Can the Chrome nag be suppressed?

[J. P. Gilliver]

Whenever I start Chrome, I get the "To Get future Google Chrome updates,
you'll need Windows 10 or later. This computer is using Windows 7."
message. Not a _problem_, just an irritant.

Anyone know if it can be suppressed? I know Chrome has stopped
supporting W7, and am quite happy with what I've got - I might well not
update it even if I could. So the message is not just irritating.
(Answers of the "use other than Chrome" type will be ignored.)

[Ed Cryer]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Whenever I start Chrome, I get the "To Get future Google Chrome updates,
you'll need Windows 10 or later. This computer is using Windows 7."
message. Not a _problem_, just an irritant.
Anyone know if it can be suppressed? I know Chrome has stopped
supporting W7, and am quite happy with what I've got - I might well not
update it even if I could. So the message is not just irritating.
(Answers of the "use other than Chrome" type will be ignored.)

You can remove it with a small register edit.
Input the following lines into Notepad, then save it with .reg
extension. Then double click it to run

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Google\Chrome]
"SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning"=dword:00000001


Alternatively you can do it manually, as shown here;
https://tinyurl.com/yvnkvp6j

Good luck.

Ed

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Whenever I start Chrome, I get the "To Get future Google Chrome
updates, you'll need Windows 10 or later. This computer is using
Windows 7." message. Not a _problem_, just an irritant.
Anyone know if it can be suppressed? I know Chrome has stopped

[]

Post by Ed Cryer
You can remove it with a small register edit.
Input the following lines into Notepad, then save it with .reg
extension. Then double click it to run
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Google\Chrome]
"SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning"=dword:00000001
Alternatively you can do it manually, as shown here;
https://tinyurl.com/yvnkvp6j

[]
Thanks - that worked! (And I didn't have to restart the computer, as
shown in the video, only Chrome.)

[Ed Cryer]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Whenever I start Chrome, I get the "To Get future Google Chrome
updates,  you'll need Windows 10 or later. This computer is using
Windows 7."  message. Not a _problem_, just an irritant.
 Anyone know if it can be suppressed? I know Chrome has stopped

[]

Post by Ed Cryer
You can remove it with a small register edit.
Input the following lines into Notepad, then save it with .reg
extension. Then double click it to run
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Google\Chrome]
"SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning"=dword:00000001
Alternatively you can do it manually, as shown here;
https://tinyurl.com/yvnkvp6j

[]
Thanks - that worked! (And I didn't have to restart the computer, as
shown in the video, only Chrome.)

Things like that are so annoying; and there are so many of them. Pop-up
adverts obscuring what you want to read, spammers who, when you
complain, say "Oh, most people like to know about our useless stuff",
lots of "Choose whether we should track your every movement or not" etc.
They're just a pest and they make you reluctant to go online.
It used to be diff

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]
[]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by J. P. Gilliver
 Anyone know if it can be suppressed? I know Chrome has stopped

[]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Thanks - that worked! (And I didn't have to restart the computer, as
shown in the video, only Chrome.)

Things like that are so annoying; and there are so many of them. Pop-up
adverts obscuring what you want to read, spammers who, when you
complain, say "Oh, most people like to know about our useless stuff",
lots of "Choose whether we should track your every movement or not"
etc. They're just a pest and they make you reluctant to go online.

I wouldn't have minded this one if it had only popped up once, or had
had a "don't tell me again" button; the fact that the
SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning key works suggests they had implemented
that, but decided at the last moment not to include it.

Post by Ed Cryer
It used to be different; back in the days of start-up Internet.
Ed

I think the ones that irritate me the most are the cookie options:
sometimes turning off all of those can take many minutes, and there
isn't a global no option, for "legitimate interest" ones (how dare
_they_ decide which are "legitimate"). Of course, this may only apply to
those like me in the EU/UK, and others don't have the protection that
asks them at all, just sets the cookies.
If I encounter one of these, then unless the website has some
information that I'm unlikely to find anywhere else, I leave the site.

[Daniel65]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
[]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by J. P. Gilliver
 Anyone know if it can be suppressed? I know Chrome has stopped

[]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Thanks - that worked! (And I didn't have to restart the computer, as
shown in the video, only Chrome.)

Things like that are so annoying; and there are so many of them.
Pop-up adverts obscuring what you want to read, spammers who, when you
complain, say "Oh, most people like to know about our useless stuff",
lots of "Choose whether we should track your every movement or not"
etc. They're just a pest and they make you reluctant to go online.

I wouldn't have minded this one if it had only popped up once, or had
had a "don't tell me again" button; the fact that the
SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning key works suggests they had implemented
that, but decided at the last moment not to include it.

.... or had decide NOT to tell anyone they had included it!

