#Kb4025339 failed to install drivers#
#Kb4025339 failed to install driver#
#Kb4025339 failed to install archive#

I have also tested it in an old Medion-PC with a MCI-7204-Motherboard, which can take 4GB RAM only.

#Kb4025339 failed to install driver#

This is an origin problem of the driver, not an origin problem of the 4GB-kernel-patch, although this вЂњbugвЂќ of the driver only appears with the 4GB-kernel-patch. I am not very surprised because patchpae3 modifies the same byte-sequences in the kernel-file as patchpae2 and in the same way and so the result should be the same.Д«ut of course the problem with the NVidia-driver for GT 120 is the same вЂ“ I have to use the old Win7-driver 332.21 (9. Now I have updated to Win10-32 v.1607, built 14393.693, and done the modification again with patchpae3 (the same hardware, HP p6029de, 6GB RAM, BIOS 5.43) and it works as with patchpae2 and v.1511.W/o the patch system reports 6GB RAM and useable 3,35GB RAM, with the patch it reports 6GB RAM. I will report when IвЂ™ve got something concrete to say.

#Kb4025339 failed to install drivers#

I feel just reloading graphic drivers has much less potential for problems. Why else would larger memory work on win 2000 and some other older win OSвЂ™s natively and not the newer ones.

ItвЂ™s all marketing as far as IвЂ™m concerned. I believe itвЂ™s entirely possible that microsoft has put in code to distrupt this patch from working as they want people to buy another OS like the 64 bit.

I am going this route before screwing around with microsoft updates and such. IвЂ™m going to try loading some legacy win XP graphic drivers and test if thereвЂ™s a different screen upon booting the pae boot option. This is normal, but itвЂ™s actually good people pay attention to this sort of thing.ДЇrom all my reading and experimenting, I will submit thereвЂ™s a nvidia and other graphic driver problems. There are no viruses in any of this code, but due to how itвЂ™s accessing kernals (with your permission) a decent virus/malware should detect something. Okay, First, this wj32 and patch has been around quite some time and appears to be the most dependable, robust and actively updated one. So, IвЂ™ll be sticking with the older versions accessible via the Wayback Machine. In conclusion, if this new patch it legitimate and not actually infected, I apologize, but there are too many red flags here and I donвЂ™t have the C knowledge to check the source code, or the tools to recompile it for comparison. ItвЂ™s also possible that the older versions also used to trigger those flags but have since been cleared as producers of false positives in the anti-malware databases. ItвЂ™s also possible that, in the process of making the patch work with Windows 10, legitimate changes needed to be made that trigger heuristics flags in anti-malware scanners. I looks like he may have the ability to upload infected files but not the ability to disable or remove negative/revealing comments. The original author of the patch spoke perfect English but the guy claiming to the be author and defending the infected patch in the comment section (using the name evgeny) speaks English poorly.

Those older versions scan completely clean.

#Kb4025339 failed to install archive#

If you use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine you can download the older versions of the patch (before someone replaced the link URLвЂ™s to direct people to the new infected patch). This new Windows 10 version of the patch is seen as heavily infected by anti-malware scanners. ThereвЂ™s fair chance this site has been compromised to some extent.