Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Radish

Member
  • Content Count

    128
  • Donations

    $30.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Radish last won the day on September 10 2018

Radish had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Radish

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

1,846 profile views
  1. I think fairly recently Firefox added built-in trackers and cookies blocking to the browser (the shield symbol to the extreme left of the address (url) bar). The default setting for that is to 'block', to unblock for site 'x' requires manual intervention - easy to do on a site-by-site basis. Maybe this has something to do with the disappearing ads. I only noticed this a while back myself because the then new blocking 'broke' a website I commonly visit, forget what site, but turning the Firefox in-built blocking to 'off' for that site fixed the site display issue. Should say that I have my UBlockOrigin and AdBlockPlus disabled for this site, and also Firefox's built in blocker disabled and I have never since I joined this forum ever seen an ad on it, and that's going back a couple of years. Maybe Google realises I'm one of the unwashed poor and saves bandwidth by not wasting ads on me.
  2. Argh! It's happening again and has been that way for months - don't get email notifications. I do occasionally get one or two over last few months but it just seems utterly random. This is a really serious problem and very frustrating for usage of this forum. Okay so there are contortions that users can use as described above to maybe, possibly, perhaps, get a temporary fix for this. Problem, if the 'fix' works at all, is that it pretty quickly devolves to not working again. So I really plead to the admins of the forum -- I think @xper is the person that attends to site problems - please, please, please, pretty please even, can the admins get this recurring issue fixed once and for all? This is an Achilles' heel for this forum and really does need fixed.
  3. I'm thinking it depends what the 'real world' means - would mean different things for different people. My own computer use is nowadays fairly limited, write documents, deal with email, play a movie and audio files, and surf the internet covers most of what I do. I find that for most things my system, with only (seemingly) essential updates, works just fine. Until I hit slight issues, rare, and things get generally interesting and not too difficult to solve - so far, so good. That said, and though it definitely doesn't qualify as an essential update (but it damn well should) I wouldn't be on Windows 7 at all if it wasn't for Classic Shell. Without that I'd be either on Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell, or off to Linux Mint which I used for a couple of years. Mint was fine but always felt a bit lacking just because of software developed for Windows systems that I really liked and missed, which in the end drove me back to Windows. However, as far as Windows goes, if it ever got to the bit where my only option was Windows 10 then I'd migrate to Mint and never look back. Windows 10 - no way!!! To that extent that is my 'real world' and that Windows 10 line draws an absolute limit on it.
  4. @bphlpt I've been very busy so haven't been able to respond quickly. However, something you said lead me to curing a very recent problem that surfaced when trying to play some recently released videos on a Vimeo 'channel' that I follow. The 'channel' has the title "Common Weal". I could play every video in that 'channel' in Firefox without issues with the exception of the two most recently released videos. The videos that I couldn't get to play were: An Investment-Led Economic Development Framework For An Independent Scotland Know Your Growth Commission: Financial Regulations At the time I puzzled over this and thought that Common Weal and/or Vimeo changed something and made the videos no longer playable in my Firefox browser (I also checked this with a portable Opera browser that I keep for trying to troubleshoot any internet related problems. I got the same results using Opera - and because of that I thought it possible to discount notion of an issue with Firefox itself.) I contacted Common Weal about the problem but the woman I was communicating with was clueless, said no one else was having the problem, but that she'd pass the information to their web developers. So I waited for a couple of weeks and further response never came. Then I read your comment: When I read that an intuitive bulb lit up concerning the Vimeo videos and I thought to test the intuition out. So, cutting a long story short, to update my IE 8 (which I never use) to IE 11 (which I never will use) I had to install some prerequisite KBs into my Windows 7 SP1. The prerequisites were listed here (along with 3 Optional KBs): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2847882/prerequisite-updates-for-internet-explorer-11 So, I started to install the KBs as listed in that table, working from the top of the table down. (On trying to install KB2533623 I got an error message saying "This update is not applicable to your computer." On doing some research on that it turned out that that KB was actually for a Windows Vista computer; so Microsoft goofed in listing it as a Windows 7 SP1 prerequisite. So this update got skipped.) For each update that installed I rebooted the computer and then tried to see if I the two Vimeo videos that wouldn't play started to play with the following results: KB2729094 - No change, videos still would not play KB2731771 - No change, videos still would not play KB2533623 - Wouldn't install - intended for Windows Vista KB2670838 - Success! Once this was installed the two videos that wouldn't play started to play in Firefox. (So the installation of one, two or three of these KBs, or some combination thereof, was what was required to get the Vimeo videos to play.) I then installed the other 2 