[R.Wieser]

J. P. Gilliver,

Post by J. P. Gilliver
sometimes turning off all of those can take many minutes,

Here in the EU that was recognised, and a "reject all" button got added next
to the "accept all" one (with the old "manage settings" link below them).

But take a wild guess how that that "reject all" choice is remembered. Yep,
as a cookie ofcourse! Whatdoyoumean "reject all" ? :-D

And guess what happens when, as I did, have configured the browser to delete
all cookies when it closes ...

And by the way, it stores *four* cookies all-in-all. For what purposes ?
Beats me, nobody over there thinks they need to tell me/anyone.

Lol. I just did a search on the cookie-name "__Secure-ENID" (which is
followed by a lengthy unreadable string value). If you guessed it's
tracking related* than you may grab yourself a /real/ cookie. :-)

* https://www.msc.com/en/cookie-policy (search for the cookie name)

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Of course, this may only apply to those like me in the EU/UK, and others
don't have the protection that asks them at all, just sets the cookies.

You mean like wikipedia does ? Two for "{country}.wikipedia.org" and two
for "wikipedia.org". Last Access (twice), NetworkProbeLimit, and GeoIP.

Not really a problem, as all of them gets deleted when I close my browser.
(it also rejects (storage of/requests for) all thirt-party cookies)

... but I almost get the urge to go and muck with the data they stored
there. :-)

Post by J. P. Gilliver
If I encounter one of these, then unless the website has some information
that I'm unlikely to find anywhere else, I leave the site.

I did the same, until I realized that the cookies are, due to my browser
deleting them on close (and won't survive the hour, let alone the day),
useless to them.

What I dislike the most are those sites which bluntly state "when you
continue to use us we are allowed to do anything we like" kind of cookie
"acceptance" banners. In the past they agitated me, so now I have my
browser set (thrue a plugin called GreaseMonkey) to automatically erase such
banners. Just like the "you have to click the button" overlays.

You know, its as if those websites have no idea what the "cookie law"s
(GDPR) "informed consent" actually means ... (Yeah, right).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Your initial message specified that "use other than Chrome" type of
responses would be ignored. But you left yourself fully open to "just
install Win10" type of responses. :-P

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by R.Wieser
J. P. Gilliver,

Post by J. P. Gilliver
sometimes turning off all of those can take many minutes,

Here in the EU that was recognised, and a "reject all" button got added next
to the "accept all" one (with the old "manage settings" link below them).

Dig further in. I think you'll find that, even if they're rejected, some
companies (in the long list of companies any one site lists) have two
switches: one normal one, which will be off, and one "legitimate
interest" one that is on. And in some I've looked at recently, the first
few screenfuls only have the normal type, with the "legitimate interest"
type only further down - so if you just glance at the list, you'll think
they're all off.

Post by R.Wieser
But take a wild guess how that that "reject all" choice is remembered. Yep,
as a cookie ofcourse! Whatdoyoumean "reject all" ? :-D

Well, to be fair, I'm not sure how else they could remember that - and I
certainly don't mind them leaving _that_ cookie!

Post by R.Wieser
And guess what happens when, as I did, have configured the browser to delete
all cookies when it closes ...

Ah, I would love to do that, but it would forget too many things I
consider "legitimate". And running a whitelist would be too
time-consuming.

Post by R.Wieser
And by the way, it stores *four* cookies all-in-all. For what purposes ?
Beats me, nobody over there thinks they need to tell me/anyone.
Lol. I just did a search on the cookie-name "__Secure-ENID" (which is
followed by a lengthy unreadable string value). If you guessed it's

No, I'd have imagined something to do with Ms. Blyton! Or not.

Post by R.Wieser
tracking related* than you may grab yourself a /real/ cookie. :-)

Hmm, think I'll have a mince pie - oh, I've already done so. Bother.

Post by R.Wieser
* https://www.msc.com/en/cookie-policy (search for the cookie name)

Mediterranean Shipping Company - never been to _that_ site! Looks
decidedly shady - registered in Switzerland, which is well-known for its
Mediterranean beaches.
[]

Post by R.Wieser
Not really a problem, as all of them gets deleted when I close my browser.
(it also rejects (storage of/requests for) all thirt-party cookies)
... but I almost get the urge to go and muck with the data they stored
there. :-)

(-:
[]

Post by R.Wieser
What I dislike the most are those sites which bluntly state "when you
continue to use us we are allowed to do anything we like" kind of cookie
"acceptance" banners. In the past they agitated me, so now I have my
browser set (thrue a plugin called GreaseMonkey) to automatically erase such
banners. Just like the "you have to click the button" overlays.
You know, its as if those websites have no idea what the "cookie law"s
(GDPR) "informed consent" actually means ... (Yeah, right).

We need a few high-profile cases. But nobody has the deep pockets
required )-:.

