Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Firefox > When is firefox going to get with the times?

Reply
Thread Tools

When is firefox going to get with the times?

 
 
Heavens.To.Murgatroid@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 09:37:50 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> >
> >(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >> When is firefox going to get with the times?
> >>
> >> The longer I use Firefox the more I hate it. It used to be a nice
> >> simple browser that worked fairly well as long as you stuck to html
> >> content and did not try to play anything beyond that. Lately, FF is
> >> just getting more and more bloated and yet they never address the
> >> issues about compatibility with web content and still have these
> >> ignorant plugins that dont work more often than they do.
> >> FF is heading completely in the wrong direction. I know IE has its
> >> security flaws, but it works one hell of alot better than FF.
> >>
> >> For example, I just got to a website that had some video requiring
> >> Windows Media Player. Of course I get that irritating popup telling
> >> me I need a plugin. I go to get the plugin, and it tells me I need to
> >> download ALL of Windows Media Player. EXCUSE ME.... The ****ing
> >> program IS installed on my computer, and I sure as hell am not goinhg
> >> to download that 28meg file again, which would most likely not work
> >> anyhow. If FF cant detect an installed version of Windows Media
> >> Player, it's definately ****ed.
> >>
> >> I copied the URL and pasted it to IE and everything worked fine. FF
> >> appears to be losing it. Id estimate that over 90% of all PC users
> >> have WMP installed, yet brain dead FF cant use it. I think its time
> >> to set IE as my default browser again. This is getting rediculous.
> >> Who needs a browser that is not compatible with common Microsoft files
> >> and which still can not render a webpage properly.
> >>
> >> IE is still the best browser out there, if only MS would fix the
> >> security issues. FF is dying, Opera is a piece of ****, Netscape is
> >> dead unless you use AOL, and there is not much else out there...

> >
> >
> >FF works just great thank you.
> >
> >When are web site developers going to create websites that are
> >compatible with ALL browsers. Instead, they only create sites just for
> >IE and IE only.
> >

> Which is exactly what I am saying. Obviously IE is the "accepted"
> standard. So, why dont the programmers of FF make it compatible?
> Woudn't this just make sense? FF can be different in every other way,
> and that is actually appreciated, but the method of rendering webpages
> should be the same or follow a standard. I have written a few basic
> html webpages, and I found that even my SIMPLE pages did not always
> work properly. Why should a web site maker have to make it compatible
> with both. There should be a standard, and FF should be able to view
> webpages the same as IE. It's not like there should have to be a
> separate webpage for IE another for FF, another for Opera, etc.
> Wether it's FF, Opera, or any other software, it should follow the IE
> standards for viewing webpages. This is EXACTLY what I am complaining
> about.
>


thats where you're wrong on this. FF follows the standards for
websites and website coding, IE doesn't. IE breaks the code and
assumes this is what you want to see. FF doesn't

> >Plugins are not the responsibility of Firefox. FF has nothing to do
> >with them. They are created from 3rd party developers for their
> >programs -- IE winamp, wmp, QT, Real Audio, etc.
> >

>
> Here is another problem. FF SHOULD be offering these plugins for the
> common stuff like flash, media player, etc. Better yet include them
> with the program. I dont want to see the download size increase
> drastically, but plugins are small, and SHOULD be included for the
> common things such as Media Player, etc. Everyone uses these
> things..... if they are included in webpages. Why should we have to
> keep adding stuff. If it's a fairly common thing used on the web,
> then include the plugins. At least that way we will know they will
> work and be compatible.
>


again, these plugins are not the responsiblity of FF. These plugins
come from the other programs, such as QuickTime. QT creates the plugin
for FF, not FF. FF only provides the program to view websites, and
thats it. Anything else, like audio, video, etc, are from other
programs. Its up to those developers to develope a plugin that works
with FF.

