Firefox 2.00.20 keeps checking my addons constantly

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by letterman@invalid.com, Jan 28, 2009.

  1. Guest

    Two days ago I updated from FF 2.00.14 to 2.00.20.
    (I use win98se).

    Ever since, several times a day since I installed it, FF keeps
    checking for addon updates. In the options, I unchecked ALL the
    checking for updates. When I want to check, I'll check, and I surely
    dont need this occuring many times each day. I never had this problem
    with FF 2.00.14.
    I also dont need FF telling me there is an update ver of FF, because
    this is the LAST ver I can use on Win98.

    Why does this keep bugging me?
    Yesterday I let it update all the addons, and that should be good for
    at least a month if not more. This is beyond annoying. I'm about
    ready to go back to 2.00.14 (which I still have installed in it's
    original place, (I put the newer ver in a different folder name).

    Is this a bug in the 2.00.20 version ????
    , Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:41:50 -0800, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> Two days ago I updated from FF 2.00.14 to 2.00.20.
    >> (I use win98se).
    >>
    >> Ever since, several times a day since I installed it, FF keeps
    >> checking for addon updates. In the options, I unchecked ALL the
    >> checking for updates. When I want to check, I'll check, and I surely
    >> dont need this occuring many times each day. I never had this problem
    >> with FF 2.00.14.
    >> I also dont need FF telling me there is an update ver of FF, because
    >> this is the LAST ver I can use on Win98.
    >>
    >> Why does this keep bugging me?
    >> Yesterday I let it update all the addons, and that should be good for
    >> at least a month if not more. This is beyond annoying. I'm about
    >> ready to go back to 2.00.14 (which I still have installed in it's
    >> original place, (I put the newer ver in a different folder name).
    >>
    >> Is this a bug in the 2.00.20 version ????

    >
    >Yes, it is a bug, but I've never experienced it. Try
    >whats being said here:
    >http://kb.mozillazine.org/Updates_reported_when_running_newest_version



    I did what you suggested. Those .XML files did not exist in my
    installation of FF2.00.20.

    They DID exist in my installation of FF 2.00.14. Just in case one was
    affecting the other, I renamed those files in the .14 version. That
    did NOT fix it. Everytime I booted to the .20 version it went to
    check for updates. Worse yet, as long as the .20 version was
    installed, the .14 version was doing the same damn thing.

    I finally got pissed and just deleted the whole folder containing the
    ..20 version, and now the .14 version works fine again. I might see if
    one of the more recent versions BEFORE .20 works, but that .20 version
    is really fucked up.

    I DID NOT use the uninstaller on .20 because I was afraid it might
    delete all the personal settings and bookmarks which are in a
    subdirectory of Windows. Something like Windows/Application
    Data/Mozilla/Firefox.

    All I know is that version .14 always worked fine, and this .20 was
    nothing but a pain in the ass. My biggest gripe about FF has always
    been that it takes much longer to initially load than IE. I know why,
    and I have accepted that, knowing it's a much better browser, but I am
    not going to wait yet another minute for it to check for updates
    everytime I load it. If there was a way to do it, I'd totally disable
    ALL automatic updates. I do this in ALL programs. I'll manually
    update when I WANT to update, not when I am busy doing something else.
    Apparently this is not possible in the 2.00.20 version.

    LM
    , Jan 29, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:

    > I DID NOT use the uninstaller on .20 because I was afraid it might
    > delete all the personal settings and bookmarks which are in a
    > subdirectory of Windows. Something like Windows/Application
    > Data/Mozilla/Firefox.


    first, a lesson. All your bookmarks, passwords,
    settings, etc, are stored in an area called the FF
    profile. This profile is separate from where the
    program is located. When you uninstall, all you're
    doing is removing the program. The profile is not
    touched. When you install other, it picks up the same
    profile and starts using that.

    > All I know is that version .14 always worked fine, and this .20 was
    > nothing but a pain in the ass. My biggest gripe about FF has always
    > been that it takes much longer to initially load than IE. I know why,
    > and I have accepted that,



    the reason IE loads faster is because when you start up
    windows, have you noticed it takes a while to start?
    Thats because its loading certain programs. One of
    them being IE. So, therefore, IE is preloaded.

    There is a preloader for FF, but I don't know the name
    of it at this time. It keeps FF in memory so when you
    restart FF it loads a little faster.