Post by R.Wieser
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
P.s.
Your initial message specified that "use other than Chrome" type of
responses would be ignored. But you left yourself fully open to "just
install Win10" type of responses. :-P

Well, I'd _hoped_ that by posting only in the '7 'group, I might avoid
those - thinking those still here were either 7 enthusiasts, or at least
understand those of us who are. (Actually I hadn't thought of it, but if
I had that's what I'd have said.)

[R.Wieser]

J. P. Gilliver,

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Dig further in. I think you'll find that, even if they're rejected, some
companies (in the long list of companies any one site lists) have two
switches: one normal one, which will be off, and one "legitimate interest"
one that is on.

That does not matter in two ways :

1) "reject all" is "reject all", and nothing else. Trying to "play around"
with that kind of definition will most likely get them in dangerous waters
with the EU.

2) "legitimate interest" is, when claimed, not something the user can
reject. IOW, having a switch for it is absolutily nonsense.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Well, to be fair, I'm not sure how else they could remember that -

Have you ever told me I can't walk into your house ? That certainly means
you have given me permission, right ? :-)

There are /lots/ of situations where not being able to show permission means
you don't have it. In this case you not having a permission cookie stored
means they do not have permission - and everyone who gives permission has
one. The data stored with the key doesn't even matter anymore.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
and I certainly don't mind them leaving _that_ cookie!

If the data to such a "consent" cookie would have been a simple "yes" or
"no" I would not have bothered complaining either, and just injected it into
the page when needed (my FF doesn't have "pinned" cookies).

Alas, I've seen such "consent" cookie data (looking at you, Google)
containing all kinds of strings, and nobody knows whats in it besides the
(absense of) consent single-bit flag.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Ah, I would love to do that, but it would forget too many things I
consider "legitimate". And running a whitelist would be too
time-consuming.

I have next to zero websites that need along-lived cookie. The only
exception was Google (before it had the "reject all" button), and I just
injected the cookie I wanted (copied from when I when thru the "manage
settings" switches).

Yes, more cumbersome than a simple whitelist, but for me, not much. I
already de-greased the Google results into oblivion (moving advertorial
links to the bottom, cleaning up the links themselves, moving crap website
links to the bottom too, etc.). Adding a cookie injection was one extra
line.

Currently, with the "reject all" button, I do not even inject a cookie
anymore (random data is better than frozen data) - Than again, as I have put
them at the bottom of my shortlist I do not use them to often anymore
either.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
No, I'd have imagined something to do with Ms. Blyton! Or not.

:-) Indeed, that is where I recognised that name from too, just didn't
realize until you came up with the other part.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Mediterranean Shipping Company - never been to _that_ site!

Before today me neither. I saw that it wasn't quite a factual data site,
but its description of that particular cookie was clear, and matched other,
shorter ones on other websites.

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by R.Wieser
You know, its as if those websites have no idea what the "cookie law"s
(GDPR) "informed consent" actually means ... (Yeah, right).

We need a few high-profile cases. But nobody has the deep pockets
required )-:.

Indeed. But even than the outcome is often as reliable as the throw of a
dice. :-(

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Well, I'd _hoped_ that by posting only in the '7 'group, I might avoid
those

Well, you could be right there. The nitwits who think that they can come up
with such great solutions have probably all moved on to the latest OS
version newsgroup.

Ofcourse, you have not reconed with people like me, who took that "'use
other than Chrome' type will be ignored" as a bit of a challenge. Luckely I
could stop myself before I posted it. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[JJ]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Whenever I start Chrome, I get the "To Get future Google Chrome
updates, you'll need Windows 10 or later. This computer is using
Windows 7." message. Not a _problem_, just an irritant.
Anyone know if it can be suppressed? I know Chrome has stopped

[]

Post by Ed Cryer
You can remove it with a small register edit.
Input the following lines into Notepad, then save it with .reg
extension. Then double click it to run
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Google\Chrome]
"SuppressUnsupportedOSWarning"=dword:00000001
Alternatively you can do it manually, as shown here;
https://tinyurl.com/yvnkvp6j

[]
Thanks - that worked! (And I didn't have to restart the computer, as
shown in the video, only Chrome.)

Don't stop there. Use Chrome/ium's Group Policy templates. There's a lot
that we can tweak.

https://www.chromium.org/administrators/policy-templates/

Microsoft Edge also has its own.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/business/download?form=MA13FJ

Opera doesn't have any. (sic)

Other Chroimium based browsers may have their own. Or not...

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by JJ

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Thanks - that worked! (And I didn't have to restart the computer, as
shown in the video, only Chrome.)

Don't stop there. Use Chrome/ium's Group Policy templates. There's a lot
that we can tweak.
https://www.chromium.org/administrators/policy-templates/

Thanks. I've had a brief look, but it looks awfully complicated!

Post by JJ
Microsoft Edge also has its own.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/business/download?form=MA13FJ

(Thanks. Downloaded, though I can't remember when I last used Edge - not
sure if ever on this machine.)

