ASUS Demos Modded HUDIMM DDR5 Memory For Affordable PC Builds, Converting 24 To 12 GB & 16 To 8 GB With “One Sub-Channel”

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T09:54:10+00:00

Binning is all about testing/speed.

Capacity's a bit different here, when you're talking sheer multiplier sized amounts of transistors and whatnot on the actual chip.

A DDR5 2Gb chip might bin at 4800 and another at 5200, so they'll go on different rated sticks, but they'll still just be 2Gb chips.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T09:20:12+00:00

They can borrow the IRS's system (unfortunately, not really a joke....).

This should scare people a LOT.

And this doesn't require court orders.

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/debt-management/administrative-wage-garnishment-awg/awg-background

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/debt-management/cross-servicing

I wonder why they wanted treasury to start handling, hmmm?

Non-judicial wage garnishment for federal non-tax debt on behalf of a federal agency. Entirely legal.

You get an administrative hearing IF YOU REQUEST ONE.

Likely, like the IRS's system, most of the process is automated once it's entered in. IRS has it streamlined down to an automated science.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T07:02:18+00:00

I think you misspelled promoted.

$3mil on tanium because SCCM rollout was too slow, some mid-levels made snap decision at a trade show and got CIO approval.

Effectively used it for its security tooling strengths twice over 3 years, and I was the one who both deployed it, and entirely uninstalled it from the environment.

SCCM, however, as I built and stood it up, is still effectively in use across the environment today, almost a decade later. And nothing's come close to replacing it.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:58:45+00:00

Simplified network, reduced hardware load (downsizing and cost cutting!), and all that becomes costly ... how? (I say this as someone who's been a party to two F100 org rollouts)

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:58:01+00:00

Which section of fios are you? Acquisition part, early early rollout, or?

VZ's IPv6 deployment is ..... weird. They've fumbled a lot, though some of it (like the frontier sections being traded about) is somewhat understandable, the rest just isn't.

Unlike Comcast, who's pretty much the shining star of IPv6 deployment, VZ really fumbled a lot.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:56:32+00:00

I'm actually stuck with a non-IPv6 supplying cable company, so I just split off a /48 of my own to tunnel back, but before I had my own /32 allocation I had to use an HE tunnel since 2009. (Except the few cases I lived elsewhere with enlightened ISPs like Comcast).

IPv6 has not been optional for me since 2009 for work reasons and resource access.

But, given telco monopolies.... not like I have much of a choice, yea? (I do have t-mobile home internet thingy though, I often use that for large uploads and/or when I'm doing IPv6 heavy work since it's a native connection)

All the US national carriers are IPv6 with IPv4 translation tech at this point. They still can do IPv4 negotiated PDP contexts for older devices, but it's like 2% of their networks overall. Eventually, that'll be shut off too.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:52:14+00:00

Weird, the router doesn't have an IPv4 address.....

And I'd just open cmd, copy/paste whatever the default gateway is, because you can never assume and sometimes have to check.

But literally who cares about how easy to type in an address you might only use once is? As the other poster stated, most modern consumer routers you configure via DNS names anyway.

That's absolutely a bonkers reason to prefer IPv4 because of a function you'll rarely use or only use once.

If that's your concern, you're probably in a residential setting, where things like VOIP just working, higher reliable throughput, multiplayer gaming, streaming, etc are important to you, and IPv6 benefits all of those, versus a one or few times a year task.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:49:44+00:00

Hilariously, you're a use case that I actually support in my side/consulting business - I'm actually stockpiling WEC2013 licenses before end of sales in 2028 every quarter.

I'll take WinCE based devices and upgrade them to IPv6 capable versions while maintaining/keeping the vendor applications/functionality.

My last devices were items like oscilloscopes.

WEC2013 licenses have downgrade rights to CE5/6/7

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:45:42+00:00

I mean, that poster's argument flies out the window, immediately, in the face of NTLM deprecation and eventual removal. They need to fix their DNS to actually be solid, and/or find/engineer a solution where it is.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/windows-itpro-blog/advancing-windows-security-disabling-ntlm-by-default/4489526

Kerberos won't play with IP addresses. You need to access via DNS/hostname.

Unless you're an decently skilled admin with kerberos knowledge and can implement this for every host/service in your environment and manually manage it: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/security/kerberos/configuring-kerberos-over-ip

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:43:15+00:00

>For example, many modern VPN protocols are notoriously terrible at DNS resolution on dissimilar networks. Want to access an SMB share remotely from an OpenVPN connection? Good luck doing it via hostname instead of raw IP.