> >As for Windows Media Player, it works just fine for me. I've never had
> >a problem with it. Have you tried installing the registry patch:
> >http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/important.html#WMP

>
> I'll give it a try. Thanks


If you don't like the way FF is working, then I suggest you take it
back and demand your money back. Good Luck!!!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Heavens.To.Murgatroid@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006

Ray Hobin wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:31:07 -0500, Ray Hobin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:46:29 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Rather than try to rationalise with you as others have done I will
> >>simply suggest you return your copy of Firefox for a full refund and use
> >>IE instead. You deserve each other. Making ridiculous claims and using
> >>offensive language simply demonstrate the level to which your intellect
> >>has slumped - was the life guard on his break when you slipped into the
> >>gene pool?
> >>
> >>Oh, and please don't slam the door on the way out

> >
> >I am quite disappointed at those of you who "chastise" folks who have
> >experienced problems with FF; problems which are real. Why it affects some
> >and not others I am quite unqualified to answer. But I too have
> >experienced intermittent times when FF could not access Acrobat and Windows
> >Media Player.
> >
> >To me this is a "bug" and the fact it is not always experienced demands,
> >IMO, FF, not ignore it but look into any causative facts for this
> >"anomaly", which is REAL.
> >
> >Ray

>
> I forgot to ad that at times FF has sent me a "Message" that I need to d/l
> "flash Player" which already installed.
>
> There are "bugs" here and attacking the messenger reporting g them is
> somewhat self-defeating for the improvement of FF.
>
> Ray


"bugs" are when more than one person are having the same problem, AND
the developers, testers, and other users can re-produce that "bug"

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
elaich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006
Ray Hobin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I am quite disappointed at those of you who "chastise" folks who have
> experienced problems with FF; problems which are real.


When people (like the OP) start off with a combatative attitude, and then
reinforce it by using slurs and crude language, they are not likely to get
much help, in this or any other newsgroup.
 
Reply With Quote
 
noemailaddy@myoffice.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006
On 4 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2006 09:37:50 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> >> When is firefox going to get with the times?
>> >>
>> >> The longer I use Firefox the more I hate it. It used to be a nice
>> >> simple browser that worked fairly well as long as you stuck to html
>> >> content and did not try to play anything beyond that. Lately, FF is
>> >> just getting more and more bloated and yet they never address the
>> >> issues about compatibility with web content and still have these
>> >> ignorant plugins that dont work more often than they do.
>> >> FF is heading completely in the wrong direction. I know IE has its
>> >> security flaws, but it works one hell of alot better than FF.
>> >>
>> >> For example, I just got to a website that had some video requiring
>> >> Windows Media Player. Of course I get that irritating popup telling
>> >> me I need a plugin. I go to get the plugin, and it tells me I need to
>> >> download ALL of Windows Media Player. EXCUSE ME.... The ****ing
>> >> program IS installed on my computer, and I sure as hell am not goinhg
>> >> to download that 28meg file again, which would most likely not work
>> >> anyhow. If FF cant detect an installed version of Windows Media
>> >> Player, it's definately ****ed.
>> >>
>> >> I copied the URL and pasted it to IE and everything worked fine. FF
>> >> appears to be losing it. Id estimate that over 90% of all PC users
>> >> have WMP installed, yet brain dead FF cant use it. I think its time
>> >> to set IE as my default browser again. This is getting rediculous.
>> >> Who needs a browser that is not compatible with common Microsoft files
>> >> and which still can not render a webpage properly.
>> >>
>> >> IE is still the best browser out there, if only MS would fix the
>> >> security issues. FF is dying, Opera is a piece of ****, Netscape is
>> >> dead unless you use AOL, and there is not much else out there...
>> >
>> >
>> >FF works just great thank you.
>> >
>> >When are web site developers going to create websites that are
>> >compatible with ALL browsers. Instead, they only create sites just for
>> >IE and IE only.
>> >

>> Which is exactly what I am saying. Obviously IE is the "accepted"
>> standard. So, why dont the programmers of FF make it compatible?
>> Woudn't this just make sense? FF can be different in every other way,
>> and that is actually appreciated, but the method of rendering webpages
>> should be the same or follow a standard. I have written a few basic
>> html webpages, and I found that even my SIMPLE pages did not always
>> work properly. Why should a web site maker have to make it compatible
>> with both. There should be a standard, and FF should be able to view
>> webpages the same as IE. It's not like there should have to be a
>> separate webpage for IE another for FF, another for Opera, etc.
>> Wether it's FF, Opera, or any other software, it should follow the IE
>> standards for viewing webpages. This is EXACTLY what I am complaining
>> about.
>>