Post by JJ
Opera doesn't have any. (sic)
Other Chroimium based browsers may have their own. Or not...

(-:

[Paul]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by JJ

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Thanks - that worked! (And I didn't have to restart the computer, as
shown in the video, only Chrome.)

Don't stop there. Use Chrome/ium's Group Policy templates. There's a lot
that we can tweak.
https://www.chromium.org/administrators/policy-templates/

Thanks. I've had a brief look, but it looks awfully complicated!

Post by JJ
Microsoft Edge also has its own.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/business/download?form=MA13FJ

(Thanks. Downloaded, though I can't remember when I last used Edge - not sure if ever on this machine.)

Post by JJ
Opera doesn't have any. (sic)
Other Chroimium based browsers may have their own. Or not...

Before you get too excited, remember that the browser companies
have passed "death sentences" for old OSes. When you load any
recent version of such softwares, expect to see banners, denials,
and tripe.

A Linux user will receive slightly better treatment than you will :-)

I'm sure by now, you have received this drill :-) You're supposed to
get a "feeling of rejection" from the software industry. A cold shoulder
as it were. As of a recent date, Windows 7 users are now "scum and
villainy" similar to those damned WinXP users. Even though the OS
has the technical specifications for *all* of the browsers to run on it.
It's just as capable an OS, as the later ones.

Paul

[JJ]

Post by Paul
Before you get too excited, remember that the browser companies
have passed "death sentences" for old OSes. When you load any
recent version of such softwares, expect to see banners, denials,
and tripe.

FYI, the last version of Chromium which still work in Win7 is v109.

Microsoft claims the same for its Edge, but at least for me, the last Edge
version which still work in Win7 is v106. Not v109.

Post by Paul
A Linux user will receive slightly better treatment than you will :-)

It's a good point to show how sly big companies are.

Post by Paul
I'm sure by now, you have received this drill :-) You're supposed to
get a "feeling of rejection" from the software industry. A cold shoulder
as it were. As of a recent date, Windows 7 users are now "scum and
villainy" similar to those damned WinXP users. Even though the OS
has the technical specifications for *all* of the browsers to run on it.
It's just as capable an OS, as the later ones.
Paul

Been there, done that. I don't care anymore. I've lost hope, frankly. The
list would go on if I keep complaining and pointing something out. It won't
change a thing. I'll just focus on what I need. I'll do something about it
myself as much as I can if I want something to work. I'm the master of my
PC. Not anyone else or anything. Nothing is hackproof.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
Before you get too excited, remember that the browser companies
have passed "death sentences" for old OSes. When you load any
recent version of such softwares, expect to see banners, denials,
and tripe.

FYI, the last version of Chromium which still work in Win7 is v109.

I have "Version 109.0.5414.120 (Official Build) (32-bit)".

Post by JJ
Microsoft claims the same for its Edge, but at least for me, the last Edge
version which still work in Win7 is v106. Not v109.

I seem to have msedge.exe which is 109.0.1518.140 according to
properties; I don't think I've ever used it - I don't have a shortcut (I
found it with Everything), and running it directly didn't make anything
appear (though a couple of .pf files appeared in C:\Windows\Prefetch).

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
A Linux user will receive slightly better treatment than you will :-)

It's a good point to show how sly big companies are.

Post by Paul
I'm sure by now, you have received this drill :-) You're supposed to
get a "feeling of rejection" from the software industry. A cold shoulder

I turned off most things that give me that some while ago; yes, if I was
the sort of person who tried to keep up with the latest of everything I
would, but then I wouldn't be in this 'group, would I (or have started
this thread, the successful answer to which has let me turn off another
such!).

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
as it were. As of a recent date, Windows 7 users are now "scum and
villainy" similar to those damned WinXP users. Even though the OS
has the technical specifications for *all* of the browsers to run on it.
It's just as capable an OS, as the later ones.
Paul

So far, I've yet to see anything in even 10 to make me want to "up"grade
- well, maybe one or two tiny things (can't think of any ATM), but if so
far outweighed by (a) things just _changed_ for no benefit I can see (b)
the ever-increasing yielding of control. (I doubt this could do 11 - I
can't honestly say there's nothing in 11 I want as I've hardly seen it
running anywhere.)

Post by JJ
Been there, done that. I don't care anymore. I've lost hope, frankly. The
list would go on if I keep complaining and pointing something out. It won't
change a thing. I'll just focus on what I need. I'll do something about it

Same here.

Post by JJ
myself as much as I can if I want something to work. I'm the master of my
PC. Not anyone else or anything. Nothing is hackproof.

(-: [I take an image from time to time, and have my Macrium on (mini-)CD
should I need to restore one of them.]

