Can’t Use Browsers After Attempting to install legacyupdate for Windows Vista

[wither 3]

I'm glad you mentioned "restore." I've been meaning to create a new restore point for ages and finally got around to it. I should probably also create a new Reflect image.

 

[Vistaar]

I was wondering when this long-winded thread would finally reach page 2. (Administrators might have adjusted maximum page length?)

The only issue I have with Norton right now is that, on this Vista system, it can't seem to find the updates when I run LiveUpdate. I'll get in touch with Norton on this issue.

Are you getting definitions today? It looks like the Norton webpage describing “Maintenance Mode” has been taken down (among others), but I can’t find any recent Norton forum posts from people running XP or Vista (however that might mean you are the last one).

 

[wither 3]

I knew you were going to get on my case but I couldn't resist. As I mentioned earlier, Norton, in Vista, has had problems connecting to the update website and that I was going to pursue that with them. Haven't got around to it yet. Just tried it in Vista and it's "processing." Tried it in Win 7 and it immediately found 7 little updates and installed them.

 

[Vistaar]

I've never used Legacy Updater v1.62 so I'm not the best person to ask but I wouldn't advise that you reinstall it - the Dism++ v10.1.1002.1 utility I recommended in post # 5 (see SIW2’s 02-Dec-2021 instructions <here>) is widely used and sounds like better choice for patching Vista SP2 up to the end of extended support on 11-Apr-2017. I've never run Dism++ on a Vista Ultimate computer...

I’ve never used either one of those either, nor has wither 3 I’m pretty sure. You say Dism++ is “widely used”? That’s more than I could say for Windows Vista! Personally, I wouldn’t link to SIW2’s instructions unless I thought he might be available to assist. Are you inventing new instructions now? Installing some patches shouldn’t hurt, but they are very likely not needed if SIW2 didn’t mention them. But it “sounds like better choice” you say? I don’t think Joadix100 used either one of those, but I think he’s the only member who has updated Vista recently.

 

[wither 3]

You're correct with regards to my installation. It was done with the ISO provided by S1W2 (or the ISO provided by ex_brit and updates that were available from Microsoft at that time). Can't remember.

 

[mollytown]

But the laptop was evidently manufactured in 2007 (and btw bundled software included a Norton Internet Security 2007 free trial).

I infer that the laptop was restored from a factory image or OEM disk from 2007, so it seems doubtful that Windows Live Mail 2009 is present at all. For some reason, Microsoft Update Catalog still has a Windows Live Essentials web installer from 2012, but it reportedly hasn’t worked for more than six years, i.e. I have no idea how you could install it now, much less get it to work.

I did get the Laptop in 2007 and it came with Windows Live Mail along with the rest of Windows Live. I had always used Live Mail as my email client on this computer when I checked the version recently it said that it is Windows Live Mail 2009. I suppose this could be due to the fact that I had various problems caused by my recklessness at the time and had to put into repair at PC World who recovered my files but I had to reinstall some software the last time this happened was probably 2009.

More bad news: Very old factory images and even OEM disks are often corrupt! I did a factory restore way back in 2015, and already my 2007 factory image was slightly corrupt, but fortunately sfc /scannow (which Imacri has already suggested) was able to fix the corruption. (I was able to remove a free trial of Norton then, but I don’t recall the version number of the removal tool.)

I have noticed no problems with my hard drive how would I know if it is corrupt?

Imacri thinks everyone using Vista for any reason should be “fully patched” to exactly April 11, 2017. I think this is more trouble than it’s worth now, and I don’t think it would give you a useful Windows email client. You should probably install at least two Platform Update components.

Oh… have I been following wrong advice? I have been installing those vital updates except the last three which it said don’t apply to my system.

 

[wither 3]

You can run chkdsk from an administrator command prompt. It will be performed after a restart. This is in regards to your hard drive corruption.

 

[Vistaar]

I was referring to sfc /scannow, but chkdsk is another good idea that Imacri already suggested on page 1.

Oh… have I been following wrong advice? I have been installing those vital updates except the last three which it said don’t apply to my system.

