The latest Zeranoe xp-compatible build was ffmpeg-20150525-git-8ce564e, released on May 2015. After that, people started complaining about the following error: "The procedure entry point _wfopen_s could not be located in the dynamic link library msvcrt.dll". On the official Zeranoe FFmpeg Builds site, it says that "All builds require at least Windows 7". So, I took a look at the code and I noticed that FFmpeg code itself has not stopped being XP compatible, but the inclusion by Zeranoe of some external libs that are either themselves by default not compatible or have become incompatible at some stage of their development is what broke Zeranoe builds. Anyway, many external libraries and codecs are still compatible with XP, they just need to be tweaked correctly, just like MSYS2 did, in fact I used their project to compile ffmpeg with GCC and, as result, the build is updated and XP compatible.

FFMpeg 2017 x86 - Windows XP, WIndows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, WIndows 10 Compatible

https://mega.nz/#!Od9DRD5R!ynjjY9uHzLM6UYLZl5xFMxQ1gnkPZxbmcCvGr9fuAvk

Happy new year.

So i was browsing on xpforums.com and i found a thread <link> . Ok i downloaded and installed it on my PC and i opened dxdiag and i see this:

It's saying DirectX 11.0 (also its saying the os is Windows 7 Pro,but the build number is XP's  )

I dont know will directX 11 games run since i don't have any samples to test it

*UPDATE!*

I have fixed some bugs mostly in the 38 ESR version and increased the initial paint delay, for a smoother scrolling experience while the webpage loads. I've also officially disabled Service Workers. Please update!

A brief introduction

Hi everybody, I'm writing this thread because I would like to share with you an experiment I made as a result of two years of using an old, single core system (an overclocked Pentium III-S Tualatin 1.4GHz) with the modern web. As you all know, the most versatile and useful web browser to use for old machines, especially XP ones, is Mozilla Firefox, thanks to its customizability, the numerous forks that it spawned and the built in certificates manager that makes things easier if we want to connect old computers to the internet.

This thread focuses specifically on @roytam1's browsers for XP, such as New Moon 27 SSE and Firefox 45 ESR SSE, because they are the ones I use on my Pentium III system and the ones I used as a base to develop my "patch". We know that old computers, especially if single core or SSE only systems, can struggle a bit with the stock versions of these browsers, because they are quite resource intensive, and so the experience is quite limited unless you have an hardware that is capable enough to run the browser comfortably.

So, a year ago, back when my Tualatin was still a 800Mhz Coppermine system, I started delving into the about:config of Pale Moon first, and New Moon later, in order to reduce as much CPU and RAM consumption as possible. Had to do several trials and errors, but in the end, I finally managed to get improvements in responsiveness and overall speed on the browser and so, after six revisions, I officially want to release the UOC Patch, my personal attempt, inspired by the community and by my experience of using an old computer as a daily driver, at making web browsing with Firefox and derivatives a much more enjoyable experience.

Ok ok, good. So what's the UOC Patch?

The UOC Patch (shortened form of Ultra One Core Patch) is a custom Global Preferences file available for any Mozilla based browser that uses the codebase of Firefox 38 ESR (such as Pale Moon and Roytam1's New Moon) or Firefox 45 ESR (i.e. Firefox 45 ESR SSE always by Roytam1), that is aimed at optimizing the browser to run on old machines and to consume less resources.

Bear in mind that I developed the UOC Patch for my machine, which used to be a 800Mhz Coppermine and now is an overclocked 1.4GHz Tualatin, so it might perform differently on yours, but it should bring some improvement in terms of speed.

The UOC Patch is a Defaults Override file, meaning that it goes in the following directory "C:\Program Files\{Your Mozilla based browser}\Defaults\Pref\".

As soon as you put the patch into the "Pref" folder, the default about:config parameters will be replaced by the ones of the patch, unless you have modified the same parameters. If so, you can switch to the UOC Patch parameters by simply resetting them in the about:config.

(If you feel adventurous, you can even open the patch with your favourite text editor, replace the "Pref(" parameter with "user_pref(" and embed it in your Prefs.js file, but this method might be cumbersome for beginners.)

The requirements? Surely it has them.

