Leaderboard

Newest JRE have been released moments ago: 8u151/152.

Of course there was an update to Windows XP, KB4042723 (wzcsvc.dll). According to my manufacturer of the router, this is not affected with the current firmware, best at your router manufacturer inquire / inform. Today, there was another update (KB4019276 download / info) for Windows XP to support TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 (client - server / IIS).

@Dibya No ECC root certificates (signature algorithm 2.840.10045.4.3.3) can be added to the certificate management in Windows XP. Here's the problem! @Dave-H The update KB4019276 must be downloaded manually. http://download.windowsupdate.com/c/msdownload/update/software/updt/2017/10/windowsxp-kb4019276-x86-embedded-enu_3822fc1692076429a7dc051b00213d5e1240ce3d.exe

Never.

I have no words to describe the mess Microsoft created in the font rendering in Windows 10. Just look at this explorer window. Some elements like title bar and address bar have a grayscale antialiasing, the rest has cleartype enabled. Ok, let's open ClearType Tuner and select a third option on a third page which is a grayscale cleartype. And guess what, it's still the same! This tool has no effect at all on the cleartype's color settings. Disabling cleartype is no option, as the text becomes a total mess. So the question is: How can I force Windows to use that grayscale cleartype smoothing method on all of the GUI elements? If this is some kind of a new font used on the titlebars, can I use it on the other elements by editing aero.msstyle or shellstyle.dll? p.s. The reason of my post is that I use one display with RGB matrix and the other with BGR, So I have to constantly switch the cleartype's sub pixel matrix to get rid of blurred fonts.

@bigmuscle @JTB3 plz god no! Modern Frame support is the biggest reason I use AeroGlass!!! If that gets dropped I'm not gong to use this anymore! Also, I'm not sure if it fixed the Fluent Design issue since I don't really know what that means, lol, but I used the Windows 10 SDK method that allowed the last version to work flawlessly on all Modern Apps in Windows 10. Maybe that will also work in this one if you can find a way to get the MondernFrame support implemented [basically that might wind up being a more stable requirement for it if it helps].

IMHO there is a big difference between Windows ME and Vista. As a matter of fact Windows ME is - as you say - very similar to 98 SE (with actually a few betterings "under the hood"). The issue was that it removed (or made difficult) to an audience coming from 9x a large part of their experience (MS-DOS in real mode) while introducing quite a few incompatibilities (particularly with DOS based programs, but not only), and the betterings were not easily detectable to the end user. As a matter of fact, the "best" system is most probably a 98SE2ME: http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/ http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S Of course XP (particularly the XP Home pre-installed on laptops) killed it (while providing - on the very limited hardware on which it was installed - a poor experience to the user anyway). Vista is a different case, it actually sucked, and it sucked big initially. A number of (senseless) changes were introduced on the otherwise perfectly working NT derived XP, and it was delivered in a severely immature stage, while no or very little documentation was provided. Besides (the same) issues with low-powered entry-level systems where it came pre-installed, the real deal breaker was that it was widely publicized as the "new better" OS (understandably from MS point of view) without highlighting how the hardware requirements were extremely higher than what XP ran on. The net result was that everyone that had XP running tried it (either on the same old hardware where they had XP running just fine or as a pre-installed OS on low-low power notebooks/netbooks) and the result was of an extremely slow OS (additionally with a lot of issues with permissions, network and drivers). It was doomed, everyone that could remained on XP, at least at the times of "gold" and - later - "SP1" (which only partially fixed the issues) came out. The actual working version of Vista (from a certain point of view even better than 7) was SP2 which simply came too late and was "killed" by MS itself and by the release of 7. The latter was also IMHO greatly facilitated by the progresses of the hardware in the meantime, an entry level system in 2009 was far more powerful than an entry level system in 2006 or 2007, and this is one of the reasons why 7 (which I like to call Vista SP3) actually had so much success. BOTH Vista and 7 are resources hogs (when compared to XP or even better 2K) what made the difference was the sheer power/speed beneath. jaclaz

I am way cooler. I decommissioned only recently (march or april this year) a couple of machines, running respectively NT 4.00 and Windows 2K that worked just fine for the parts of the Internet that were needed. Both ran 24/7 for the last 14 years or so without issues of any kind (only replaced some power supplies and some disks). In the good ol' times we used to call this "work", it involved no access to social sites, no messaging, no lolcats, no videos, you get the idea . jaclaz