MozillaZine

plugin-container.exe internet access

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted July 19th, 2010, 8:31 pm

If you want to disable the plugin-container, you can easily do so without the security and malware risks of going back to an older version. (For now, there is a 3.5.* that is secure, but 3.5.* will soon be discontinued). See the first post.

patrickjdempsey

User avatar
 
Posts: 23734
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC

Post Posted July 19th, 2010, 11:54 pm

Guest wrote:
patrickjdempsey wrote:I recommend you actually read this post. It's all pretty well much explained, but to reiterate, plugin-container.exe is a the part of Firefox that runs your plugins. By isolating the plugins, which are known to cause crashes and instability and pose security risks, it allows your Firefox to be more stable, recover from crashes faster, and be more secure. If you don't want a more stable and agile Firefox, by all means disable it. Firewalls never *like* new software attempting to access the internet, that's how you know they are doing their job.
I'd recommend not patronising people, but I doubt that will be taken on board. It's bloatware, and it's a system hog. It in fact creates far more problems than it was allegedly intended to resolve, and makes Firefox incredibly unstable. If you do want a more stable and agile Firefox, then ditch this ludicrous nightmare that's a massive slap in the face to anyone with a system that's not top notch and revert to an earlier version instead.


It's not patronizing to tell people to read something that they have *obviously* not bothered to read. As far as the rest of your comment... have YOU actually read this and the half-dozen other threads on this topic? There are basically two kinds of people who are experiencing problems with this version of Firefox... people who *think* they are suffering from a problem that's not really a problem because their firewall wanted internet access for a process which they had never heard of before... and people who apparently have profile corruptions which are typically fixed by renaming a half-a-dozen firefox databases and rebooting Firefox. The people who do not actually have "a top notch system" will no doubt be unaffected because Windows 2000 does not even use this process. As far as XP goes, even on my PATHETIC XP system, I am seeing definitely better stability since 3.6.4. Even when it DOES crash, it recovers. Badass.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted July 20th, 2010, 8:11 am

patrickjdempsey wrote:It's not patronizing to tell people to read something that they have *obviously* not bothered to read. As far as the rest of your comment... have YOU actually read this and the half-dozen other threads on this topic? There are basically two kinds of people who are experiencing problems with this version of Firefox... people who *think* they are suffering from a problem that's not really a problem because their firewall wanted internet access for a process which they had never heard of before... and people who apparently have profile corruptions which are typically fixed by renaming a half-a-dozen firefox databases and rebooting Firefox. The people who do not actually have "a top notch system" will no doubt be unaffected because Windows 2000 does not even use this process. As far as XP goes, even on my PATHETIC XP system, I am seeing definitely better stability since 3.6.4. Even when it DOES crash, it recovers. Badass.
But it most certainly is patronising when you're seemingly not even prepared to entertain the possibility of this new 'feature' being fundamentally flawed. I have indeed read numerous threads about this latest bout of needless tampering, but your post was so sneeringly aloof and complacent I chose to respond. Skipping past a chunk of catch-all browbeating ... My system (which I'm currently stuck with until personal finances improve) is XP. Athlon XP 2600+, 1.75GB of PC2700 RAM and a puny GeForce4 MX 440 card. But it coped perfectly well running previous incarnations of Firefox, when it only had 756MB of RAM on board. Pages take an age to open/load. It freezes repeatedly. And if you do decide to wait around for 10 minutes or more until a page with Flash content finally decides to load, you're either stuck with a glorified slideshow, a crash notification, or just a download button to install Flash even though you've already got it. Similar issues have been reported elsewhere, and on an unrelated forum several friends from supposedly 'developing' countries have been forced to switch to IE as Firefox has now become unusable for them. Perhaps a consultation with a good proctologist would remedy the 'bad ass' issue. Or alternatively, a little less time spent atop that high horse of yours.

bifus
Guest
 

Post Posted July 20th, 2010, 10:34 am

If you find the feature to be flawed, then turn it off. You've heard Steve Jobs though, most crashes are from Flash. Leaving the status quo was not acceptable. Hopefully, in future versions plugin isolation will have less performance impact (if it has any). If the plugin isolation is causing new crashes, unless you can prove otherwise I believe that is from your firewall.

