Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

You'd probably do better in the Firefox newsgroup (you have to get it
from the Mozilla server, but that's free).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

_____
___ |[]|_n_n_I_c
|___||__|###|____)
O-O--O-O+++--O-O

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

Andy wrote:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?


Actual "Quantum" doesn't install on WinXP. And ?

In the five minutes of tests I've done on Win7
and Win10, it worked.

Paul

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

On 01 Dec 2017, Andy wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I'm certain that out of the thousands or millions of people using
Firefox Quantum, someone out there is getting frequent crashes.
However, none of them are running it on Windows XP.

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine, at
least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine, at
least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.


(I was really wondering why Andy was asking here - as have others.) If
you've got an old version that is working, it will continue to do so;
the only reason for that to appear not to be the case will be if web
page designers start to include features that only work with the newer
versions. So far, most companies that do this, I've found an
alternative, so all they've done is lose my custom; however, there may
come a time when all the alternatives are using the new "feature" as
well.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I am entitled to my own opinion."
"Yes, but it's your constant assumption that everyone else is also that's so
annoying." - Vila & Avon

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 12:43:48 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine, at
least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.

I regressed to version 41, which is much more stable and doersn't
crash nearly as often as later versions. Later versions are more
bloated. It was after they introduced "Pockets" that "Not Responding"
became the normal response.

I've also been trying the Maxthon browser, also recommended by someone
here, which seems to work well for some things.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine,
at least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.


(I was really wondering why Andy was asking here - as have others.) If
you've got an old version that is working, it will continue to do so;
the only reason for that to appear not to be the case will be if web
page designers start to include features that only work with the newer
versions. So far, most companies that do this, I've found an
alternative, so all they've done is lose my custom; however, there may
come a time when all the alternatives are using the new "feature" as
well.

OR are just compiled with a newer compiler that uses some revised DLLs that
are not compatible with the Windows XP OS. IOW, it's not just the added
features of the browser, but the actual code still being compatible with the
Windows XP OS as I understand it. You can see that happening when you try
to install some other newer programs, and you get those cryptic DLL error
messages, and it won't install..

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 12:43:48 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine,
at least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.

I regressed to version 41, which is much more stable and doersn't
crash nearly as often as later versions. Later versions are more
bloated. It was after they introduced "Pockets" that "Not Responding"
became the normal response.

I've also been trying the Maxthon browser, also recommended by someone
here, which seems to work well for some things.

I'm still using version 36, as it was around the last version (give or take
a few) that didn't have some add on warning issues or some add on
compatibility issues.

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 12:43:48 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.
Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine, at
least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.

I regressed to version 41, which is much more stable and doersn't
crash nearly as often as later versions. Later versions are more
bloated. It was after they introduced "Pockets" that "Not Responding"
became the normal response.

I've also been trying the Maxthon browser, also recommended by someone
here, which seems to work well for some things.

When is the last time you ran Memtest on your machine ?

http://www.memtest.org/

*******

Firefox crashes can be avoided by disabling hardware
acceleration. And Adobe Flash also has such a setting.
This helps if your GPU and driver are too crusty for
the new approaches.

Paul

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine,
at least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.


(I was really wondering why Andy was asking here - as have others.) If
you've got an old version that is working, it will continue to do so;
the only reason for that to appear not to be the case will be if web
page designers start to include features that only work with the newer
versions. So far, most companies that do this, I've found an
alternative, so all they've done is lose my custom; however, there may
come a time when all the alternatives are using the new "feature" as
well.

OR are just compiled with a newer compiler that uses some revised DLLs that
are not compatible with the Windows XP OS. IOW, it's not just the added
features of the browser, but the actual code still being compatible with the

The actual code of what? If you mean the browser, then up to 52 it _was_
compiled (so I understand; I'm still on 26) and runs under XP. And will
continue to do so, for ever. The only thing that will make that appear
not to work will be if web page creators use features not supported in
52, rather than not supported in XP - i. e. it's the version of browser
that's the limiting factor, not XP. Of course, in practice the effect is
similar, unless those features _are_ supported by some other browser
that runs under XP.

Windows XP OS as I understand it. You can see that happening when you try
to install some other newer programs, and you get those cryptic DLL error
messages, and it won't install..

I don't _think_ web pages will call DLLs.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ...
(first series, fit the second)

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine,
at least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that
doesn't
happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.


(I was really wondering why Andy was asking here - as have others.) If
you've got an old version that is working, it will continue to do so;
the only reason for that to appear not to be the case will be if web
page designers start to include features that only work with the newer
versions. So far, most companies that do this, I've found an
alternative, so all they've done is lose my custom; however, there may
come a time when all the alternatives are using the new "feature" as
well.

OR are just compiled with a newer compiler that uses some revised DLLs
that
are not compatible with the Windows XP OS. IOW, it's not just the added
features of the browser, but the actual code still being compatible
with the

The actual code of what? If you mean the browser, then up to 52 it _was_
compiled (so I understand; I'm still on 26) and runs under XP. And will
continue to do so, for ever. The only thing that will make that appear
not to work will be if web page creators use features not supported in
52, rather than not supported in XP - i. e. it's the version of browser
that's the limiting factor, not XP. Of course, in practice the effect is
similar, unless those features _are_ supported by some other browser
that runs under XP.

Windows XP OS as I understand it. You can see that happening when you
try
to install some other newer programs, and you get those cryptic DLL error
messages, and it won't install..

I don't _think_ web pages will call DLLs.


Look in the install folder.

The firefox.exe file is usually small, a few hundred KB.

The major DLL in firefox is xul.dll. It's currently
in the 50MB range.

The web page is interpreted initially.

Content, such as a Flash movie, might require a
container process to be forked, so that if Flash crashes,
the main process continues to run.

*******

An older version of Firefox, the compiler and linker are from
Visual Studio 2015. However, recent builds may be including
"Rust" and "LLVM", whatever those are. I tried to build Firefox 56
from source, but the build (from tarball) wouldn't work. By cloning
the Mercurial HG tree, I got a copy of Firefox 59, which had maybe
50% more files in the tree, than using a tarball. And it seemed
to be building some things it needed right in the tree. So I was
able to complete a build of Firefox 59.

It still definitely has to bootstrap the build, by using Visual
Studio 2015 tools. I had to manually edit my path and make sure
it could find the VS2015 compiler and linker. But after that, it
may have done some parts of the build with the tools it built
for itself.

The output is still a collection of DLLs. DLLs loaded by
the main EXE. If you were to run DependencyWalker against it,
you might get a list of the stuff the EXE is bound to.

At one time, you could have a complete set of .pdb files
from the Visual Studio build, such that you could use the
IDE and WinDBG with Firefox, and single step the code. (The PDB
is the "symbols" file, so the debugger can find its way around
each executable thing.) I didn't try that with the latest build.
The build instructions now on the Mozilla site, leave a lot to
be desired.

I did manage to add a "printf" statement, just before the XPCOM
error statement, so I can now see what it's looking for (when the
program forks copies of itself for Quantum/Electrolysis). It uses
the application path of ARGV0, in an attempt to find "application.ini"
in the program folder. Why that's important is unclear, when you
actually see what materials are inside that file. It appears
to be an attempt to prevent people from moving files
around between releases of Firefox or something.

; This file is not used. If you modify it and want the application to use
; your modifications, move it under the browser/ subdirectory and start with
; the "-app /path/to/browser/application.ini" argument.
[App]
Vendor=Mozilla
Name=Firefox
RemotingName=firefox
CodeName=Nightly
Version=59.0a1
BuildID=20171124062154
SourceStamp=72ee4800d4156931c89b58bd807af4a3083702 bb
ID={ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}

[Gecko]
MinVersion=59.0a1
MaxVersion=59.0a1

[XRE]
EnableProfileMigrator=1

[Crash Reporter]
Enabled=1
ServerURL=https://crash-reports.mozilla.com/submit?id={ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}&version=59.0a1&buildid=2017112406215 4

*******

And what a program compiles with, is mainly important to debugging.

A program compiled with Visual Studio, is debug-able with WinDBG.

A program compiled with MinGW, is debug-able with GNU gdb.

They're all PE32 or PE32+, so loading them isn't a problem.
But the debugger will throw its tiny hands in the air,
if you feed it the "wrong flavor" of EXE. From that point of
view, how the build is done today, could be important in terms
of single stepping within WinDBG. When you single step in WinDBG,
it opens the source file in the IDE and places the cursor on the
line where the program counter is currently pointing. Until
you make the next single-step/breakpoint.

