Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > IEXPLORE.EXE (1) terminates, all others lost too ?!

Reply
Thread Tools

IEXPLORE.EXE (1) terminates, all others lost too ?!

 
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2011
It's very fokking annoying how all instances of IE8 are closed if one is
lost/terminated ?!

They are different processes, why are all closed ?!? Fokking stupid and
fokking annoying.

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2011
Skybuck Flying wrote:

> It's very annoying how all instances of IE8 are closed if one
> is lost/terminated ?! They are different processes, why are all
> closed ?!?


FYI: The newsgroup for Internet Explorer is found at:
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general

Maybe it's something common amongst all of them, like an old and perhaps
incompatible add-on that you installed for IE. Have you yet tried
loading IE8 in its no add-ons mode? Have you tried rebooting Windows
into its safe mode (with networking) and then load IE8 in its no add-ons
mode?

DEP mode was added in IE7 but was defaulted to disabled. This was
because many add-ons were improperly coded for memory use. This gave
developers time to fix their add-ons so they were DEP mode compatible.
In IE8, DEP mode was enabled by default: Internet Options -> Advanced
tab -> Security section -> Enable memory protection to mitigate online
attacks. So all those crappy add-ons starting getting exposed in IE8.
You could disable DEP mode or you could check if the add-on author
improved their code or you get rid of their crappy add-on and do without
its features or get a similar add-on from a different author that was
better coded.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx (tip 17)
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2...rotection.aspx

Chrome will crash all of its instances, too, although a separate copy of
an extension is loaded for each Chrome instance. ActiveX isn't designed
to run multiple separate instances and Chrome does support AX, so if one
AX control as an extension dies then so does every instance of
chrome.exe to manage a tab that uses the common AX instance. Google
Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and other non-Microsoft web
browers do not support ActiveX and instead use the Netscape Plugin
Application Programming Interface (NPAPI) and which does no share
session information with existing IE windows. ActiveX is still a kludge
setup with non-Microsoft web browsers because it doesn't fit with the
existing paradigm [partially] adopted by non-Microsoft web browsers to
sandbox or isolate their tab processes. Some add-ons are not designed
to handle the multiple tab processes managed by IE8; for example, IE7Pro
was a popular add-on (although support was erratic and the author
focused more on new features than fixes bugs) but it wasn't designed for
IE8 and caused lots of crashing there.

Only you know what extensions, add-ons, plug-ins you installed for
Chrome. The community that develops the Chrome extensions is akin to
the community that develops extensions for Firefox: some are good
developers or script writers but many are not so you get extensions that
range from great and robust to those that are unstable and contentious
with other extensions. The extensions tend to be authored individually
rather than deeply tested for compatibility with the web browser and
with other extensions. It's up to the users to figure out which are the
good extensions, which ones suck, and which ones won't work with other
extensions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2011

"VanguardLH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:iqien5$j2a$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Skybuck Flying wrote:
>
>> It's very annoying how all instances of IE8 are closed if one
>> is lost/terminated ?! They are different processes, why are all
>> closed ?!?

>
> FYI: The newsgroup for Internet Explorer is found at:
> microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general
>
> Maybe it's something common amongst all of them, like an old and perhaps
> incompatible add-on that you installed for IE. Have you yet tried
> loading IE8 in its no add-ons mode? Have you tried rebooting Windows
> into its safe mode (with networking) and then load IE8 in its no add-ons
> mode?


Look Pal, IE8 is a process, I don't care a fok about add-ons nor should I
have to care a fok about add-ons.

Are they DLL's ?! Don't bother answerering that question because I don't
care.

It's fokking bullshit anyway.

If add-ons are DLL's then you clearly don't understand a thing about DLL's
but I forgive you about that.

If it is DLL's then IE8 is a perfect example of Microsoft's Enginering
failure to obey by their own OS design which is about PROCESS ISOLATION.

> DEP mode was added in IE7 but was defaulted to disabled. This was
> because many add-ons were improperly coded for memory use. This gave


LOL Improperly coded FOK THEM.

> developers time to fix their add-ons so they were DEP mode compatible.


They have all the time of the world for that.. don't need to disable
anything for that.

