Win2000, just shuts off from Firefox 10.x

[rada...@nospam.com]

Computer has Win98SE and Windows 2000 (dual booted).

Win98 hardly ever crashes, and runs fine. The computer is a 14 year old
1GHZ processor with 512 ram (max ram allowed). And a total of 240G HDD
(two 120G drives).

I dont use Win2000 very often, but when I do, it usually worked ok.
That was until I decided to upgrade Firefox. Win98 wont allow anything
above FF3.x (with KernelEx). I had the same installed in Win2K, but
found that FF 10.7 was the last version made for Win2000, so I decided
to install it. It worked for about 20 minutes, I opened another
website, and moments later, the entire computer just shut off.

WTF?????

I have had as many as 25 webpages opened at the same time in Win98, plus
several other programs, before Win98 starts to run real slow and jerky.

I only had three webpages opened and nothing else, using that FF 10.7,
when the computer shut off????

I could understand FF not working well, if it was not intended for
Win2K, but it claims that FF 10.7 was made for Win2K. And regardless,
if FF crashed, I'd understand, but to shut off the whole computer is
real bizarre.....

Anyone know why?

[Dave Doe]

In article <mhtdea99g66su6khr...@4ax.com>,
rada...@nospam.com, rada...@nospam.com says...

No mind-readers around here that I know of :)

Check the Event Logs...
Start | Programs | Administrative Tools | Event Viewer.

--
Duncan.

[philo]

Many years ago I did something similar.

I found out that although KernelEx may allow one to install a newer
version of Firefox than could normally be installed...the bottom line is
that Firefox will not work.

Basically that means ...either not using Win98 for browsing or else
install a older but supported browser.


Truth is I would not use either Win98 or Win2k on-line or else use a
very simple browser such as OffByOne which would be much less likely to
run malicious scripts

http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ob1_overview.htm

[Mayayana]

| I could understand FF not working well, if it was not intended for
| Win2K, but it claims that FF 10.7 was made for Win2K. And regardless,
| if FF crashed, I'd understand, but to shut off the whole computer is
| real bizarre.....
|
| Anyone know why?
|

There's no way to know based on the information.
I would guess it was probably a script problem. A lot
of malware gets installed via "driveby" attacks these
days. Malware authors hack into legitimate websites,
install obfuscated script code, then get you when you
visit the page. If you just allow script you're a sitting
duck, and FF10 will have lots of since-repaired
vulnerabilities that can be exploited.

The other script issue is that it's simply far more
complex than it was a few years ago. Many webpages
are really software programs with very little HTML but
often 1/4 MB or more of script. FF10 will probably not
be aware of some of the script operations. Nor will it
recognize much of the CSS being used today. CSS and
HTML are designed to "degrade gracefully" -- browsers
will just ignore what they don't understand. But script
is programming code. It won't work to just ignore
anything that's not recognized. In other words, FF may
just be befuddled by it all. But how it takes down the whole
system on Win2000, unless you got malware, is another
question.

[Ammammata]

Il giorno Fri 20 Feb 2015 10:12:07a, ** inviava su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio
news:mhtdea99g66su6khr...@4ax.com. Vediamo cosa scrisse:

> And regardless,
> if FF crashed, I'd understand, but to shut off the whole computer is
> real bizarre.....
>
> Anyone know why?
>
>
>

CPU overheating?

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
>>>>> http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

[OldGuy]

Run a RAM test.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[BillyRay0808 USA VP 2016]

<rada...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mhtdea99g66su6khr...@4ax.com...

> Computer has Win98SE and Windows 2000 (dual booted).
>
> Win98 hardly ever crashes, and runs fine. The computer is a 14 year old
> 1GHZ processor with 512 ram (max ram allowed). And a total of 240G HDD
> (two 120G drives).
>
> I dont use Win2000 very often, but when I do, it usually worked ok.
> That was until I decided to upgrade Firefox. Win98 wont allow anything
> above FF3.x (with KernelEx). I had the same installed in Win2K, but
> found that FF 10.7 was the last version made for Win2000, so I decided
> to install it. It worked for about 20 minutes, I opened another
> website, and moments later, the entire computer just shut off.
>
> WTF?????

use < http://www.oldapps.com/firefox.php?old_firefox=12460 >

Version
Firefox 10.0.12 (ESR)

Supported Systems
Windows 95, 98, Me (Firefox 2), 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8

Release Date
03 January, 2013 (2 years ago )

[JJ]

Does it occurr persistently? i.e. only when running that FF version?

Does that FF version already utilize GPU acceleration?

When was the last time you stress tested your system?

