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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
For a long time MSFN's Windows XP forum
(https://msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/ ) is my source of information about XP. But recently I hardly could open it. Is it only me? Is there anything wrong with the site? -- Regards, Lu Wei IM: PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
Lu Wei wrote:
For a long time MSFN's Windows XP forum (https://msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/ ) is my source of information about XP. But recently I hardly could open it. Is it only me? Is there anything wrong with the site? Your link opened here, just fine. Tested with Seamonkey. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
On 2020-8-14 15:02, Paul wrote:
Lu Wei wrote: For a long time MSFN's Windows XP forum (https://msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/ ) is my source of information about XP. But recently I hardly could open it. Is it only me? Is there anything wrong with the site? Your link opened here, just fine. Tested with Seamonkey. Thanks. Then that's my network problem. -- Regards, Lu Wei IM: PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
Lu Wei wrote:
For a long time MSFN's Windows XP forum (https://msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/ ) is my source of information about XP. But recently I hardly could open it. Is it only me? Is there anything wrong with the site? I can load it in Firefox 79.0, latest release, while on Windows 10. The last version of Firefox that is usable on Windows XP in version 52ESR. You obviously don't get to use Edge (old EdgeHTML or new Chromium versions) on Windows XP. I can load it in Google Chrome 84.0.4147.125, latest release, again while on Windows 10. Don't know what "hardly can open it" means. Many sites require a minimum version of the web client used to connect to their site. There are features or functions available only in later versions. Many sites will not accept connects from Internet Explorer whose last release was almost 7 years ago. You never mentioned which web browser you were using and its version. You also did not mention if you installed any extensions in the unidentified web browser. Those can affect rendering or even connecting to a web site or the resources it uses from elsewhere. What web browser? What extensions installed into it? What anti-virus or other security software? What does "hardly open it" mean? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
On 2020-8-14 23:51, VanguardLH wrote:
Lu Wei wrote: For a long time MSFN's Windows XP forum (https://msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/ ) is my source of information about XP. But recently I hardly could open it. Is it only me? Is there anything wrong with the site? I can load it in Firefox 79.0, latest release, while on Windows 10. The last version of Firefox that is usable on Windows XP in version 52ESR. You obviously don't get to use Edge (old EdgeHTML or new Chromium versions) on Windows XP. I can load it in Google Chrome 84.0.4147.125, latest release, again while on Windows 10. Don't know what "hardly can open it" means. Many sites require a minimum version of the web client used to connect to their site. There are features or functions available only in later versions. Many sites will not accept connects from Internet Explorer whose last release was almost 7 years ago. You never mentioned which web browser you were using and its version. You also did not mention if you installed any extensions in the unidentified web browser. Those can affect rendering or even connecting to a web site or the resources it uses from elsewhere. What web browser? What extensions installed into it? What anti-virus or other security software? What does "hardly open it" mean? I am not a native English speaker, so my expression is strange sometimes. Maybe I should say "I could hardly open it", or "I couldn't open it, even when it opened, it only displays the title". I am using Serpent 52, descendant of Firefox 52, tried both "safe mode" and with extensions. Tried user-agent switching but not work. No anti-virus or other security software installed. Well, when I was about to install Chrome49, it opened normally. So it surely was network problem. Maybe dns or proxy related. -- Regards, Lu Wei IM: PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
"Lu Wei" wrote
| I am using Serpent 52, descendant of Firefox 52, tried both "safe mode" | and with extensions. Tried user-agent switching but not work. No | anti-virus or other security software installed. | | Well, when I was about to install Chrome49, it opened normally. So it | surely was network problem. Maybe dns or proxy related. | It just opened fine for me and I don't allow script, cookies, 3rd-party images, etc. So maybe it was temporary. I think worrying about extensions and browser version is usually what, in the US, we call a "wild goose chase". (A lot of work for nothing.) It's the first advice many people give, but they're not the ones who have to waste time with safe mode and trying other browsers. There are some sites these days that act up if you don't have a new browser. I find that setting the userAgent to Windows 7 with a recent version of Firefox seems to work fine with those. Note that with recent Mozilla products they tried to break that. It only works if you also add the setting: general.useragent.enable_overrides true Then add something like: general.useragent.override Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/79.0 Firefox changes so fast it might be easier to just set the version to 200. If they test for something like " 66" then 200 would work fine. But I haven't tried that. I just update it every once in awhile. Note about XP: New Moon is a variant of Pale Moon, which is a less bloated version of Firefox. You can get a recent release he https://o.rths.ml/palemoon/?sort=date&order=desc I currently have 28.10.2a1, about 1 month old. It also has some nice extras. For example, it incorporated the staus-4-eva status bar extension as part of the progran and now provides preferences for the status bar. All my older extensions also seem to work with it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
