MozillaZine

Firebird

Composer, ChatZilla and other Mozilla applications, along with Netscape, Galeon, K-Meleon and other products.
Minefield ST
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 20th, 2013, 12:07 pm

Post Posted December 20th, 2013, 12:21 pm

Anyone successfully using Firebird approaching 2014 ? It would run, and fast, on my Windows 8 box if the shockwave flash illegal operation error could be resolved. This was a bit before my time, was this error ever fully resolved ? I read somewhere that error didn't clear up until Firefox 3.0 ? Any way to install later Firefox plug ins, extensions, etc on to Firebird ? I'm running Minefield 4.0b2 64 bit with a Firefox 20 user agent and no script as my default browser for the past week and it's F-A-S-T, so I'm curious to know just how far back I can go with stability, blocking flash completely if needed. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

malliz
Folder@Home

User avatar
 
Posts: 43516
Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
Location: Australia

Post Posted December 20th, 2013, 2:43 pm

No one would be stupid enough to be running Firebird. The fact that you are using an old unstable version of a nightly build doesn't bode well for your sanity either. What are you trying to prove? Last time I tried an experiment Phoenix .03 still ran ok if that's any help. From what I remember Minefield 4 was somewhat of a dog
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27430
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted December 20th, 2013, 4:45 pm

Firebird was the second name of the browser we know as Firefox for versions 0.6, 0.6.1, 0.7 (0.7.1 for Mac) and the name changed to Firefox as of 0.8

Using such ancient versions would mean being very vulnerable online as 0.7 was released way back in September 2003.
https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/

Minefield ST
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 20th, 2013, 12:07 pm

Post Posted December 20th, 2013, 5:12 pm

I know the history and I understand about security. That being said I don't go anywhere I'm not supposed to and I was wanting to see if I could get a legacy version working. Minefield 4 with config tweaks AND the 20.0 user agent I mentioned is fast on my system but I had to uninstall it to try 3.0.8 which is faster, I think closer to what Firebird would be if it worked correctly. I'm going to run with 3.0 for now, even with seemingly no chance for any add ons, but I'll live. And I am running a zip version of 12.0 Nightly concurrent on the same machine as my music/media browser, and anything google ... eh hem. Running noscript on that version. Anyway, if you know the short way to get 2 different versions of Firefox running together on the same machine then go ahead and be critical of my curiosity. If not, don't flame me for trying Thunderbird.

malliz
Folder@Home

User avatar
 
Posts: 43516
Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
Location: Australia

Post Posted December 20th, 2013, 5:30 pm

Um yes I do know how to get two copies working at the same time most nightly testers do and there are stacks of replies on the forum telling people how to do it.
and why would I flame you for using "Thunderbird" ?
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"

Minefield ST
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 20th, 2013, 12:07 pm

Post Posted December 21st, 2013, 4:31 am

um Firebird, my bad. But on the note of Thunderbird, I started using it 4 days ago and it's great. I changed from Australis to a retro theme straight away but other than that this is my "set it and forget it" Mozilla program. So back to my original question: was the shockwave illegal operation error ever fixed for Firebird and early Firefox ? Also, and maybe more importantly, in your experience what's the fastest and most stable Nightly release that'll run well on Windows 7 or 8 64 bit ?

malliz
Folder@Home

User avatar
 
Posts: 43516
Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
Location: Australia

Post Posted December 21st, 2013, 5:11 am

The shockwave illegal operation question is moot because the version of Flash currently available is so far removed from those early programs as to make an answer impossible. Even if they did fix the bug for one version of flash who can say if it still holds for the latest versions? Just use the latest Firefox release without any go faster hacks or too many extensions that do the same thing. Unless you are making the mistake of using Win8 on an old computer you will fine.
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"

Minefield ST
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 20th, 2013, 12:07 pm

Post Posted December 21st, 2013, 7:18 am

Earlier versions, any instance, work MUCH faster on my system than latest releases, x32 or x64 . Config tweaks, and I only use a few, do speed things up no matter what version I use, but latest releases are slower no matter what. My PC is a year old, came with Windows 8 on it. Point taken on the shockwave issue. One final question, I think; Can I get 3.0 to play well with extensions ? Nothing other than what's pre-listed in the add ons section in tools wants to even download. I'm looking to get nightly tester tools on here so I can run noscript, and no star button. Can I do something in config, something else, or am I out of luck on this one ?

smsmith
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 19758
Joined: December 7th, 2004, 8:51 pm
Location: Indiana

Post Posted December 21st, 2013, 11:38 am

NoScript will work with Firefox 3.0.9 and later.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/

If you are really going to do this (run Fx 3), please use the latest version of it, whatever that happens to be.

I have Win8, and new versions of Firefox run extremely well on it. The computer is a about a year old itself. Old versions of Firefox do NOT run faster on any computer. The underlying engines have changed so much since Fx 3, optimized the entire way for the modern web.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.
I like poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick.
Please do not PM me for personal support. Keep posts here in the Forums instead and we all learn.

