Gran Paradiso Alpha 3
-
- Posts: 630
- Joined: November 4th, 2002, 7:49 pm
Ever since the first alpha I have been unable to run any trunk build. Every time I launch it, I get this error message...
And that's with a new profile. Firefox 2 (and all three updates since) have been running just fine.
firefox.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
And that's with a new profile. Firefox 2 (and all three updates since) have been running just fine.
Firefox : One Browser to Rule Them All.
-
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: June 16th, 2004, 6:00 am
- Location: Exton, PA
I'm betting this is your problem:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331404
Try running the findold program attached to the bug and see what it says. That being said, if it does turn up something, you've probably got some kind of malware on your system too.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331404
Try running the findold program attached to the bug and see what it says. That being said, if it does turn up something, you've probably got some kind of malware on your system too.
- Rocketman
- Posts: 391
- Joined: January 3rd, 2004, 1:51 pm
- Location: New York
Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 release notes
On the Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 release notes page, under "Changes in this Development Milestone" there is a note, Added a new preference, "Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page", which notifies the user when the page specifies HTTP-EQUIV=refresh. Anybody know where this preference is located?
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: November 16th, 2004, 6:54 am
- Location: Greenmount, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 release notes
Rocketman wrote:On the Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 release notes page, under "Changes in this Development Milestone" there is a note, Added a new preference, "Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page", which notifies the user when the page specifies HTTP-EQUIV=refresh. Anybody know where this preference is located?
Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> General - Accessibility
Or in about:config -- accessibility.blockautorefresh
-
- Posts: 630
- Joined: November 4th, 2002, 7:49 pm
RyanVM wrote:I'm betting this is your problem:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331404
Try running the findold program attached to the bug and see what it says. That being said, if it does turn up something, you've probably got some kind of malware on your system too.
I did and here's what I got...
C:\WINDOWS\system32\mswinsck.ocx has invalid Write time: 1901-07-13 09:13:00 UT
Firefox : One Browser to Rule Them All.
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: November 16th, 2004, 6:54 am
- Location: Greenmount, Australia
- Contact:
Warduke wrote:RyanVM wrote:I'm betting this is your problem:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331404
Try running the findold program attached to the bug and see what it says. That being said, if it does turn up something, you've probably got some kind of malware on your system too.
I did and here's what I got...C:\WINDOWS\system32\mswinsck.ocx has invalid Write time: 1901-07-13 09:13:00 UT
That's a valid Microsoft file, so you could try the touch utility also attached to the bug. Or you could get a new copy of the file from somewhere and replace the old one.
- Rocketman
- Posts: 391
- Joined: January 3rd, 2004, 1:51 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 release notes
Wildmyron wrote:Rocketman wrote:On the Gran Paradiso Alpha 3 release notes page, under "Changes in this Development Milestone" there is a note, Added a new preference, "Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page", which notifies the user when the page specifies HTTP-EQUIV=refresh. Anybody know where this preference is located?
Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> General - Accessibility
Or in about:config -- accessibility.blockautorefresh
Thanks Wildmyron.
-
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: June 16th, 2004, 6:00 am
- Location: Exton, PA
To back up what he said, I would personally suggest expanding the version you've got on your WinXP CD (it's a standard CAB file which any archiver should be able to expand) and overwriting the existing version. DLLs don't just magically get corrupted dates on them. I've got a bad feeling something fishy is going on with that file.Wildmyron wrote:C:\WINDOWS\system32\mswinsck.ocx has invalid Write time: 1901-07-13 09:13:00 UT
That's a valid Microsoft file, so you could try the touch utility also attached to the bug. Or you could get a new copy of the file from somewhere and replace the old one.
- wgianopoulos
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: July 23rd, 2003, 8:15 am
If I recall correctly, most of the people with bad dates on files had installed security software from Checkpoint Systems, which during the install replaced some DLLs with versions (which ma or may not be newer than the ones on the original install cd) that had incorrect date stamps. Reloading the version from the install CD might result in this software not working correctly. So, there is no really good solution to all of this. THis has been a longstanding issue with windows DLLs install programs for various product, that require a specific version of the dll files, instead of doing this correctly so that they use their own version and don;t mess with the one installed in the system, seem to have no qualms about overwriting the version that cam with you system. I hope they came up with a way to prevent third party apps form doing stupid stuff like this in Vista.RyanVM wrote:To back up what he said, I would personally suggest expanding the version you've got on your WinXP CD (it's a standard CAB file which any archiver should be able to expand) and overwriting the existing version. DLLs don't just magically get corrupted dates on them. I've got a bad feeling something fishy is going on with that file.Wildmyron wrote:C:\WINDOWS\system32\mswinsck.ocx has invalid Write time: 1901-07-13 09:13:00 UT
That's a valid Microsoft file, so you could try the touch utility also attached to the bug. Or you could get a new copy of the file from somewhere and replace the old one.
-
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: June 16th, 2004, 6:00 am
- Location: Exton, PA
Theoretically, Windows File Protection should prevent such a situation from occuring...wgianopoulos wrote:If I recall correctly, most of the people with bad dates on files had installed security software from Checkpoint Systems, which during the install replaced some DLLs with versions (which ma or may not be newer than the ones on the original install cd) that had incorrect date stamps. Reloading the version from the install CD might result in this software not working correctly. So, there is no really good solution to all of this. THis has been a longstanding issue with windows DLLs install programs for various product, that require a specific version of the dll files, instead of doing this correctly so that they use their own version and don;t mess with the one installed in the system, seem to have no qualms about overwriting the version that cam with you system. I hope they came up with a way to prevent third party apps form doing stupid stuff like this in Vista.
- wgianopoulos
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: July 23rd, 2003, 8:15 am
Is that the stupid feature that asks you to load the CD you probably don't have with you so it can restore the original file and does not tell you what files it is trying to restore, so that you can fix it later when the CD is unavailable? That is totally useless. Basically it says you are screwed and there is nothing you can do about it.RyanVM wrote:Theoretically, Windows File Protection should prevent such a situation from occuring...wgianopoulos wrote:If I recall correctly, most of the people with bad dates on files had installed security software from Checkpoint Systems, which during the install replaced some DLLs with versions (which ma or may not be newer than the ones on the original install cd) that had incorrect date stamps. Reloading the version from the install CD might result in this software not working correctly. So, there is no really good solution to all of this. THis has been a longstanding issue with windows DLLs install programs for various product, that require a specific version of the dll files, instead of doing this correctly so that they use their own version and don;t mess with the one installed in the system, seem to have no qualms about overwriting the version that cam with you system. I hope they came up with a way to prevent third party apps form doing stupid stuff like this in Vista.