Mayayana wrote:
"Lu Wei" wrote | I am using Serpent 52, descendant of Firefox 52, tried both "safe mode" | and with extensions. Tried user-agent switching but not work. No | anti-virus or other security software installed. | | Well, when I was about to install Chrome49, it opened normally. So it | surely was network problem. Maybe dns or proxy related. | It just opened fine for me and I don't allow script, cookies, 3rd-party images, etc. So maybe it was temporary. I think worrying about extensions and browser version is usually what, in the US, we call a "wild goose chase". (A lot of work for nothing.) It's the first advice many people give, but they're not the ones who have to waste time with safe mode and trying other browsers. So, what would be your 1st time advice for troubleshooting the problem? Sorry, hindsight is not allowed because it is not available until after troubleshooting. Your advice would be to wait 24 hours to see if the problems went away, if not then wait another 24 hours to retest, and repeat ad nauseum without actually you getting involved in doing any troubleshooting? There are some sites these days that act up if you don't have a new browser. I find that setting the userAgent to Windows 7 with a recent version of Firefox seems to work fine with those. The OP already reported that lying with the UA header did not work. The UA is deprecated in determining which web client is connecting to a site. If the site tests the browser then it doesn't matter what the client claims it is via UA. Changing the UA header, per your own definition, is a wild goose chase. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 08:45:36, Mayayana
wrote: "Lu Wei" wrote | I am using Serpent 52, descendant of Firefox 52, tried both "safe mode" | and with extensions. Tried user-agent switching but not work. No | anti-virus or other security software installed. | | Well, when I was about to install Chrome49, it opened normally. So it | surely was network problem. Maybe dns or proxy related. | It just opened fine for me and I don't allow script, cookies, 3rd-party images, etc. So maybe it was temporary. I think worrying about extensions and browser version is usually what, in the US, we call a "wild goose chase". (A lot of work for nothing.) It's the first advice many people give, but they're not the ones who have to waste time with safe mode and trying other browsers. [] (We have the expression in the UK too.) It's like the helpdesk "reboot your computer"; it _may_ fix the problem, but doesn't help either the helpdesk or the customer learn what the problem was in the first place. (In addition, for the more unscrupulous helpdesk, it gets rid of the customer for a while, unless they do a Dilbert 2001-9-24. They like the "turn off your router for half an hour" even more!) [If you _do_ end up working through your extensions, do a binary search, not one by one - it's a lot quicker. (But note which are enabled, as Firefox at least rearranges the order.)] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf After all is said and done, usually more is said. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 08:45:36, Mayayana wrote: "Lu Wei" wrote | I am using Serpent 52, descendant of Firefox 52, tried both "safe mode" | and with extensions. Tried user-agent switching but not work. No | anti-virus or other security software installed. | | Well, when I was about to install Chrome49, it opened normally. So it | surely was network problem. Maybe dns or proxy related. | It just opened fine for me and I don't allow script, cookies, 3rd-party images, etc. So maybe it was temporary. I think worrying about extensions and browser version is usually what, in the US, we call a "wild goose chase". (A lot of work for nothing.) It's the first advice many people give, but they're not the ones who have to waste time with safe mode and trying other browsers. [] (We have the expression in the UK too.) It's like the helpdesk "reboot your computer"; it _may_ fix the problem, but doesn't help either the helpdesk or the customer learn what the problem was in the first place. (In addition, for the more unscrupulous helpdesk, it gets rid of the customer for a while, unless they do a Dilbert 2001-9-24. They like the "turn off your router for half an hour" even more!) [If you _do_ end up working through your extensions, do a binary search, not one by one - it's a lot quicker. (But note which are enabled, as Firefox at least rearranges the order.)] So, as I asked of Mayayana, what is YOUR first advice on troubleshooting the OP's problem? And, no, you don't get to work in hindsight. Work on troubleshooting the problem as though it's the first encounter with this OP. Both of you make it sound like you are experts in knowing exactly what is the perfect option for the first and only troubleshooting process, but you don't prove it. If your first troubleshooting step is to disable the extensions, then you're belatedly making the same suggestion as I did, which means you are also proclaimed "wild goose chasing" by Mayayana. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| (We have the expression in the UK too.) | I suppose it probably originated with you. It sounds like an 18th century kind of thing. | It's like the helpdesk "reboot your computer"; it _may_ fix the problem, | but doesn't help either the helpdesk or the customer learn what the | problem was in the first place. Or worse, the people who tell you to install all updates, boot into safe mode, restore to the last stable restore point, and, oh yeah, if you have extensions then disable all of them. They're trying to sound like knowledgeable IT people but really they don't know the answer and they're just making the person waste a lot of time. MS people are even worse in their groups. Profuse thank yous, followed by a request to restate the question, followed by more nonsense, then eventually an answer that the question must be asked in a different group.... But have a super day and thank you so much for your question!! |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
Mayayana wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | (We have the expression in the UK too.) | I suppose it probably originated with you. It sounds like an 18th century kind of thing. | It's like the helpdesk "reboot your computer"; it _may_ fix the problem, | but doesn't help either the helpdesk or the customer learn what the | problem was in the first place. Or worse, the people who tell you to install all updates, boot into safe mode, restore to the last stable restore point, and, oh yeah, if you have extensions then disable all of them. They're trying to sound like knowledgeable IT people but really they don't know the answer and they're just making the person waste a lot of time. MS people are even worse in their groups. Profuse thank yous, followed by a request to restate the question, followed by more nonsense, then eventually an answer that the question must be asked in a different group.... But have a super day and thank you so much for your question!! Sounds more like you ranting about your personal gripes of not getting solutions for YOUR problems. Again, and before the OP discovered the solution, just what was YOUR troubleshooting help to resolve the problem? Oh, that's right, you didn't have a solution (since you think everyone just must get a bullseye on the first try) nor did you even have any suggestions for the OP. In fact, you showed up in this thread a month late! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
"VanguardLH" wrote
| In fact, you showed up in this thread a month late! Odd. I saw it as a new posting when I posted. I didn't notice the date, but the thread showed as bold in my reader, meaning there was a new post since since last time I viewed the group. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 13:19:47, VanguardLH wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 08:45:36, Mayayana wrote: "Lu Wei" wrote | I am using Serpent 52, descendant of Firefox 52, tried both "safe mode" | and with extensions. Tried user-agent switching but not work. No | anti-virus or other security software installed. | | Well, when I was about to install Chrome49, it opened normally. So it | surely was network problem. Maybe dns or proxy related. [Mayayana's bit was here] [If you _do_ end up working through your extensions, do a binary search, not one by one - it's a lot quicker. (But note which are enabled, as Firefox at least rearranges the order.)] So, as I asked of Mayayana, what is YOUR first advice on troubleshooting the OP's problem? And, no, you don't get to work in hindsight. Work on troubleshooting the problem as though it's the first encounter with this OP. Both of you make it sound like you are experts in knowing exactly what is the perfect option for the first and only troubleshooting process, but you don't prove it. By the time I saw this thread, the description of the problem - assuming Lu Wei was even the OP - had been snipped to what is shown above, so I have no idea what the problem actually was. (I'm _guessing_ that it was that one particular website wasn't working.) If your first troubleshooting step is to disable the extensions, then you're belatedly making the same suggestion as I did, which means you are also proclaimed "wild goose chasing" by Mayayana. I wasn't suggesting that as the first step; I'd want to know more about what the problem is. I was just saying that if you _do_ get to the stage where disabling extensions is the next thing you're going to try (and I agree on the whole with Mayayana that that tends to be a shot-in-the-dark exercise, like reboot-your-machine or reboot-your-router), I _wouldn't_ disable them all, then turn them back on one at a time: I'd disable _half_ of them, and proceed with a binary search. _If_ the problem _is_ an extension, a binary search (for which one it is) needs fewer tries than doing them one at a time. (And I added that you should note which ones you've disabled, as Firefox at least changes the order they're listed in if some are disabled.