    --
    *IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
    help!!!!

    Warning: Private emails sent to me may become public

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, Jan 29, 2009
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:23:02 -0800, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> I DID NOT use the uninstaller on .20 because I was afraid it might
    >> delete all the personal settings and bookmarks which are in a
    >> subdirectory of Windows. Something like Windows/Application
    >> Data/Mozilla/Firefox.

    >
    >first, a lesson. All your bookmarks, passwords,
    >settings, etc, are stored in an area called the FF
    >profile. This profile is separate from where the
    >program is located. When you uninstall, all you're
    >doing is removing the program. The profile is not
    >touched. When you install other, it picks up the same
    >profile and starts using that.
    >
    >> All I know is that version .14 always worked fine, and this .20 was
    >> nothing but a pain in the ass. My biggest gripe about FF has always
    >> been that it takes much longer to initially load than IE. I know why,
    >> and I have accepted that,

    >
    >
    >the reason IE loads faster is because when you start up
    >windows, have you noticed it takes a while to start?
    >Thats because its loading certain programs. One of
    >them being IE. So, therefore, IE is preloaded.
    >
    >There is a preloader for FF, but I don't know the name
    >of it at this time. It keeps FF in memory so when you
    >restart FF it loads a little faster.


    Thanks for the help.

    I guess if a person was to want to completely get rid of FF, they
    would have to manually delete the profile, huh?

    After getting rid of FF 2.00.20, I found that I had downloaded FF
    2.00.17 a while back and never installed it. I just upgraded to that
    version and it works fine. Apparently this bug is only in the 2.00.20
    version. I wanted to try the 2.00.19 ver. I found that one exists on
    a website, but whenever I click on a link it takes me to download FF3.
    On that page there is a link to download FF2. But that link ONLY goes
    to the download for 2.00.20.

    Where can a person download other older versions of FF?

    By the way, just a personal gripe. Why has mozilla abandoned those of
    us who use older versions of windows, such as Win98? Did Microsoft
    pay them? I always thought that Mozilla was trying to kill the
    monopoly that MS had on much software, such as IE. So why is Mozilla
    not sleeping in the same bed as MS? Yes, I am aware that most users
    are now running XP or Vista, but there are some of us who are tired of
    having to keep buying and re-buying computers and operating systems
    just because MS wants our money. Win98 works fine for me, and I can
    save another older comupter from polluting a landfill. For what I do,
    Win98 is all I need. These high powered computers are only needed for
    persons who use their computers for gaming. I do none of that. I
    think Mozilla has lost their original purpose and are now going
    mainstream and taking payoffs from the enemy (MS).
    I especially feel strongly about this because Mozilla IS supporting
    Linux. I have no objection to that, but I would bet there are more
    Win98 thru Win2K users than there are Linux users.

    I'd be thrilled if I could completely get away from using MS software,
    but the alternatives do not exist. I tried Linux and found it much too
    complicated and lacking in support for most "standard" software. It's
    a world of it's own, but does not accomodate the average home or small
    business computer user. I'm perfectly happy with Win98, but it angers
    me when alternative companies like Mozilla do not respect those of us
    who are tired of MS FORCED upgrades and spend more and more money
    attitude.

    I bought a computer to USE IT. NOT to keep re-buying them and
    relearning how to use them. I tried XP, just to see if it had
    something I wanted. Not only did it not offer me anything more than
    what I have now, but I hated it. I went back to what works and what I
    like.

    LM
    , Jan 30, 2009
    #4
  5. wrote:
    > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:23:02 -0800, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I DID NOT use the uninstaller on .20 because I was afraid it might
    >>> delete all the personal settings and bookmarks which are in a
    >>> subdirectory of Windows. Something like Windows/Application
    >>> Data/Mozilla/Firefox.

    >> first, a lesson. All your bookmarks, passwords,
    >> settings, etc, are stored in an area called the FF
    >> profile. This profile is separate from where the
    >> program is located. When you uninstall, all you're
    >> doing is removing the program. The profile is not
    >> touched. When you install other, it picks up the same
    >> profile and starts using that.
    >>
    >>> All I know is that version .14 always worked fine, and this .20 was
    >>> nothing but a pain in the ass. My biggest gripe about FF has always
    >>> been that it takes much longer to initially load than IE. I know why,
    >>> and I have accepted that,

    >>
    >> the reason IE loads faster is because when you start up
    >> windows, have you noticed it takes a while to start?
    >> Thats because its loading certain programs. One of
    >> them being IE. So, therefore, IE is preloaded.
    >>
    >> There is a preloader for FF, but I don't know the name
    >> of it at this time. It keeps FF in memory so when you
    >> restart FF it loads a little faster.