>
>thats where you're wrong on this. FF follows the standards for
>websites and website coding, IE doesn't. IE breaks the code and
>assumes this is what you want to see. FF doesn't
>
>> >Plugins are not the responsibility of Firefox. FF has nothing to do
>> >with them. They are created from 3rd party developers for their
>> >programs -- IE winamp, wmp, QT, Real Audio, etc.
>> >

>>
>> Here is another problem. FF SHOULD be offering these plugins for the
>> common stuff like flash, media player, etc. Better yet include them
>> with the program. I dont want to see the download size increase
>> drastically, but plugins are small, and SHOULD be included for the
>> common things such as Media Player, etc. Everyone uses these
>> things..... if they are included in webpages. Why should we have to
>> keep adding stuff. If it's a fairly common thing used on the web,
>> then include the plugins. At least that way we will know they will
>> work and be compatible.
>>

>
>again, these plugins are not the responsiblity of FF. These plugins
>come from the other programs, such as QuickTime. QT creates the plugin
>for FF, not FF. FF only provides the program to view websites, and
>thats it. Anything else, like audio, video, etc, are from other
>programs. Its up to those developers to develope a plugin that works
>with FF.
>
>> >As for Windows Media Player, it works just fine for me. I've never had
>> >a problem with it. Have you tried installing the registry patch:
>> >http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/important.html#WMP

>>
>> I'll give it a try. Thanks

>
>If you don't like the way FF is working, then I suggest you take it
>back and demand your money back. Good Luck!!!!


I guess as long as it's going to be this way, I will keep FF
installed, but IE will still be my default browser. I really cant
understand how IE is not the standard since they were and still are
the "standard". If Quicktime, and others want to create the plugins,
thats fine but why cant FF package them. How am I supposed to know
which is a valid plugin and which dont work (and plenty dont work).
Besides that, its a big hassle to keep adding and updating all these
plugins. I use a browser to browse the web, not to have to keep
fixing it all the time. Maybe the computer geeks like to spand all
their time keeping their system updated, I dont....
But I guess FF will never make their browser user friendly as long as
people like you defend it.

Just to make a note, when I made a webpage that had some simple
scrolling text, FF wont allow the scrolling. Why not? Why cant FF be
compatible?????? My page works fine in IE....


 
Reply With Quote
 
noemailaddy@myoffice.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006
On 4 Dec 2006 16:07:42 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>Ray Hobin wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:31:07 -0500, Ray Hobin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:46:29 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Rather than try to rationalise with you as others have done I will
>> >>simply suggest you return your copy of Firefox for a full refund and use
>> >>IE instead. You deserve each other. Making ridiculous claims and using
>> >>offensive language simply demonstrate the level to which your intellect
>> >>has slumped - was the life guard on his break when you slipped into the
>> >>gene pool?
>> >>
>> >>Oh, and please don't slam the door on the way out
>> >
>> >I am quite disappointed at those of you who "chastise" folks who have
>> >experienced problems with FF; problems which are real. Why it affects some
>> >and not others I am quite unqualified to answer. But I too have
>> >experienced intermittent times when FF could not access Acrobat and Windows
>> >Media Player.
>> >
>> >To me this is a "bug" and the fact it is not always experienced demands,
>> >IMO, FF, not ignore it but look into any causative facts for this
>> >"anomaly", which is REAL.
>> >
>> >Ray

>>
>> I forgot to ad that at times FF has sent me a "Message" that I need to d/l
>> "flash Player" which already installed.
>>
>> There are "bugs" here and attacking the messenger reporting g them is
>> somewhat self-defeating for the improvement of FF.
>>
>> Ray

>
>"bugs" are when more than one person are having the same problem, AND
>the developers, testers, and other users can re-produce that "bug"


And how the hell are the testers supposed to know if us users dont say
something about it.

