of the subject ('root.pvk') Failed

And so I've begun trying to debug this, with no success.

So far I've checked with these:

• I checked with makecert's documentation to check whether the command parameters are correct
• executed the command from within a non-special directory
• executed the command as the local Administrator user
• executed the command from an "elevated" Command Prompt or an "elevated" PowerShell
• made sure the security permissions for _ALL_ the Crypto/RSA directories are set as indicated

If you have any ideas or you would like to share your insights or have me walk again over again something I've already tried/mentioned please feel free to comment.

Thanks in advance.

I have XP SP3 updated under the guise of "faux POS" (not all updates applied though)

Lately I find some cases - more and more often - of HTTPS sites that :

- under XP, won't open in Chrome (nor IE), i.e. using Windows own crypto API - but that -

- will open under Firefox - which has its own crypto stuff - even a very old version (3.5) works !

- under Seven, for compare, same sites do open even in Chrome (or, God forbid! IE).

An example page there exhibiting the phenomenon : https://www.aidanwoods.com/blog/faulty-login-pages/

Is it expected with fully updated XP SP3 and/or "POS" windows ? Or have I missed a related update ? For reference I have : crypt32.dll version : 5.131.2600.6459 (xpsp_sp3_qfe.131005-0434) and rsaenh.dll : 5.1.2600.6924 (not that I'm half sure those particular dll's are the keys of the problem)... 

Welcome to Windows XP Service Pack 4 (Unofficial).

Windows XP SP4 (Service Pack 4) is a cumulative update rollup for Windows XP.

Windows XP SP4 Final is now available!

IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR XP SP4 USERS [08/03/2016]: Microsoft has changed its WU update detection strategy. The following key must be removed to continue receiving automatic updates from WU:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WindowsEmbedded

Use the sp4_march16_wufix.reg found inside the respective zip file at my Google Drive in order to automate the process. Version 3.1a users don't need to do anything more than that.

A new v3.1b version has been released with this change, just for new installs. No other updates have been added.

Windows XP SP4 can installed on any version of Windows XP with SP1 or later installed or slipstreamed into any Windows XP installation source (except for Embedded versions). It includes all updated components and hotfixes for Windows XP in a single, convenient package. Except for the SP4 package installer main executable (update.exe) and a cosmetic resource modification sysdm.cpl no other binary file has been modified, everything is original from Microsoft Corporation.

Microsoft .NET Frameworks 4.0, 3.5, 1.1, 1.0 are included in this package. .NET Framework 1.0 will be installed only with Tablet PC Edition or Media Center Edition (Upgrade only). .NET Framework 4.0 is disabled by default.
It's possible to split the slipstreamed installation source into two 650 MB CD-ROMs, which can be essential for older computers. You can also create 6 Bootable Floppy Disks to install Windows XP on older systems which cannot boot from CD-ROM.

Furthermore, Windows XP SP4 includes security enhancements that address issues not fixed by Microsoft Updates. It also includes performance tweaks that should make your PC run blazingly fast.

NOTE:  Before installing SP4 on a system with many post-SP3 updates installed, follow the steps described here (do not restart your PC after applying these steps, just run the SP4 installer and then reboot):

http://www.rarst.net/software/failed-install-catalog-files/

This will prevent a common error message: "Failed to install catalog files"

Although SP4 installer takes steps to automatically delete these files, it may require manual intervention in some cases.

Download at Windows XP SP4 development thread at RyanVM.net: http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133918#133918

Visit RyanVM.net for additional information. (Current version: Version 3.1b Released on 08 March 2016 23:00:00 UTC)

Enjoy Windows XP Service Pack 4.


Screenshots:



This is Windows XP SP4 slipstreamed in a Windows XP MCE 2002 installation source. Notice the Version year.

You should also consider installing EMET 4.1 for an extra layer of security: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=41138

Newer EMET versions can be used, but these may cause some problems under Windows XP.

Just thought I'd report my experience today with EMET, something I wasn't at all familiar with before today.

I downloaded and installed version 4.1 (Update 1) as recommended, and it seemed to work fine although it was throwing five warnings into my event log that five "PinRules" were out of date, having expired on 01/08/15.

As I didn't want to just delete them, for obvious reasons, I looked into how to update them.

I found what I thought was an answer here.

I downloaded the "easy fix", which failed because I hadn't installed EMET in the default folder.

To be fair, the page does warn you of that, but it's still stupid when the EMET installer allows you to choose a different installation destination!

Anyway, I uninstalled EMET and reinstalled it in its default location, and the "easy fix" then completed successfully, but didn't fix the event log errors!

There were a couple of other issues as well, the system tray icon didn't work as it should, it popped up a message saying "administrator rights needed" if you tried to use it, which is nonsense as I am an administrator of course!

More seriously, pressing the "Trust" button at the top of the interface resulted in an exception error message coming up.

I therefore decided to try a later version, although this isn't recommended.

I installed version 5.1, which is not stated to be compatible with XP (although it is with Server 2003).

That installed fine, and the error messages about expired certificates in the Event Log went away, so good result there!

The only issues outstanding are that despite the fact that it appeared after the first install, the system tray icon now does not seem to appear at all, even when it's enabled, and the crash on using the Trust button still happens.

I'm not worried about the icon obviously, but the crash is a strange one. As I said, it was doing the same with version 4.1, which is supposed to be compatible with XP, so it's a bit of a mystery why it's happening.

Does this tie up with other people's experience with this?

I appreciate this is a bit off-topic, but it is relevant to the thread as EMET is one of the recommendations to use for maximum security.

That does not have this problem?

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12970&p=91655

Any codec's or player or convertors?