[Mark Lloyd]

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
Before you get too excited, remember that the browser companies
have passed "death sentences" for old OSes. When you load any
recent version of such softwares, expect to see banners, denials,
and tripe.

FYI, the last version of Chromium which still work in Win7 is v109.
Microsoft claims the same for its Edge, but at least for me, the last Edge
version which still work in Win7 is v106. Not v109.

The Edge on my Win7 system is: Version 109.0.1518.140

[snip]

[JJ]

Post by Mark Lloyd

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
Before you get too excited, remember that the browser companies
have passed "death sentences" for old OSes. When you load any
recent version of such softwares, expect to see banners, denials,
and tripe.

FYI, the last version of Chromium which still work in Win7 is v109.
Microsoft claims the same for its Edge, but at least for me, the last Edge
version which still work in Win7 is v106. Not v109.

The Edge on my Win7 system is: Version 109.0.1518.140
[snip]

So I noticed.

The problem is that, I want portable version of Edge using the
`--user-data-dir` command line switch. _Without_ having to run the MSI
installation package or run in using third party "portablelizer" tool (which
runs a application under a sandbox).

I use manual .msi and .7z archive extraction method, and it has worked since
the first release of MSI based installer. But since v107, the extracted
files refuses to run. When run, it terminates itself silenty. No error
message, no error log, and no event log, whatsoever.

I've been searching for a download or a method for portable version of
Microsoft Edge v109 x64 which doesn't use third party "portablelizer" tool,
but I haven't found it yet. Anyone know?

[Paul]

Post by JJ

Post by Mark Lloyd

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
Before you get too excited, remember that the browser companies
have passed "death sentences" for old OSes. When you load any
recent version of such softwares, expect to see banners, denials,
and tripe.

FYI, the last version of Chromium which still work in Win7 is v109.
Microsoft claims the same for its Edge, but at least for me, the last Edge
version which still work in Win7 is v106. Not v109.

The Edge on my Win7 system is: Version 109.0.1518.140
[snip]

So I noticed.
The problem is that, I want portable version of Edge using the
`--user-data-dir` command line switch. _Without_ having to run the MSI
installation package or run in using third party "portablelizer" tool (which
runs a application under a sandbox).
I use manual .msi and .7z archive extraction method, and it has worked since
the first release of MSI based installer. But since v107, the extracted
files refuses to run. When run, it terminates itself silenty. No error
message, no error log, and no event log, whatsoever.
I've been searching for a download or a method for portable version of
Microsoft Edge v109 x64 which doesn't use third party "portablelizer" tool,
but I haven't found it yet. Anyone know?

To be successful in any ecosystem, you need "taxonomy information".
This was easy at first, was gradually getting harder, now the complexity
pace has picked up, and there are Pagolins and Lizards on the livingroom floor.

"You can't have a puppy, if someone gave you a kitten."

Or in the case of Windows 7.

"I want a puppy."
"Sir, this is an Arbys."

Where did you get the materials ?
Can we have a path to the materials, so we can dine on some ?
Were there any options for the material type ?
Have the options for material type CHANGED since the Win7 ban happened ?

I can't even guarantee you, that I can identify various road-kill
items that get dragged into the house, let alone tell you how
to cook and carve them, to make a flavorful meal. There's win32,
Metro, and Universal Apps, msi and msix, and a lot more.

Things that end in EXE:

1) double click, it runs (the Win32 case)
2) double click, the screen "blinks", then nothing else happens.
This is a win32 stub with valid but empty PE32 structure.
3) double click, absolutely nothing happens.
Check file size and see if it is *Zero Bytes* :-)
Not much can happen, if an EXE is empty :-)

Paul

[JJ]

Post by Paul
2) double click, the screen "blinks", then nothing else happens.
This is a win32 stub with valid but empty PE32 structure.

No such thing as valid empty PE32 structure data.

Post by Paul
3) double click, absolutely nothing happens.
Check file size and see if it is *Zero Bytes* :-)
Not much can happen, if an EXE is empty :-)

There's something wrong in your system then.

Loading Image...

[Paul]

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
2) double click, the screen "blinks", then nothing else happens.
This is a win32 stub with valid but empty PE32 structure.

No such thing as valid empty PE32 structure data.

<Eternal-September is acting up. Post lost. Post reconstructed.>

It's just a zero length program someone wrote as a skeleton.
The screen blinks, because the execution is "very quick".
At the end of the file format, is the "manifest" text strings.

Begin
End

If you use 7ZIP on it, it has the usual PE items listed.
7ZIP can parse EXE files, of all manner, when it finds them.

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
3) double click, absolutely nothing happens.
Check file size and see if it is *Zero Bytes* :-)
Not much can happen, if an EXE is empty :-)

There's something wrong in your system then.
https://i.imgur.com/jFIbpiX.png

There's nothing wrong with my system.

I didn't spend a lot of time on it, just took note and moved on.