> In IE8, DEP mode was enabled by default: Internet Options -> Advanced
> tab -> Security section -> Enable memory protection to mitigate online
> attacks. So all those crappy add-ons starting getting exposed in IE8.
> You could disable DEP mode or you could check if the add-on author
> improved their code or you get rid of their crappy add-on and do without
> its features or get a similar add-on from a different author that was
> better coded.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx (tip 17)
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2...rotection.aspx
>
> Chrome will crash all of its instances, too, although a separate copy of


It was designed not too, so then it's even far worse crap. In reality it's
not all webbrowsers based on same mozilla crap.

> an extension is loaded for each Chrome instance. ActiveX isn't designed
> to run multiple separate instances and Chrome does support AX, so if one
> AX control as an extension dies then so does every instance of
> chrome.exe to manage a tab that uses the common AX instance. Google
> Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and other non-Microsoft web
> browers do not support ActiveX and instead use the Netscape Plugin
> Application Programming Interface (NPAPI) and which does no share
> session information with existing IE windows. ActiveX is still a kludge
> setup with non-Microsoft web browsers because it doesn't fit with the
> existing paradigm [partially] adopted by non-Microsoft web browsers to
> sandbox or isolate their tab processes. Some add-ons are not designed
> to handle the multiple tab processes managed by IE8; for example, IE7Pro
> was a popular add-on (although support was erratic and the author
> focused more on new features than fixes bugs) but it wasn't designed for
> IE8 and caused lots of crashing there.


Not even going to read all this crap.


> Only you know what extensions, add-ons, plug-ins you installed for
> Chrome. The community that develops the Chrome extensions is akin to
> the community that develops extensions for Firefox: some are good
> developers or script writers but many are not so you get extensions that
> range from great and robust to those that are unstable and contentious
> with other extensions. The extensions tend to be authored individually
> rather than deeply tested for compatibility with the web browser and
> with other extensions. It's up to the users to figure out which are the
> good extensions, which ones suck, and which ones won't work with other
> extensions.


Shove them add-ons somewhere where the sun don't shine.

Bye,
Skybuck.



 
Reply With Quote
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2011
Skybuck Flying wrote:

> "VanguardLH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:iqien5$j2a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>
>>> It's very annoying how all instances of IE8 are closed if one
>>> is lost/terminated ?! They are different processes, why are all
>>> closed ?!?

>>
>> FYI: The newsgroup for Internet Explorer is found at:
>> microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general
>>
>> Maybe it's something common amongst all of them, like an old and perhaps
>> incompatible add-on that you installed for IE. Have you yet tried
>> loading IE8 in its no add-ons mode? Have you tried rebooting Windows
>> into its safe mode (with networking) and then load IE8 in its no add-ons
>> mode?

>
> Look Pal, IE8 is a process, I don't care a fok about add-ons nor should I
> have to care a fok about add-ons.
>
> Are they DLL's ?! Don't bother answerering that question because I don't
> care.
>
> It's fokking bullshit anyway.
>
> If add-ons are DLL's then you clearly don't understand a thing about DLL's
> but I forgive you about that.
>
> If it is DLL's then IE8 is a perfect example of Microsoft's Enginering
> failure to obey by their own OS design which is about PROCESS ISOLATION.
>
>> DEP mode was added in IE7 but was defaulted to disabled. This was
>> because many add-ons were improperly coded for memory use. This gave

>
> LOL Improperly coded FOK THEM.
>
>> developers time to fix their add-ons so they were DEP mode compatible.

>
> They have all the time of the world for that.. don't need to disable
> anything for that.
>
>> In IE8, DEP mode was enabled by default: Internet Options -> Advanced
>> tab -> Security section -> Enable memory protection to mitigate online
>> attacks. So all those crappy add-ons starting getting exposed in IE8.
>> You could disable DEP mode or you could check if the add-on author
>> improved their code or you get rid of their crappy add-on and do without
>> its features or get a similar add-on from a different author that was
>> better coded.
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx (tip 17)
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2...rotection.aspx
>>
>> Chrome will crash all of its instances, too, although a separate copy of

