Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



TrevMUN

Member
  • Content count

    85
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About TrevMUN

  • Birthday 10/19/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.adultimum.net/

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

952 profile views
  1. List of Web Browsers Working with XP 2017

    I've got uBlock Origin and Betternet VPN installed on Advanced Chrome. I use these same plugins on vanilla Chrome and have no issues doing so. EDIT: Does anyone else using Advanced Chrome have XP64? No clue if that might be affecting this, or how.
  2. Adobe to Pull Plug on Flash

    Welp. Now Homestar Runner is right, Flash IS dying. This is somber news for a lot of places that had been founded on Flash-based media. Myself included; over the years I produced my share of animations and interactive media in Flash. This might actually pose a problem for internet archivists, if there is no legacy support for old media created in Flash; how's anyone going to view the old stuff? I'm still not confident in HTML5's ability to replicate everything Flash could do. Particularly in terms of vector animation and interactivity. I say this as a guy who's been experimenting with HTML5 to make web-based games, as well as incorporating some of HTML5's animation features in web design. In time, perhaps, we'll see a true Flash equivalent in those fields.
  3. List of Web Browsers Working with XP 2017

    I've been giving Advanced Chrome a whirl since, if possible, I'd like to use a more up-to-date variant of the Chrome browser and I haven't seen anyone try to compile a XP-friendly version of Brave yet. Advanced Chrome's a temperamental little thing. I haven't figured out what triggers this, but the browser is liable to crash in a bizarre way: it will first attempt to open a new window, entirely unprompted, and then crash. It doesn't always happen, but as far as I can tell it has to do with what tabs you've got open. Maybe even a cache/history related issue, as I've noticed this persist if you try to restore your previous browsing session and close down almost all previous tabs ... but it won't crash *until* you attempt to restore.
  4. Windows XP - Deepest Impressions

    To think, I made this picture as commentary on Microsoft's campaign to put XP in the grave three years ago. I put a big ol' rant in the commentary (with a shoutout to MSFN!) for that picture that delves into my personal reasons for sticking with XP and my frustration with contemporary events, but really my views align with @sdfox7 on this matter: "I believe an OS can only truly said to be dead when there is no longer any practical use for it." I'm still running XP64 on my desktop, and XP32 (utilizing POSReady updates) on my laptop and, aside from gaming, I've not yet felt seriously disadvantaged from doing so. I've not run into any real crises, but I take precautions as best I can.
  5. Fully agreed. For my resume and portfolio site, I focused on using HTML5 and CSS3 with a responsive, mobile-friendly layout, but I also tried to design it in such a way that the site remains usable in older browsers. I tested it as far back as IE6 and it remained usable, albeit looking and behaving quite differently.
  6. Interesting. I've been starting to run into this issue on certain sites while using Firefox, and some even go as far as to deny access to the site entirely. This is an excellent workaround!
  7. I don't think Microsoft would have needed to release a goodwill patch to do that, though. Like I'd mentioned earlier the media's been having a field day in reporting how Windows XP was especially vulnerable to WannaCry due to most versions not having access to the update that fixes the issue. "Windows XP" was trending on Twitter during all the havoc, before Microsoft released those patches. All of it was talk about how many companies/hospitals rely on the OS, and how they fell victim because XP's no longer supported. That's why I think Microsoft released the patches, in fact. With the far-reaching effects of WannaCry, the media shining a spotlight on XP's state might've made them squirm a bit, given that lives were potentially at risk this time around. Which would be ironic, given that in 2014 the tech news sites practically acted like a wing of Microsoft's PR machine, pumping out thinkpiece after thinkpiece about how awful and terrible it is to use XP, shaming XP users and enthusiasts and predicting doom and gloom the moment Microsoft pulls the plug.
  8. I've been out and about all day, so I haven't had a chance to see responses to me until just now. First, @JodyT, my remarks were not meant as a personal slight toward you. When I spoke of "the FUD crowd," I mean the sort of people who badger XP users with snide condescension or even outright vein-bulging malice. You didn't do or say anything like that in this thread, and no, I don't consider you saying you feel vindicated in your concerns as something "the FUD crowd" would say. "The FUD crowd" is liable to treat this whole incident as a smug "I told you so." I didn't get that feeling from your comments. That being said, the FUD narrative around XP is that there is nothing XP users can do to protect themselves ... except by upgrading to 10. Here at MSFN we know this to be false, partly because we know Microsoft is still supporting XP after a fashion, and partly because this is a community of experts and hobbyists who will jury-rig solutions to make older OSes as viable as possible. What's been demonstrated here is not quite the fulfillment of the FUD narrative. Nevertheless, it will convince many corporate users of XP to upgrade. Indeed. This is one of the things I was thinking of when I'd mentioned that IT departments who know about the POSReady trick can't do it for executive/managerial reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I or anyone else in this thread said that Microsoft was obligated to plug this leak for the unsupported OSes. I already commented in another thread that I was completely taken by surprise by Microsoft's decision to provide this patch for XP and Vista. I still think what I said there plays a major role in why they chose to release updates: choosing not to do so and simply saying "We warned you, you should have upgraded to Windows 10 when you had the chance" would have meant taking a serious hit in the company's reputation with potential financial repercussions. As the developer of the OSes as well as the one who decides when to stop providing updates for them, Microsoft was in a unique position to help stop WannaCry's rampage. This was not simply affecting home users, but major businesses and especially hospitals, which is a bit more serious considering it potentially puts lives at risk. Doing nothing in the face of that might have made Microsoft seem callous, and discourage current or prospective clients from using Microsoft services or products in the future. That's the only reason why I think Microsoft didn't play the "we told you so, now pay the price" card: because they saw a risk of losing more money by doing nothing than by doing something. This might be the only thing you've said which actually approaches the attitude I described as characteristic of "the FUD crowd," @JodyT, but only because it's reminiscent of the smug sort of Agent Smith-like talk to which I've been accustomed to hearing from them. Suffice it to say, I don't agree that "it's just progress." It's more just a business model that Microsoft didn't have to follow, but continued to do so until they got to Windows 10.
  9. A lot of news sites are making hay over the fact that many companies/organizations still run XP, and outside of 2009POSReady the XP family did not receive the SMBv1 patch until WannaCry hit. You can expect a lot of smug "I told you so" from the FUD crowd, and I'm sure this ransomware will convince a lot of those companies/organizations that had been using XP will now jump ship because of this. In spite of Microsoft actually going the extra mile here, the lesson a lot of people are going to take from this is that there's got to be other vulnerabilities that Microsoft won't patch (or at least won't patch until it becomes a crisis) which wouldn't have been an issue if they'd been using 10. The 2009POSReady trick probably isn't well known outside of these parts, or IT techs in those organizations using XP know about it but were unable to apply it for executive/managerial reasons. This is really only a concern for XP64 users and not XP32 users here at MSFN, given XP32 users are still technically covered until 2019. However, when the SMBv1 vulnerability was announced and Microsoft offered no patches for XP/Vista, I looked into the seriousness of the vulnerability. The techie friends I know came to the same conclusion you did; if you've got a decent router, you're good. The only effective way the vulnerability could be exploited in that case is if your machine was on a larger network, and someone used another machine on that network to hit yours. I've no intentions to put XP in my rear-view mirror, not even after this. Running unsupported products just means you need to be on the lookout for potential threats, and figure out what precautions you need to take.
  10. This is awesome. I wasn't expecting Microsoft to do that. I guess they see goodwill as a higher weighted objective compared to using this incident to push more people into abandoning XP (or Vista for that matter).
  11. And yet it's implied from the story that WannaCry will infect documents and attachments sent by infected computers. That could mean that the initial infection isn't from a source most savvy people would identify as an obvious malware attempt, but could come in the form of attachments from people they know, already infected with the ransomware. However, WannaCry is exploiting the SMBv1 vulnerability of which I posted a thread a month or two ago. From what was said to me elsewhere, and what observations were made in that thread, that exploitation only helps WannaCry infect a network using SMBv1 protocol without any need to transmit infected files via e-mail or document sharing. So what's the deal here? Will plugging the SMBv1 leak stop WannaCry entirely, or just keep your machine safe on a network until you happen to touch an infected file? EDIT: McAffee has some information about how WannaCry works, including how it infects machines, which I found just now. I edited my latest post in that other thread to reflect this.
  12. This SMBv1 Vulnerability Business ...