This object is a projection. This object *DOES NOT* exist
in the file system. I checked with nfi.exe and it is not there.
It is linked somehow, to the folder of materials in the same folder
structure. In this case, I tried to execute it in a shell, and it
executed. Powershell lists the first item, as obviously a directory
(for reference), while the second item is the zero sized virtual thing.
The letter "L" suggests some kind of link, but I don't know what that
would be. It's not a .lnk . It could be a hard link (because nfi.exe
cannot list those reliably -- only one of two hardlinks gets listed).
I'm just surprised the size is zero, if it's a hardlink and it actually
points to a finite-sized item. "findlinks.exe" claims the item cannot
be accessed. I get the same response using C: (permissions intact) or
K: (permissions removed, Macrium Reflect backup image mount)

d----- 10/9/2023 6:55 AM Clipchamp.Clipchamp_yxz26nhyzhsrt
-a---l 10/9/2023 6:55 AM 0 clipchamp.exe

PS> D:\findlinks64 C:\Users\ \AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\clipchamp.exe

Findlinks v1.1 - Locate file hard links
Copyright (C) 2011-2016 Mark Russinovich
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com

Error opening c:\users\ \appdata\local\microsoft\windowsapps\clipchamp.exe:
The file cannot be accessed by the system.

PS>

[Picture]

Loading Image...

Paul

[Paul]

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
2) double click, the screen "blinks", then nothing else happens.
This is a win32 stub with valid but empty PE32 structure.

No such thing as valid empty PE32 structure data.

It's just a zero length program someone wrote as a skeleton.
The screen blinks, because the execution is "very quick".
At the end of the file format, is the "manifest" text strings.

Begin
End

If you use 7ZIP on it, it has the usual PE items listed.
7ZIP can parse EXE files, of all matter, when it finds them.

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
3) double click, absolutely nothing happens.
Check file size and see if it is *Zero Bytes* :-)
Not much can happen, if an EXE is empty :-)

There's something wrong in your system then.
https://i.imgur.com/jFIbpiX.png

There's nothing wrong with my system.

I didn't spend a lot of time on it, just took note and moved on.

This object is a projection. This object *DOES NOT* exist
in the file system. I checked with nfi.exe and it is not there.
It is linked somehow, to the folder of materials in the same folder
structure. In this case, I tried to execute it in a shell, and it
executed. Powershell lists the first item, as obviously a directory
(for reference), while the second item is the zero sized virtual thing.
The letter "L" suggests some kind of link, but I don't know what that
would be. It's not a .lnk . It could be a hard link (because nfi.exe
cannot list those reliably -- only one of two hardlinks gets listed).
I'm just surprised the size is zero, if it's a hardlink and it actually
points to a finite-sized item, the size listed should be non-zero.
"findlinks.exe" claims the item cannot be accessed. I get the same response
using C: (permissions intact) or K: (permissions removed, Macrium Reflect
backup image mount as partition K: )

d----- 10/9/2023 6:55 AM Clipchamp.Clipchamp_yxz26nhyzhsrt
-a---l 10/9/2023 6:55 AM 0 clipchamp.exe

PS> D:\findlinks64 C:\Users\ \AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\clipchamp.exe

Findlinks v1.1 - Locate file hard links
Copyright (C) 2011-2016 Mark Russinovich
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com

Error opening c:\users\quant\appdata\local\microsoft\windowsapps\clipchamp.exe:
The file cannot be accessed by the system.

PS>

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/6Qn7MZ6c/zero-sized-executable-win11home.gif

Paul

[Paul]

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
2) double click, the screen "blinks", then nothing else happens.
This is a win32 stub with valid but empty PE32 structure.

No such thing as valid empty PE32 structure data.

It's just a zero length program someone wrote as a skeleton.
The screen blinks, because the execution is "very quick".
At the end of the file format, is the "manifest" text strings.

Begin
End

If you use 7ZIP on it, it has the usual PE items listed.
7ZIP can parse EXE files, of all manner, when it finds them.

Post by JJ

Post by Paul
3) double click, absolutely nothing happens.
Check file size and see if it is *Zero Bytes* :-)
Not much can happen, if an EXE is empty :-)

There's something wrong in your system then.
https://i.imgur.com/jFIbpiX.png

There's nothing wrong with my system.

I didn't spend a lot of time on it, just took note and moved on.