Well, yeah. The UOC Patch requires at least a DirectX 9 capable graphics card. Even though it will work on a DirectX 8 card, I don't have one I can use to test it so it's pretty much untested. I tested the patch with a Geforce FX5500, an FX5600, a 6800GT and an ATI Radeon HD3850 and my current graphics card, an X1950 Pro, and the patch speeds up the browser as it should. Then, ideally, the CPU. A 800MHz CPU and higher can give you a better experience, again, I don't know how it does perform on a slower CPU. RAM wise, any system that can run New Moon 27 and derivatives or Firefox 45 ESR SSE will support the UOC Patch without issues. So, to recap, you need:

• A DirectX 9 capable graphics card with at least a 128 bit buss
• A 800MHz CPU or faster for better performance
• Enough RAM to support New Moon 27/Firefox 45 ESR SSE and other Roytam1's Mozilla based browsers

Ok now that we know the specs, how to install it?

Installing the UOC Patch is a very easy process. Just go in your browser folder (C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox or Pale Moon or any other Mozilla based browser you use), then go in the "Defaults" then the "Pref" folder and extract the UOC_Patch38.js or UOC_Patch45.js you will find in their respective archive in the above folder and start the browser. The UOC Patch will be automatically applied alongside your existing preferences. But as a safety measure, do make a backup of your prefs.js file inside your profile folder, before launching the patched browser.

In order to access your profile folder, you must make sure that the hidden folders are visible (if not, you must go in the Control Panel, then choose Folder Options, and tick the box that says "Show Hidden Folders"), then navigate to your Firefox/New Moon/Mozilla browser profile folder (i.e. C:\Documents and Settings\{Your Username}\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\{Your Profile Folder}), you will find a file called "prefs.js". Make a copy of the file and rename it to "prefs.bak" to back it up.

Enough with the words! I want to download it!

Okay, okay. There you go. These are the download links for the UOC Patch. Remember, you must not absolutely use the UOC Patch for a particular codebase with a browser that uses a different one. You might experience issues. These two versions are conceived for the Firefox 38 ESR and 45 ESR codebases, so any fork of Firefox that uses those codebases, will work with their respective version of the patch. Choose carefully.

For Firefox 38 ESR based browsers (i.e. New Moon 27): Click Here

For Firefox 45 ESR SSE and 45 ESR based browsers: Click Here

A Final Note

Please, by all means, test the patch on as many systems as possible! The more the configurations, the better will be. Due to space constraints and lack of money, I don't have access to different systems I can test the patch with, and my Tualatin is the computer I used as a testbed for its development and so, I made it focusing on the hardware I had and currently have. The UOC Patch is not strictly limited to single core systems, but it can be used on any old and slow computer that runs Roytam1's Mozilla forks, it would be interesting to see if it can bring some benefits even on faster systems, or even slower ones: I don't have a Pentium II or an AMD/Intel Socket 7 system to test the patch with, otherwise I would have tried it on those too. The UOC Patch has not been tested on K-Meleon and SeaMonkey, but mostly because I'm still experimenting with those and so if you want to try it on those browsers, it's entirely up to you.

There are some extensions I heartedly recommend to use alongside the UOC Patch to make the experience much better. These are:

• NoScript (I recommend v2.90.14 for performance reasons, at least for Pentium 3 systems)
• Decentraleyes 1.4.2
• Bluhell Firewall 2.5.3
• UAControl 0.1.3.1.1 (To change the user agent on the fly, per website)
• uBlock Origin 1.16.4.10
• Vacuum Places Improved 1.2.1

And this one is optional, Youtube 2 Player, a nifty plugin that turns Youtube links into redirects to VLC, so whenever you click on a Youtube link, the video will be loaded automatically in VLC, thus saving resources and CPU cycles.

Okay, that's all folks. Now if you want to throw rocks or tomatoes or veggies at me, feel free to do so. I developed this in my free time with a desire of curiosity and experimentation, to see if I can push my old machine to its extreme limit, and so far, at least personally, I'm quite satisfied. But as always, it's up to you to judge whether the UOC Patch is actually useful for your system, or it's an utter piece of garbage. Be aware I'm not responsible of any pandemy, nuclear warfare, space/time continuum and so on caused by your system. I upload the UOC Patch for experimental purposes, and it's provided AS IS. Happy RDD'ing!

I did this test:

https://www.trustprobe.com/fs1/download.php?appname=qmc.zip

The developer writes that the tool:

Quote

Use MITM Checker to determine if your system is currently under a MITM attack. The program will connect to a list of major websites and alert on any unknown or unusual certificates used in the SSL handshake.

It will detect obvious cases (such as interception by a local proxy, your employer's SSL inspection gateways, or a malware infection), as well as more advanced attacks (for instance, if the cert is valid but originates from an unusual organization/country).