prerequisite KBs in order: KB2786081 KB2834140 Then I updated my IE 8 to IE 11 and then installed the 3 Optional KBs. So your comment on the advisability of keeping IE up to date because it might have a background effect on the OS turned out to be the solution to recent Vimeo videos in as much I had to install some prerequisite KBs to get them play. So as far as KBs go I have now increased my count of 'essential' KBs installed by an additional 5 now (discounting the Vista one, of course). Or you could say by 8 if counting in the 3 Optional ones - but those probably don't full under the 'essential' label. So thanks very much for your comment, @bphlpt. That off the cuff remark enabled me to sort a very recent problem that I encountered and that was niggling me for a couple of weeks. One question though. When you say you chose to keep IE up to date what do you mean precisely? Like you just install security patches for it? Or something else? Also I think I read elsewhere on this forum that MS were planning to ditch IE in favour of Microsoft Edge. So what would be your thoughts on that? Is that about to become a critical matter for folks trying to avoid, as much as possible, updating Windows 7 SP1? Hope the above helps someone else sometime.
  5. For folks that might still be bedevilled by this certificates problem Mozilla has now released add-on fixes for older versions of Firefox. Versions covered are: Firefox versions 61 – 65 Firefox versions 57 – 60 (not including Firefox 60 ESR) Firefox versions 47 – 56 That should cover most folks, we hope. Full details and download links here: Mozilla - Add-ons disabled or failing to install in Firefox The links are in the Updates section near the top of that document. (Haven't had to use any of them myself.) On cross-checking at the webpage https://www.jeffersonscher.com/ffu/armagadd-on_2_0.html I see that the author has updated that document to now include links to the add-on fixes. So in all I'm just posting this update here in case some folks have missed the new information in that updated document.
  6. I have had this occasionally happen to me. Usually it's just a faulty Windows attempt to mount the disk. On every occasion just pull out the disk and, usually, on the second or third attempt at reinserting the USB plug the drive starts to work again.
  7. I was just stepping through my Options settings after the install of 66.0.4 and noticed that 66.0.4 had in the 'General' settings enabled the setting "Automatically install updates (recommended)". I never ever allow Firefox to do that, I only ever use the setting "Check for updates but let you choose to install them". So 66.0.4 must have reset that setting to the Mozilla default on install. Same thing happened in my Firefox Portable (PortableApps) 66.0.4 So if you don't want Firefox automatically installing updates best go check that setting and put it back to your own preference if it was altered.
  8. Found the requirements for 60.6.2 - same story: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/60.6.2/system-requirements/ - Windows 7 minimum.
  9. Seems that updating to Firefox 66.0.4 might not instantly cure the problems with addons for everyone - manual intervention might be necessary. Details are in the now published Release Notes here (follow the links): https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/66.0.4/releasenotes/ I would think it won't run on XP SP3. I couldn't actually find system requirements for 60.6.2esr but did find for 60.6.1esr Windows 7 or higher seems to be the minimum requirement for that: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/60.6.1/system-requirements/
  10. Firefox 66.0.4 released now. Have installed and tested it, seems to fix the issue. Well done, Mozilla! Don't put us through that again. https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/66.0.4/
  11. See this page direct from Mozilla on the bug and possible temporary fix; https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05/04/update-regarding-add-ons-in-firefox/
  12. Temporary and easy fix is detailed here: "Missing something? Some extensions are no longer supported" Rumour is that Firefox 66.0.4 is in close to release and will fix the issue.
  13. Secure Hash Algorithm To be sure the technical details are beyond my pay-grade. However, in short, signing installer software with a SHA code allows the system to check if an installer file is valid, or has been somehow corrupted or perhaps (maliciously) altered in some way. If the file checks as valid the system attempts to install the software. If the file is not valid then, one would hope, the system aborts the attempt to install the software. This aborting happened with one piece of third-party software that I tried to install ages ago and doing that led to me researching, and with magnificent help from others in this thread and some information from other forums, identifying which MS Updates to install that allowed me to install the software I otherwise couldn't install. The reason the software wouldn't install in the first place was that its installer had been signed only with SHA-2 and Windows 7 SP1 does not natively support validating SHA-2 signed software, as far as I'm aware, natively, it only supports SHA-1 (which Microsoft and third-party companies are now abandoning in favour of SHA-2, which is more secure than SHA-1). Three of the essential updates flagged in this thread are to do with validating SHA-2 signed software, one for third-party installer software, and (now) two to deal with future Microsoft Updates. (From memory I think the other two essential Updates (and only the updates not the FixIt patch) that are flagged were dependencies for the SHA stuff to work properly. You'd have to read the whole thread as the details are foggy in my memory.) I guess I'm both. Radish my nickname for this forum. The dragon? Well I live in Scotland and not everyone knows of Scotland, but most have heard of the Loch Ness Monster, so I decided that would be a reasonable humorous avatar.