LoudNoise
New Member

User avatar
 
Posts: 40048
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 1:45 pm
Location: Next door to the west

Post Posted July 20th, 2010, 10:40 am

^^Guest (not bifus)-
Anymore comments like the above and you will be banned from the forum.
Post wrangler
"Choose between the Food Select Feature or other Functions. If no food or function is chosen, Toast is the default."

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted July 20th, 2010, 1:30 pm

bifus wrote:If you find the feature to be flawed, then turn it off. You've heard Steve Jobs though, most crashes are from Flash. Leaving the status quo was not acceptable. Hopefully, in future versions plugin isolation will have less performance impact (if it has any). If the plugin isolation is causing new crashes, unless you can prove otherwise I believe that is from your firewall.
The issue isn't whether it can be 'turned off' or not, the issue is that it was ever implemented at all. I knew where to look for a workaround after finding bloatware had been installed on my system without my knowledge or approval, but plenty of others will either incorrectly assume their system is at fault, or simply switch to a different browser entirely. People shouldn't be shut out from a browser they've supported for years simply because someone decided to implement a policy of tech-prejudice. Steve Jobs Is CEO of Apple, rather than Microsoft. If only the browser were crashing, rather than spending more time locked up than it does active. Zone Alarm didn't have a problem: http://a.yfrog.com/img69/8413/capc.png

Bluefang

User avatar
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: August 10th, 2005, 2:55 pm
Location: Vermont

Post Posted July 20th, 2010, 1:45 pm

1. OOPP is a part of Firefox, therefore was installed as part of Firefox with your approval.
2. OOPP was discussed in the release notes. It's not anyone's fault if you didn't read them.
3. OOPP is not bloatware. It should not appreciably affect Firefox's resource consumption.

OOPP likely is, if anything, just buggy.

Also, if you're having problems with Flash content, that is, in part, due to Flash 10.1 not playing nice with OOPP. A number of users have reported improvements after disabling Flash's hardware acceleration, as recommended by LoudNoise.

If you're not going to take any of the advice and only came here to rant, then frankly, you can jog-on.
There have always been ghosts in the machine... random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 1:03 pm

Bluefang wrote:1. OOPP is a part of Firefox, therefore was installed as part of Firefox with your approval.

2. OOPP was discussed in the release notes. It's not anyone's fault if you didn't read them.

3. OOPP is not bloatware. It should not appreciably affect Firefox's resource consumption.

OOPP likely is, if anything, just buggy.

Also, if you're having problems with Flash content, that is, in part, due to Flash 10.1 not playing nice with OOPP. A number of users have reported improvements after disabling Flash's hardware acceleration, as recommended by LoudNoise.

If you're not going to take any of the advice and only came here to rant, then frankly, you can jog-on.
It runs as a separate process, so is therefore tagged on to, rather than part of, Firefox.

Please show me where it says in the release notes that it will drain the life out of your system and make it damn near impossible to use the browser for its intended purpose.

It is indeed, and it most certainly does.

Maybe it is "buggy". But the fact remains that it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Flash is the most prominent issue, but it still screws up on a regular basis even when there's no Flash involved. It's also a system hog.

Excuse me? It's a forum. This new 'feature' cripples the browser. I'm sorry if you and your friends don't like people pointing out that it's fundamentally flawed. But brushing issues under the carpet isn't going to make them go away.

LoudNoise
New Member

User avatar
 
Posts: 40048
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 1:45 pm
Location: Next door to the west

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 1:56 pm

Then why are you still using it?
Post wrangler
"Choose between the Food Select Feature or other Functions. If no food or function is chosen, Toast is the default."

GTryder
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: April 14th, 2010, 10:52 am

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 3:03 pm

Guest/Flamer wrote:But the fact remains that it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

In absolutely none of your several, bloatedly long winded, whineingly childish rants appearing in this thread, has there been in anything that you related, that could even remotely be considered as being of any "use".

If you had come here, perhaps with a genuine desire for assistance, instead of just a want to blow steam out of your "little chocolate teapot"; perhaps, then, satisfaction may have been obtained; instead you find yourself on the imminent verge of being "rode out on a rail".
Ab subabsurda numquid ad veritas. "From the somewhat absurd possibility to reality."

