Why does FF block Direct2D...?
JohnQPublic
FF is so slow compared to other browsers like IE, Opera, Chrome, etc., and I
never got a satisfactory answer. You didn't want to hear that your precious
browser is slow. Apparently you can't see further than the official public
hype that it's the fastest thing on gods green earth. It was a really
intimidating experience, and I'm reluctant to ask anything here again, but
I'll try...
Please, let's just skip the usual newbie advice to disable all add-ons and
restart FF in safe mode, or play around with my graphics acceleration
settings, or go looking for later graphics drivers. I've done all of that
already, believe me! The cause is pretty definitely some kind of fault or
shortcoming built-into FF. Please also spare me from the advice that I have
an old computer and so I can't expect FF to work correctly. It's what I have
available. Also this problem does not happen with the other browsers, only
with FF (and SeaMonkey), so surely FF should handle it correctly too.
I'm not talking about page downloading time from the internet. I'm talking
about how FF manipulates and renders pages which have already been
downloaded and are stored in the cache. That's where the slowdown happens.
I've narrowed it down to pages containing a lot of graphics objects. If it's
a simple html page without much graphics, then FF is fast enough. But when
there are a lot of graphics objects, FF is slow to respond. This is
particularly noticable when I use the mouse wheel to scroll down a long page
such as my Netflix queue. Opera, for example, renders my full page jumps
almost instantaneously along with each click of the wheel, while FF has an
annoying delay of 1-2 seconds each time my mouse wheel clicks another turn.
The same thing if I click on the vertical scrollbar, there's a maddening
delay built into FF before anything happens. Similarly when switching
between opened tabs where the pages have a lot of graphics imbedded, the
other browsers are reasonably fast but FF is noticably, agonizingly
sluggish. This is true of both FF3.6.18 and FF5.
My FF5 Help > Troubleshooting Information is copied below. (Note:
SeaMonkey2.2 also has a Graphics section therein, but FF3.6.18 does not.) It
says "Direct2D Enabled, Blocked on your graphics card because of unresolved
driver issues."
-Why does FF block Direct2D?
-Is this the probable cause of my FF slowdown?
-Is there any way to get FF to unblock it?
-Is this a bug in FF, or is it done intentionally by design?
-Is there any chance that FF will fix this to work correctly in future?
-Are there any other relevant clues in the info copied below?
-If this isn't the cause, what is?
Thanks--J.Q.P.
(FF3.6.18 default browser, customized FF5.0_portable with FF3+ theme,
SeaMonkey2.2_portable, Chrome12_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron12_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default mail/news, XP Home SP3)
-------------------------------------------
Application Basics
Name Firefox
Version 5.0
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
Profile Directory Open Containing Folder
Enabled Plugins about:plugins
Build Configuration about:buildconfig
Extensions
Name Version Enabled ID
Add-on Compatibility Reporter0.8.6tr...@addons.mozilla.org
Flashblock1.5.15true{3d7eb24f-2740-49df-8937-200b1cc08f8a}
Modified Preferences
Name Value
browser.places.importBookmarksHTMLfalse
browser.places.smartBookmarksVersion2
browser.startup.homepagefile:///F:/john/local/home-2011.htm
browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID20110615151330
browser.startup.homepage_override.mstonerv:5.0
browser.tabs.autoHidetrue
browser.tabs.loadInBackgroundfalse
browser.tabs.warnOnClosefalse
extensions.checkCompatibilityfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6false
extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6bfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6pfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6prefalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.3.7afalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0false
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0bfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0pfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0prefalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.2false
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.2afalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.2bfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.2pfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.4.2prefalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.5.0false
extensions.checkCompatibility.5.0afalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.5.0bfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.5.0pfalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.5.0prefalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.6.0false
extensions.checkCompatibility.6.0afalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.7.0false
extensions.checkCompatibility.7.0afalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.8.0false
extensions.checkCompatibility.8.0afalse
extensions.checkCompatibility.nightlyfalse
extensions.lastAppVersion5.0
gfx.blacklist.direct2d3
gfx.blacklist.layers.direct3d103
gfx.blacklist.layers.direct3d10-13
gfx.blacklist.layers.direct3d93
gfx.blacklist.layers.opengl3
gfx.blacklist.webgl.angle3
gfx.blacklist.webgl.opengl3
network.cookie.prefsMigratedtrue
places.database.lastMaintenance1309470311
places.history.expiration.transient_current_max_pages20792
privacy.cpd.cookiesfalse
privacy.cpd.formdatafalse
privacy.cpd.sessionsfalse
privacy.donottrackheader.enabledtrue
privacy.sanitize.migrateFx3Prefstrue
privacy.sanitize.timeSpan0
Graphics
Adapter DescriptionS3 Graphics ProSavageDDR
Vendor ID5333
Device ID8d04
Adapter RAMUnknown
Adapter Driverss3gnb
Driver Version6.14.10.25
Driver Date3-2-2004
Direct2D EnabledBlocked on your graphics card because of unresolved driver
issues.