This object is a projection. This object *DOES NOT* exist
in the file system. I checked with nfi.exe and it is not there.
It is linked somehow, to the folder of materials in the same folder
structure. In this case, I tried to execute it in a shell, and it
executed. Powershell lists the first item, as obviously a directory
(for reference), while the second item is the zero sized virtual thing.
The letter "L" suggests some kind of link, but I don't know what that
would be. It's not a .lnk . It could be a hard link (because nfi.exe
cannot list those reliably -- only one of two hardlinks gets listed).
I'm just surprised the size is zero, if it's a hardlink and it actually
points to a finite-sized item, the size listed should be non-zero.
"findlinks.exe" claims the item cannot be accessed. I get the same response
using C: (permissions intact) or K: (permissions removed, Macrium Reflect
backup image mount as partition K: )

d----- 10/9/2023 6:55 AM Clipchamp.Clipchamp_yxz26nhyzhsrt
-a---l 10/9/2023 6:55 AM 0 clipchamp.exe

PS> D:\findlinks64 C:\Users\ \AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\clipchamp.exe

Findlinks v1.1 - Locate file hard links
Copyright (C) 2011-2016 Mark Russinovich
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com

Error opening c:\users\ \appdata\local\microsoft\windowsapps\clipchamp.exe:
The file cannot be accessed by the system.

PS>

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/6Qn7MZ6c/zero-sized-executable-win11home.gif

Paul

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Paul
I'm sure by now, you have received this drill :-) You're supposed to
get a "feeling of rejection" from the software industry. A cold shoulder
as it were. As of a recent date, Windows 7 users are now "scum and
villainy" similar to those damned WinXP users. Even though the OS
has the technical specifications for *all* of the browsers to run on it.
It's just as capable an OS, as the later ones.

So far, most sites woth visiting still work with Firefox 41 on my XP
computer, apart from the annoying "Confirm Security Exception" thing,
because it tells me that about 90% of the sites I visit are insecure.

And I've had only one rejection on my Windows 7 lasptop, because I
haven't updated Firefox for a couple of months, mainly because I fear
it will be even more bloated and run even more slowly than the one I'm
using now.

[Paul]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Paul
I'm sure by now, you have received this drill :-) You're supposed to
get a "feeling of rejection" from the software industry. A cold shoulder
as it were. As of a recent date, Windows 7 users are now "scum and
villainy" similar to those damned WinXP users. Even though the OS
has the technical specifications for *all* of the browsers to run on it.
It's just as capable an OS, as the later ones.

So far, most sites woth visiting still work with Firefox 41 on my XP
computer, apart from the annoying "Confirm Security Exception" thing,
because it tells me that about 90% of the sites I visit are insecure.
And I've had only one rejection on my Windows 7 lasptop, because I
haven't updated Firefox for a couple of months, mainly because I fear
it will be even more bloated and run even more slowly than the one I'm
using now.

New versions of Chrome and Firefox, won't work on Windows 7.
Or at least that was the threat. It's not a technical issue as such,
but it is enforced somehow.

This means, if you were to click a button to make Firefox upgrade,
it will not make it to the current release (whatever that is). It
will stop short, by about four or five numbers or so.

At the moment, a Windows 7 user who is using the "last ever" Firefox
for them, should not suffer from that choice.

the intention of the companies, is to try to make Windows 7 as
"unwelcome" as Windows XP. Even though they are not the same
OS, and don't have the same problems. Windows 7 is still capable
of running the software, but they won't let it happen.

Paul

[c***@invalid.com]

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Paul
I'm sure by now, you have received this drill :-) You're supposed to
get a "feeling of rejection" from the software industry. A cold shoulder
as it were. As of a recent date, Windows 7 users are now "scum and
villainy" similar to those damned WinXP users. Even though the OS
has the technical specifications for *all* of the browsers to run on it.
It's just as capable an OS, as the later ones.

So far, most sites woth visiting still work with Firefox 41 on my XP
computer, apart from the annoying "Confirm Security Exception" thing,
because it tells me that about 90% of the sites I visit are insecure.
And I've had only one rejection on my Windows 7 lasptop, because I
haven't updated Firefox for a couple of months, mainly because I fear
it will be even more bloated and run even more slowly than the one I'm
using now.

New versions of Chrome and Firefox, won't work on Windows 7.
Or at least that was the threat. It's not a technical issue as such,
but it is enforced somehow.
This means, if you were to click a button to make Firefox upgrade,
it will not make it to the current release (whatever that is). It
will stop short, by about four or five numbers or so.
At the moment, a Windows 7 user who is using the "last ever" Firefox
for them, should not suffer from that choice.
the intention of the companies, is to try to make Windows 7 as
"unwelcome" as Windows XP. Even though they are not the same
OS, and don't have the same problems. Windows 7 is still capable
of running the software, but they won't let it happen.
Paul
New versions of Chrome and Firefox, won't work on Windows 7.

It was maybe a month or so ago that I began using my Windows 7
computer because of the number of Web sites I could no longer access
with my XP machine.

I installed the newer version of FFx - 115.3 32 bit. It works fine.
Except for the damn settings which have been upgraded to a p.i.a. to
figure out and use.