I am with Ray Hobin,
Where he says "I am quite disappointed at those of you who "chastise"
folks who have experienced problems with FF; problems which are real"

I feel exactly the same !!!!!


I am not coming here to say a bunch of cuss words about FF, just to
get a reaction. I am saying what I am experiencing, and in the end, I
am not real pleased with FF. The basic browser is great, and I feel
much more safe using it than IE as far as security issues. But FF has
it's faults and I think I clearly expressed them in my other posts in
this thread. Hopefully the FF developers will read this and consider
what I said when they upgrade again. I too have had repeated problems
with Flash player, and other things, and these are the facts I have
experienced. As soon as FF makes the browser compatible with IE html
content, and does something to make the plugins available with the
program, or at least offers a package including all the common ones as
an addon (so we all get the ones that work), I might give FF a much
higher rating, I have used it for several years, and each upgrade I
expect these issues to be resolved, and they never are. When are they
going to start listening to the users? IE has the standard for
webpages whether we like it or not, and it's time FF renders webpages
to follow that standard.

You said I should get my money back. Well, we all know FF is free.
However, if it did cost money, I would not buy it as it stands now. If
they did fix the things I mentioned, I'd gladly pay a reasonable fee.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leonidas Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> On 4 Dec 2006 09:37:50 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>
>>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>>> When is firefox going to get with the times?
>>>>>
>>>>> The longer I use Firefox the more I hate it. It used to be a nice
>>>>> simple browser that worked fairly well as long as you stuck to html
>>>>> content and did not try to play anything beyond that. Lately, FF is
>>>>> just getting more and more bloated and yet they never address the
>>>>> issues about compatibility with web content and still have these
>>>>> ignorant plugins that dont work more often than they do.
>>>>> FF is heading completely in the wrong direction. I know IE has its
>>>>> security flaws, but it works one hell of alot better than FF.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, I just got to a website that had some video requiring
>>>>> Windows Media Player. Of course I get that irritating popup telling
>>>>> me I need a plugin. I go to get the plugin, and it tells me I need to
>>>>> download ALL of Windows Media Player. EXCUSE ME.... The ****ing
>>>>> program IS installed on my computer, and I sure as hell am not goinhg
>>>>> to download that 28meg file again, which would most likely not work
>>>>> anyhow. If FF cant detect an installed version of Windows Media
>>>>> Player, it's definately ****ed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I copied the URL and pasted it to IE and everything worked fine. FF
>>>>> appears to be losing it. Id estimate that over 90% of all PC users
>>>>> have WMP installed, yet brain dead FF cant use it. I think its time
>>>>> to set IE as my default browser again. This is getting rediculous.
>>>>> Who needs a browser that is not compatible with common Microsoft files
>>>>> and which still can not render a webpage properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> IE is still the best browser out there, if only MS would fix the
>>>>> security issues. FF is dying, Opera is a piece of ****, Netscape is
>>>>> dead unless you use AOL, and there is not much else out there...
>>>>
>>>> FF works just great thank you.
>>>>
>>>> When are web site developers going to create websites that are
>>>> compatible with ALL browsers. Instead, they only create sites just for
>>>> IE and IE only.
>>>>
>>> Which is exactly what I am saying. Obviously IE is the "accepted"
>>> standard. So, why dont the programmers of FF make it compatible?
>>> Woudn't this just make sense? FF can be different in every other way,
>>> and that is actually appreciated, but the method of rendering webpages
>>> should be the same or follow a standard. I have written a few basic
>>> html webpages, and I found that even my SIMPLE pages did not always
>>> work properly. Why should a web site maker have to make it compatible
>>> with both. There should be a standard, and FF should be able to view
>>> webpages the same as IE. It's not like there should have to be a
>>> separate webpage for IE another for FF, another for Opera, etc.
>>> Wether it's FF, Opera, or any other software, it should follow the IE
>>> standards for viewing webpages. This is EXACTLY what I am complaining
>>> about.
>>>