[rada...@nospam.com]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:22:17 -0600, "BillyRay0808 USA VP 2016"
<posts...@mynews.gateway.pace.com> wrote:

>> I dont use Win2000 very often, but when I do, it usually worked ok.
>> That was until I decided to upgrade Firefox. Win98 wont allow anything
>> above FF3.x (with KernelEx). I had the same installed in Win2K, but
>> found that FF 10.7 was the last version made for Win2000, so I decided
>> to install it. It worked for about 20 minutes, I opened another
>> website, and moments later, the entire computer just shut off.
>>
>> WTF?????
>
>
>use < http://www.oldapps.com/firefox.php?old_firefox=12460 >
>
>Version
>Firefox 10.0.12 (ESR)
>
>Supported Systems
>Windows 95, 98, Me (Firefox 2), 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8

This is really wrong. Win98se will NOT run FF10.x. Even with KernelEx
installed. And Win95, not at all. But FF10.x IS supposed to work on
Win2K. (But from what happened to me, I have my doubts).

[rada...@nospam.com]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:08:21 +0700, JJ <jj4p...@vfemail.net> wrote:

>
>Does it occurr persistently? i.e. only when running that FF version?
>

I had just installed that version. I had FF3.x before that, and never
had that problem.

>Does that FF version already utilize GPU acceleration?

No clue.... What's that ??????

>
>When was the last time you stress tested your system?

How do I do a test?
I only know the computer works almost flawlessly otherwise, especially
Win98se, which is far more stable than any other OS I've ever used.

[Paul]

You can check for hardware acceleration, using "about:support" as a URL.

https://blog.mozilla.org/joe/2010/11/10/how-to-tell-if-youre-using-hardware-acceleration/

The preferences would likely mention it (or about:config would
have it, for preferences they don't want to put in the control
panel style preference thing). The suggestion in this image,
is the GPU is used to render fonts, rather than the CPU drawing
each letter into the window.

http://www.techlivez.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/firefox-gpu-enable.jpg

gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled true (default)

As for the last release in Win2K, try this article. It's not
written with the kind of precision I'd like to see, but
it's better than nothing. This suggests up to Firefox 12
would be build with the older SDK suited to the purpose.
Now, whether the Firefox installer is doing an OS check, and
preventing other versions from running, that's a possibility.

(at this instant, archive.org is down for maintenance...)
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128143126/http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/01/end_of_firefox_win2k.html

And they don't particularly like you downloading releases
from here, but this is just to show that *every* release
can be found here if you need a copy.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/

You can start here if you want to select a particular release.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases

*******

For stress testing...

1) Use Speedfan if you need to track CPU temperature.

http://www.almico.com/speedfan450.exe

If the CPU temperature is 65C, then come back and
give details. A whole page could be written on the
topic. Knowing your exact CPU model helps write that
page.

2) Use memtest86+ from www.memtest.org to test the
computer memory. The downloads are half way down the
web page. Files are available to make various boot media.
I have some floppy versions here for example (to test the 8GB
on my Core2). They also have an ISO9660 for boot CD.

One "pass" of memtest86+ is sufficient for a quick test.
It's good for stuck-at faults, less good for transient
faults (because it may not be stressful enough). When you
press "esc" key, the computer reboots. Remove the boot
media before doing so.

3) Prime95 and specifically, the Torture Test option,
provide a good in-your-OS test. Versions are available
for Windows as well as Linux. You can specify how much memory
to test (up to the limits of the particular executable you're
using). On a 32 bit version of program, and with a
2GB OS/2GB UserSpace split, Prime95 should be limited to max 2GB.
Practical limit is 1.8GB or so. You can run multiple copies
(as long as each copy of Prime95 is housed in its own folder).

For Win2K, you want the "win32" version.

http://www.mersenne.org/download/

If it asks "Do you want to joing GIMPS", say "No, just testing"
as your answer. We're using this program to test computer stability,
rather than giving free computer time to the community search
for Mersenne Prime numbers. People who want to make their computers
available, would be testing the stability first, so that only
stable computers are used in the search for that particular flavor
of prime numbers. The numbers in question have 40 million digits,
and the math takes a long long time.

If none of the test threads exit before about four hours of
testing have completed... your system is stable. If the
coloration of a test thread turns "red", it's dead and has
encountered an error. A computer that throws an error in this
test, is no longer a computer - it's a boat anchor, until you
fix it.

Since Win2K desktop only supports 1 core or 2 cores, you won't
have that many test threads to contend with.

When I overclock a computer while testing, a program like Prime95
torture test option, can fail in under ten seconds. So it can
reach a negative conclusion fairly quickly, if the computer is not
stable. What the program does, is a math calculation with a known
answer. The test stops, if the answer that comes back is wrong by
even a tiny amount.

To run Prime95, I would

1) Start Speedfan. Monitor CPU temperature.
Prime95 could make a poorly cooled computer overhead.

2) Start Prime95. Set up the test. Select a small amount
of memory for a first run, like 512MB. The test program
uses various amounts of memory for each FFT run, so some
tests run "in-core", while others waste most of their time
doing memory read/write. In the first case, the CPU gets hot,
and in the second, a lot of memory locations are visited. Both
CPU and memory get tested, as well as the Northbridge with the
memory controller on it (on older computers).

3) If the PC shuts off, try to monitor temperature up to the
shutdown point with Speedfan. See if the shutdown seems related
to an excessive temperature (>65C is hot enough to burn you).

4) If Prime95 turns Red before the four hours is up, you can
still check temperatures to see how hot the CPU is. If all the
test threads stop, the computer will cool off again.