Hmmmm...
Guest
 

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 3:20 pm

Guest wrote:Excuse me? It's a forum. This new 'feature' cripples the browser. I'm sorry if you and your friends don't like people pointing out that it's fundamentally flawed. But brushing issues under the carpet isn't going to make them go away.

Err, excuse me?.... this is a SUPPORT forum for Firefox.

Now, take your time and slowly try to understand what that phrase means. Too slow - it means that this is users helping other other users to solve problems that other users have, which sort of messes up your theory of you socking it to the man and telling it like it is to a bunch of people in denial. Did you not wonder for one second why people were not arguing with you? Duh, you are in the wrong forum! Firefox Support is not a discussion forum.

Register as a member and start a thread in FIREFOX GENERAL about 'your concerns' . You might want to first improve your 'debating techniques' somewhat or it will not be a pretty sight in there when they carry you out.

mightyglydd

User avatar
 
Posts: 9516
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 4:42 pm

Someone get rid of this blithering idiot please.
Or lock the thread.
#KeepFightingMichael

patrickjdempsey

User avatar
 
Posts: 23734
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 7:14 pm

Guest wrote:And if you do decide to wait around for 10 minutes or more until a page with Flash content finally decides to load, you're either stuck with a glorified slideshow, a crash notification, or just a download button to install Flash even though you've already got it.


If you are getting a notification to download Flash... it's because the version "you've already got" is no longer current. Attempting to run older versions of Flash to view newer content can cause some pretty severe performance and stability problems, and until recently there hasn't been a really consistent or easy way to make sure your plugins are updated. One of the big efforts in Firefox 3.6 aside from separate processes, has been to get better updating of plugins in order to avoid problems with out-of-date versions. This isn't fool-proof of course, but Mozilla is apparently communicating with Adobe, Oracle and others about getting better notifications of new version updates. Those efforts will probably end up helping everyone in the browser business so even if you switch to a different browser, you can still thank Mozilla for taking that initiative. Of course, if you choose to refuse the update, that's your business.

There is also a widely reported problem with the Adobe Down Load Manager which can make it seem like you installed the current version of Flash but it never actually installed. Unless you have manually installed Flash from a direct download link in the last few months, then it's still *possible* you have an out-of-date version.

As mentioned many times in this thread, there is also some kind of bug in Flash 10.1 with Hardware Acceleration. And lastly, as I have mentioned, Adobe claims that Flash 10.1 has vast internal architectural changes designed to make it faster and more stable. Did those changes take into account compatibility with Firefox separate processes? Did those changes take into account your CPU, graphics card, or OS? If *anyone* knows, they are probably lurking around an Adobe Flash forum and not in a Mozilla Firefox forum. I'd be curious to know the answer to those questions myself. It should also be noted that when Flash 10.1 was first released it was still in testing phase but a security issue forced Adobe to release it early.

Of course, slow-downs can also be caused by other processes and problems in the OS not related to Firefox at all. It seems like you would be far better served making your own thread asking nicely for assistance in getting your Firefox fixed up than attempting to pick fights with people who have absolutely no control over what happens over at Mozilla, and even less control over how your machine is performing.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/

satyr

User avatar
 
Posts: 312
Joined: July 13th, 2004, 2:00 pm
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia, Europe

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 7:26 pm

Guest wrote:It runs as a separate process, so is therefore tagged on to, rather than part of, Firefox.


Jesus, do you even know the difference between a program and a process? Firefox is a program, which uses/consists of many processes (and even more libraries, i.e. dlls) which are in turn run in different situations (e.g. "updater.exe" on updating, "crashreporter.exe" when crash occur etc.)
If you want to, please check out my site: tadej-ivan.50webs.com, and enjoy reading my computing-related discoveries, hints, principles, and rules.

Daifne
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 123054
Joined: July 31st, 2005, 9:17 pm
Location: Where the Waters Meet, Wisconsin

Post Posted July 21st, 2010, 7:31 pm

That's enough, satyr. Crossposting like this is not allowed. I am removing all but this one to locked posts.

Edit: No, I also split this one off. They are off topic besides being crossposted. Do not post that again or you will be on your way to a vacation from the forums.

Return to Firefox General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests