If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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'm looking to downgrade FF. I currently run FF version 47.x. I am running this on an older laptop (Lenovo T43) with XP Pro Sp3. This version of FF does work, but poorly. It runs slow, and it seems that after it's in use for awhile, it seems to become saturated, or overloaded, which makes it run even slower, until it becomes unusable. So, every couple hours, I have to close FF, clear the cache, and re-open it, to make it useful again. I think FF just uses up all the resources on this low powered computer, until it overloads. Prior to this, I was running FF 18.x. I never had those problems with that version, but some websites would bitch about the "old version" and some pages would not load correctly. I know that websites in general are switching over to some newer HTML code (I think it's version 5). And now we have all the secured sites which are also slowing things down and causing more problems for the end user. Anyhow, I need to downgrade to some version of FF between 18 and 47. I'm not sure what version is the best, which will eliminate the extreme drain on resources, and still run most current websites. Any suggestions? |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
Bill in Co wrote:
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. An addendum and a question for Paul (or someone else who might know): What I don't understand is whether or not these DLL incompatibility issues arise from the older Visual Basic or C libraries on a Windows XP system, OR from some newer DLLs added by the newer program version itself, OR from the (older) DLLs found on a Windows XP system, at large. Or maybe I'm missing something here. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
Bill in Co wrote:
Bill in Co wrote: 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. An addendum and a question for Paul (or someone else who might know): What I don't understand is whether or not these DLL incompatibility issues arise from the older Visual Basic or C libraries on a Windows XP system, OR from some newer DLLs added by the newer program version itself, OR from the (older) DLLs found on a Windows XP system, at large. Or maybe I'm missing something here. EXEs can have a DLL list. And DLLs can have a DLL list. Once everything is loaded, every subroutine call has an address, even if the address has to take into account ASLR. The loader takes care of the details of linking things together. It cannot link things together, that it cannot "see" and load. I can upload Firefox 52 EXE and collect the Imports list. And do the same for 57. The EXE file is a "thin" file that doesn't do much. The "meat" is in XUL.dll. So if you don't have a copy of DependencyWalker, you can use Virustotal as a very crude analysis tool. Firefox 52 https://www.virustotal.com/#/file/0e...7d41cb/details Imports: ADVAPI32.dll KERNEL32.dll MSVCP140.dll VCRUNTIME140.dll api-ms-win-crt-environment-l1-1-0.dll \ api-ms-win-crt-heap-l1-1-0.dll \ api-ms-win-crt-locale-l1-1-0.dll \ api-ms-win-crt-math-l1-1-0.dll \___ Microsoft also has api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll / pushed these out hard, api-ms-win-crt-stdio-l1-1-0.dll / via security updates, api-ms-win-crt-string-l1-1-0.dll / in an effort to support mozglue.dll some kinda newer stuff. Firefox 57 (basically, the same, as the EXE "doesn't do anything") Imports ADVAPI32.dll KERNEL32.dll MSVCP140.dll VCRUNTIME140.dll api-ms-win-crt-environment-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-heap-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-locale-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-math-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-stdio-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-string-l1-1-0.dll mozglue.dll When I run the XUL.dll files (~50MB size), they have a few different dependencies. The 57 one is calling dwmapi.dll and I don't think the Display Manager goes by that name on Windows XP. There are some I don't recognize, and would have to start searching some C: partitions, to find and get a name from them. Firefox 52 XUL.dll Firefox 57 XUL.dll Imports Imports ADVAPI32.dll = AVRT.dll CRYPT32.dll = GDI32.dll = HID.DLL IMM32.dll = IPHLPAPI.DLL = KERNEL32.dll = MSIMG32.dll = MSVCP140.dll = OLEAUT32.dll = RPCRT4.dll = SETUPAPI.dll = SHELL32.dll = SHLWAPI.dll = USER32.dll = USP10.dll = UxTheme.dll = VCRUNTIME140.dll = VERSION.dll = WINMM.dll = WINTRUST.dll = WS2_32.dll = WSOCK32.dll = WTSAPI32.dll = api-ms-win-crt-convert-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-environment-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-filesystem-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-locale-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-math-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-stdio-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-string-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-time-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-utility-l1-1-0.dll = dwmapi.dll (W8/W10?) lgpllibs.dll = mozglue.dll = nss3.dll = ole32.dll = pdh.dll --- not in 57 (windows performance data helper, no idea) This is one of the reasons DependencyWalker output is so complicated looking, because the imports of every DLL in the "tree" shows up (recursive analysis). Including bogus references to some sort of java DLL that hasn't existed since WinXP SP1 (not available on SP1a, removed by court decision in Sun vs Microsoft legal case over msjava). Usually, an analysis without boring down too many layers, can spot dependencies that an old OS might not support. And if you hard-wire something like this into your executable, it