  14. You were missing one, bphlpt. My complete list of manually installed (essential) MS Updates is as follows (in the order that I installed them) but you missed the first one, I think because you are counting Fixit50688 as a Microsoft Update, which I don't think it is, so I didn't count it. However, for the list that follows I have included the 'Fixit' as if it was an Update: (1) KB3177467 (2) KB3071756 (3) KB3033929 (4) MicrosoftFixIt50688.msi (Strictly speaking this isn't a MS Update and may not be essential on your system. See note below for some details.) (5) KB4474419 (6) KB4490628 If I look in Control Panel\Programs\Programs and Features\View installed updates I find (in addition to the above) the following four MS Updates were also installed (note that the 'Fixit' doesn't appear in the list of installed Updates at all because it isn't an MS Update): KB958488 (This seems to have something to do with fixing a problem in .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 Update.) Kernel-Mode Driver Framework v1.11 KB2685811 Hotfix for Microsoft Windows KB2534111 Update for Microsoft Windows KB976902 How those above four Updates were installed to my system I have no idea. Perhaps they were installed as part of Windows 7 Pro. x64 SP1 - at the time that I installed the system. Perhaps they were installed as part of a sub-package of the Updates that I manually installed. In any case the system works fine and has done for years (with one non-critical caveat that I don't know about until fairly recently). Note on FixIt: The caveat concerns the install of FixIt50688. I had occasion to use Windows Event Viewer to check something. I normally never use Event Viewer (though I do occasionally now) and I found the Application log was littered with errors for Event ID 10. I didn't know what that was so did some research and came across this page Event ID 10 is logged in the Application log after you install Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2 While researching at other sites there was mention that this only affected some installs of Windows 7 SP1, some installs were supposedly unaffected. So I only used the FixIt50688 because it looked like I had an affected system - and, yes, it fixed it. So anyone thinking of applying the FixIt should, I would think, check in Event Viewer first to see if it looks like there is recurring issue with Event ID 10 as described in webpage above. If there isn't an obvious issue it would be up to you, personally if there didn't seem to be a recurring issue I wouldn't 'fix it'. Windows Programs and Features says I have the following .NET components on my system: (1) Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile (2) Microsoft .NET Framework Extended From memory I manually installed .NET 4.0 because my VPN needed it. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have anything to do with .NET. If I come across software that requires a higher version of .NET then I just avoid that software (SnagIt for example) and find a program that gives similar functionality without relying on .NET. This is just personal preference on my part - wouldn't suit everyone. IE on my system is as installed by the Windows 7 Pro. SP1 x64 installer. I have never updated it as I never use it, too paranoid about what MS is up to with their 'your data is our data' attitude - prefer Firefox by far anyway. Yes, I'm careful and don't so silly things. That said, anti-virus software constantly running in the background dragging the system down, and causing problems elsewhere at times, is a bug-bear so I only use an on-demand scanner, ClamWin (or from PortableApps, which is what I use). I am totally scrupulous in checking downloaded files with ClamWin.
  15. I'm making this post in this thread in case followers of this thread missed important information on another thread that is relevant to this thread. The information regards what seem to be two essential updates that should be installed to Windows 7 SP1 systems that will still make them update-able in the future (should you so wish to selectively install any other Microsoft Updates in the future). Information is a follows: Microsoft are going to start signing future Microsoft Updates using (what they call) SHA-2 only (so SHA-1 signing is being dropped). This change for Windows 7 starts on August 13, 2019. To accommodate this Microsoft have now released two Windows Updates that will make Windows 7 SP1 capable of reading the new SHA-2 signed Microsoft Updates. If after the August deadline you find out that there is some other new Microsoft Update that is essential to install to your system then you won't be able to install it if you don't, now, install the two current Microsoft Update SHA-2 patches. For more information see this webpage: 2019 SHA-2 Code Signing Support requirement for Windows and WSUS The two patches that need to be installed to Windows 7 SP1 to accommodate this change are as follows: SHA-2 code signing support update for Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7: March 12, 2019 (KB4474419) Standalone Install Download: Microsoft Update Catalog - KB4474419 Servicing stack update for Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1: March 12, 2019 (KB4490628) Standalone Install Download: Microsoft Update Catalog - KB4490628 The original thread that I got some of this information from is: https://msfn.org/board/topic/178186-looking-for-info-about-the-upcoming-standalone-sha-2-patch-for-win7/ It is worth reading that thread as there is mention towards the end of a someone running into difficulties when installing KB4474419. I installed both updates on my system, in the order given above - doing a reboot after each separate install, and experienced no difficulties at all. That brings my tally of manually installed by me Windows Updates on my Win7 SP1 x64 up to five. System is still purring nicely, yahoo! Hope this helps.
×
×
  • Create New...