DirectWrite Enabledfalse (0.0.0.0, font cache n/a)
WebGL Renderer(WebGL unavailable)
GPU Accelerated Windows0/1
Christian Riechers
[snip]
> My FF5 Help > Troubleshooting Information is copied below. (Note:
> SeaMonkey2.2 also has a Graphics section therein, but FF3.6.18 does not.) It
> says "Direct2D Enabled, Blocked on your graphics card because of unresolved
> driver issues."
>
> -Why does FF block Direct2D?
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting/Blocked_Graphics_Drivers
> -Is this the probable cause of my FF slowdown?
Not sure. Blocked drivers only affect new hardware acceleration
features, not existing functionality.
> -Is there any way to get FF to unblock it?
You can give it a try, but I wouldn't expect too much from it.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting/Blocked_Graphics_Drivers#How_to_force-enable_blocked_graphics_features
> -Is this a bug in FF, or is it done intentionally by design?
It's done intentionally.
http://blog.mozilla.com/bjacob/2011/03/04/upgrade-your-graphics-drivers/
> -Is there any chance that FF will fix this to work correctly in future?
Who knows.
> -Are there any other relevant clues in the info copied below?
> -If this isn't the cause, what is?
Take a look here as well.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Scrolling_is_slow
>
> Application Basics
> Name Firefox
> Version 5.0
> User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
> Profile Directory Open Containing Folder
> Enabled Plugins about:plugins
> Build Configuration about:buildconfig
> cy.sanitize.timeSpan0
> Extensions
> Name Version Enabled ID
> Add-on Compatibility Reporter0.8.6tr...@addons.mozilla.org
> Flashblock1.5.15true{3d7eb24f-2740-49df-8937-200b1cc08f8a}
>
> Graphics
> Adapter DescriptionS3 Graphics ProSavageDDR
> Vendor ID5333
> Device ID8d04
> Adapter RAMUnknown
> Adapter Driverss3gnb
> Driver Version6.14.10.25
> Driver Date3-2-2004
> Direct2D EnabledBlocked on your graphics card because of unresolved driver
> issues.
> DirectWrite Enabledfalse (0.0.0.0, font cache n/a)
> WebGL Renderer(WebGL unavailable)
> GPU Accelerated Windows0/1
>
--
Christian
JohnQPublic
> on best-guess scenarios since few, if any, here has the type of hardware
> you have. Also, for the vast majority of Firefox users, speed is not a
> problem and I know I have provided you independent links before where it
> was objectively proven to be so. Links, I might add, you admitted that you
> hadn't read and refused to look back to confirm.
Another snotty nose self-justified worthless unhelpful reply. That's why I
dislike this forum so much.