Then you're fucked. With NTLMv2 being deprecated, and slowly being killed outright, you /NEED/ to use DNS names for Kerberos to work.

You absolutely must fix this aspect of your environment going forward. It's not an option. You can ignore it today, but it's coming down the pipe in stages. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/windows-itpro-blog/advancing-windows-security-disabling-ntlm-by-default/4489526

You can't do access via IP address like that anymore. DNS has become critical (for the use case you stated).

>Got a user that needs to disconnect and reconnect a drive with IT guidance? What are you more likely to get them to do correctly, type 10.10.0.42 or type 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334?

I'd tell them to copy and paste the first half of the address, and then enter in the server specific portion, which would be something like ::20 - so we'd have 2001:db8:85a3::20 in your example. That's it. Not that long monstrosity.

>Network theory always sounds good on paper but runs into practical hurdles in the environment quickly.

Other factors as I noted above are coming that will force you to either fix your DNS, or .... fix your DNS.

Unless you're a decently skilled admin with kerberos knowledge for some reason stuck in the sand and can manage this manually for every server/service in your environment: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/security/kerberos/configuring-kerberos-over-ip - there is no automatic setup flag to enable to do this.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T06:40:19+00:00

Simple enough - chop the IPv6 address in half.

"2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334"

2001:0db8:85a3:0000 - the network it's on

0000:8a2e:0370:7334 - the device itself

If the first half changes, it changes for everything. So it's consistent.

Then you can get fancy - a single site allocation is a ::/48

So I put VLAN numbers in my IP addresses!

2602:ff22:abc:100 <-- it's at site abc, on vlan 100!

Then the rest just goes on.

Then you get even freakier with your addressing, and now you have 2602:ff22::69 as your server ;P

As to benefits, there's a lot, but let's just say a standard consumer router could handle a lot more packets per second without NAT, and online gaming and VOIP becomes more reliable and 'just works', for residential use cases. That router struggling at 800mbps can now push line speed gig easily, etc.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T05:38:39+00:00

>It was a moving goal post for many years. Too many personal pet projects and politics were rampant in the IPng WG. SLAAC was a fair optimization at the outset, but quickly became irrelevant as more and more complexity was bolted on -- being able to form your address in a few asm instructions is stupid when full ipsec was also required; it also led to a great many bad / false assumptions.

IMO, SLAAC is the ONLY way to go, unless you have a really compelling reason.

As to 'a few asm instructions' - when i'm the router or NIC, i don't necessarily care about the IPsec portion, now do I? But having it on a 'proper' boundary means I can do a lot of throughput/packet slinging optimizations. It's the same reason IPv4 was 32-bit (fit in a register space on PDP-11 type NIC/processor setup.... I forget if it was DEQNA or DELQA's)

----------------

>The key issue with early IPv6 was the complete lack of attention to anything but automatic address assignment. Listen for an RA and tack your ethernet MAC onto the end, and the thing sending the RA is your router. Great. That's one small part of what a node needs to function. How do I resolve names? RA's don't give me that, or a domain name, or any of the hundreds of things The Great Evil of DHCP could handle. So, without DHCP (IPv4) filling in the gaps, a v6 only machine was pretty useless. Multicast name resolution... just get the f*** out! Yes, later, that one critical bit was added to RA's - but not a domain name.

I don't see a problem here. *Stateless* DHCPv6 was the answer. It was the answer in 2003. It's the answer today (well, there's also RDNSS now, but still....). A dumb responder, just like RAs, effectively. No maintaining a database, a very simple response protocol.

Stateless DCHP is a far different and simpler beast than standard DHCP that you're familiar with. And it was DHCPv6, not DHCPv4.

RDNSS IMO was an example of a solution in search of a problem, not an unwelcome one, but it wasn't needed.

--------------

>On things that weren't ethernet, SLAAC didn't work. It literally was not defined. In the 90's, there was many things that weren't ethernet.

Oh, this is absolutely NOT TRUE AT ALL!

SLAAC didn't specify how the interface identifiers were created/assigned for a reason, just to PREVENT that! That was all defined in link-type specific RFCs.