Paul

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
Andy writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.

Yup, it says FF 52 is the last version for Windows XP, so am I missing
something? :-) Speaking of which, the older versions still work fine,
at least over here. I'm hoping we don't get to a point where that
doesn't happen anymore, but I may be too optimistic.


(I was really wondering why Andy was asking here - as have others.) If
you've got an old version that is working, it will continue to do so;
the only reason for that to appear not to be the case will be if web
page designers start to include features that only work with the newer
versions. So far, most companies that do this, I've found an
alternative, so all they've done is lose my custom; however, there may
come a time when all the alternatives are using the new "feature" as
well.

OR are just compiled with a newer compiler that uses some revised DLLs
that are not compatible with the Windows XP OS. IOW, it's not just the
added features of the browser, but the actual code still being
compatible with the

The actual code of what? If you mean the browser, then up to 52 it _was_
compiled (so I understand; I'm still on 26) and runs under XP. And will
continue to do so, for ever. The only thing that will make that appear
not to work will be if web page creators use features not supported in
52, rather than not supported in XP - i. e. it's the version of browser
that's the limiting factor, not XP. Of course, in practice the effect is
similar, unless those features _are_ supported by some other browser
that runs under XP.

Windows XP OS as I understand it. You can see that happening when you
try to install some other newer programs, and you get those cryptic DLL
error messages, and it won't install..

I don't _think_ web pages will call DLLs.

The problem is waaay before that. If you try to install some newer programs
(or newer versions of some older programs) on a Windows XP system (I should
have said System, as that also includes the older Visual C stuff and whatnot
on that older system), it will often fail in one of three ways: 1) the
installer refuses to install it, or 2) the installer tries to install it and
fails, and gives some cryptic DLL error message about some missing DLL
parameters (due to a newer version DLL supporting them but not the older
version), or 3) it can't find some DLL file(s) on your system.

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in
Co writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message
, Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.
[LONG explanation - way over my head - snipped]
Bill's attempt to explain to me also read.

So, are you (Paul and Andy) saying "Quantum" - alias Firefox 57 or
beyond, I think - _will_ install on XP, but will then crash later?

I had assumed that the versions that aren't guaranteed to work on XP -
i. e. 53 on - wouldn't even install under it. Which was then what was
puzzling me about Andy asking the above question here in the XP 'group.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A biochemist walks into a student bar and says to the barman: "I'd like a pint
of adenosine triphosphate, please." "Certainly," says the barman, "that'll be
ATP." (Quoted in) The Independent, 2013-7-13

Crashes with Firefox Quantum
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in
Co writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill
in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message
, Andy
writes:
Is anyone else getting frequent crashes with Firefox Quantum ?

I didn't think Quantum (alias Firefox 57, I think) runs under XP; I
thought 52 was the last that would.
[LONG explanation - way over my head - snipped]
Bill's attempt to explain to me also read.

So, are you (Paul and Andy) saying "Quantum" - alias Firefox 57 or
beyond, I think - _will_ install on XP, but will then crash later?

I had assumed that the versions that aren't guaranteed to work on XP -
i. e. 53 on - wouldn't even install under it. Which was then what was
puzzling me about Andy asking the above question here in the XP 'group.

The installer is supposed to not install a version like 57 on WinXP.

If you moved the file from some other machine, they should
have booby trapped it, by making a kernel call that only
W7/8.1/10 can answer. That prevents "portable Firefox" experiments.

Windows has some other way of blocking things, and that's the
one that protects Solitaire from Win7 running on Win10. The one
that somebody hacked with a hex editor :-) So that method isn't
secure, unless the executable happens to be signed. Then it would
be harder to hack, and get it to load.

Since the people making these observations ("crashes"), seldom provide
any "color commentary", it's not really possible to help them.
Making wild guesses without feedback, isn't getting us anywhere.

Oh, one other thing. I found a discussion thread on Mozilla site today,
about the practice of putting a 64-bit executable, in a
32-bit folder [ Program Files (x86) ]. They did this on
purpose. It's not an accident. I don't know what problem
that solved for them, but it wasn't just a high school
student working on the NSIS installer. I fail to see how
this is a good idea in the long run (i.e. nobody can remember
why it is there and what the reason was).

Paul