--
JQP
JohnQPublic
there is a solution with FF. If customizability weren't such an important
factor to me, I'd pick almost any of the other browsers in a heartbeat.
Speed is important but not everything...
--
JQP
g
<>
> Another snotty nose self-justified worthless unhelpful reply. That's why I
> dislike this forum so much.
such replies will get you nowhere to getting help you desire.
if you feel you must air you feelings, email them to yourself and read
them instead of posting them. doing so will not be offensive to who is
trying to help you and others will not see them and think;
'if that is his attitude, to hell with him. i will not even bother'.
it is the old adage of;
'you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar'.
in addition, bashing firefox or mozilla will not get you to where you
wish to be.
think about it. wait 2 hours, think about it again. then another 2 hours
before you reply.
lastly, a simple upgrading of your graphics card can do wonders. it did
for me. old card was too low in memory for what is needed.
hth.
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
****
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today.
**
to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it.
to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look* at it.
**
The installation instructions stated to install Windows 2000 or better.
So I installed Linux.
**
learn linux:
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html
'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/
'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html
'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/
****
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Sailfish is a respected member of this community as well as others. He
is a theme developer and has produced many themes compatible with
Firefox, Thunderbird, Netscape and others. If anyone knows the ins and
outs of graphic rendering, graphic hardware, etc., it's him.
If you don't like this forum then I suggest you move on, the end result
of which may be accomplished by Chris Ilias, the forum moderator that
warned you once before recently.
--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Alex K.
developer to sort out your problems for you.
JohnQPublic
news:L8ydnaXhDpTE9bzT...@mozilla.org...
Well, it doesn't much matter because this forum is pretty useless for
support anyway.
--
JQP
Greywolf
> I bumped heads here at moz support FF awhile back trying to find out why my
> FF is so slow compared to other browsers like IE, Opera, Chrome, etc., and I
> never got a satisfactory answer. You didn't want to hear that your precious
> browser is slow. Apparently you can't see further than the official public
> hype that it's the fastest thing on gods green earth. It was a really
> intimidating experience, and I'm reluctant to ask anything here again, but
> I'll try...
[...]
Who's the "you" you are talking to? Almost everyone on this group is a
plain ordinary user, like you. We give advice based on our own
experience. We have nothing to do with developing FF or fixing its bugs.
Some here have sufficient expertise to diagnose the problem properly and
suggest solutions, but since (as the rest of your post indicates) your
problem is in fact a hardware one, don't expect too much.
In the meantime, kindly edit out your whinges before you hit Send.
[...]
Have good day,
Wolf K.
PS: FWIW, IMO S3 Graphics are not much good. On two earlier machines I
had with S3 Graphics on the mobo, I added a graphics card. (This
automatically switches out any integrated graphics). Resolved a lot of
little glitches.
Greywolf
[Sailfish wrote:]
Another snotty nose self-justified reply to an attempt to clear up your
misconceptions. No wonder people lose patience with you.
a) When quoting, make sure the author is properly ID'ed.
b) Sailfish did in fact give you some resources, so you could do a
better job of figuring out hat the problem might be.
c) Your original plaint lacked data, so providing links to resources was
the best possible answer. No point telling you what might work when one
doesn't have enough data to diganose the problem.
And finally: In the part you snipped, Sailfish tells you what you don't
want to hear: that your machine is almost certainly too old for current
software to run well on.
Have a good day,
Wolf K.
Greywolf
Yup, useless for someone who doesn't want to accept the advice he's been
given. IMO it's you graphics subsystem. Sailfish thinks so too. Other
have implied they agree.
So either
a) get an add-in graphics card that your motherboard can handle. This
may be difficult, since a mobo with S3 graphics on it is _old_. Good
sources: Tiger Direct and New Egg.
or
b) buy a brand new machine. You can buy new systems for atound $300-400,
plus monitor (which cost about $100 and up.)