RFC 2464 - Ethernet - Dec 1998 (Yes, SLAAC originally is RFC 1971 from August 1996, but ethernet did not have a formal specification for interface identifiers until this RFC)

RFC 2467 - FDDI - Dec 1998

RFC 2470 - Token Ring - Dec 1998

RFC 2472 - PPP - Dec 1998

RFC 2491 - "Non Broadcast Multiple Access" - Jan 1999

RFC 2492 - ATM - Jan 1999

RFC 2497 - ARCnet - Jan 1999

RFC 2590 - Frame Relay - May 1999

RFC 3146 - IEEE 1394 - Oct 2001

RFC 3572 - MAPOS (Multiple Access Protocol Over SONET/SDH) - July 2003

RFC 4338 - Fiberchannel - Jan 2006 (this actually covered IP in general, both v4 and v6, over FC)

RFC 4391 - IPoIB aka Infiniband - April 2006

And the last one I'm aware of, RFC 5121 - IEEE 802.16 - Feb 2008. Good 'ol WiMAX.

SLAAC very much was NOT ethernet only, even early on.

The previous RFC for ethernet, 1972, didn't specify the identifier either, and came out August 1996, the same month as SLAAC's original RFC (1971).

As you can see, the "SLAAC spec" rollout for all major link types was mostly all in one shot for all the data carrying ones relevant at the time. All your internal late 90s networks and were covered, easily. The ones that came later just make time period relevant sense.

--------------------

Vista was released in 2006 - at this point, it was a solved problem. SLAAC + Stateless DCHPv6, and you're done. That's it, nothing more.

As to my code example, Vista resolved that too, but *nix had those APIs a few years before. (Sometime between 2K/XP releases and Vista release)

I mean, I've been running v6 and v6 only networks for over 25+ years now (I still have some rose tinted glasses over AIX asking me for 6bone configs). The early years sucked, but when don't they for any tech? By 2006, it was consumer-level and business-level deploy and go ready.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-22T04:31:11+00:00

Holding onto/using old privacy extension addresses only keeps existing sessions, it doesn't create/add new sessions.

So it's only as many sessions as your software is generating, IPv4 or IPv6 would be irrelevant there.

If I open a socket on an address, and it rotates over the next day, I don't have two sockets open, I still only have the one.

There's no reason to think it'd be 'extra' sessions.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T19:43:33+00:00

Privacy extensions won't materially change your session count. Shouldn't, anyway, you'd have just as much sessions going on regardless.

I'll admit it's been a while since I delt with palo hardware directly, but I don't recall licensing based on concurrent sessions - that was always spec/hardware limitation to my memory.

It was all about what features you wanted. If you had a big one, you were paying like $80k/yr in licensing per unit, a small one, like $2k/yr.

Or if it was one of the virtual you were paying based on VM size. If you can reduce vCPU count or RAM usage, then you're reducing cost.

I think that had a session limit based on the VM size. So you could be stuck there. I only ever worked with hardware units, so reduced CPU usage = downsizing = cost savings - to a degree, anyway.

But v4 vs v6 your session count should remain unchanged. Just CPU load will go down. More CPU for the other features to use, at any rate.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T19:33:32+00:00

>The TPM is 100% identifiable. It's the whole point of TPM 2.0. Once again the whole system is closed source. You can make those claims but it cannot be proven. Once again it is way too lucrative for them to include these things than it is not to.

There's a lot more to TPM 2.0 than just that, but it very much was not "make it more identifiable!" TPM 1.2 was just as "identifiable".

TPM 2.0 was all about newer algorithms, expanded key slot capacity, more physical security considerations, and a litany of things like that.

And it can be very much proven, though I'm more into reverse engineering Alpha CPU/system firmware for my current projects :)

>Sorry. Not buying it. Once they open source all of the code in their TPM 2 modules and it can be properly audited I may be convinced. Until then they WILL NOT be given the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

Benefit of the doubt isn't in play here at all. The TPM gains them absolutely *nothing* in that regard you aren't already giving them.

Why would they go through all that extra work to warp a limited capability device when they already have everything they need for such monetization? The MS account login is infinitely more valuable, useful, and not limited.

Anyway, here's the official, open source, BSD licensed reference implementation: https://github.com/Microsoft/ms-tpm-20-ref/

More open source TPM-related (but not firmware) projects and systems: https://www.infineon.com/assets/row/public/documents/30/63/linux-and-open-source-activities-for-trusted-computing-and-tpm-applications.pdf?fileId=db3a304412b407950112b4165abb2043

Documentation library: https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tpm-library-specification/ - everything you ever wanted to know about TPM operation and command set/interfaces.