Either they were already installed or you inadvertently downloaded the x64 versions. Imacri’s advice is often excellent, for example:

My advice is that you either stick with your iPad or buy a new computer with a supported operating system - it simply isn't safe browsing the internet these days with an unsupported, insecure Vista SP2 OS and browser, and there are fewer and fewer software programs these days that still run on Vista.

Good advice! You say you need the Vista laptop for playing games? Fine! Play all the games you want until the hardware dies - but it does not follow that Vista is a good platform for web browsing or email in 2023. If someone had told me 4 years ago that I would be spending hours every day on an iPhone... ...but that’s exactly what I’m on right now. I can check my email too, but obviously I don’t use “Windows Live Mail” (in fact I didn’t use that when I was running Vista, so your attachment to it is a mystery to me).

It’s not entirely clear what this thread is about now that you can use your browsers. I saw some remarks about antivirus software on page 1 that I don’t entirely agree with, so perhaps I’ll post again tomorrow. But if it’s going to be all about getting a complete collection of old patches, then I will lose interest in a hurry.

 

[lmacri]

... Imacri thinks everyone using Vista for any reason should be “fully patched” to exactly April 11, 2017. I think this is more trouble than it’s worth now, and I don’t think it would give you a useful Windows email client. You should probably install at least two Platform Update components.

Hi molllytown:

If I recall correctly, there are some Vista-compatible email clients (e.g., like Vista's built-in Windows Mail program that I used to use) that use components of the Internet Explorer API and work best if you have Internet Explorer 9 (rel. 14-Mar-2011) installed. Internet Explorer 9 (which used to be available <here> on the official Microsoft download site) has prerequisites that must be installed first before you will be able to patch your IE7 (?) browser up to IE9, so that is part of the reason why I suggested that you patch your OS to end of support on 11-Apr-2017 with Dism++ - this should install all the IE9 prerequisistes for you, and once that's done I assume Dism++ would be able install IE9, or at least patch this browser back to Update Version 9.0.60 (the KB4014661 cumulative update for Internet Explorer 9 released on 11-Apr-2017 as shown below) after you install IE9. Open your IE browser and go to Help | About Internet Explorer to see your current version.



Vistaar knows more about the inner working of Vista SP2 than I do so if they believe that patching to end of support is a waste of time then they will have to tell you which Vista Platform Update(s) you need to install to get your system working again. I don't want to interfere with Vistaar's troubleshooting so I'll step out of this thread and let them assist you.

 

[Vistaar]

If I recall correctly, there are some Vista-compatible email clients (e.g., like Vista's built-in Windows Mail program that I used to use) that use components of the Internet Explorer API and work best if you have Internet Explorer 9...installed. Internet Explorer 9...has prerequisites that must be installed first...

As Imacri knows, even IE9 had no support for TLS 1.2 at the time of Vista’s EOL in April 2017. A few years ago I was enthusiastic about adding TLS 1.2 support by installing an update for Server 2008 SP2 and making a couple of registry changes (see IE9: Last Supported Browser for Vista). Of course Imacri argued against that, and always advised installing IE9, patching it to April 2017, and then never using it. Granted, IE9 is a pitiful browser even with the TLS 1.2 tweak, and I now consider installing IE9 to be a waste of time (although the two prerequisite Platform Update components were the most important updates for Vista after SP2 was released). Would a tweaked IE9 allow the OP to use a long-deprecated email client in 2023? There is a current thread at MSFN that causes me to think “probably not,” which is why I didn’t suggest it - but of course the OP is free to experiment.

 

[Vistaar]

...Norton, in Vista, has had problems connecting to the update website...I was going to pursue that with them. Haven't got around to it yet. Just tried it in Vista and it's "processing." Tried it in Win 7 and it immediately found 7 little updates and installed them.

Are you still unable to update your Norton definitions on Vista? Maybe try disabling Malwarebytes real-time protection before running LiveUpdate. Frankly, a better theory is that Gen Digital has cancelled “Maintenance Mode.” If you open your best browser and go to Official Norton™ Support does the website appear functional? Maybe it just doesn’t like my Safari browser, but I can still visit Forums (and still no one has posted about your issue). A good portion of this thread was devoted to antivirus advice, so I don’t think this is off topic at all.