The tool is a standalone, browser-independent application.

My result is 14 Handshake failure.

Can I get 0 Handshake failure?

Welcome to the club "Windows XP Spotter", a club which aims to collect pictures of running Windows XP (or XP based, like WES, WePOS, POSReady2009 and Server 2003) machines during these days. I'm gonna start:

London Victoria Station, Ground Floor, McDonald's uses Windows PosReady (XP-based) tills, but I didn't manage to get a pic of them (yet).

In the meantime, I got a supermarket (running XP):

And a friend of mine living in Italy, Ivo, sent me this:

Ok people, go out and conquer the world shoot pictures of running XP (or XP-based) machines.

Some info in the articles below:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-browser-attack-lets-hackers-run-bad-code-even-after-users-leave-a-web-page/

https://www.ghacks.net/2019/02/26/marionet-attack-lets-hackers-control-your-browser-even-after-you-leave-the-attack-page/

To check if the Service Workers is active in your browser:

https://browserleaks.com/features

Pale Moon and Basilisk by default does not support Service Workers.
Also I.E.8 does not support Service Workers:

Private Search Engines - The Ultimate Guide (2019) recently updated by Sven Taylor elects Startpage as the best private search engine.

Quote

 

...Finding the best private search engine for your unique needs is a subjective process and there’s no one-size-fits-all, with many factors to consider. Ideally, a search engine would return great results while also respecting your privacy. Unfortunately, there is often a tradeoff here, so it really comes down to the user and what you determine works best for your situation.

That being said, Startpage earned the title of “best private search engine” for 2019, and we’ll explain why below....

 

https://restoreprivacy.com/private-search-engine/

Pale Moon default search engines do not include Startpage.
For those who want to add this search engine:

https://addons.palemoon.org/search-plugins/

With New Moon I choose to save my personal settings without a cookie.
I set the Homepage in New Moon via the Obfuscated URL

With I.E.8 it is not possible to use Startpage,I use DuckDuckGo.

Which Search Engine do you prefer?

I recently used the built-in uninstaller to remove Java 8 after it started giving me problems. Now I am unable to reinstall it when I click on the jxpinstall the process opens up in task manager and then it suddenly quits without giving me any error message and the installer never runs. The same thing happens when I try to open jdk-8u161-windows-i586. It does not matter whether I use the offline or online installer as both do the same thing. I believe the uninstaller failed to remove the previous installation fully and as such there are leftover traces of the previous install that are preventing me from reinstalling Java. Thus, I would like for someone to tell me all the files related to the Java program and its registry entries so I can manually remove them.

Hi,

I've been using uBlock for quite some time, but I started to notice that it's no longer blocking ads. I googled and I found out that it has been replaced by uBlock Origin, so I uninstalled it and I moved to uBlock Origin, but it didn't solve the issue. I moved to the development branch and I tried to surf the web again, but it didn't work either. Strangely enough, I tried to install uBlock Origin on Firefox and it blocks the ads correctly, which leads me to the question: why?

It was working fine 'till a few weeks ago and I have no idea why it stopped blocking ads out of the blue. I thought it was because I didn't update it, but I'm now using the very latest version (uBlock Origin development build v1.17.1b1).

Do you have uBlock Origin? What do you use to block ads? Could it be ProxHTTPSProxyMII that somehow makes ads impossible to block? @heinoganda

Thank you in advance.

Chromium 54 spoofed as 71.0.3554.0

Firefox 52.9 ESR

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 .

Is anyone else here using an old version of Comodo? (3.14.130099.587 for me, or possibly some of the v5 series)

I've had this version installed (just FW and Defense+, not the AV, for that I use Avast 6) on this machine and running perfectly for more than 4.5 years. But around 4/29 it started behaving oddly (on just this one system, I have it running perfectly on several others). That's when I noticed that the system tray icon allows calling up the GUI for a little while immediately after booting, but somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes post boot, the tray icon goes unresponsive. When this happens I also cannot call up the GUI from the start menu, nor from desktop shortcut. Then after roughly 90 minutes, suddenly the GUI that would not start earlier finally appears and thereafter works as if nothing were ever wrong. This delay seems pretty consistent as does the 2-3 minutes postboot, almost as if something has a timeout, though I don't know what it is waiting for.

