Dave-H

Strange, YouTube is working fine here with Chrome 49! I haven't done any user agent spoofing. It's sending the default - Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/49.0.2623.112 Safari/537.36 I'm getting a warning about the browser being unsupported soon, but apart from that everything seems to be fine.

Does it work if you replace example.com with a wildcard asterisk (*)?

Is this really about Windows 9x or ME?! Please be more careful where you're putting your posts, there have been several recently which have been in the wrong thread, this is the first one that's actually been in completely the wrong forum!

People here are obviously concerned about fellow forum members in areas where there is most risk, and as a friendly community I see no harm in it being discussed, even if is of course always going to be fundamentally off-topic here in any thread. I hope the moderators are lenient with this at the moment.

Yes, if the chrome folder isn't there, you will need to create it. You will need to restart the browser for it to take effect.

Sent you a PM.

You need to add the following code in a file called userContent.css in the Chrome folder within your Firefox profile folder. You may need to create it in Notepad or whatever if it doesn't already exist. Make sure it has a .css extension, not a 'txt extension! @-moz-document url-prefix(chrome://mozapps/content/extensions/extensions.xul), url-prefix(about:addons) { .warning { visibility: collapse !important; } } Credit for this to @VistaLover.

Surely "unknown module", not "unknown model"?! Installing the debugger certainly wouldn't do any harm, and might give a diagnosis clue if you can capture what happened when explorer crashed. Occasional intermittent problems like this are always very hard to diagnose. If you could find any particular file selection, for instance, which triggers the crash, that would be very helpful.

Icaros is a very good thumbnailer system, as it allows explorer to generate thumbnails from many video formats which aren't natively supported. If you didn't install it that can't be the problem though! ASF is a Microsoft media video/audio format, pretty much the same as WMV, but IIRC was more often used for streaming. I would have thought that it's pretty obsolete now.

I suspect that a shell extension could well be causing this. It triggers when you select certain files, and crashes explorer. Download this (it's free and quite safe). It will give you a list of all the shell extensions installed. Any that you are suspicious of, especially any related to K-Lite (perhaps a thumbnailer) or WMP, disable them and see if things are then OK. If the problem goes away, re-enable them one by one until you find the culprit. HTH.

Thank you. 1.16.4.18 seems to be still working fine. I've also suppressed the warnings in the add-ons list using an addition to the userContent.css file I was already using to get the videos on Instagram to display.

Well it does seem to be a bit of a mish-mash of posts about the "viewtube" extension and viewing YouTube videos online in WMP! How about - "Viewing YouTube videos with the "ViewTube" browser extension and XP Windows Media Player"

Thanks, again good to know more of the background to this. I've uninstalled 1.17.4 and installed 1.16.4.18 instead. Seems to be working fine except for the annoying warning in the add-ons list that it can't be verified.

FWIW I don't think the recent discussions about using WMP to view YouTube videos should be in this thread anyway, as it was originally specifically about enabling them in older Firefox browsers on XP. When does explorer crash, is it while you're doing something specific, or are the crashes just seemingly random, and happen even if there is no explorer window open?

Thanks for the detailed background explanation @Mathwiz! So, is there any disadvantage with using 1.17.4, which presumably will not now update any more on FF 52 ESR? As long as it's still getting block list updates does it matter that 1.16.4.18 is actually later code? Have any security flaws been patched which are in 1.17.4 for instance? Cheers, Dave.

I think you actually just answered the question. I was thinking that some people were using 1.16 instead of 1.17 because 1.17 didn't support their browsers. From what you say that does seem to be the case, but 1.17.4 is still the latest version for Firefox 52 ESR. Is that right, or are you saying that 1.16.4 actually has more up to date code in it than 1.17.4 (I don't mean the block list files)?

So who's developing it, and why would they concentrate on an older version instead of the last FF 52 ESR compatible version? Does 1.16.x support even earlier browser versions?

I don't understand, I'm already using 1.17.4, which is surely even newer! Are we talking about the same thing?

I love Microsoft's suggested workaround to avoid the problem. Basically, just don't do it! Thanks again @jaclaz, you've given me a lot to get my head around here, but that's what this forum is all about of course. Cheers, Dave.

Thanks again, as I'm sure you're now well aware, I have only ever gone into the intricacies of disk partitioning at a very basic level! So if I read your analogy correctly, extended partitions are like they're in a container, into which utilities like mbrwiz cannot read? For some reason lost in the mists of time, I have always formatted my data drives as extended partitions, my only primary partitions are the system drives for Windows 98 and Windows 10. Disk 2, the Windows 10 drive, was partitioned by Windows setup, and both partitions are primary. The Windows XP partition on disk 1 isn't, it's an extended partition. Is there any disadvantage to the data drive partitions or the Windows XP partition being primary partitions, presumably as long as they're not set active?

Thank you, I'll have to read that a few times to get my head around it, but I should have of course made the connection that the partitions concerned were extended partitions, not primary ones! Is it normal for MBRWiz not to see the drive letters and volume labels of extended partitions?

Well I'm glad you found a workaround anyway, although the performance hit on Firefox after it's been open for a while, even with a completely clean profile, is very puzzling.

@jaclaz Not wishing to hijack this thread, but as someone with three SDDs on my system and two conventional drives, I just tried this out myself, just out of interest. This is what I got - The two SSDs that are partitioned, disk 1 and disk 2, both show the start of the first partition as 2048, which I assume is good. Disk 3 is also an SSD, but shows its single partition start as 16065. Is that OK? Disk 0, a conventional FAT32 IDE drive, also shows 16065, and disk 4, a conventional FAT32 SATA drive connected via an expansion card, shows 16321. Also slightly puzzled that I'm only seeing drive letter and label information for two of the partitions, is that normal?

This is all I'm seeing on Firefox 52.9.1 ESR. Nothing very useful!

If that's the case, I'm certainly on borrowed time!