>
> It was designed not too, so then it's even far worse crap. In reality it's
> not all webbrowsers based on same mozilla crap.
>
>> an extension is loaded for each Chrome instance. ActiveX isn't designed
>> to run multiple separate instances and Chrome does support AX, so if one
>> AX control as an extension dies then so does every instance of
>> chrome.exe to manage a tab that uses the common AX instance. Google
>> Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and other non-Microsoft web
>> browers do not support ActiveX and instead use the Netscape Plugin
>> Application Programming Interface (NPAPI) and which does no share
>> session information with existing IE windows. ActiveX is still a kludge
>> setup with non-Microsoft web browsers because it doesn't fit with the
>> existing paradigm [partially] adopted by non-Microsoft web browsers to
>> sandbox or isolate their tab processes. Some add-ons are not designed
>> to handle the multiple tab processes managed by IE8; for example, IE7Pro
>> was a popular add-on (although support was erratic and the author
>> focused more on new features than fixes bugs) but it wasn't designed for
>> IE8 and caused lots of crashing there.

>
> Not even going to read all this crap.
>
>> Only you know what extensions, add-ons, plug-ins you installed for
>> Chrome. The community that develops the Chrome extensions is akin to
>> the community that develops extensions for Firefox: some are good
>> developers or script writers but many are not so you get extensions that
>> range from great and robust to those that are unstable and contentious
>> with other extensions. The extensions tend to be authored individually
>> rather than deeply tested for compatibility with the web browser and
>> with other extensions. It's up to the users to figure out which are the
>> good extensions, which ones suck, and which ones won't work with other
>> extensions.

>
> Shove them add-ons somewhere where the sun don't shine.
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck.


So you really didn't want an answer or a solution but just wanted to
bitch here. Apparently you think processes cannot share memory space
and end up corrupting themselves in that shared space. I would suggest
you go read some books on programming but it's quite apparent you're too
lazy to understand the problem.

http://www.google.com/search?q=proce...+space+windows

Since you're not interested in a solution, suffer with the problem that
YOU created. Bye child.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2011

"VanguardLH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:iql0uv$dbp$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Skybuck Flying wrote:
>
>> "VanguardLH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:iqien5$j2a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's very annoying how all instances of IE8 are closed if one
>>>> is lost/terminated ?! They are different processes, why are all
>>>> closed ?!?
>>>
>>> FYI: The newsgroup for Internet Explorer is found at:
>>> microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general
>>>
>>> Maybe it's something common amongst all of them, like an old and perhaps
>>> incompatible add-on that you installed for IE. Have you yet tried
>>> loading IE8 in its no add-ons mode? Have you tried rebooting Windows
>>> into its safe mode (with networking) and then load IE8 in its no add-ons
>>> mode?

>>
>> Look Pal, IE8 is a process, I don't care a fok about add-ons nor should I
>> have to care a fok about add-ons.
>>
>> Are they DLL's ?! Don't bother answerering that question because I don't
>> care.
>>
>> It's fokking bullshit anyway.
>>
>> If add-ons are DLL's then you clearly don't understand a thing about
>> DLL's
>> but I forgive you about that.
>>
>> If it is DLL's then IE8 is a perfect example of Microsoft's Enginering
>> failure to obey by their own OS design which is about PROCESS ISOLATION.
>>
>>> DEP mode was added in IE7 but was defaulted to disabled. This was
>>> because many add-ons were improperly coded for memory use. This gave

>>
>> LOL Improperly coded FOK THEM.
>>
>>> developers time to fix their add-ons so they were DEP mode compatible.

>>
>> They have all the time of the world for that.. don't need to disable
>> anything for that.
>>
>>> In IE8, DEP mode was enabled by default: Internet Options -> Advanced
>>> tab -> Security section -> Enable memory protection to mitigate online
>>> attacks. So all those crappy add-ons starting getting exposed in IE8.
>>> You could disable DEP mode or you could check if the add-on author
>>> improved their code or you get rid of their crappy add-on and do without
>>> its features or get a similar add-on from a different author that was
>>> better coded.
>>>
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx (tip 17)
>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2...rotection.aspx
>>>
>>> Chrome will crash all of its instances, too, although a separate copy of