If temperature is going to be a problem, it'll likely show up
around the ten minute mark. If the machine makes it to ten minutes,
then it probably isn't a thermal problem. I use Prime95 because
it's a good way to test the cooling system on the PC.

You can continue to work while Prime95 is running. If you set
the memory setting rather high though, there might not be
a lot of memory left for your other activities.

Paul

[JJ]

As Paul explained about GPU acceleration and stress test.

The reason I asked those is that if that FF version uses GPU acceleration,
there's a possibllity of display driver bug, which usually cause system
crash then the blue screen, but it doesn't rule out that the bug may cause
more severe effect.

As for the stress test, it's the possibility of overheated CPU that can
trigger te BIOS to shut down the system. If FF doesn't use GPU acceleration,
the CPU will handle all of the graphic processing - resulting in more work
for the CPU and cause it to heat up more. That is, if your CPU cooling has
degraded in functionality due to dust covering the CPU heatsink, or the CPU
thermal paste has worn out and can no longer transfer heat efficiently.
Nowadays softwares aren't as efficient as 20 years ago, you know... just
saying.

If you rarely play games, the possibility the above two are higher.

[Stan Weiss]

Do not know if it will help any but I have been running FF 12.0 on
Windows 2000 since that ver came out and I have less memory than you do.

Are you running any plug-ins with FF?

Stan

[rada...@nospam.com]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:47:10 +1300, Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:

>> when the computer shut off????
>>
>> I could understand FF not working well, if it was not intended for
>> Win2K, but it claims that FF 10.7 was made for Win2K. And regardless,
>> if FF crashed, I'd understand, but to shut off the whole computer is
>> real bizarre.....
>>
>> Anyone know why?
>
>No mind-readers around here that I know of :)
>
>Check the Event Logs...
>Start | Programs | Administrative Tools | Event Viewer.

I found this:

The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The

bugcheck was: 0x000000c2 (0x00000007, 0x00000b8a,

0xe1581400, 0xe1581408). Microsoft Windows 2000

[v15.2195]. A dump was saved in:

D:\WINNT\Minidump\Mini020915-01.dmp.

[Paul]

0x000000C2: BAD_POOL_CALLER

http://aumha.org/a/stop.htm

"0x000000C2: BAD_POOL_CALLER"

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/265879

"Parameter 1 = 0x7 : Attempt to free pool which was already freed"

I suppose we could find a copy of Poolmon, but I don't
know whether that's going to lead to a solution or not.
This isn't a leak, so this won't help.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ntdebugging/archive/2012/08/30/troubleshooting-pool-leaks-part-2-poolmon.aspx

*******

OK, so I found a reference to a Hotfix.

"You receive a "Stop error code 0x000000C2" (BAD_POOL_CALLER)
error message on a Windows 2000-based computer"

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896674

Windows 2000 English x86 Fix158975 sp5
win2000 2195 901311 bytes 5/16/2005 6:00:25 PM

Now, we don't take Hotfixes, if there is a service pack.
There is no such thing as "sp5", but that Hotfix was built,
assuming it would be superceded by sp5 when it comes out.

Win2K goes from SP1 to SP4. They could have made an SP5,
but they called it "Update Rollup 1 Version 2". The
date on this is

"Update Rollup 1 for Windows 2000 SP4 (KB891861)"

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18997

I keep Win2K in a VM, and I have that OS updated with the
Rollup, and it fixes the odd problem. Some applications
depend on the rollup being present, to work properly.
And the rollup consists of nothing more than Windows Updates
that accumulated after SP4.

So install the Rollup, then retest...

Do not install 896674, as I think the Rollup has that
one covered. Somewhere, there is a list of updates
that are in the Rollup. But if you don't have the
rollup, you should install it.

You should verify the current patch level of Win2K.
For the longest while, I kept one at SP2, for
some CAD software. But eventually, I just updated
to SP4, just to see if the CAD software would die.
And I think it was fine. It's possible if you look
in the System control panel, it'll say what the
current patch level is. And if you look in
the Add/Remove, you might be able to check and
see if the Rollup is installed.

If you have

SP4 installed
Rollup 1 Version 2 installed
And Firefox still has problem...

in that case I'm out of ideas. While there is
that Hotfix, I generally try to track down
confirmation it's the only choice. The Rollup
on the other hand, you really should have that
installed, because "that's like SP5 for Win2K".

HTH,
Paul

[micky]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:39:05 -0600, rada...@nospam.com wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:08:21 +0700, JJ <jj4p...@vfemail.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Does it occurr persistently? i.e. only when running that FF version?
>>
>I had just installed that version. I had FF3.x before that, and never
>had that problem.

It sounds like you've not tried to run FF with 2000 again. Why don't
you try that. Avoid the url that caused trouble the last time, keep
track of any other url that causes trouble, and if after an hour, none
do, go back and try the problem url again. Pay close attention to
whatever appears on the screeen when trying the problem url.

There have been many times I try to do something on a computer and it
fails the first time and works fine after that.