    Recently found some news that appears to be directly related to this vulnerability. "The Ransomware Meltdown Experts Warned About Is Here" The exploit is, in fact, the very same SMBv1 vulnerability I discussed in the OP. EDIT: McAfee has a dossier on how WannaCry works and what to expect if you get infected.
  13. Official - Windows 10 Worst Crap Ever!

    Although I've heard much about what Vista and 8 got wrong, the consensus I've always heard is that 7 is/was "the new XP" in terms of everything. I'm curious; in your opinion, what did 10 get right that 7 didn't?
  14. Big RamDiisk, Lots of RAM, etc.

    They're both the 32-bit version. One is Firefox proper, the other is Pale Moon. That depends. Until a few years ago I thought the only issue I'd run into with sticking with XP is that I wouldn't be able to play newer games due to their requiring more recent versions of DirectX. However, since then I've learned that the newer Windows OSes have some different APIs than XP does. So when a developer makes a program that doesn't support XP, it's likely that the program is calling APIs used in Vista or newer, and so the program won't run in XP. That's not always the case, though, and sometimes there's programs which don't support XP that still run because they don't call any APIs exclusive to the newer OSes. Even so, the API issue is going to be a hurdle going forward. I imagine @Dibya and the rest of the code-savvy gang here at MSFN will be working around that, though. MSFN found a way to get Windows 9X and Me to run XP-era apps with DLL modding, I imagine they can do it for XP and post-XP programs. I linked to it before, but just such a workaround exists for XCOM: Enemy Unknown.
  15. Big RamDiisk, Lots of RAM, etc.

    I just tested that in one of my folders that has a lot of files and subdirectories; didn't happen. XP (and XP64) have their own weird quirks, though. Like the way windows and open programs will randomly shuffle about in their arrangement. That can be an annoyance if you're trying to do a lot of cross-window operations, like dragging and dropping images from a browser to a folder, or clicking through several different windows. I haven't, no, but truthfully I can't see W2K Server having better driver support than XP64 or XP32 at this point. That's why I'm interested in Dibya's projects, trying to convert drivers for newer hardware for the XP family to use. Not necessarily that. However, once my machine has to dig into virtual memory and if I have other memory intensive programs running, the rig starts grinding when trying to tab back into to Firefox and browse around. Now, on certain sites, like Twitter ... if you are scrolling hours back on your timeline, and you attempt to click on a tweet or retweet something rather than opening it in a new tab in order to view and/or retweet it, Twitter will cause Firefox to lock up and start rapidly consuming memory, forcing me to kill the process. (Then again, Twitter's been making one awful UI choice after another in recent years.) I actually have two Mozilla-based browsers running right now with 300+ tabs open on each. They often break 1.5GB memory consumption, but don't freeze because of that.
×