You've run into the problem that hits anyone with old machinery:
support, repair parts, even knowledge of how to fix it, declines with
each passing year until you're left with a more or less interesting bit
of museumware.
Have good day.
Wolf K.
JohnQPublic
news:c5CdnaOrQeKpOLzT...@mozilla.org...
I might agree except for the fact that Firefox is the only browser to have
this problem. That makes it a unique fault of Firefox.
--
JohnQPublic
> On 16/07/2011 1:11 AM, JohnQPublic wrote:
>> I bumped heads here at moz support FF awhile back trying to find out why
>> my
>> FF is so slow compared to other browsers like IE, Opera, Chrome, etc.,
>> and I
>> never got a satisfactory answer. You didn't want to hear that your
>> precious
>> browser is slow. Apparently you can't see further than the official
>> public
>> hype that it's the fastest thing on gods green earth. It was a really
>> intimidating experience, and I'm reluctant to ask anything here again,
>> but
>> I'll try...
>
> [...]
>
> Who's the "you" you are talking to? Almost everyone on this group is a
> plain ordinary user, like you. We give advice based on our own experience.
> We have nothing to do with developing FF or fixing its bugs. Some here
> have sufficient expertise to diagnose the problem properly and suggest
> solutions, but since (as the rest of your post indicates) your problem is
> in fact a hardware one, don't expect too much.
Not to repeat myself, but you did, so I will too... :)
As far as I'm concerned, since Firefox (and SeaMonkey which is based on FF)
is the only browser with this problem, it's a bug in the Firefox
design/coding. In other words, Opera, Chrome, IE, and my other browsers are
reasonably snappy where Firefox is very sluggish. I'm reminded almost
everytime I use the scrollwheel on my mouse. It looks like Firefox decided
not to support my graphics, so why should I support Firefox? I would switch
to almost any other browser in a heartbeat if they were as customizable. So
I've got a *slow* but customizable browser. Nothing's perfect.
--
Greywolf
> "Greywolf"<wek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:c5CdnaOrQeKpOLzT...@mozilla.org...
[....]
>> You've run into the problem that hits anyone with old machinery: support,
>> repair parts, even knowledge of how to fix it, declines with each passing
>> year until you're left with a more or less interesting bit of museumware.
>
> I might agree except for the fact that Firefox is the only browser to have
> this problem. That makes it a unique fault of Firefox.
No, it's a problem with _Firefox 5_ on your system. IOW, current
software, old hardware. That, it seems, is what's upsetting you. I
sympathise, I've been annoyed by similar hard/software mismatches in the
past, and will no doubt be annoyed again at some time in the future.
That's the downside of continual improvement (some of which isn't. ;-) )
Your comment suggests that you may not realise just how old your system
is, comparatively speaking. You say you're using IE6, for example. I
suppose you know that IE9 is now out, and that IE6 is no longer
supported (= no more security fixes.) IE9 won't run on XP, only on
Vista/7. However, IE8 will run on XP, if you are running XP, you might
try it. It's safer, and has some other advantages over IE6.
Your headers show:
x-newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
x-mimeole:Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
Outlook Express was last included with Windows XP, and last updated in
2008 (apart from security patches.) It was replaced by Windows Live Mail
on Vista/Win 7.
HTH
Wolf K.
JohnQPublic
I've been over this same ground so many times here & elsewhere that I'm
reluctant to continue. It's like an echo, reminds me of the movie Groundhog
Day. So that's about it, for today at least.
Greywolf
[...]
> It looks like Firefox decided
> not to support my graphics, so why should I support Firefox?
From you first post:
> Graphics
> Adapter DescriptionS3 Graphics ProSavageDDR
> Vendor ID5333
> Device ID8d04
> Adapter RAMUnknown
> Adapter Driverss3gnb
> Driver Version6.14.10.25
> Driver Date3-2-2004
> Direct2D EnabledBlocked on your graphics card because of unresolved driver
> issues.