SnoutSpout

User avatar
 
Posts: 385
Joined: August 12th, 2010, 8:54 pm
Location: Some isolated landmass

Post Posted December 21st, 2013, 6:54 pm

Minefield ST wrote:Earlier versions, any instance, work MUCH faster on my system than latest releases, x32 or x64.....[].....My PC is a year old, came with Windows 8 on it.

Nobody is going to take anything you say seriously if you come up with statements like that. You realize how laughable it is to worry about security enough to run NoScript and yet persist with a browser that's dozens of versions behind with no support for nearly a decade?

Minefield ST
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 20th, 2013, 12:07 pm

Post Posted December 22nd, 2013, 5:09 am

So here's the deal ......... I really have no version preference other than the fact that I don't like waiting and watching the little green wheel spin round and round. FACT: Earlier versions run faster on MY machine, which is what I happen to be using. As I stated in my original post, I don't go anywhere on the net I'm not supposed to be (except maybe here, it appears) so I'm not that concerned about security. I stumbled upon noscript and thought I'd try it. So what I put together is my system runs early versions faster, so I use a 20.0 user agent and noscript for added security, problems solved with rendering pages correctly and security. I'm sure I'm not the only person running this type of combination, but maybe the only one talking about it. 3.0.8 crashed on me so I'm back to 4.02pre and I'm running a zip of 21 Nightly x32 for my music/media browser. I did my few config changes, same as 4.02, and 21.0 is just not as fast. One final note - I tried the latest Nightly 29.0 on Friday afternoon and when it finally got around to loading the page yes, it loaded them quickly but unfortunately 29.0 thus far reminds me of chrome which in my opinion is a junk browser.

trolly
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 39899
Joined: August 22nd, 2005, 7:25 am

Post Posted December 22nd, 2013, 5:55 am

Once HTML5 is getting speed your old browser is junk.
Think for yourself. Otherwise you have to believe what other people tell you.
A society based on individualism is an oxymoron. || Freedom is at first the freedom to starve.
Constitution says: One man, one vote. Supreme court says: One dollar, one vote.

SnoutSpout

User avatar
 
Posts: 385
Joined: August 12th, 2010, 8:54 pm
Location: Some isolated landmass

Post Posted December 22nd, 2013, 9:16 am

Minefield ST wrote:I don't go anywhere on the net I'm not supposed to be (except maybe here, it appears) so I'm not that concerned about security.

Oh, you're one of THOSE users. I seriously doubt you're even using NoScript effectively judging by your posts. (Out-dated extensions also go hand-in-hand with archaic browser versions.)

I'm sure I'm not the only person running this type of combination

Sure they exist. With a plethora of support issues they never blame on the wetware.

so I use a 20.0 user agent

Look into the Camino subforum on how well that works. Spoiler alert:not very. And Camino is at the very least less than 2 years dead in the water, as opposed to nearly ten.

and I'm running a zip of 21 Nightly x32 for my music/media browser.

Better and better, using a Nightly release nearly a year back as opposed to the current stock release channel. That telemetry data to Mozilla must be a hoot. You're using a NIGHTLY build, they're used for testing and they're literally worse than useless past the period of testing for each targeted trunk version unless you follow the upgrade mill. For all I know you may even have stopped on a day where there's a respin and you didn't apply the update.

Listen, here's some advice. You have a few choices:

1) Use the release channel, currently at 26.
2) Use the ESR build, currently at 24 and will stay that way until 31 comes out.
3) Use SeaMonkey.
4) Use a third-party build and hope the builder(s) don't get bored of the thankless job of deciding which patch from the official trunks they choose to accept or chuck, with the incumbent dependency problems.

All of the above is 10x saner than what you're doing. You have a year-old PC, I suggest you make better use of it.

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27430
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted December 22nd, 2013, 1:59 pm

Minefield ST wrote:back to 4.02pre .. same as 4.02

The Trunk version you have from back then was not 4.02 or 4.02pre but rather 4.0b2pre as you miss the b for beta and the pre was to show it was not a release.

So you are using a Random (yes random) mozilla-central trunk night labelled 4.0b2pre built between a period of June 29, 2010 to July 20, 2010 (as it changed to 4.0b3pre next day) instead of say Firefox 4.0.1 released a year later in June 2011. The Nightly builds back then would automatically build a new build each day regardless of whether there were checkins that day or not.

Minefield ST
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 20th, 2013, 12:07 pm

Post Posted December 23rd, 2013, 1:35 pm

"NoScript will work with Firefox 3.0.9 and later."

This is the best piece of information I've gotten so far. So I'm forced to use the "begs of the question" phrase ............. why are there a gazillion old Nightly versions hanging out there in a repository ?

Return to Other Applications and Distributions


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest