http://explore.live.com/windows-live-essentials-xp

fails.

Wayback seems to have 64bit versions.

Where can I find the 32bit version ?

Thank you.

Realist <Realist@Realist.com> wrote:

> http://explore.live.com/windows-live-essentials-xp
>
> fails. Wayback seems to have 64bit versions. Where can I find the
> 32bit version ?

Did you get the installer from here?

https://archive.org/details/wlsetup-all_201802

Sorry, "fails" doesn't specify much, like you couldn't find the
download, the download failed, the install failed, or the products
installed but failed to load, or somehow misbehaved.

https://download.cnet.com/Windows-Live-Essentials-2012/3000-20418_4-10805747.html

See if that gets past whatever was the failure. No mention there is the
installer is for the 32- or 64-bit version of WLE, but then I suspect
the installer does either bitwidth version based on the OS under which
it is ran.

An online search also found:

https://m.majorgeeks.com/files/details/windows_live.html

Alas, looks like you need a particular revision of WLE. The Wayback
Machine site says "You must be running Windows 7 or later to run Windows
Live Essentials 2012". You didn't say which "Wave" version you wanted.
From the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Essentials
"After the release of Windows Live Essentials 2011, which does not
support Windows XP, Windows Live Essentials 2009 was renamed to Windows
Live Essentials for Windows XP and was made available for Windows XP
users to help maintain the product user base."

Looks like you have to go back 3 versions from 2012 to 2009. Maybe you
tried installing the 2012 version, and that was what "failed". The 2009
does not have some of the components added the later versions of WLE;
see the wiki article. Adjusting by adding "2009 windows xp" to my
online search, the Wayback site has:

https://archive.org/details/wle.aspx

You mention the http://explore.live.com/windows-live-essentials-xp that
you used at web.archive.org, but you neglected to mention which snapshot
you used. The snapshots I used dated 2010 had a download button, but it
was dead. From which snapshot did you manage to get a download?

Oh dear.
I thought I was in the Win XP group.

I have Win XP Pro 32 bit.

Wayback was a 404 error. File not found.

VanguardLH wrote:
> Realist <Realist@Realist.com> wrote:
>
>> http://explore.live.com/windows-live-essentials-xp
>>
>> fails. Wayback seems to have 64bit versions. Where can I find the
>> 32bit version ?
>
> Did you get the installer from here?
>
> https://archive.org/details/wlsetup-all_201802
>
> Sorry, "fails" doesn't specify much, like you couldn't find the
> download, the download failed, the install failed, or the products
> installed but failed to load, or somehow misbehaved.
>
> https://download.cnet.com/Windows-Live-Essentials-2012/3000-20418_4-10805747.html
>
> See if that gets past whatever was the failure. No mention there is the
> installer is for the 32- or 64-bit version of WLE, but then I suspect
> the installer does either bitwidth version based on the OS under which
> it is ran.
>
> An online search also found:
>
> https://m.majorgeeks.com/files/details/windows_live.html
>
> Alas, looks like you need a particular revision of WLE. The Wayback
> Machine site says "You must be running Windows 7 or later to run Windows
> Live Essentials 2012". You didn't say which "Wave" version you wanted.
> From the Wikipedia article:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Essentials
> "After the release of Windows Live Essentials 2011, which does not
> support Windows XP, Windows Live Essentials 2009 was renamed to Windows
> Live Essentials for Windows XP and was made available for Windows XP
> users to help maintain the product user base."
>
> Looks like you have to go back 3 versions from 2012 to 2009. Maybe you
> tried installing the 2012 version, and that was what "failed". The 2009
> does not have some of the components added the later versions of WLE;
> see the wiki article. Adjusting by adding "2009 windows xp" to my
> online search, the Wayback site has:
>
> https://archive.org/details/wle.aspx
>
> You mention the http://explore.live.com/windows-live-essentials-xp that
> you used at web.archive.org, but you neglected to mention which snapshot
> you used. The snapshots I used dated 2010 had a download button, but it
> was dead. From which snapshot did you manage to get a download?
>

Hooray !
https://archive.org/details/wle.aspx

Installed and running the simple and easy photo editor Windows Live
Photo Gallery !

THANKS !

Realist <Realist@Realist.com> wrote:

> Oh dear.
> I thought I was in the Win XP group.

Oh dear.
You thought the only visitors here are only using an archaic OS instead
of using something newer, but they still visit here. If you command
that only XP-using visitors here are allowed to respond (well, you
cannot command anything of Usenet visitors), you will severely reduce
the population of candidate respondents. See anyone else responding?

If you knew that you couldn't go beyond the 2009 version of WLE, perhaps
you should've mentioned that instead of having respondents discover it
22 years later.

> I have Win XP Pro 32 bit.
> Wayback was a 404 error. File not found.

I couldn't get the download buttons to do anything in the Wayback
archived docs (for the couple that I tried since I wasn't going to test
them all). They don't save every resource used in or referenced by a
web document when they archive a web doc.

Did you try the the Wayback page that I mentioned has the 2009 version?
Again, that was.

https://archive.org/details/wle.aspx

It is a slow download, but it worked for me.