> DirectWrite Enabledfalse (0.0.0.0, font cache n/a)
> WebGL Renderer(WebGL unavailable)
> GPU Accelerated Windows0/1
Note the driver date: 3-2-2004.
Your graphics subsystem is at least 7 years old. I suspect the driver is
an update, so the hardware design is likely even older. Devs of new
versions of software can't be expected to test all ancient hardware that
might still be out there. Actually, I'm surprised you don't have even
worse issues with FF5 on your system.
BTW, I looked up Direct2D, and found this interesting little tidbit (see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd370990%28v=vs.85%29.aspx):
"Run-Time Requirements
* Windows 7 or Windows Vista with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and Platform
Update for Windows Vista
* Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows Server 2008 with Service Pack 2
(SP2) and Platform Update for Windows Server 2008"
IOW, it's not for Windows 2000/XP, which you are running. That's why
it's not Enabled on your system: the driver may not even be capable of
it, and the OS is incompatible.
Hoping this helps to explain why you can't get there from here,
Wolf K.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I've been over this same ground so many times here & elsewhere that I'm
> reluctant to continue. It's like an echo, reminds me of the movie Groundhog
> Day. So that's about it, for today at least.
Although this bug was filed by a Linux user, you may find it interesting
to follow anyway, may even want to enter a comment as to how this may
relate to your issue(s):
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653206
Chimak111
...
> Modified Preferences
> Name Value
...
Why? It almost seems likeJQP wants to use the same add-ons and up move
or down in version number.
And as others have pointed people who post here and mostly users of
Firefox and not its developers.
A far better way to be abusive is the set up your own blog.
Resistentialism.
g
or is that a part of his problem with firefox?
i noted the repetitions of ".checkCompatibility." and check my
"Troubleshooting Information" to see if i showed repetitions of any
extensions, but there where none.
being that i am not in firefox 5 or using compatibility checker, i had
nothing to compare to so, i did not bring such up.
no that 'Chimak111' quotes such, i now question if with "Troubleshooting
Information" showing such, could this be a cause of jqp's problems?
anyone else using 'compatibility checker' show such repetition?
> Resistentialism.
could be that firefox, or "check compatibility" does hate jqp. :)
Ron Hunter
into the prefs.js file.
WLS
No, repetition, just one entry for each version check.
Chris Ilias
Those prefs get added when you install the Add-on Compatibility
Reporter, which he has installed.
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/>
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
g
in reply to post by;
Ron Hunter, WLS, Chris Ilias
On 07/17/2011 01:22 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
<>
> I don't see any repetition. The ACR puts one entry for each version
> into the prefs.js file.
excuse my lack of not properly wording from line
}> >> i noted the repetitions of ".checkCompatibility." and check my
should have read;
}> >> extensions.checkCompatibility false
}> >> extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6 false
}> >> extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6b false
<>
}> >> extensions.checkCompatibility.8.0a false
}> >> extensions.checkCompatibility.nightly false
}> >
}> > Why? It almost seems likeJQP wants to use the same add-ons and up move
}> > or down in version number.
}>
}> or is that a part of his problem with firefox?
}>
}> i noted the repetitions of ACR and check my "Troubleshooting Information"
}> to see if i showed repetitions of any extensions, but there where none.
}>
}> being that i am not in firefox 5 or using ACR, i had nothing to compare
}> to so, i did not bring such up.
}>
}> noting that 'Chimak111' quotes such, i now question if with
}> "Troubleshooting Information" showing such, could this be a cause
}> of jqp's problems?
}>
}> anyone else using ACR show such or can explain?
to clarify further, is jqp's "Troubleshooting Information" showing
different versions of firefox or ACR?
is "Troubleshooting Information" showing that 'compatibility checker'
was first installed with firefox version " ", followed by versions
"3.6" thru to version "8.0a" and lastly with version 'nightly' builds
of firefox?
also, with "false", does that mean that extensions are not compatible,
or does it mean that there where no incompatibles?
does this clear up my post?