[Paul]

Post by c***@invalid.com

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Paul
I'm sure by now, you have received this drill :-) You're supposed to
get a "feeling of rejection" from the software industry. A cold shoulder
as it were. As of a recent date, Windows 7 users are now "scum and
villainy" similar to those damned WinXP users. Even though the OS
has the technical specifications for *all* of the browsers to run on it.
It's just as capable an OS, as the later ones.

So far, most sites woth visiting still work with Firefox 41 on my XP
computer, apart from the annoying "Confirm Security Exception" thing,
because it tells me that about 90% of the sites I visit are insecure.
And I've had only one rejection on my Windows 7 lasptop, because I
haven't updated Firefox for a couple of months, mainly because I fear
it will be even more bloated and run even more slowly than the one I'm
using now.

New versions of Chrome and Firefox, won't work on Windows 7.
Or at least that was the threat. It's not a technical issue as such,
but it is enforced somehow.
This means, if you were to click a button to make Firefox upgrade,
it will not make it to the current release (whatever that is). It
will stop short, by about four or five numbers or so.
At the moment, a Windows 7 user who is using the "last ever" Firefox
for them, should not suffer from that choice.
the intention of the companies, is to try to make Windows 7 as
"unwelcome" as Windows XP. Even though they are not the same
OS, and don't have the same problems. Windows 7 is still capable
of running the software, but they won't let it happen.
Paul
New versions of Chrome and Firefox, won't work on Windows 7.

It was maybe a month or so ago that I began using my Windows 7
computer because of the number of Web sites I could no longer access
with my XP machine.
I installed the newer version of FFx - 115.3 32 bit. It works fine.
Except for the damn settings which have been upgraded to a p.i.a. to
figure out and use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox

"Most recently, Mozilla ended support for Windows 7 and 8 in Firefox 116,
with those users being supported on the Firefox 115 ESR branch until late 2024."

http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Dir 115.1.0esr/
Dir 115.2.0esr/
Dir 115.2.1esr/
Dir 115.3.0esr/
Dir 115.3.1esr/
Dir 115.4.0esr/ <=== Will keep bumping the rev until 2024, for Win7 users

Dir 116.0.3/ <=== W10,W11 enforcement how ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome

"Support for Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1 ended in January 2023
and the last version on Windows 7 is Chrome 109."

Paul

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes
And I've had only one rejection on my Windows 7 lasptop, because I
haven't updated Firefox for a couple of months, mainly because I fear
it will be even more bloated and run even more slowly than the one I'm
using now.

New versions of Chrome and Firefox, won't work on Windows 7.
Or at least that was the threat. It's not a technical issue as such,
but it is enforced somehow.
This means, if you were to click a button to make Firefox upgrade,
it will not make it to the current release (whatever that is). It
will stop short, by about four or five numbers or so.
At the moment, a Windows 7 user who is using the "last ever" Firefox
for them, should not suffer from that choice.
the intention of the companies, is to try to make Windows 7 as
"unwelcome" as Windows XP. Even though they are not the same
OS, and don't have the same problems. Windows 7 is still capable
of running the software, but they won't let it happen.

My Windows 7 machine was stolen, so now I'm limited to the sites
accessible with my Windows XP machine. I use Firefox 41 with No
Script, Opera and Maxthon and if one of them doesn't access the site,
sometimes one of the others does, though Facebook has started tossing
me off.

The great advantage of Firefox v41 with NoScript is that I usually
don't see those "We value your privacy" popups. What does pop up, but
*before* the site opens, is, within the browser, "This site wants to
set a cookie" and I usually click on "this session only" unless I
think I'm likely to return to the site a lot. That, it stikes me, was
a much better solutiopn than all the "we value your privacy" crap.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 11/6/23 22:30, Steve Hayes wrote:

[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
The great advantage of Firefox v41 with NoScript is that I usually
don't see those "We value your privacy" popups. What does pop up, but
*before* the site opens, is, within the browser, "This site wants to
set a cookie" and I usually click on "this session only" unless I
think I'm likely to return to the site a lot. That, it stikes me, was
a much better solutiopn than all the "we value your privacy" crap.

I was using the "make cookies session cookies" option for years before
hearing of GDPR. Its easily overridden for sites where you do want to
keep cookies.
--
48 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"It's rather a shame. Now that the creationists are deprived of their
chance of burning people at the stake, their best argument is gone." --
Isaac Asimov, Life and Times, 1979

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
The great advantage of Firefox v41 with NoScript is that I usually
don't see those "We value your privacy" popups. What does pop up, but
*before* the site opens, is, within the browser, "This site wants to
set a cookie" and I usually click on "this session only" unless I
think I'm likely to return to the site a lot. That, it stikes me, was
a much better solutiopn than all the "we value your privacy" crap.

I was using the "make cookies session cookies" option for years before
hearing of GDPR. Its easily overridden for sites where you do want to
keep cookies.

Yes, but that doesn't seem to be an option on newer browsers.