That was fast.skwire wrote:I just posted v1.1.2 which has the requested filesize and modified date columns.
Thanks skwire
That was fast.skwire wrote:I just posted v1.1.2 which has the requested filesize and modified date columns.
Thanks for version 1.1.2:I just posted v1.1.2 which has the requested filesize and modified date columns.
No, The Document Foundation is aiming for full VBA compatibility. The only reason why VBA macros aren't fully supported is simply that supporting VBA is such a massive task. (This is a great example of Microsoft's "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic - likely one purpose of VBA was to make their document formats almost impossible for competitors to support fully.)webfork wrote:That's probably by design both on the LibreOffice and Microsoft side. For LibreOffice, they might want to skip out on security issues.TP109 wrote:Goes to show that these apps are not 100% compatible.
Thank you. I updated the database entry.
webfork wrote: That's probably by design both on the LibreOffice and Microsoft side. For LibreOffice, they might want to skip out on security issues. Microsoft meanwhile has an ongoing practice of breaking it's own specs in order to resist other programs' integration of it's technology. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were being applied to VBA, which is already a closed protocol.
Interesting. Pretty much a real-life example what has been said about MS tactics.SYSTEM wrote: No, The Document Foundation is aiming for full VBA compatibility. The only reason why VBA macros aren't fully supported is simply that supporting VBA is such a massive task. (This is a great example of Microsoft's "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic - likely one purpose of VBA was to make their document formats almost impossible for competitors to support fully.)
On purpose. Please read the second question and answer here: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sys ... s/bb847944smaragdus wrote:@skwire
but in contrast with previous versions the archive does not include sigcheck.exe. I this an omission or it is not included purposely?
Probably a good thing, at least for XP users. The newest SigCheck only works with Vista and higher.skwire wrote:On purpose. Please read the second question and answer here: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sys ... s/bb847944smaragdus wrote:@skwire
but in contrast with previous versions the archive does not include sigcheck.exe. I this an omission or it is not included purposely?
Thanks for the timely reminder.TP109 wrote:Probably a good thing, at least for XP users. The newest SigCheck only works with Vista and higher.
Thank you for providing this useful information. I was about to ask since I have an old XP machine. Are there any other sources for downloading of old versions of SigcheckGUI thank the Internet Archive?Note that Sysinternal's SigCheck v2.3 was the last version working under XP.
From v2.4 on, SigCheck requires Vista, Win7 or higher.
I have local versions of 2.1, 2.20, and 2.30 if you need them.smaragdus wrote: Are there any other sources for downloading of old versions of SigcheckGUI thank the Internet Archive?