Chris Ilias
> to clarify further, is jqp's "Troubleshooting Information" showing
> different versions of firefox or ACR?
>
> is "Troubleshooting Information" showing that 'compatibility checker'
> was first installed with firefox version " ", followed by versions
> "3.6" thru to version "8.0a" and lastly with version 'nightly' builds
> of firefox?
>
> also, with "false", does that mean that extensions are not compatible,
> or does it mean that there where no incompatibles?
>
> does this clear up my post?
A preference like "extensions.checkCompatibility.8.0a;false", means "If
I'm using Firefox 8.0a and I try to install an add-on, don't check if
the add-on is compatible with my version."
You don't need the Add-on Compatibility Reporter extension to add those
preferences, but one of the things it does is set those preferences to
false.
g
<>
> A preference like "extensions.checkCompatibility.8.0a;false", means "If
> I'm using Firefox 8.0a and I try to install an add-on, don't check if
> the add-on is compatible with my version."
ok. thank you.
to me, because i am not using 'acr', meaning was nebulous and not to
my understanding.
therefore, being that 'jqp' is not checking for compatibility, i would
tend to presume that incompatibilities could be what is causing his
problems.
y/n/m?
> You don't need the Add-on Compatibility Reporter extension to add those
> preferences, but one of the things it does is set those preferences to
> false.
which to me, would tend to be nothing but asking for trouble.
y/n/m?
Ron Hunter
> On 07/18/2011 04:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> <>
>
>> A preference like "extensions.checkCompatibility.8.0a;false", means "If
>> I'm using Firefox 8.0a and I try to install an add-on, don't check if
>> the add-on is compatible with my version."
>
> ok. thank you.
>
> to me, because i am not using 'acr', meaning was nebulous and not to
> my understanding.
>
> therefore, being that 'jqp' is not checking for compatibility, i would
> tend to presume that incompatibilities could be what is causing his
> problems.
>
> y/n/m?
>
>
>> You don't need the Add-on Compatibility Reporter extension to add those
>> preferences, but one of the things it does is set those preferences to
>> false.
>
> which to me, would tend to be nothing but asking for trouble.
>
> y/n/m?
>
hasn't been updated, and the person who wrote it has dropped off the
face of the earth, so to speak. You pays your money, and you takes your
chances, as they say. I have been pretty lucky with doing this for
about the last 3 or 4 releases, losing only a couple of extensions.
rebro
I agree wholeheartedly to this view.
-rebro
g
<>
> True, but it is often the only alternative if your favorite extension
> hasn't been updated, and the person who wrote it has dropped off the
> face of the earth, so to speak. You pays your money, and you takes your
> chances, as they say. I have been pretty lucky with doing this for
> about the last 3 or 4 releases, losing only a couple of extensions.
ok.
with my linux systems, i wait for distrib to do firefox updating
and i have a minimum of add-ons installed.
makes for a lot less problems this way.
btw, my scores;
20 fish @ 1fps w/ 1167x507 | 20 fish @ 1fps w/ 1167x857
1 fish @ 1fps w/ 1167x507 | 1 fish @ 1fps w/ 1167x857
(GBWG)
g
On 07/18/2011 11:10 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
<>
> Have you considered getting a computer build in THIS century? Grin.
> Really, that does seem a bit on the slow side, but if it is good enough,
> it is good enough.
lol.
yes, 15 years is a little gray haired for this date in time.
rather slow. but for now, it is working ok for current needs of email and
web browsing.
i do see a dual quad with a high end gpu and maxed memory down the road,
but it will replace another box i use for cad/eda. then other box will
replace this one and this one will go to file server use.
Chris Ilias
> therefore, being that 'jqp' is not checking for compatibility, i would
> tend to presume that incompatibilities could be what is causing his
> problems.