>> thats where you're wrong on this. FF follows the standards for
>> websites and website coding, IE doesn't. IE breaks the code and
>> assumes this is what you want to see. FF doesn't
>>
>>>> Plugins are not the responsibility of Firefox. FF has nothing to do
>>>> with them. They are created from 3rd party developers for their
>>>> programs -- IE winamp, wmp, QT, Real Audio, etc.
>>>>
>>> Here is another problem. FF SHOULD be offering these plugins for the
>>> common stuff like flash, media player, etc. Better yet include them
>>> with the program. I dont want to see the download size increase
>>> drastically, but plugins are small, and SHOULD be included for the
>>> common things such as Media Player, etc. Everyone uses these
>>> things..... if they are included in webpages. Why should we have to
>>> keep adding stuff. If it's a fairly common thing used on the web,
>>> then include the plugins. At least that way we will know they will
>>> work and be compatible.
>>>

>> again, these plugins are not the responsiblity of FF. These plugins
>> come from the other programs, such as QuickTime. QT creates the plugin
>> for FF, not FF. FF only provides the program to view websites, and
>> thats it. Anything else, like audio, video, etc, are from other
>> programs. Its up to those developers to develope a plugin that works
>> with FF.
>>
>>>> As for Windows Media Player, it works just fine for me. I've never had
>>>> a problem with it. Have you tried installing the registry patch:
>>>> http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/important.html#WMP
>>> I'll give it a try. Thanks

>> If you don't like the way FF is working, then I suggest you take it
>> back and demand your money back. Good Luck!!!!

>
> I guess as long as it's going to be this way, I will keep FF
> installed, but IE will still be my default browser. I really cant
> understand how IE is not the standard since they were and still are
> the "standard". If Quicktime, and others want to create the plugins,
> thats fine but why cant FF package them. How am I supposed to know
> which is a valid plugin and which dont work (and plenty dont work).
> Besides that, its a big hassle to keep adding and updating all these
> plugins. I use a browser to browse the web, not to have to keep
> fixing it all the time. Maybe the computer geeks like to spand all
> their time keeping their system updated, I dont....
> But I guess FF will never make their browser user friendly as long as
> people like you defend it.
>
> Just to make a note, when I made a webpage that had some simple
> scrolling text, FF wont allow the scrolling. Why not? Why cant FF be
> compatible?????? My page works fine in IE....
>
>


Standards:

http://www.w3.org/

http://webstandardsgroup.org/standards/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards

Read and learn.

It is Firefox that is *standards* compliant, not IE, though IE7 is a
good step in the right direction. You use standards to mean that to
which you are accustomed. Were that the case, we would all have our own
sets of *standards*. Not very standard, is it?

As far as plugins, IE does not come equipped with them either. Its just
that it is so interwoven with the OS that they install automatically.

Firefox, for most people, finds these plugins as well. However, its not
interwoven with the OS, so sometimes we have to go looking.

Do you really want FF to come with Quick Time? I would as well, but
many people hate QT, and want to use their media player of choice.

Do you really want FF to come with Flash? Maybe, but there are many
users who prefer not to have flash installed.

Why do you want Firefox to make your choices for you? Should you not
have the opportunity to choose the plugins you want?

Lee

 
Reply With Quote
 
Heavens.To.Murgatroid@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> You said I should get my money back. Well, we all know FF is free.
> However, if it did cost money, I would not buy it as it stands now. If
> they did fix the things I mentioned, I'd gladly pay a reasonable fee.


it was a sarcastic remark!