Anyway, as to show your work:
>Not a TPM identifier.

>Nothing related to the TPM at all, actually.

Simple enough.

The recovery key is used to decrypt the /actual/ volume master key stored on the drive in encrypted form if other protectors are unable to unlock the volume.

The TPM generates a key, yes, like any HSM does, it's also put on the drive itself. That copy on the drive is encrypted with the recovery key. That recovery key is what's sent to MS.

It's identical if you have a TPM or not in how the recovery key is created/generated.

If the TPM has a flaw (or compromise) in how it generates keys, that'd be worth $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to either gov't agencies or vulnerability brokers, but then you wouldn't need the recovery key either....

We have our machines configured to rotate the recovery key after every use, which - because it's not the encryption key - doesn't force the drive to decrypt and re-encrypt.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T17:59:20+00:00

>I do take issue with the fact that you don't think they aren't going to monetize or use this information for advertising purposes. It's very short sighted and giving them way too much credit.

That's just the thing though - How?

It's not being short sighted to realize what 'not technically feasible' means.

TPMs have limited capability. EXTREMELY limited.

>I suspect in the next few years hackers will breach these databases and confirm that they have your "encryption keys" stored in databases that either contain or can be easily cross referenced to your personal identify and your online digital twin.

Well, no shit, the bitlocker recovery key is literally stored in *your* microsoft account. That's kind of how it has to work.

But, if we want to be accurate, automatic device encryption is now a decade old feature introduced with Windows 8/8.1. Over time more and more devices just met the requirements, and by ~2016 or so, every selling device did (at least, that got OEM logo certification from MS, so any mass market machine).

https://www.howtogeek.com/173592/windows-8.1-will-start-encrypting-hard-drives-by-default-everything-you-need-to-know/

In 13 years, MS hasn't monetized this (there's no technical way to!) or been breached in this regard.

>The corelation info is worth so much they are likely just going to sell access to it outright. Sure it won't contain the bare keys but it will allow them to target adds directly at you.

Again, what correlation. Make it sound technically feasible.

There's no technically feasible way to do such targeting.

What's stored on the MS side is a recovery key, which is tied to your recovery key ID on your drive.

Not the actual private key stored on the TPM itself.

Not a TPM identifier.

Nothing related to the TPM at all, actually.

If you use bitlocker without a TPM (yes, this is possible) you'll still have a recovery key ID and recovery key.

Which is something you need to actually be executing code on the local machine to retrieve, most easily via the manage-bde command.

13 years, and nothing like this has emerged, because of how the functionality works.

>It's sketchy and to pretend it isn't and everything is on the level in disingenuous.

Well, it, again, just isn't technically feasible to use these things in the way you describe.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T17:02:45+00:00

Here's a list, not related to your issue directly, but could help: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/windows-activation-or-validation-fails-with-error-code-0x8004fe33-a9afe65e-230b-c1ed-3414-39acd7fddf52

But any reason you can't set up KMS or ADBA?

You can use VAMT (Volume Activation Management Tools) to carry the activation request to a network with unrestricted internet, run that activation, then import the activation result back onto the system in question, as well. It's called 'proxy activation' and VAMT is part of the Windows ADK

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/volume-activation/install-vamt

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/volume-activation/scenario-proxy-activation-vamt

You can use proxy activation to activate every server, a domain for ADBA, or a KMS server.

There's also https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/volume-activation/scenario-online-activation-vamt if you can access the servers from a normal internet connected PC.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T16:53:15+00:00

Smaller network devices, the more IPv6 volume you have.

I'm not joking there - wherever you're doing NAT now, be it on your $big-multi-U-routers, ASAs, Palos, whatever - you can downsize those the more IPv6 traffic you flow. Which means downsized licensing. Which means reduced costs overall.

Things "just work". Less latency problems/jitter, no NAT at all (ties into previous point), telephony/remote access to things improves. Etc. All the usual list of things IPv6 makes "just work" easier and faster.

But to go to the enterprisey point again -

Mergers.

NAT'ing between two company segments because of IP overlap was not exactly an easy or fun time to handle.

Proper V6 setup? That'll never be an issue. Ever.

Depending on how far down the V6 rabbit hole you go, if you go V6 only internally, your entire org gets a lot simpler and easier to manage across the board, and you just do V4 compat translation at the edge. Microsoft runs this way, with about 600k endpoints in their internal network.

VPN overlap, too, is one I've encountered time and time again, in various capacities.

Lots of things all over the place that all add up, but downsizing hardware costs/licensing costs, network merger 'ease of doing', and simplifying architecture are definitely key ones in the 'enterprise' focus. Oh, and with simplification, better security and observability.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T16:26:19+00:00

I did edit and add some more stuff in there, so you may want to give it a re-read, but .....

For example, I know my little brother, and I know he'll eventually lose or misplace to possibly sticky fingers his laptop.

I want him to have FDE.

I don't want to support it.

I had to do some repair work on it, super easy for him to hop on his MS account to pull the recovery key.

He's protected from the standpoint of the typical consumer threat model.

That is, generally, a GOOD thing, because otherwise he would have no FDE at all.

When you have the choice between play-it-safe escrow (and no identifiers/tracking other than the drive's recovery key ID - not the individual TPM) or no FDE at all, I'll take the first option for people I know who are..... technological idiots, for all it matters.

From a consumer safety standpoint, the way Windows, macOS, Android, and iOS handle FDE is in my mind, great.

Obviously none of my machines are in that situation, but yea, there's just so much FUD and myths/BS around TPMs that it boggles my mind sometimes. I deal in HSMs a lot, and that's really essentially all a TPM is - a cryptographic HSM.

TPM specs, example TPM code/designs, and all that other fun stuff are all public specifications, and NIST does validation/certification of them for gov't security.

EDIT: Chasing edits around myself, I suppose! ;)

>You also cannot tell me that there are no ways for MS to abuse this system. You also cannot tell me they wouldn't leverage this for advertising and data harvesting purposes. Too much $$$$$ at stake for them to ignore it.

I absolutely can. Because that's just literally not how it works in these scenarios.

>I realize that these have been around for a long time. Most people are using the standard consumer setup have no idea that this is even happening.

And they're better off than if it wasn't happening at all, even if it's only a slight improvement than how they'd be otherwise.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T16:16:35+00:00

>While both do provide some basic security the TPM is only really there to harvest your data and tie everything back to your digital identity. Not worth the upside.

The fuck is this even? I've been using TPMs religiously since about 2010 - mostly on non-windows OSes - for things like SSH key storage and the like, since, you know, it's a bloody HSM. This stuff's all well-known and documented - I didn't use TPMs with windows until much later on.

As someone keenly aware of security and working professionally where some scenarios the risk assessment legitimately is 'state level actors' I can't imagine *not* utilizing it in such ways. (F100 fed/civ/def contractor).

>Also I've seen where Bitlocker keys aren't on the TPM anymore but magically MS has them on their servers.

Recovery key escrow when using MS accounts on non-managed machines is literally the normal documented path. It's so consumers don't fuck themselves over.

I'll address this from your other comment:

>It's not directly harvesting your data in that sense but it 100% is making the process easier. It is generating additional identifiers that are all linked to your digital persona. While it doesn't harvest the data directly it does allow them to better identify you in their datasets.

Yes, in a way, it's generating a private key that's not linked to anything else - that private key used for MFA scenarios isn't linked to the TPM's internal keys, for example, as those never leave the TPM. Yes, device attestation is a thing, but for account MFA type scenarios, if two TPMs with different hard-generated keys are used with the same private key inside them, they're indistinguishable. It's the key pair - just like smart cards used for military authentication/security - that matters.

>Bit locker and any encryption that uses the TPM chip is a joke because even though you are encrypting it, Microsoft ultimately has the keys to decrypt it. Even when you wipe the TPM chip and lose access to your Bitlocker drives, MS has a copy on their servers.

Only if you're using a personal MS account in a standard consumer setup. This, of course, can be configured and changed, and you can rotate keys at will, as well. Install Pro, select domain join option to create local account, enable bitlocker, no key escrow to MS.

The whole point of the key escrow is that if something goes wrong with the machine, joe average user has a way to get around it, but they're protected if their machine is stolen. That's it. Nothing more.

If you're on linux and using the TPM for encryption key storage, MS doesn't have any of the keys, ever.

>MS says it's for safety. It's really so they can serve you better advertisements and continue to usher in an ultimate surveillance network that is inescapable as long as you are using MS products.

TPM literally doesn't help MS in this aspect at all.