    >
    > Thanks for the help.
    >
    > I guess if a person was to want to completely get rid of FF, they
    > would have to manually delete the profile, huh?


    you can always try a test profile to see if the profile
    is the problem or not. To do that, click on the
    windows start button, then run and enter:


    firefox.exe -p

    this will bring up the profile manager. From here you
    can create a test profile. Have FF start in that
    profile, and see if the update problem continues. If
    it does, then you do have a bug. If not, then there is
    something wrong with the other profile.


    >
    > After getting rid of FF 2.00.20, I found that I had downloaded FF
    > 2.00.17 a while back and never installed it. I just upgraded to that
    > version and it works fine. Apparently this bug is only in the 2.00.20
    > version. I wanted to try the 2.00.19 ver. I found that one exists on
    > a website, but whenever I click on a link it takes me to download FF3.
    > On that page there is a link to download FF2. But that link ONLY goes
    > to the download for 2.00.20.
    >
    > Where can a person download other older versions of FF?



    http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

    >
    > By the way, just a personal gripe. Why has mozilla abandoned those of
    > us who use older versions of windows, such as Win98? Did Microsoft
    > pay them? I always thought that Mozilla was trying to kill the
    > monopoly that MS had on much software, such as IE. So why is Mozilla
    > not sleeping in the same bed as MS? Yes, I am aware that most users
    > are now running XP or Vista, but there are some of us who are tired of
    > having to keep buying and re-buying computers and operating systems
    > just because MS wants our money. Win98 works fine for me, and I can
    > save another older comupter from polluting a landfill. For what I do,
    > Win98 is all I need. These high powered computers are only needed for
    > persons who use their computers for gaming. I do none of that. I
    > think Mozilla has lost their original purpose and are now going
    > mainstream and taking payoffs from the enemy (MS).
    > I especially feel strongly about this because Mozilla IS supporting
    > Linux. I have no objection to that, but I would bet there are more
    > Win98 thru Win2K users than there are Linux users.
    >
    > I'd be thrilled if I could completely get away from using MS software,
    > but the alternatives do not exist. I tried Linux and found it much too
    > complicated and lacking in support for most "standard" software. It's
    > a world of it's own, but does not accomodate the average home or small
    > business computer user. I'm perfectly happy with Win98, but it angers
    > me when alternative companies like Mozilla do not respect those of us
    > who are tired of MS FORCED upgrades and spend more and more money
    > attitude.
    >
    > I bought a computer to USE IT. NOT to keep re-buying them and
    > relearning how to use them. I tried XP, just to see if it had
    > something I wanted. Not only did it not offer me anything more than
    > what I have now, but I hated it. I went back to what works and what I
    > like.
    >
    > LM


    I've had this arguement with the Moz people many, many
    times. I had win98 up until Jan of last year. What
    they've done is dropped the old code and favor of new
    code, and this newer crap won't run on win98. There is
    supposed to be a kernel update you can use on win98
    that will make winXP programs run on a win98 machine.
    I don't know if it will work or not and don't blame me
    if your machine blows up. Others are using it with no
    problems: http://x86.neostrada.pl/KernelEx/
    http://www.msfn.org/board/KernelEx-v035-released-t71476.html

    If you do go ahead with this, then you're doing so at
    your peril

    --
    *IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
    help!!!!

    Warning: Private emails sent to me may become public

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, Jan 31, 2009
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. addons.mozilla.org hangs

    , Sep 8, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    598
    Moz Champion
    Sep 12, 2005
  2. Tony Martin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    436
    Tony Martin
    Nov 17, 2006
  3. Useless Firefox Addons

    , Dec 16, 2007, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,373
    ArseClown
    Jan 6, 2008
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    7,676
    Lukan
    Feb 25, 2008
  5. fatsteve

    Which Firefox addons do you use?

    fatsteve, Nov 11, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    825
    fatsteve
    Nov 15, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page