>>
>> It was designed not too, so then it's even far worse crap. In reality
>> it's
>> not all webbrowsers based on same mozilla crap.
>>
>>> an extension is loaded for each Chrome instance. ActiveX isn't designed
>>> to run multiple separate instances and Chrome does support AX, so if one
>>> AX control as an extension dies then so does every instance of
>>> chrome.exe to manage a tab that uses the common AX instance. Google
>>> Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and other non-Microsoft web
>>> browers do not support ActiveX and instead use the Netscape Plugin
>>> Application Programming Interface (NPAPI) and which does no share
>>> session information with existing IE windows. ActiveX is still a kludge
>>> setup with non-Microsoft web browsers because it doesn't fit with the
>>> existing paradigm [partially] adopted by non-Microsoft web browsers to
>>> sandbox or isolate their tab processes. Some add-ons are not designed
>>> to handle the multiple tab processes managed by IE8; for example, IE7Pro
>>> was a popular add-on (although support was erratic and the author
>>> focused more on new features than fixes bugs) but it wasn't designed for
>>> IE8 and caused lots of crashing there.

>>
>> Not even going to read all this crap.
>>
>>> Only you know what extensions, add-ons, plug-ins you installed for
>>> Chrome. The community that develops the Chrome extensions is akin to
>>> the community that develops extensions for Firefox: some are good
>>> developers or script writers but many are not so you get extensions that
>>> range from great and robust to those that are unstable and contentious
>>> with other extensions. The extensions tend to be authored individually
>>> rather than deeply tested for compatibility with the web browser and
>>> with other extensions. It's up to the users to figure out which are the
>>> good extensions, which ones suck, and which ones won't work with other
>>> extensions.

>>
>> Shove them add-ons somewhere where the sun don't shine.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Skybuck.

>
> So you really didn't want an answer or a solution but just wanted to
> bitch here. Apparently you think processes cannot share memory space
> and end up corrupting themselves in that shared space. I would suggest
> you go read some books on programming but it's quite apparent you're too
> lazy to understand the problem.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=proce...+space+windows
>
> Since you're not interested in a solution, suffer with the problem that
> YOU created. Bye child.


Come on faggot who do you think I am ?!

Give me one good reason why IE would need "shared memory".

There is no good reason for it.

Apperently the guy who wrote stuff above is bitching about add-on's not
supporting multiple tabs.

What does multi tabs have to do with multiple processes anyway ?!

First of all fok add ons they stupid and probably not necessary.,

Second of all:

Give one good reason why multiple IE's would need to share memory ?!

Just posting a link to google about the functionality of shared memory
itself is retarded.

Also the crap above was written for chrome...

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2011
Think of it this way you bunch of cocksuckers !

If web applications are a thing of the future and if windows OS would
fokking work like your BS IE then you guys would all be in deep **** !

One little misbehaving OS application would suddenly tear down everything !

You can kiss multi tasking goodbye !!!

GOOOODDDDDDBYEEEE there it goes... flying straight out the window ! =D
LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel-MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2011
Come on, Skybuck. You know we don't play that here. Save it for the XP NG.
We're friendly folks here, even with MS long gone from the newsgroup.

--
Charlie.
http://blogs.msmvps.com/russel


"Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bc01d$4dd06977$54192c06$(E-Mail Removed)1.n b.home.nl...
> Think of it this way you bunch of cocksuckers !
>
> If web applications are a thing of the future and if windows OS would
> fokking work like your BS IE then you guys would all be in deep **** !
>
> One little misbehaving OS application would suddenly tear down everything
> !
>
> You can kiss multi tasking goodbye !!!
>
> GOOOODDDDDDBYEEEE there it goes... flying straight out the window ! =D
> LOL.
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck.
>


 
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 on an posting oddity in this NG (and too many others) Muze Gruppes Computer Support 7 11-25-2007 02:38 AM
Web get command (wget) to download all icons/pics on a web page (too large or too small) barb Digital Photography 5 08-04-2006 07:06 PM
MainThread blocks all others Nodir Gulyamov Python 17 08-16-2005 04:48 PM
Loading usercontrols, viewstate problem, slighly different from all others "viewstate uc problems" please help... ujjc001 ASP .Net 0 07-27-2005 01:52 PM
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b Mike Henley Digital Photography 43 12-15-2004 05:21 PM



Advertisments