>
> y/n/m?
The only extensions he has installed are the Add-on Compatibility
Reporter and Flashblock 1.5.15, which is compatible with Firefox 5, so I
would say those prefs are not causing his problems.
g
> On 11-07-18 3:50 PM, g wrote:
>> therefore, being that 'jqp' is not checking for compatibility, i would
>> tend to presume that incompatibilities could be what is causing his
>> problems.
>>
>> y/n/m?
>
> The only extensions he has installed are the Add-on Compatibility
> Reporter and Flashblock 1.5.15, which is compatible with Firefox 5, so I
> would say those prefs are not causing his problems.
ok.
i guess i missed what 'jqp' does have installed.
or the 'cocktails' my doctor currently has me has my recall blocked. and
no, i have not gone back thru post in this to see what he does have.
so now my questioning is, if 'jqp' has all those versions installed,
presuming some are still installed, what about conflicts with 'dll's or
in ms registry?
or does 'acr' just leave info?
or, better yet, would main problem be due to hardware, as suggested?
i am trying to understand all of this in case i should ever run into
problem.
with my clients, all are running version 3.x, as are friends, who have
systems that are 2 and 3 years old. those who are less than 3 years are
upgraded to 5.x and having no trouble either.
thanks again.
Ron Hunter
>
> On 07/18/2011 11:10 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> <>
>
>> Have you considered getting a computer build in THIS century? Grin.
>> Really, that does seem a bit on the slow side, but if it is good enough,
>> it is good enough.
>
> lol.
>
> yes, 15 years is a little gray haired for this date in time.
>
> rather slow. but for now, it is working ok for current needs of email and
> web browsing.
>
> i do see a dual quad with a high end gpu and maxed memory down the road,
> but it will replace another box i use for cad/eda. then other box will
> replace this one and this one will go to file server use.
>
>
>
I passed my old computer to the 10 year old next door when I got this
one. It is much better than sending it to the recycler.
g
<>
> My family used to do that with clothes. Grin.
> I passed my old computer to the 10 year old next door when I got this
> one. It is much better than sending it to the recycler.
reply sent to mozilla.general
followup set to mozilla.general
Chris Ilias
> On 07/19/2011 05:26 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>> The only extensions he has installed are the Add-on Compatibility
>> Reporter and Flashblock 1.5.15, which is compatible with Firefox 5, so I
>> would say those prefs are not causing his problems.
>
> ok.
>
> i guess i missed what 'jqp' does have installed.
>
> or the 'cocktails' my doctor currently has me has my recall blocked. and
> no, i have not gone back thru post in this to see what he does have.
>
> so now my questioning is, if 'jqp' has all those versions installed,
> presuming some are still installed, what about conflicts with 'dll's or
> in ms registry?
You don't need to have those versions installed for the prefs to be added.
g
well, i guess that makes reasoning to 'acr' devs.
being that i took one of my 'cocktails' an hour ago, reasoning does not
seem logical to me.
so, i think i will get off keyboard for a while and enjoy my eased back pain
and lack of mind stress.
looking at all of my typing with little red underlines is telling me to
do so also. :)
later.
g
<>
> I think you would call this 'shotgunning'.
i prefer .357, .41, and 30-06 for long range. which is why i also prefer al
to current day 'high level'. much more positive and accurate.
> They just have it put in ALL the released versions, along with the next
> few so they don't have to do anything more for a while. They don't seem
> to hurt anything.
except that it makes for more to have to set 'true' when you do upgrades.
anyway, i guess i will just have to wait until i have a need for 'acr'
to really get my head into it.
thank yous to you and chris for your help.
Ron Hunter
> On 07/19/2011 07:39 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> <>
>
>> I think you would call this 'shotgunning'.
>
> i prefer .357, .41, and 30-06 for long range. which is why i also prefer al
> to current day 'high level'. much more positive and accurate.