helps work as a booby-trap (if I move my Firefox 57 folder to my WinXP machine). But kernel calls work just as well. Both the EXEs and the DLLs above reference kernel32 and you could pick a call that's only supported in Vista+ for example, to prevent WinXP from loading completely. And that doesn't even include the marking of executables with some sort of "runs in particular OS version xxx", like how Solitaire was marked. Microsoft tends to do that to their own software products. I can't run VPC2007 on Windows 10, even though it would probably execute given a chance. Paul |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , writes: [] I'm looking to downgrade FF. I currently run FF version 47.x. I am running this on an older laptop (Lenovo T43) with XP Pro Sp3. This version of FF does work, but poorly. It runs slow, and it seems that after it's in use for awhile, it seems to become saturated, or overloaded, which makes it run even slower, until it becomes unusable. So, every couple hours, I have to close FF, clear the cache, and re-open it, to make it useful again. I think FF just uses up all the resources on this low powered computer, until it overloads. Prior to this, I was running FF 18.x. I never had those problems with that version, but some websites would bitch about the "old version" and some pages would not load correctly. [] Anyhow, I need to downgrade to some version of FF between 18 and 47. I'm not sure what version is the best, which will eliminate the extreme drain on resources, and still run most current websites. Any suggestions? Hmm. I run version 26; this still has difficulty with _some_ sites (though that _could_ be some of the settings and add-ons I have). With thirty-odd tabs open, I find it still does the slowdown (though I'd say after rather more than two hours), but I find closing and reopening it usually speeds it up again - I don't clear the cache (if I ever knew how to, I've forgotten). If I think things are a bit slow, I have a look in Task Manager and sort by memory usage - if Firefox is hogging a lot, then it's time to restart it. This could give you a mid-point in your researches. (26 or 27 is the last before one of the major changes in user interface - Atlantis, Australis, something like that.) I'd not run XP-with-Firefox with less than 1.5G RAM these days. You can get every version you could ever want. They're all available. http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ Just remember that your personal profile folder, isn't guaranteed to "go backwards" on version. At least export your bookmarks file for safe keeping. The build environment has a neat trick, where if you do "./mach run" it creates a temporary profile folder for your freshly compiled version, to use for testing. So that your "regular" profile folder doesn't get messed up. Apparently it is possible to run two different versions at the same time, just with separately maintained bookmarks and so on. That means, at least for some range of versions of Firefox, you can pass a pointer to the profile folder, so your old profile folder doesn't get messed up. I'm only pasting this here, to show how the "-profile" can be used to prevent messing up the main profile. You have to CD to the private Firefox home, so you can run the second version of Firefox. Finding someone who packages "Portable Firefox" versions, would give you the materials needed to try this. $ cd C:\mozilla-central $ ./mach run dist\bin\firefox.exe -no-remote -profile c:\mozilla-central\obj-x86_64-pc-mingw32\tmp\scratch_user As for the performance issues, they're just as likely to be OS related, as Firefox related (lots of Firefox memory garbage collection, causing WinXP resources to become fragmented). There's no guarantee that running Firefox version 1.0a is going to make for "sooper-fast" browsing. While I have plenty of "let's hack it..." ideas, I don't really think *anything* is going to help. Trying to wiggle out of the situation, just isn't going to happen. If you use a really old version, which is light on resources, you lose https support, modern SHA2 certificate support, or whatever. Every plus has two minuses. Who wants a browser that only opens 5% of sites ? I don't. This is why going backwards on version, is a pipe dream. ******* If you want an idea to experiment with, try this. The "about:memory" panel has some memory cleanup buttons you can press. Hold your mouse over the "GC" and "CC" buttons. You can experiment with the buttons, when your browser is "slow". [44KB image] https://s18.postimg.org/ioqava849/ab...collection.gif And if you think, for some reason that the problem is disk speed, use an SSD. While it's hard to find good IDE SSDs, there are still some for sale. Paul |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:01:20 PM UTC-6, 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. -- 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 I use Ubuntu, but was looking for some feedback. I know there are far many more Windows users than Linux. Wasn't aware that FF stopped being able to be installed on Win XP. Andy |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 04:21:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: Anyhow, I need to downgrade to some version of FF between 18 and 47. I'm not sure what version is the best, which will eliminate the extreme drain on resources, and still run most current websites. Any suggestions? Hmm. I run version 26; this still has difficulty with _some_ sites (though that _could_ be some of the settings and add-ons I have). With thirty-odd tabs open, I find it still does the slowdown (though I'd say after rather more than two hours), but I find closing and reopening it usually speeds it up again - I don't