Look....this is the same old tired rhetoric that Linux fanboys have been espousing for years. Luckily, no one is holding a gun to your head to patronize Microsoft. Now, can we get back to the business at hand?
This post is for the removal of the watermark (Microsoft Windows 9200) not for the activate Windows watermark since we all ready have that solution. Here is a new simple patch for the watermark (Activate Windows) Offset: 00287C60 change 2 bytes from OF 88 TO 90 E9.. This patch does not change file size like Woot32 patch..
c'mon half a post betonesto?? what version arch of twinui.dll is that address for, what are you nop'ing out to stop it showing? where did you get your findings/source & what are the results, has it been tested (or do I need to run a VM for 4 hours to watch it BSOD or crash like the other one I tried)???
His offset correlates to the x86 arch of twinui. Is anyone testing this? I would but don't have 32-bit installed.
I trust woot332's results, I have no plans on testing another x86, he intercepts the final memory space of the actual strings sent to the activation rectangle, this will return better results to the calling functions than any nop'ed out test/jump can, but if someone else want to test it all out, go ahead.
@LiveFreeDead it's a big difference looking at "dead listed code" and run explorer.exe live under a debugger and set breakpoints thats how the the excact code location was found for the x86 patch. It's better to know where to patch instead of doing blind patching imo. btw some breakpoints that where set LoadImageW,DrawTextExW etc I have limited experience with x64 debugging, but if someone applied a similar approach then one would know where to patch when 3 hours pass. Also that been said there might be easier ways to patch it.
In that case, I'll run the test on the 2 byte patch, just to see if that will do what is said, would be a lot easier to release a patcher that only has to take ownership, close explorer, seek the file position, check the bytes match and replace them, save the resulting file and start explorer again... smaller than including a whole .dll still it's a bit of fun waiting to see who can get a working x64 patch up first -Edit- VM active, will know in 4 hours... if I am not sleeping still Charms and Metro (well not metro anymore legal issues, bah) working fine.
Its not always 4 hours or so my watermark showed up after more than 8 hours and on my other VM its still working so i dont know how we can patch it so it works on any computer
it's for x 86 and yes it does work. Ive tested on 2 machines. Basicly it's jump over the calls that woo32 described.
Aah thought it was the X64 version you where talking about x86 it running ok here (and 1 of my x64 machine 2 (don't ask me why the other one fails )
I edited as betonesto suggested, hope it works for ya. h**ps://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0Rk6M_HJxHhc0ZGSk5ULVRpWVE *twinui.dll for x86
i know, im... bad, but... we still live in the x86 32bit dark ages? Why it was not the priority the x86_64 arch for the particular dll of this thread, why we must again and again, and again developing x86 32bit software? for what reason? Few years now after the first x86_64 cpu, we still staying on the history, (i hope soon wiped history), using 32bit sofware..... If someone understand what i want to say, then he knows what is my goal with that message... And yes, is totally related to the subject of this thread...
I feel your frustration, but the answer is simple. People still have more than capable x86 processors and associated hardware.
I hear what you're saying AFA x64 should be priority, but nothing happens in a vacuum and it just so happens there is more training and tools available for 32-bit. You need only look at the plethora of disassemblers, hex editors and resource hackers for x86 versus the few for x64 to get the idea.
Thanks, it works, and the size is the same as the original. I hope that it does not have any side effects...
no I do not feel in any way "disappointed". I want say something different but anyway My message has not written with any bad thoughts in my mind... Τhe needs of many outweigh the needs of the few? (Mr Spock from Star Trek famous quote but...related) We just decide and give orders on behalf of the few? That i understand this in few recent years. The many hinder the development of ... "few" ... Is this nice?