Jump to content

Radish

Member
  • Posts

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Everything posted by Radish

  1. @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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Found the requirements for 60.6.2 - same story: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/60.6.2/system-requirements/ - Windows 7 minimum.
  6. 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/
  7. 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/
  8. 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/
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 (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.
  13. Are you saying ShellFolderFix is what is causing your issues?
  14. When I was checking out 'Starter' one comment left on a download site referred to Starter as abandonware. Autoruns does look very involved, especially with some of the more advanced stuff it can do. However, if you just want to (temporary) switch off some stuff that loads at bootup just look on the 'Logon' tab and you will get the list there. If you don't want anything to run during bootup/logon just untick the necessary box and it will not run. In that sense Autoruns is likely just as simple as Starter. I read through all of the How-To Geek's tutorial on Sysinternals tools once. I didn't understand it all but I did get enough out of doing so to find the GUI of Autoruns and Process Explorer a bit less intimidating and confusing. I'll trying reading through it again later, but a bit more slowly and taking notes. Just take it one step at a time, Bruce, and you might work out how to solve your issue (assuming you are ferreting in the right place). But I agree, if Starter is failing to find stuff then it doesn't sound like a reliable tool to me. On my own system I did check on what MSCONFIG was showing as 'Startup' items and what Autoruns was showing under the Logon tab. Autoruns reports everything that MSCONFIG was reporting plus some Microsoft items that weren't reported in MSCONFIG Startup items - I doubt very much if there would be any need to disable those Microsoft items anyway, they all look pretty well like essential system files to me and Autoruns does mark them as 'Verified' and hence not a possible suspect for being hijacked in any way. What Are the SysInternals Tools and How Do You Use Them?
  15. In an earlier post in this thread Goodmaneuver mentioned a program called Codestuff Starter. It is to that program that he is referring. He said you might find it easier to use than Autoruns.
  16. Came across this How-To Geek tutorial series on (among other things) using Process Explorer and Autoruns. Kind of working my own slow way through it now. Seems pretty good and both are a bit less of a mystery when I look at the GUIs with some guided understanding. What Are the SysInternals Tools and How Do You Use Them?
  17. Came across this Autoruns guide, seems reasonable and explains some of the tabs clearly: http://index-of.co.uk/Malware/Autorun Tutorial.pdf (Just in case the autoruns.chm doesn't seem clear enough.)
  18. If you want to have a go at seeing startups then Sysinternals Autoruns would help. I haven't used it myself beyond just tinkering with it but you can switch startups on/off via the interface. I would suspect if you turn off a startup then you would need to reboot to see the effect of not running the startup you switched off. To use it fully I think you need allow it internet access through your firewall and it's best to "Run as administrator" to launch it. The download page for Autoruns mentions Sysinternals Process Explorer as being a way to work help work out what process has handles on what file. Never used it but it might help in tracking down the problem - I'd suspect that if you are already using Process Hacker you would be in some way familiar with this.. Sorry I can't be of much direct actual help.
  19. I've not used it myself (and probably never will) but these webpages might answer your questions: Firefox 49: Simplify Page improves printing Firefox 50: Simplify Page feature turned on by default for Print Preview I'm using FF 65.0.1 and Simplify Page, though available in Print Preview, is not enabled by default (you have to tick a box to get it to activate).
  20. No way! Read two threads worth on MDL and the blog piece. Fair mention on MDL that so-called 'telemetry' (aka spy-ware, malware etc.) is included -- who would have guessed, good 'ol Microsoft the company you can trust trying to screw us over again. No Thanks! Plain vanilla original Win7 SP1 ISOs is all we need and the only best option of a 'trust point' we have.
  21. I'm on Windows 7 Pro. SP1 x64 and don't have any of the issues you are reporting. Have to say I find it very stable and am quite happy with it. That said, so far, I only have two Microsoft Updates installed to it so I avoid any potential issues with naff Updates. If it was me I'd image off the system I have. Then do a completely fresh install of Win7 and see if I still have the problem with no Updates installed. (I'm assuming you do update it, of course.) What error message do you get when you try to rename a folder?
  22. You can also try this: How to Check if Your Computer Uses UEFI or BIOS I tried this on Windows 7 SP1 x64 and looking in System Information there wasn't a "BIOS" entry. However, I did find the setupact.log file in the folder C:\Windows\Panther and there using the search phrase Detected boot environment was the information (in my case "BIOS"). The guide I point to says this second method is for Windows 10, but works for Win7 on my system.
  23. I don't know the answer to your question. But the following post I made a several months back is relevant to Windows 7 and SHA256 signing. By my reading of the Microsoft document you point to it seems the offered patch only works against Microsoft Updates whereas the update that I pointed to works with (as best as I could figure it) third-party files that are SHA256 signed. I have no idea as how the two different patches would interrelate to each other. I too would be very interested in the stand-alone that you mention, and how to get it without having to do a Microsoft update (which I would want to avoid at all costs).
  24. In the longer run you'll likely get forced off of old versions of Firefox that can manage (now called) "legacy" addons. I use the the latest version, Firefox 65.0, on Windows 7 SP1 x64 and find it really good. If you just wanted to try out the most recent version and see if you like it then you can download and install Firefox Portable from Portable Apps - just scroll down the page for different locale versions. 'Installing' Firefox Portable won't interfere with your regularly installed version - it's self-contained inside the folder you directed the PortableApps installer to unpack the files into. You would really need to read the documentation for the portable and get some understanding of how it differs from a fully installed version of Firefox. Suffice to say that the portablisation of Firefox (Portable) doesn't involve modifying Firefox itself, the portablisation just affects how Firefox is configured to make it operate as a portable with respect to where it stores the Firefox Portable Profile and so on. If you do try it it is important to only launch Firefox Portable by launching the file titled FirefoxPortable.exe that is contained in the folder you unpacked the install files into. Once you've given it a try, and if you don't want it, then to uninstall it just delete the entire folder you installed it in to and it is all gone. I should add that if you want to give Firefox Portable a try then it is not necessary to download and install what gets called the PortableApps Platform and install it into that. Just install Firefox Portable into a folder of your own choice and you are good to go with it. For help with checking if you can find WebExtension replacements for the legacy addons you have the mozillaZine Forums is a good place to ask - they have lots of expertise there on all things Mozilla. You could test out if any replacements would be suitable for you by installing them to Firefox Portable and testing them in that.


×
×
  • Create New...