clear the cache (if I ever knew how to, I've forgotten). If I think things are a bit slow, I have a look in Task Manager and sort by memory usage - if Firefox is hogging a lot, then it's time to restart it. This could give you a mid-point in your researches. (26 or 27 is the last before one of the major changes in user interface - Atlantis, Australis, something like that.) I'd not run XP-with-Firefox with less than 1.5G RAM these days. -- Some sites are just plain lousy. I think some of the people who create webpages have no clue what they are doing. When I go on sites that cause problems, I usually just pass and move on to another site. There are plenty sites, why fuss with bad ones... I'll check on ver 26 or 27. That sounds like a compromise. To clear the cache, on the older versions go to TOOLS, and there's a button "Clear Recent History". On the newer versions (such as 47), go to HISTORY and look for the same.... You can select if you want to clear the Cache, clear cookies, and a bunch of other stuff. The "cache" is the main thing to clear. Not only does it slow stuff down on FF, but it uses a lot of drive space. When I only had a 40gb drive and was low on drive space, clearing the cache gained me over 1gb. If I recall, ver 18 still had the cache clearing in the TOOLS. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
In message , Andy
writes: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:01:20 PM UTC-6, 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 use Ubuntu, but was looking for some feedback. I know there are far many more Windows users than Linux. Wasn't aware that FF stopped being able to be installed on Win XP. Andy Ah, that explains it (-:. Yes, 52 was the last version that supported XP. Are you _aware_ of the Mozilla newsgroups and server? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy writes: I use Ubuntu, but was looking for some feedback. I know there are far many more Windows users than Linux. Wasn't aware that FF stopped being able to be installed on Win XP. Andy Ah, that explains it (-:. Yes, 52 was the last version that supported XP. Are you _aware_ of the Mozilla newsgroups and server? The Google Groupers don't have a complete newsgroup list to work with, and this causes problems. That's why a guy comes to the WinXP group and asks Win7 questions, because Win7 is actually missing from the Google server. And similarly, while there are some Linux groups on Google Groups, some important ones are missing. And this causes questions to pop up in unexpected places. If we could only grab the Google person who runs that server and shake them a few times... Oh, never mind. Paul |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Andy writes: [] Are you _aware_ of the Mozilla newsgroups and server? The Google Groupers don't have a complete newsgroup list to work with, and this causes problems. That's why a guy comes to the WinXP group and asks Win7 questions, because Win7 is actually missing from [] If we could only grab the Google person who runs that server and shake them a few times... Oh, never mind. [] (-: Ah, that explains a lot. I hadn't realised Andy was a Google Grouper. At least I think he realises how newsgroups work, unlike a lot of GGers we get on a genealogy newsgroup I take! Andy: would you consider using a different way of accessing newsgroups? I'd recommend Thunderbird (free) as the software - not necessarily the best, but good enough and I think having the widest support base - and one of the free newsservers for most 'groups like this one (with of course the Mozilla server for the ones including mozilla.support.firefox, which is a support 'group for Firefox users (not really run by Mozilla, though it is moderated). Doing so would allow you access to 'groups you can't get via GG. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged. - Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
In message , Paul
writes: [] You can put the Firefox cache in RAM. You can put the whole Firefox profile (cache and Bookmarks) in a RAMDisk. But I'm not convinced that's the root cause of the Firefox slowdown. [] No, otherwise closing then reopening Firefox (26) - _without_ clearing the cache - wouldn't show a drop in Firefox usage. Let's see: F is using 405,836 K at the moment (relatively low). I've closed it. 401M; 350M; gone. Now I'll start it again: 60M; 68M; 208M; 230M; 294M; 342M; 377M; 359M; 429 ... Hmm, seems to be "breathing" as you described. Ah, it seems to have settled down at 373,6xx K. OK, so it's settled down at not much less than it was. Normally, I don't shut it down and restart it unless it's using 700M to 1.4G (and then only when it's causing total RAM usage to get close to the 2G I have); at that point, it usually _does_ drop several hundred M between shutdown and stable-after-restart. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged. - Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote: Bill in Co wrote: 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. An addendum and a question for Paul (or someone else who might know): What I don't understand is whether or not these DLL incompatibility issues arise from the older Visual Basic or C libraries on a Windows XP system, OR from some newer DLLs added by the newer program version itself, OR from the (older) DLLs found on a Windows XP system, at large. Or maybe I'm missing something here. EXEs can have a DLL list. And DLLs can have a DLL list. Once everything is loaded, every subroutine call has an address, even if the address has to take into account ASLR. The loader takes care of the details of linking things together. It cannot link things together, that it cannot "see" and load. I can upload Firefox 52 EXE and collect the