If you don't like the product the way it is, then you have three
choices. You can either fix the problem yourself, or you can hire
someone and have them fix it. Or you can live with it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
noemailaddy@myoffice.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:10:11 GMT, Leonidas Jones <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Standards:
>
>http://www.w3.org/
>
>http://webstandardsgroup.org/standards/
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards
>
>Read and learn.
>
>It is Firefox that is *standards* compliant, not IE, though IE7 is a
>good step in the right direction. You use standards to mean that to
>which you are accustomed. Were that the case, we would all have our own
>sets of *standards*. Not very standard, is it?
>
>As far as plugins, IE does not come equipped with them either. Its just
>that it is so interwoven with the OS that they install automatically.
>
>Firefox, for most people, finds these plugins as well. However, its not
>interwoven with the OS, so sometimes we have to go looking.
>
>Do you really want FF to come with Quick Time? I would as well, but
>many people hate QT, and want to use their media player of choice.
>
>Do you really want FF to come with Flash? Maybe, but there are many
>users who prefer not to have flash installed.
>
>Why do you want Firefox to make your choices for you? Should you not
>have the opportunity to choose the plugins you want?
>
>Lee



I dont know what to say about the standards. I just opened a webpage
with IE and it worked fine, except insisted I use cookies. (I do not
use cookies in IE for security), so I opened it in FF. The page
loaded in FF with all sorts of html coding where the picture should
have been, but finally loaded the actual picture ????

As far as coming with Quicktime or Flash, or whatever installed, NO.
I do want the choices, and I for one hate flash. Of course there is a
simple solution. After FF is installed, there could be a screen that
asks you what plugins you want, and you get to choose from a list.
They are automatically downloaded and installed, and FF contains an
ON/OFF button for each and every one. For example there are times I
find a funny flash cartoon, and want to view it. In that case I like
flash. But flash ads are absolutely annoying, and I want flash turned
off.

Wouldn't this make sense? At least it would be easy to get the common
plugins, and we would know they will work, unlike many that dont work
at all. If FF had "approved" plugins that were automatically
available for installation without all sorts of hassles they are now,
this would be fine. As for the uncommon oddball plugins, the way it
is now would be fine.
 
Reply With Quote
 
noemailaddy@myoffice.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006
On 5 Dec 2006 02:15:31 GMT, elaich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Ray Hobin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> I am quite disappointed at those of you who "chastise" folks who have
>> experienced problems with FF; problems which are real.

>
>When people (like the OP) start off with a combatative attitude, and then
>reinforce it by using slurs and crude language, they are not likely to get
>much help, in this or any other newsgroup.


I dont know what the combative attitude part was in my original post.
I stated the facts.....

As far as crude language. If you cant handle a few f-words, you
really should scrap your computer and spend more time in church, where
you wont see or hear those words.

I used that word, because FF ****ed me off. Same way it would ****
off anyone else that had WMP installed and FF is not smart enough to
figure that out. We have this spyware that can target specific files
on someones computer, and from another server, yet FF, which is
installed right on my own computer cant find WMP? Thats pretty sad,
especially for the programmers that have been working on FF for many
years now. In fact its VERY sad. Maybe they need to get some new
blood on their staff.....
 
Reply With Quote
 
Karl S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2006
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:13:02 GMT, Leonidas Jones wrote:

> Karl S wrote:


>> Many people, me included, have this problem with videos on the CNN.com
>> site. I have tried many fixes, but none seem to work.
>>
>> Karl
>> A happy Firefox user

>
> I've never had a problem with cnn. See Heavens recommendation of the
> registry patch.
>
> Lee


I had previously tried that.

I had some time, yesterday, so I again tried to solve this problem.

I searched the Web and found solutions that I had tried before but didn't
work. However, one of the search results reminded me that Firefox can be
started in Safe Mode.

I started in Safe Mode and the problem went away-which made me think it was
caused by one of my extensions. It was. I restarted Firefox normally,
disabled Adblock Plus, and now I can view videos on CNN.com.

Karl


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: Windows XP: Going, going ... gone? OTHMAN MCSE 2 03-25-2008 04:45 PM
XP search going all lame on me..explorer going crazy when trying tosearch. fotoobscura Computer Support 8 01-12-2008 01:09 AM
Firefighters at the site of WTC7 "Move away the building is going to blow up, get back the building is going to blow up." Midex Python 24 05-07-2007 04:23 AM
floppy drive just keeps on going and going and ... Weylon Bulloch Computer Support 1 09-07-2003 07:17 AM
VPN going up but traffic going one way PLP Cisco 1 07-11-2003 08:28 AM



Advertisments