I checked in Task Manager during this time, and there are no unfamiliar processes listed. Both cmdagent.exe (the service portion) and cfp.exe (the GUI portion) are running as expected, but I can't switch to cfp.exe during this 90+ minutes. Trying to kill cfp.exe during this time simply hangs Task Manager. Leaving this sit for the 90+ minutes will let it suddenly unlock and everything goes back to normal. It isn't a normal sort of network issue, I can surf and check email just fine during this time, the only thing I cannot do is open the Comodo GUI.

I tried looking with the process list tool in an old version of Spybot; this has the added bonus of showing what network connections a process has open, which I can't check in the Comodo UI since I can't get to that while it is hung. It seems to have one ephemeral port open, the port number changes every few seconds while the GUI is not responding, but these changing ports will suddenly stop and the open port vanishes when the GUI becomes available again.

Checking system event logs gives no clues, likewise Comodo's own logs show nothing odd. I even tried setting a rule on Comodo to log its own traffic but there are no entries from that rule. Other rules do make log entries during this time so it isn't a logging issue.

Searching the Comodo forums finds several posts with similar symptoms (all from version 3.x or 5.x, I didn't see any later) but all of the supposed cures end up not solving it even for the posters who initially thought they had found the answer. (Apart from "upgrade your OS, then update to latest version", generally something post-ver 5 - but then why did this version work perfectly for 4.5 years on this system and even longer on my other systems?) I have tried the uninstall-reboot twice-reinstall path a couple times with initial success, but the problem always returns after 2-3 reboots so it isn't really the solution.

I plan to run more malware scans later today but so far have not found anything; since there are no other symptoms I'm not really expecting to find anything when they are finished.

Assuming the scans come up clean, does anybody have a suggestion for how I might track down the cause of this odd behavior?

For security reasons I will probably proceed to block the downloadable executable files (exe, msi ....) with I.E.8 by changing the Registry Key 1803.

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Zones\3]
"1803"=dword:00000003

Or I will enable the following rule in my OSArmor software:

Will you make any changes?

What happened? FF blocs Flash...

Solution:

Flash 18.0.0.209 active-x and plugin  (direct downloads)     

Enjoy!

Does anyone know of a list of motherboards that support Windows XP that's newer then a Pentium 4?

"It is understood that users will have until 19 July 2019 to apply the last updates, before the whole update system is switched off, not least of all because it doesn't meet modern Windows Update security criteria"

From here: https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3074028/microsoft-kills-windows-xp-all-over-again

This may not be an XP-related problem, but because the computer being used is running XP I'm posting this here.

A few years ago I cloned what I think was an 80 gb drive to a 240 gb SSD drive.  The 80 gb drive was partitioned as 24 gb FAT (C drive) and the remainder as NTFS (D drive).  The C drive had XP-pro, sp3.  The motherboard in question is Gigabyte, exact model escapes me at the moment, it is AMD (AM2 or AM3 CPU), 6 SATA ports, 2 IDE ports.  Relatively modern motherboard (maybe 5 years old?).  This belongs to a relative of mine, not local to where I am.

I was recently visiting, brought a new 500 gb WD Blue SSD.  Used Norton Ghost 2003 to clone the 240 GB SSD to the new drive.  Ghost resized the C partition to 44 or 48 gb (ie - doubled the size).  The original C drive (FAT32) was using 16kb cluster size.  Offhand I don't know if that was maintained or not in the new cloned drive.

Anyways, after the clone (which was performed really fast, at 3200 mb/min) I placed the new drive in position in place of the old drive, then tried to boot the system into XP.  The XP splash screen appears, with the moving / sliding indicator which moves back and forth a few times, then a barely visible blue or black-screen error message is flashed before the system crashes and reboots.

Upon restart, I get the usual screen (windows didn't start, how do you want to start this time, safe mode, normal, etc).  No matter what I try, I get the same crash and restart.  The safe mode startup scrolls a list of files being loaded, and always craps out at the same file (which right now I can't recall what that was). Presumably the crash happens when XP switches into 32-bit mode during bootup and stops accessing the drive using INT13 bios routines?

Here's the wierd part.

If I boot the original drive, and connect this new drive to a different SATA port, the system boots fine into XP, but in disk management the new drive is completely absent.  Detect new hardware does nothing.  In the bios, when I select boot device, the bios sees both drives just fine.  If I swap the SATA ports the drives are connected to, and I still boot the old drive, XP still can't see the new drive.

If I boot DOS with a floppy, I can see both drives (at least the FAT32 partition) on both drives.  

Bios is set the SATA ports as native (not IDE).