 

[wither 3]

When I looked at part of it yesterday it said the updates were good since Wednsday. Auto LiveUpdate is enabled so maybe it's actually working in the background. I tried to check it this morning but got side tracked. Right now it says that LiveUpdate is up to date. I can manually reach all the Norton websites except the LiveUpdate server from within it. Yeh, we're a little off subject. IE 9 is a waste. It works for some websites but doesn't for others. This Chinese Google browser I'm using works very well even though it has numerous idiosynchroses that don't really bother me.

 

[mollytown]

As Imacri knows, even IE9 had no support for TLS 1.2 at the time of Vista’s EOL in April 2017. A few years ago I was enthusiastic about adding TLS 1.2 support by installing an update for Server 2008 SP2 and making a couple of registry changes (see IE9: Last Supported Browser for Vista). Of course Imacri argued against that, and always advised installing IE9, patching it to April 2017, and then never using it. Granted, IE9 is a pitiful browser even with the TLS 1.2 tweak, and I now consider installing IE9 to be a waste of time (although the two prerequisite Platform Update components were the most important updates for Vista after SP2 was released). Would a tweaked IE9 allow the OP to use a long-deprecated email client in 2023? There is a current thread at MSFN that causes me to think “probably not,” which is why I didn’t suggest it - but of course the OP is free to experiment.

I already have TSL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 on my Internet Settings. Although there are not there for Internet Explorer on regedt32.exe, in fact there is no “advanced settings” available there at all. Though now that I have upgraded my Internet Explorer to 9 I can log in to the mail using my windows live password, which is strange because I had to change the password for my Microsoft account my old password works but not my new one. Although I am logged into it I can’t actually receive any emails though this is probably related to the password issue.

I have seen people saying that have got Live Mail to work recently so there must be a way. I found this through a search for example but they don’t say exactly what ‘workarounds’ they used.

 

[Vistaar]

...You will have to decide if you want to use a paid or free antivirus. If you want a free antivirus I know that Avast Free Antivirus v18.8 (the legacy version for Win XP and Vista that is available for download <here>) is a popular choice, but if I were still using my Vista SP2 machine...I would probably beef up my protection and use one of the paid antivirus products....If you want a paid antivirus....I thought Norton Security v22.15.x...was a good choice for Win XP and Vista computers, but....I'm not a fan of the current Norton...product line...so I currently use the built-in Microsoft Defender antivirus on my Win 10 laptop...

I ran Vista for 12 years, and never once paid for an antivirus! The last AV that I used on Vista was the above-referenced Avast Free 18.8 (together with a legacy version of Sandboxie for browser security - however I never tested SB with the “fringe browsers” that XP/Vista diehards must resort to now). For those who only feel secure when their bank balance shrinks, Avast/AVG also made paid versions including a firewall etc, but were they really any more effective? There are independent labs who test and rate AV products. One of the most renowned is AV Test, and here’s a link to their October 2018 test results on Windows 10. (No lab has bothered testing on Vista in a very long time. Why October 2018? Because various products were at or near their final Vista-compatible versions then. Of course most of the tested products had already ended support for Vista by then.)

The first thing I notice is that Avast Free and AVG Internet Security (paid) scored exactly the same. This is not surprising, since they had the same engine. (Sure the AVG version had a two-way firewall; but if you’ve got malware trying to phone home, then your AV already failed.) The all-important Protection score was 5.5 out of a possible 6. (Avast Free scored a perfect 6 in December 2018 when 18.8 was tested, but 5.5 was more typical.)

The next thing I notice in the October 2018 results is that Malwarebytes Premium (a paid product that has been discussed endlessly at this forum) had a Protection score of only 4, which was the lowest of any product tested! True, there were other paid products that scored a perfect 6, such as Kaspersky Internet Security 19 (which was compatible with Vista) and of course...Norton.

