• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


2008WindowsVista last won the day on March 25

2008WindowsVista had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

61 Excellent


About 2008WindowsVista

  • Birthday 02/16/1992

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

1,601 profile views
  1. Thanks for the information and addition. Perhaps MSRT will support Vista for a while longer, as Windows 8.0 is still supported. Just have to wait and see.
  2. Thank you both for the additions! I will wait for you to test 3dsmax 2013 and Unity 5 before adding them to the list, just to be certain whether or not they do work on Vista. As for Windows Defender, I must mention that the Vista/7 version of the software hasn't been very reputable for providing quality protection, so I'd recommend using a free, third party alternative, such as Avast! Free Edition or pretty much any of the (free) listings in the ONG section. However, Windows Defender is still a valid option, so it has been added to the list. Hopefully, I can find out more information about MSE, and whether or not the solution pointed out (in the post you linked) that XP users are currently using, will also work in Vista. As I figure things out, I'll update the list accordingly. Thanks again!
  3. I didn't say to try all updates, but to try at least more than one or even two, to give us a better idea of whether at least most Server 2008 security updates will work in Vista. Sorry for the confusion. Trying only one (security) update, in my opinion, isn't enough to go all out and say that all Server 2008 security updates will work on Vista... Maybe you weren't meaning to imply that, and maybe I just misunderstood. But the way you put it in a couple of your prior posts: ...made it look to me like you were implying that since you tried only one security update, that all of them would work in Vista. Even if the filenames are similar or the same, there's a chance that the updates still won't work in Vista, because Microsoft does indeed have the ability to make updates Server-only or Client-only if they see fit, as I'm sure you know. Take the platform update for example, the filenames and even the file sizes are the same, but there are separate versions for Vista and 2008, and neither of them will work on the opposing OS. Microsoft has different version numbers inside the CAB files contained in the .MSU files to identify each update as either Client or Server compatible. If the version number inside the update mismatches the "host" OS, the update will NOT install. This is the main reason why Powershell 3.0 doesn't work. I'm guessing for the Server 2008 security updates that do work under Vista, there is no specific number specified, for whatever reason, other than just NT 6.0.6002, which is why the updates work in Vista. I actually agree with you about Powershell, as I never use the program myself. I was just tinkering around with the update to see if the version number contained within it could be changed to make it install under Vista. But as greenhillmaniac points out, it can't be done, so I have stopped bothering with it. I'm not trying to be rude or argue about it, but like I said before, I just want to make sure we have strong evidence to make an educated guess, and judging by the information that has been presented to me, I can confidently "guess" that most Server 2008 security updates will work in Vista But we have to wait until May 9th to know for sure, so I'm not going to worry about it until then. Thank you for the information. That's very interesting to know about .NET Framework 4.6.1. I wonder if future (major) versions of .NET Framework, whether it be 4.7 or 5.0, will work. That's stretching it a bit, though.
  4. Are you referring to what @sanszajnrege said? I'm not trying to be rude, but I wouldn't take someone saying that one update works (and without even elaborating on what specific update they tried) as confirmation that Server 2008 security-only updates work in Vista. Otherwise, the only update I tried (at first) was Powershell 3.0 for Server 2008, but from my understanding (according to a knowledgeable source that greenhill consulted), Powershell 3.0 is completely incompatible with Windows Vista, for some reason. However, I did some more searching on the Microsoft Update Catalog site, and tried several different Server 2008 security updates on Vista, and they all installed just fine, oddly enough. Here's a link to the updates I tried (excluding the Server 2008 R2 updates, the Sharepoint services update, and some outdated security updates for IE8. Also, I only tried those on page 1 of the search results): https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=security update server 2008 x64 This is a good sign that May 2017 (and beyond) Server 2008 security-only updates will work in Vista. However, it should be noted that most if not all of the updates I tried have Vista-only versions too, so Microsoft could decide to change something regarding the compilation of future Server 2008 security-only updates (when Vista is no longer supported) that prevents them from installing under Vista. Retracting my last statement about April 11th, it will be the next patch Tuesday that excludes Windows Vista that will give us answers, so make that... May 9th, IIRC? After this finding, my outlook on the situation has changed. I believe that Vista users will be set until 2020, as far as security-only updates go, as long as Microsoft doesn't get any ideas (and at this point, that seems unlikely, given that Server 2008 is no longer in mainstream support). I also doubt that we'll have to worry about incompatible updates, since Microsoft didn't include Server 2008 support in newer .NET framework updates (4.6.1 requires 2008 R2 or later). The only updates I'd imagine wouldn't work would be anything to do with Powershell 3.0. But does that component even get updated at all? I hope I didn't sound rude (that was certainly not my intention), I just don't want people to get their hopes up and then just get hit with disappointment come Vista's EOL. However, like I said, I believe we'll be fine, but I like to take everything into consideration before I jump to conclusions, because Microsoft can be pretty unpredictable sometimes. Best regards.
  5. AFAIK, nobody has done so (yet). I have a feeling it isn't going to work either, at least not without modification to the updates themselves (view this to find out more): However, Tuesday (April 11) will tell...
