cc333

Bronze Sponsor
  • Content count

    229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

cc333 last won the day on April 20

cc333 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

38 Excellent

1 Follower

About cc333

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x64
  • Country
  1. Not sure about KernekEx, but using BWC's Extended Core, I can run the latest Firefox ESR on 2000 perfectly. At one point (with an older version of Extended Core), bookmarking didn't work, but that seems to have been fixed in the most recent update (I'll have to test more thoroughly, but the stock bookmarks do show up now, and they didn't before, sooo...) c
  2. Why am I not surprised? Windows 10 is okay, if I disable virtually anything, but I like every other version better, particularly XP and 7. Even Windows 8 (not 8.1) is better! In stock form!! When that happens, you KNOW something's wrong, because 8 was pretty bad. Out of fairness though, 8.0 did improve over time, eventually evolving into the much better 8.1, but still.... c
  3. It's not XP, but K-Melon 76 Pro happens to work very well in Windows 2000 with Extended Core. I'm using it to type this post, in fact c
  4. No I mean I have the 32-bit version of "real" Firefox working. I could try the 64-bit version of "real" Firefox, but we'd probably run into the same problems as with Waterfox. I could try compatibility mode, but since there's no entry for Windows Vista x64 (which is understandable, since XP x64 predates it by at least two years), I'm not sure it'd work. c
  5. This is good information! Perhaps I'll give this a try when I get some time. Firefox is open source, yes? I wonder what would happen if somebody took the source code for the 64-bit version and compiled it with the XP compatibility flag set. Would it just work with few/no changes to the code, or explode spectacularly with a million errors? c
  6. An oversight you think? If I unpack the installer for 32-bit Firefox and set the main executable to the "Windows XP" compatibility mode, it works quite well, so not all is lost. It would be nice to have a natively working 64-bit version, though. c
  7. Too bad they didn't offer it to 2000 Well, I'm sure some enterprising person can find a way to backport the patch, since 2000 and XP share a common codebase (NT 5.x), and are relatively compatible with one another (case in point: the latest HFSLIP packages for 2000 incorporate many XP-specific updates which appear to slipstream successfully into 2000's install media, and said media seems to install a properly working 2000). c p.s. Is 9x, NT 3.xx or 4 affected by this?
  8. I saw that just now. There was only one other time that Ms released an update for an EOL'ed OS, wasn't there? Well, nevertheless, it makes me feel a bit better about XP x64! And yes, the article did mention that the initial infection needed to be initiated by a person. I just forgot to mention it, as it was very late when I wrote that post. EDIT: Note, however, that Vista was conspicuously not included in this post-EOL update. Perhaps MS should reconsider "un-EOL"-ing these Windows versions for a time, given how they are apparently still being used in significant numbers. c
  9. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/technology/article/Global-extortion-cyberattack-hits-dozens-of-11142481.php Apparently XP was a major target, since the mainstream version (i.e., not updated with POSReady patches) is still vulnerable, and is still widely used within the affected organizations due primarily to severe budget cuts in their IT departments. As a result, I think today it can be said that, once and for all, plain XP is definitely not safe. Not even good browsing habits or firewalls could stop this, apparently. Of course, those of us who regularly apply POSReady updates to our XP systems are supposedly safe, since POSReady was patched for this particular vulnerability (those money-starved IT depts. would benefit greatly from this I think; it's technically not a supported configuration, and would thus create more headaches, but it's free compared to a complete upgrade). EDIT: XP x64, however, was not patched. Since that is based on Server 2003, I wonder how trivial it would be to backport relevant updates from Server 2008 (it's NT6 vs. 2003's NT5, but maybe they're similar enough??). Of course, if it could be done, it probably would've been done by now, so it's probably impossible.... c
  10. I just got one of these from my local JC's computer surplus, and with some TLC, it runs quite well. I thought I'd try putting 98SE on it, because I'd read that it was possible. So, after downloading and installing the drivers, 98 installed easily. There are still three unknowns in Device Manager, though: Universal Serial Bus Controller, PCI device, and PCI Network device. I can guess that the network device is the unrecognizable Intel WiFi card, and the PCI device is probably the modem, but what of the extra USB controller? USB seems to be doing OK, so maybe it has something to do with Bluetooth (there doesn't appear to be a Bluetooth card, but maybe that's the bus it would've used had it been installed?) I'm content with it as is (98SE at 1.4 GHz!), but if I can fix these, I'll be happier c
  11. Has anyone noticed that Firefox's quality seems to be getting worse? Starting somewhere around Firefox 48, at least on Mac, it'll slow down and crash for no reason, and YouTube (regardless of whether HTML5 or Flash is being used for a given video) will stop working, forcing me to restart the browser (and another problem is that Firefox will hang upon quitting, requiring that I force quit). I'm going to give Opera a try. I like Firefox, but it's just not working like it should anymore (hopefully 5x will fix it, but as of 51.x.x, it still randomly crashes). The Windows version seems more stable, but since I haven't used it hard enough for awhile, I can neither confirm nor refute whether this still holds true. c
  12. OK, I'm getting XP up and running on a Dell Latitude D600, but with a slow, single core P4 CPU, I'm afraid that updating via WU will take days of sitting at "Checking for updates...", instead of the hours it took for my comparatively much faster D630. Any advice on how to prevent the stickage? c
  13. I have a Nehalem/Westmere-based 2009 Mac Pro (very old, I realize) with Windows 7 on it. I shall boot it up sometime soon and check if it's affected by this new "feature". Windows 8.x is also affected by this garbage, yes? c
  14. I'm beginning to hate Microsoft. They keep breaking things needlessly, and adding useless features that do nothing but spy on users. And this CPU-block, in particular, is absolutely arbitrary and completely unnecessary. It's just an attempt to force people to abandon it via FUD. There is no technical reason why MS can't provide updates to those systems. They're just desperate for people to "upgrade" to Windows 10. One more reason to use XP, I guess. It's seemingly unaffected by this nonsense, fortunately, so it should be good until 2019. It has it's own issues, but at least this isn't one of them. c
  15. I have a nitpick: This thread's title seems weird... It says this thread was updated this coming November? It's from the future! I'm fairly confident it is supposed to be 11/04/16. c