>
>> They just have it put in ALL the released versions, along with the next
>> few so they don't have to do anything more for a while. They don't seem
>> to hurt anything.
>
> except that it makes for more to have to set 'true' when you do upgrades.
>
> anyway, i guess i will just have to wait until i have a need for 'acr'
> to really get my head into it.
>
> thank yous to you and chris for your help.
>
installation to 'true'. FF just ignores those that don't apply to the
installed version.
g
<>
> It is NOT necessary to set the ones that don't apply to your
> installation to 'true'.
---
understood, it would be difficult to apply to;
}> extensions.checkCompatibilityfalse
and, if i did not install a version, there would be no reason to set to
'true', much less check it.
statement was meant to read with understanding that i would set true to
version i had installed. my bad for not making clear.
> FF just ignores those that don't apply to the installed version.
so this is saying firefox does the checking because 'acr' inserted the
"extensions.checkCompatibility" lines and if ?some how? lines where set
to 'true' 'acr' would work its magic and report incompatibility and
it's 'mojo' would would make changes to be compatible.
thinking about all of this and my last _rpm_ upgrade of firefox, firefox
ran it's own compatibility check and found all to be ok.
with no 'acr' installed, only advantage is see with 'acr' is that by
default, it tells firefox to not check for compatibility, and you have
to manually report any problems.
all this is leading me to is conclusion of 'acr' is a waste of firefox
processing time, more bloat to take up memory and harddrive space, and
something else to cause problems with firefox doing it's wonderful work
that devs intended it to do.
i just read 'Add-on Compatibility Reporter' page again and it still looks
like a need less add-on, with only exception being that it allows you to
run an add-on when told it is not compatible.
only advantage of it is that you might find an old add-on with version
flags that tell firefox not to use with newer version because it might
not work, so firefox disables it, but 'acr' allows you to bypass and
check to see.
all in all, no thank you. i would rather remove add-on if no later
version is available and if not, find something else to use.
to summation, i would rather have as few 'bells, whistles, and candy'
and keep firefox as it was developed to be.
"too much bloat makes the boat not float".
Chris Ilias
> On 07/20/2011 07:11 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> <>
>
>> It is NOT necessary to set the ones that don't apply to your
>> installation to 'true'.
> ---
>
> understood, it would be difficult to apply to;
>
> }> extensions.checkCompatibilityfalse
>
> and, if i did not install a version, there would be no reason to set to
> 'true', much less check it.
>
> statement was meant to read with understanding that i would set true to
> version i had installed. my bad for not making clear.
extensions.checkCompatibility stopped being supported at Firefox 3.6.
See
<http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/11/Changing-the-checkCompatibility-preference>
Also note: 'true' is the default value. Setting it to false = disable
compatibility checking.
>> FF just ignores those that don't apply to the installed version.
>
> so this is saying firefox does the checking because 'acr' inserted the
> "extensions.checkCompatibility" lines
Firefox does the checking by default, and disables add-ons not marked as
compatible with your current version of Firefox. The Add-on
Compatibility Reporter turns off compatibility checking, so you can
install an add-on that is not marked as compatible with your current
version of Firefox, and report to Mozilla whether or not the add-on is
working.
Ron Hunter
compatibility, and some of your extensions may be disabled. The 'false'
turns off the checking, for that version.
g
<>
> extensions.checkCompatibility stopped being supported at Firefox 3.6.
> See
> <http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2009/11/Changing-the-checkCompatibility-preference>
ok. interesting and informative read.
booked mark home page in event i ever have need/reason for 'acr'.
<>
> Firefox does the checking by default, and disables add-ons not marked as
<>
> working.
ok.
i thank you again for helping me understand operations.
g
ok.
so, from what you and chris are telling me, if i have need to install and
i will have at least 2 who will be able to set me in right direction.
thanks again.
you and chris have been, once again, helpful with 'something of which
i know nothing of'. ;)