  6. At the time I made the package and listing, I was very tired so I made some mistakes... Sorry about that. You can safely copy the wrappers to the System32 location, and nothing should be affected, as I've done so several times myself. However, as you pointed out, it would be simpler to copy all the files at once to a single location, so thanks for the information. Unfortunately, according to Adobe's terms of use here, you're not allowed to redistribute or host the software, so I've removed the package from the list. Instead, I'll create a video tutorial on my YouTube channel on how to manually download and install Reader DC under Windows Vista, and will link that video on the list when it's complete. This will cause the process to become much more lengthy compared to using my installation package, but I certainly would rather avoid any legal issues and play it safe. Instead of hosting their software on my MEGA account, I'll just link their FTP server in the video's description, and I'll demonstrate how to manually edit the MSI files, as well as manually hex editing the DLLs to use the wrappers instead of Vista's system DLLs. The only thing I'll host is Smeezekitty's wrappers, which should be fine since they're not part of Reader DC in any way, and I'll be certain to give him credit.
  7. Sure, all additions are welcome as long as the software works with Windows Vista/2008 (and isn't malware obviously, lol).
  8. Thank you for the information, VistaLover! I finally got around to updating the Last versions of software for Windows Vista list to reflect this information, and I added an installation package for Reader DC for Vista containing all of the needed files.
  9. Goodness, the list is getting quite long now! Added those to the list, and as usual, thanks for the information.
  10. Speaking of that, I took a look at the update .MSU files for Powershell 3.0 for Windows Server 2008 and Powershell 2.0 for Windows Vista by extracting them with 7zip. I got two .CAB files for each update, along with an .XML file in each. Here's a screenshot of the .XML files from each update opened in Slimjet side-by-side for comparison: http://prntscr.com/er0kug If you look closely, the build number specified for each OS is different. My guess is that Microsoft used this to differentiate between Client (WinVista) and Server (Win2k8) when releasing updates for each OS to prevent installation of Server-only updates on Client and vice versa. If this is also the case with security-only updates released for Server 2008 post April 2017, Server 2008 updates more than likely won't work under Vista and will require modification of the .MSU/.CAB files (assuming someone here knows how/is willing to do that...) and even then, I'd imagine it would be a huge pain in the neck to have to perform that for each individual update... Taking this information into account, the future of Windows Vista doesn't seem too bright. We can only hope...
  11. Thank you once again Werewolf for the very detailed and informative additions! Added 'em to the list as per usual
  12. Which updates in specific did you try? I believe that security updates will work, but anything beyond that might not... There are a few Server 2008-exclusive updates that don't work on Vista, such as Powershell 3.0 for Server 2008, and there's a whole separate version of the Platform Update for Server 2008 that won't install under Vista (not applicable to your OS). Also, Microsoft Security Essentials doesn't show any EOL-warning prompts under Server 2008 as it does under Vista, so I'd say that the situation may not be 100% parallel to the Server 2012/Win8 situation... It all depends on if MS utilizes version/edition checking in the .msu files, and I won't be surprised if that is the case. If so, Vista users might be out of luck
  13. If you could do that (if the updates work in Vista), it would be much appreciated! My internet upload speed sucks, so... Thanks, lol.
  14. I used Vista until I built an Intel Haswell-based machine, and that caused me to have to stop using it as my primary OS... For whatever reason, Vista totally bugs out when attempting to use the OS on Haswell and newer architectures from Intel, with all kinds of weird symptoms like random services failing to start, intermittent failed boot attempts (Interactive logon process initialization has failed), and the decline in third party application support wasn't helping either. I do keep Vista on my AMD FX 8320 based system, and it works flawlessly there (dualbooted with Server 2003 R2). I'm actually curious to know how Vista would handle running on AMD's new Ryzen architecture, but I don't have access to such hardware at the moment so I'm not able to test it. I actually quite enjoy running 8.1 here though - I have it tweaked to my preference with a nice looking Vista UI and the system runs fast and stable. 8.1's UI is annoying out of the box, but Classic Shell fixes that. It's easy to customize and tweak, and I feel like I'm in control of my system. I can't say I'd feel the same if I were running Windows 10, though... XPclient's brilliant rant should tell you all you need to know about Windows 10 As for getting Server 2008 updates installed on Vista, I think it's possible. However, perhaps using WSUS Offline to download the Server 2008 updates would be a better solution than trying to "trick" Windows Update into fetching for Server 2008 updates. @JodyT uses it to download Server 2012 updates for his Windows 8.0 RTM system, or at least at one point he did before @greenhillmaniac created a convenient update repository on MEGA. I might try creating something like that, assuming Server 2008 updates actually do work on Vista... here's hoping...
  15. You're probably right about that... Vista does have the advantage of being of the same kernel revision as Windows 7, 8.x, and 10, however, making it an easier target platform to develop for... We'll just have to wait and see. Yep... This is a problem that Windows 9x users are running into at the moment I believe. I'm pretty sure Windows 2000 (with @blackwingcat's extended kernel) will run Firefox 52.x ESR though, which is pretty interesting. Without the community's help though, Windows 2000 would still be stuck at Firefox 10.x ESR/Firefox 12.x, and I'm afraid Vista will probably hit that same wall (with Firefox 52.x) and will remain stuck there, perhaps for good... Yes, that is true. However, it'd be nice to have an "all-in-one" solution like a Service Pack or rollup. Wouldn't it still most likely reduce the time needed to get a Vista system up-to-date compared to what we have now? I've also had an issue with Vista where the Windows Update service hangs (at random) while trying to use WSUS to install the updates , and I have to end up stopping WSUS, manually restarting the Windows Update service, and then running WSUS again to get the updates to continue installing, otherwise the update installation window hangs at "Searching for updates...". It could be a problem with just my system, but it's still annoying nonetheless. WSUS is still a great solution though, and definitely beats dealing with Microsoft's total careless and negligent attitude towards Vista. ...In other news, the topic just hit 10K views! Good to know that people are getting use out of the list.