Imports list. And do the same for 57. The EXE file is a "thin" file that doesn't do much. The "meat" is in XUL.dll. So if you don't have a copy of DependencyWalker, you can use Virustotal as a very crude analysis tool. Firefox 52 https://www.virustotal.com/#/file/0e...7d41cb/details Imports: ADVAPI32.dll KERNEL32.dll MSVCP140.dll VCRUNTIME140.dll api-ms-win-crt-environment-l1-1-0.dll \ api-ms-win-crt-heap-l1-1-0.dll \ api-ms-win-crt-locale-l1-1-0.dll \ api-ms-win-crt-math-l1-1-0.dll \___ Microsoft also has api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll / pushed these out hard, api-ms-win-crt-stdio-l1-1-0.dll / via security updates, api-ms-win-crt-string-l1-1-0.dll / in an effort to support mozglue.dll some kinda newer stuff. Firefox 57 (basically, the same, as the EXE "doesn't do anything") Imports ADVAPI32.dll KERNEL32.dll MSVCP140.dll VCRUNTIME140.dll api-ms-win-crt-environment-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-heap-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-locale-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-math-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-stdio-l1-1-0.dll api-ms-win-crt-string-l1-1-0.dll mozglue.dll When I run the XUL.dll files (~50MB size), they have a few different dependencies. The 57 one is calling dwmapi.dll and I don't think the Display Manager goes by that name on Windows XP. There are some I don't recognize, and would have to start searching some C: partitions, to find and get a name from them. Firefox 52 XUL.dll Firefox 57 XUL.dll Imports Imports ADVAPI32.dll = AVRT.dll CRYPT32.dll = GDI32.dll = HID.DLL IMM32.dll = IPHLPAPI.DLL = KERNEL32.dll = MSIMG32.dll = MSVCP140.dll = OLEAUT32.dll = RPCRT4.dll = SETUPAPI.dll = SHELL32.dll = SHLWAPI.dll = USER32.dll = USP10.dll = UxTheme.dll = VCRUNTIME140.dll = VERSION.dll = WINMM.dll = WINTRUST.dll = WS2_32.dll = WSOCK32.dll = WTSAPI32.dll = api-ms-win-crt-convert-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-environment-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-filesystem-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-locale-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-math-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-stdio-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-string-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-time-l1-1-0.dll = api-ms-win-crt-utility-l1-1-0.dll = dwmapi.dll (W8/W10?) lgpllibs.dll = mozglue.dll = nss3.dll = ole32.dll = pdh.dll --- not in 57 (windows performance data helper, no idea) This is one of the reasons DependencyWalker output is so complicated looking, because the imports of every DLL in the "tree" shows up (recursive analysis). Including bogus references to some sort of java DLL that hasn't existed since WinXP SP1 (not available on SP1a, removed by court decision in Sun vs Microsoft legal case over msjava). Usually, an analysis without boring down too many layers, can spot dependencies that an old OS might not support. And if you hard-wire something like this into your executable, it helps work as a booby-trap (if I move my Firefox 57 folder to my WinXP machine). But kernel calls work just as well. Both the EXEs and the DLLs above reference kernel32 and you could pick a call that's only supported in Vista+ for example, to prevent WinXP from loading completely. And that doesn't even include the marking of executables with some sort of "runs in particular OS version xxx", like how Solitaire was marked. Microsoft tends to do that to their own software products. I can't run VPC2007 on Windows 10, even though it would probably execute given a chance. Paul Thanks for the detailed explanation. So if I've read this correctly Paul, it looks like the incompatible DLL issues result from all 3 of the categories I mentioned previously, but perhaps most of them are due to the older version system DLL files found on a Windows XP system (many of the ones in CAPS above, along with the api ones you've mentioned). |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 19:23:02 -0600, wrote:
Anyhow, I need to downgrade to some version of FF between 18 and 47. I'm not sure what version is the best, which will eliminate the extreme drain on resources, and still run most current websites. Any suggestions? I've been using version 41, and find it far more stable than 50+ -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Crashes with Firefox Quantum
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 5:10:58 PM UTC-6, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Andy writes: [] Are you _aware_ of the Mozilla newsgroups and server? The Google Groupers don't have a complete newsgroup list to work with, and this causes problems. That's why a guy comes to the WinXP group and asks Win7 questions, because Win7 is actually missing from [] If we could only grab the Google person who runs that server and shake them a few times... Oh, never mind. [] (-: Ah, that explains a lot. I hadn't realised Andy was a Google Grouper. At least I think he realises how newsgroups work, unlike a lot of GGers we get on a genealogy newsgroup I take! Andy: would you consider using a different way of accessing newsgroups? I'd recommend Thunderbird (free) as the software - not necessarily the best, but good enough and I think having the widest support base - and one of the free newsservers for most 'groups like this one (with of course the Mozilla server for the ones including mozilla.support.firefox, which is a support 'group for Firefox users (not really run by Mozilla, though it is moderated). Setting up Thunderbird is a lot of work. And require downloading all messages. I don't use newsgroups that often. Andy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|