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf She looked like the kind of girl who was poured into her clothes and forgot to say when - Wodehouse |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| | By the time I saw this thread, the description of the problem - assuming | Lu Wei was even the OP - had been snipped to what is shown above, so I | have no idea what the problem actually was. Lu Wei couldn't open https://msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/ Surprisingly, my New Moon with just about everything disabled shows a fully functional website that doesn't even seem to need script to follow the discussions. Lu Wei later found he could access it. In the meantime, I suggested he could get New Moon if he keeps having trouble. In my experience, userAgent sniffing for no good reason has become an increasing problem, so it's a good idea to spoof that. But perhaps in second place is the problem of people writing webpages to depend on the very latest functionality. And many people don't realize that they can get a recent version of Mozilla browser for XP by using New Moon. So it's a bad combination: Webmasters who often don't even realize what they've done, produce webpages that fail with no information when using a browser that's not fairly new. Meanwhile, XP users use old browsers because they don't know they can get a new one. More often than not, the pages will work just fine once the site is tricked into thinking you have the latest browser on 7, 8, or 10. A follow-up note on that: New Moon seems to be made in several versions that are updated concurrently. I don't know why or what the differences are. But I found that one of them (v. 27, if I remember correctly) broke my CSS toggle button extension. Yet the current version I have, 28.10.2a1, breaks nothing.... Life's little pleasures. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
MSFN down?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 13:19:47, VanguardLH wrote: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 08:45:36, Mayayana wrote: "Lu Wei" wrote | I am using Serpent 52, descendant of Firefox 52, tried both "safe mode" | and with extensions. Tried user-agent switching but not work. No | anti-virus or other security software installed. | | Well, when I was about to install Chrome49, it opened normally. So it | surely was network problem. Maybe dns or proxy related. [Mayayana's bit was here] [If you _do_ end up working through your extensions, do a binary search, not one by one - it's a lot quicker. (But note which are enabled, as Firefox at least rearranges the order.)] So, as I asked of Mayayana, what is YOUR first advice on troubleshooting the OP's problem? And, no, you don't get to work in hindsight. Work on troubleshooting the problem as though it's the first encounter with this OP. Both of you make it sound like you are experts in knowing exactly what is the perfect option for the first and only troubleshooting process, but you don't prove it. By the time I saw this thread, the description of the problem - assuming Lu Wei was even the OP - had been snipped to what is shown above, so I have no idea what the problem actually was. (I'm _guessing_ that it was that one particular website wasn't working.) If your first troubleshooting step is to disable the extensions, then you're belatedly making the same suggestion as I did, which means you are also proclaimed "wild goose chasing" by Mayayana. I wasn't suggesting that as the first step; I'd want to know more about what the problem is. I was just saying that if you _do_ get to the stage where disabling extensions is the next thing you're going to try (and I agree on the whole with Mayayana that that tends to be a shot-in-the-dark exercise, like reboot-your-machine or reboot-your-router), I _wouldn't_ disable them all, then turn them back on one at a time: I'd disable _half_ of them, and proceed with a binary search. _If_ the problem _is_ an extension, a binary search (for which one it is) needs fewer tries than doing them one at a time. (And I added that you should note which ones you've disabled, as Firefox at least changes the order they're listed in if some are disabled.) The problem could be conflicting extensions. With a binary approach, you may not end up testing the two conflicting extensions together until late, and then you have to start a binary test with different sets starting with most of them until you found the two that conflict. Binary sounds great if you have dozens of extensions. I only have 5: Enhancer for YouTube, OneNote Clipper (the least used and I'll probably remove it), Print Edit WE, Selection Context Search (let's me right-click on selected text instead of copying it to the address bar to use with a bookmark's keyword), and uBlock Origin. How many do you have? One of the reasons I went with Firefox is it has options that are not available in Google Chrome unless you add extensions to cover the deficiencies. For example, in Firefox, you can configure new tabs get immediate focus, not loaded in the background. With Google Chrome, you need an extension (e.g., Tabs to Front) for that. If testing is to check if one, *or more* (might not just be one), extensions are causing a problem, seems obvious the first step in that process is to disable them all instead of hunt them down halved at a time. If nothing changes after disabling all the extensions, you don't have to waste any further time on binary or linear testing of extensions. If the problem disappeared after disabling all extensions, then how you test further each extension depends on how many you have. I can't see a binary search (that you'll have to track which sets you tested) is going to be much faster testing one at a time unless you're a whore for extensions (wink wink). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|