Imacri and wither 3 have persistently advocated Norton for years and years at this forum, and newcomers like @mollytown might get the impression that Norton is the consensus choice among Vista’s remaining users. Quite the contrary! I’m a member of other forums such as MSFN, and the only person I know of who is still using Norton on Vista or XP (which has far more users than Vista) is wither 3, whose recent posts in this thread might constitute “the canary in the coal mine.” Be advised that Norton moved their XP and Vista users to Maintenance Mode in June 2018, meaning that their actual current versions for Windows 7 and above haven’t supported Vista for 5 years now. Not only that, but Norton already threatened to cut off wither 3’s definition updates in February 2021, but changed its mind at the last moment.

Which non-Chinese antivirus will support Vista the longest? My guess would be Panda (based in Spain), which still fully supports XP and Vista, i.e. you could actually use their current version. Panda’s protection is cloud-based, so there is no need for definition files signed with insecure SHA-1 for the sole benefit of XP and Vista diehards (a key point). Panda has both free and paid versions. I used Panda Free for a while on Vista, but that was more than 8 years ago now.

 

[Vistaar]

I already have TSL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 on my Internet Settings. Although there are not there for Internet Explorer on regedt32.exe, in fact there is no “advanced settings” available there at all. Though now that I have upgraded my Internet Explorer to 9 I can log in to the mail....Although I am logged into it I can’t actually receive any emails...

Hi mollytown,

I was putting the finishing touches on my antivirus refutation masterpiece above when you posted and I needed to take a break. It sounds like you had already followed someone’s instructions to implement TLS 1.2 with IE7 still installed? I certainly never tried that and wouldn’t recommend it. (That was actually a question in an MSFN thread that I linked to earlier.) I wouldn’t expect a Server 2008 update released in 2017 to target unsupported IE7. If you installed KB4019276 for TLS 1.2, then you might try installing KB4056564 which later superseded it (as I mentioned in IE9: Last Supported Browser for Vista back when I was actually doing such things). Unfortunately I never used Windows Live Mail, but it sounds like it relied on Internet Explorer’s engine just like Windows Mail. Microsoft only gave IE9 on Server 2008 a limited number of cipher suites for TLS 1.2 and they’re all getting old, which might be the problem, but I really don’t know.

 

[mollytown]

Hi mollytown,

I was putting the finishing touches on my antivirus refutation masterpiece above when you posted and I needed to take a break. It sounds like you had already followed someone’s instructions to implement TLS 1.2 with IE7 still installed? I certainly never tried that and wouldn’t recommend it. (That was actually a question in an MSFN thread that I linked to earlier.) I wouldn’t expect a Server 2008 update released in 2017 to target unsupported IE7. If you installed KB4019276 for TLS 1.2, then you might try installing KB4056564 which later superseded it (as I mentioned in IE9: Last Supported Browser for Vista back when I was actually doing such things). Unfortunately I never used Windows Live Mail, but it sounds like it relied on Internet Explorer’s engine just like Windows Mail. Microsoft only gave IE9 on Server 2008 a limited number of cipher suites for TLS 1.2 and they’re all getting old, which might be the problem, but I really don’t know.

TLS was installed on my computer when I got it back from repairs so I must have had it installed for a while though this is something I would not have checked before. My Internet Explorer before I updated it to 9 was version 8 I don’t think that would make much difference though. It turns out that installed KB4056564 when doing the updates mentioned before which means that I have installed it before KB4019276, would that cause a problem?

 

[Vistaar]

It turns out that installed KB4056564 when doing the updates mentioned before which means that I have installed it before KB4019276, would that cause a problem?

No: In fact if you tried to install 4019276 now you would get a “does not apply” message because you already have the update that superseded (replaced) it. That was the only question mark in your post. I haven’t touched IE8 since IE9 was released in 2011. When I did a factory restore of Vista in 2015, Windows Update upgraded from IE7 directly to IE9 at the appropriate point without ever offering IE8, which was already unsupported. It seems doubtful that a Server 2008 update released after Vista’s EOL would be designed to work with IE8. If you go to Internet Properties/Advanced tab, does it look like my screenshot in post #11 of IE9: Last Supported Browser for Vista (with TLS 1.1 and 1.2 specifically: you should’ve had TLS 1.0 in any event)? If not, then you are fouled up and I have no guess how to fix it short of a clean install of Vista - which would leave you without Windows Live Mail anyway. If I thought I knew how to get Windows Live Mail working in 2023, then I would reply to your other topic. An old program that depends on obsolete Internet Explorer for connectivity seems like a poor choice for email client to me.