I have the new drive with me, so what I plan to do next is connect the drive to another XP machine that I have with SATA ports and see if the drive is visible / accessible on another machine (with different motherboard).  I can also connect it to a win-98 machine with SATA controller, and (as last resort) can connect it to win-7 machine.  

So based on what I've seen so far, it seems that there is a hardware incompatibility between the new drive and SATA controller that renders the drive invisible under XP.  Now whether this incompatibility is caused by how the drive has been formatted (ie the ghost clone and the FAT32/NTFS combination of the original source drive) or if it is something at lower hardware level, I don't know.

Anyone got any ideas or comments?

NOTE: I originally posted this in the 2000 forum, but it would also be useful duplicated here since XP has such a large user base.

As we know, most websites have artificial browser requirements for using their website. Firefox can be spoofed easily on Windows 2000 and XP. I don't recommend Chrome for spoofing, because 1) Chrome does not really work well on 2000, and 2) Chrome can only store user agent changes temporarily, while the Developer Console is open.

By visiting Citibank's website with Firefox 48 (last working on Windows 2000), it says the browser is out of date and not supported.

So, we go into about:config , create a string value called general.useragent.override , and make the value Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:53.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/53.0

This tells the browser to report Windows XP, and Firefox 53.0. Again, we know that XP cannot really support Firefox 53.

After saving, reopen Firefox and go back to Citibank's website. The outdated browser warning is gone. This proves an artificial browser warning.

Also, if you visit a website to check the browser, it reports that it is Firefox 53 on XP, even though we know we are running Firefox 48 on Windows 2000.

This trick will also be useful on XP, since Firefox will not be updated past version 51 going forward.

I use Outlook 2010 as email client.

To get in contact with my email providers it is neccessary to have modern TLS protocols, TLS1.0 / SSL is no more supported.

And to solve this problem I use sTunnel (latest version for 32bit is 5.49).

The advantage of sTunnel is that the Windows certificate storage can be used, which greatly simplifies the configuration in this case.

So sTunnel only needs to be installed and activated as a service, as well as using this simple configuration (example of stunnel.conf):

debug = 4
engine = capi
options = NO_SSLv2
options = NO_SSLv3
options = NO_TLSv1

[gmx-pop3s]
client = yes
EngineID = capi
accept = localhost:xxxx
connect = pop.gmx.net:995

[gmx-smpts]
client = yes
EngineID = capi
accept = localhost:yyyy
connect = mail.gmx.net:465

In Outlook the local ports are set as default connection (server localhost and port POP xxxx / SMPT yyyy)

Thats all.

It works also for other email clients, so this may be a good advice for a configuration.

Just Facts, no guesses, please. No Extended Kernel or otherwise modded files required either.  Thanks!

Hello.

I was looking around for browsers for Windows XP today and apparently I dug quite deep because I found a chinese browser called Extreme Explorer 360 (Chrome 360) or something like that. It was advertised as Chromium 69 based so I decided to give it a try and to my biggest surprise it actually worked.  At first I thought that there was absolutely no way that it is based on Chromium 69 but after several tests it seems like it was in fact based on Chromium 69 which has been somehow backported to Windows XP and probably even Vista too. 

The one thing that really bothers me to say the least is the fact that it is developed by a chinese company. Can I trust it?

Also, if they did actually get Chromium 69 completely working on Windows XP, isn't it possible for someone to maybe backport the original Chrome 69 browser too? 

Here's why I do believe that it is in fact based on Chromium 69:

• According to HTML5test the last official Chrome for XP gets the score of "489" while Chrome 360 gets the score of "528" which is a score that I have never seen on any other XP browser before.

• This one might not be as a solid of a proof as it is just the user agent but WhatIsMyBrowser.com reports that it is in fact Chrome 69 running on Windows Server 2003 (XP x64)

So what are your thoughts on this guys? I am really confused whether I should just keep using it as it seems to be a much newer version of Chromium than any other browser on XP but is it actually safe?

In case someone wants to try it on their own:

On 4/29/2019 at 7:25 PM, Windows 2000 said:

[Click to open Chrome 360’s web site]

EDIT:

So, I've been using it for a few weeks by now and to be honest, I am astonished! It seems to be much faster than Chrome 49, it is based on newer Chromium, there aren't any websites having trouble to load and on top of that it seems very reliable. Haven't had absolutely no problems with it.

I do actually recommend it as a main browser now as it is based on newer Chromium which is in fact much safer than the other older browsers.