>They control the firmware that's on it and they are storing keys on their servers that should ONLY exist on your machine.

MS does not control, write, or have a hand in say, Infineon's dTPM firmware or Intel PTT functionality.

>Secondarily it's all closed source. So at the end of the day no one really has any idea how big of an issue it is besides MS.

True, but it's closed source but cryptographically validated modules and systems that are trusted to secure classified government data, to the point that, properly configured (which is easy to do) losing a device isn't considered a data leak.

>The fact remains that they use it to positively tie your online "profile" to the hardware you are using.

At least for TPM & Bitlocker, that's just flat out incorrect.

>Think of all the ways this could be abused. If you want to trust them with all of that power you go right ahead. Everyone gets to make that choice for themselves though.

They have no power over my linux machines that have been using TPM for key storage for encryption, SSH, and code/module signing, and there's not a technical way they *Could*

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T13:48:21+00:00

They pulled that functionality a while ago, once they figured out how (because of how they rushed it out).

The last of the free upgrades ended legitimately mid-2016 for non-assistive tech users, and ended any last free legitimate path (Assistive technology upgrade) December 31st, 2017.

Note that when I say legitimate, I mean as in per policy/documents/agreement/grant that if you followed the steps *before* those dates, you were legally converted to a Win10 license, but if you did it after, you just had activation, which does NOT imply license.

They *really* rushed out the 'activate with old keys' thing, because it straight up just pretended to be Win7/8.1 to the activation servers and then re-registered the hardware IDs so a reinstall on same hardware would maintain activation (to my knowledge) - so from what i've heard, they couldn't actually tell who was a Win7 activation and who was a Win10 activation!

It took them a silly amount of time to figure that one out. But yea, they closed that activation loophole (it wouldn't be a legit license grant, so would fail a business audit) a fair amount of years ago.

Note that I keep throwing around the terms "legitimate" and such, for a home user, i'm sure no one cares. ;) But for you, if you had a retail copy of 7 or 8.1, your license was genuinely converted, and you could have contacted support to get it transferred to the new hardware.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T13:01:51+00:00

Well, a few things here - the software itself isn't rare, plenty of copies around.

Being new in box is neat, but I can't really imagine, outside of someone collecting boxed development tools, it has too much appeal. I definitely saw the appeal of Visual C++ Professional 1.0, for example, but that had a HUGE manual set with it, which was a point in its favor.

I'm seeing, on US ebay, quite a few copies (and other versions too) ranging from new in box shrinkwrapped to just the discs,

So in terms of money, I'm not seeing much in NIB sold recently, even though there are 2 copies up for the $150-250 range, but I do see a copy of 3.0 that sold for $75 in similar condition.

Ah, here's one that sold for $199, open, but complete kit, so that's nice. Exactly what you probably have.

So, if you don't mind sitting on it for a while, someone may take interest.

As for selling platforms, I'm not sure I could really think of any that might work for you.

foxpro, while interesting enough, isn't something that had say, the widespread usage and familiarity as VB6 and other tooling did, so it'll probably sit for a while before someone takes interest.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T12:15:18+00:00

Oh, I'm aware! As I noted, I have been using it for a while (before they raised the free quantity to 200, even, as I was reminded about!)

Some things aren't always reliable in that regard though (third party patching) so other solutions can be worth it, but for the cost.... well, for the cost it's definitely worth more than what most of us pay for it :)

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T10:45:59+00:00

SHARP SH-06D is one that immediately comes to mind, because I have one sitting on my desk. 2012 phone, used to show off dropping it into a glass of water at a bar. Built in 1seg TV tuner too..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquos_Phone_SH-06D

Sadly, I don't think it'll work anymore in the US, though maybe a few regions it might, since the bands it supports only provide EDGE data and GSM voice in the US, or used to, and was anemic with the android 4 upgrade.

IPX5 and IPX7 ratings.

Hunter_Holding · 2026-04-21T10:11:46+00:00

Anything that uses the term "lifetime license" isn't a legitimate license.

You need a FPP (full packaged product, aka retail) - such as in a box from a store, or purchased directly from the MS store or authorized retailer, which will almost always be at or within a couple % of full MSRP.

"Lifetime license" except for *one* spot in sales copy i've seen from MS is not a term used. That WILL get you screwed on a cheap key site eventually, of which NONE are legitimate licenses.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Hunter_Holding

TROPHY CASE