 

[mollytown]

No: In fact if you tried to install 4019276 now you would get a “does not apply” message because you already have the update that superseded (replaced) it. That was the only question mark in your post. I haven’t touched IE8 since IE9 was released in 2011. When I did a factory restore of Vista in 2015, Windows Update upgraded from IE7 directly to IE9 at the appropriate point without ever offering IE8, which was already unsupported. It seems doubtful that a Server 2008 update released after Vista’s EOL would be designed to work with IE8. If you go to Internet Properties/Advanced tab, does it look like my screenshot in post #11 of IE9: Last Supported Browser for Vista (with TLS 1.1 and 1.2 specifically: you should’ve had TLS 1.0 in any event)? If not, then you are fouled up and I have no guess how to fix it short of a clean install of Vista - which would leave you without Windows Live Mail anyway. If I thought I knew how to get Windows Live Mail working in 2023, then I would reply to your other topic. An old program that depends on obsolete Internet Explorer for connectivity seems like a poor choice for email client to me.

I managed to get the update to work somehow and I did have TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 on my system before I even upgraded from 8 to 9. If Live Mail requires an obsolete version of explorer then should I downgrade my version to 8 or even 7 with hopes that would allow it to work? I did manage to get TLS 1.1 + 1.2 working with 8 somehow so maybe that might work. As for Live Mail itself it might be old but it’s the best email programs I’ve used and I would really like to get it working again.

 

[Vistaar]

...should I downgrade my version to 8 or even 7 with hopes that would allow it to work?

That’s an odd question, since you earlier reported:

...now that I have upgraded my Internet Explorer to 9 I can log in to the mail using my windows live password, [but] I can’t actually receive any emails...

As Jack Nicholson asked in the movie, “What if this is as good as it gets?” I do not recommend trying to uninstall Internet Explorer 9! You have said that others claim to have Windows Live Mail working. If there’s a webpage that you want me to read, please post a link.

You didn’t ask, but the reason you didn’t get IE9 many years ago was that you didn’t get SP2 many years ago. Most likely you encountered the once-well-known issue that SP1 didn’t install properly via Windows Update. The solution was to use an SP1 standalone installer - but better late than never. Of course SP1 was prerequisite for SP2, which in turn was prerequisite for IE9.

 

[mollytown]

That’s an odd question, since you earlier reported:

As Jack Nicholson asked in the movie, “What if this is as good as it gets?” I do not recommend trying to uninstall Internet Explorer 9! You have said that others claim to have Windows Live Mail working. If there’s a webpage that you want me to read, please post a link.

You didn’t ask, but the reason you didn’t get IE9 many years ago was that you didn’t get SP2 many years ago. Most likely you encountered the once-well-known issue that SP1 didn’t install properly via Windows Update. The solution was to use an SP1 standalone installer - but better late than never. Of course SP1 was prerequisite for SP2, which in turn was prerequisite for IE9.

I never really knew about the service packs for Windows Vista until recently so I wouldn’t have even wondered why I didn’t get those updates. It’s good to have them now of course but I didn’t know about them at the time. I’ve also never used Explorer much, I always used Firefox or Opera instead so I would never cared much for Internet Explorer updates. By 2011 that graphics card on this computer had started to fail so it would have seemed a bit too late for any big updates anyway if I had have known.

Here is some of what I found in terms of links

3/6/2021 Windows 10 Microsoft Update messed up 2012 Windows Live Essentials (LIVE MAIL) unable to send, unable to read what is received. [Solution]
Redirecting

Does anyone have a link to Windows Live Mail that works in Windows 10?
Redirecting

Windows Live Mail Not Working? Here’s How To Fix It
Windows Live Mail Not Working? Here’s How To Fix It

How to Add Hotmail to Windows Live
Add Hotmail to Windows Live Mail - How to Expert Tips

Gmail using Windows Live Mail after May 30, 2022
Redirecting

Windows Live Mail still works!
Windows Live Mail still works!

The Thread I Made on /G/ before coming here

/g/ - Technology » Thread #93354280

desuarchive.org