If you are using Firefox, or just about any web browser, on Windows XP,
you'll start noticing more and more web sites won't work with those old
web browser versions. The sites requires features in the web client
that those old web browsers don't have and never will. You may have to
find a host with a newer OS version where a newer web browser version
will work with a web site. My aunt is running into the incompatibility
on her old Windows XP host where some sites won't work with the latest
version of Firefox (52.0.0ESR) that supports Windows XP.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

> If you knew that you couldn't go beyond the 2009 version of WLE, perhaps
> you should've mentioned that instead of having respondents discover it
> 22 years later.

Er, bad math. 12 years later. Time for some more coffee.

FYI I use MyPal and it works for much more than Firefox (including
videos on Amazon etc).

I that OK ?

VanguardLH wrote:
> Realist <Realist@Realist.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh dear.
>> I thought I was in the Win XP group.
>
> Oh dear.
> You thought the only visitors here are only using an archaic OS instead
> of using something newer, but they still visit here. If you command
> that only XP-using visitors here are allowed to respond (well, you
> cannot command anything of Usenet visitors), you will severely reduce
> the population of candidate respondents. See anyone else responding?
>
> If you knew that you couldn't go beyond the 2009 version of WLE, perhaps
> you should've mentioned that instead of having respondents discover it
> 22 years later.
>
>> I have Win XP Pro 32 bit.
>> Wayback was a 404 error. File not found.
>
> I couldn't get the download buttons to do anything in the Wayback
> archived docs (for the couple that I tried since I wasn't going to test
> them all). They don't save every resource used in or referenced by a
> web document when they archive a web doc.
>
> Did you try the the Wayback page that I mentioned has the 2009 version?
> Again, that was.
>
> https://archive.org/details/wle.aspx
>
> It is a slow download, but it worked for me.
>
> If you are using Firefox, or just about any web browser, on Windows XP,
> you'll start noticing more and more web sites won't work with those old
> web browser versions. The sites requires features in the web client
> that those old web browsers don't have and never will. You may have to
> find a host with a newer OS version where a newer web browser version
> will work with a web site. My aunt is running into the incompatibility
> on her old Windows XP host where some sites won't work with the latest
> version of Firefox (52.0.0ESR) that supports Windows XP.
>

Realist <Realist@Realist.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> If you are using Firefox, or just about any web browser, on Windows
>> XP, you'll start noticing more and more web sites won't work with
>> those old web browser versions. The sites requires features in the
>> web client that those old web browsers don't have and never will.
>> You may have to find a host with a newer OS version where a newer
>> web browser version will work with a web site. My aunt is running
>> into the incompatibility on her old Windows XP host where some sites
>> won't work with the latest version of Firefox (52.0.0ESR) that
>> supports Windows XP.

> FYI I use MyPal and it works for much more than Firefox (including
> videos on Amazon etc).
>
> I that OK ?

I've never tested MyPal. Looks like it might work; however, can you
modify the User-Agent string it sends to the server (whether by internal
settings, or by using an extension)? Some sites still inspect that
header to determine which web browser is visiting their site, especially
if they need to use a different code branch to support who the web
browser claims it is. MyPal is forked from Pale Moon which was forked
from pre-Quantum codebase for Firefox. You may have to lie to web sites
that you're using a more recent web browser. However, lying about the
webclient's ID doesn't give it features available in later versions of
web browser. Changing the UA string won't work around incompatibility
issues, but may work around simple testing of webclient version.

https://developers.whatismybrowser.com/useragents/parse/1090471mypal-windows-goanna

That says MyPal has "MyPal" in the User Agent. Unlikely sites will know
that web client. You may have to use an extension to change the UA
string to a known or more common web browser at a later version.

I thought I read somewhere that the spoof string could be changed.

For me, Firefox version that works on Win XP Pro but does not play
videos. MyPal does play those videos. So that is sufficient for me.
Also, I have not had any website balk at MyPal. Been using MyPal for 9
months.

VanguardLH wrote:
> Realist <Realist@Realist.com> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> If you are using Firefox, or just about any web browser, on Windows
>>> XP, you'll start noticing more and more web sites won't work with
>>> those old web browser versions. The sites requires features in the
>>> web client that those old web browsers don't have and never will.
>>> You may have to find a host with a newer OS version where a newer
>>> web browser version will work with a web site. My aunt is running
>>> into the incompatibility on her old Windows XP host where some sites
>>> won't work with the latest version of Firefox (52.0.0ESR) that
>>> supports Windows XP.
>
>> FYI I use MyPal and it works for much more than Firefox (including
>> videos on Amazon etc).
>>
>> I that OK ?
>
> I've never tested MyPal. Looks like it might work; however, can you
> modify the User-Agent string it sends to the server (whether by internal
> settings, or by using an extension)? Some sites still inspect that
> header to determine which web browser is visiting their site, especially
> if they need to use a different code branch to support who the web
> browser claims it is. MyPal is forked from Pale Moon which was forked
> from pre-Quantum codebase for Firefox. You may have to lie to web sites
> that you're using a more recent web browser. However, lying about the
> webclient's ID doesn't give it features available in later versions of
> web browser. Changing the UA string won't work around incompatibility
> issues, but may work around simple testing of webclient version.
>
> https://developers.whatismybrowser.com/useragents/parse/1090471mypal-windows-goanna
>
> That says MyPal has "MyPal" in the User Agent. Unlikely sites will know
> that web client. You may have to use an extension to change the UA
> string to a known or more common web browser at a later version.
>