OS and Software > Mozilla Software > New Firefox still having stablility issues?

New Firefox still having stablility issues?

Let's get you to the Mozilla Forum

Edit: My cursor seems to disappear, but it's intermittent

reply to neftv
Have never ever had any such issues and have been using FF since v0.8 on Linux, FreeBSD and Windows.

Just been using Firefox on Windows XP SP3 for several years. The newest version that it was bugging to to upgrade to is the issue it wont stay open even with all the addons disabled. The newest version will work when using it in safe mode. I decided to go back to the 3.6 version till things get worked out.

Well, I'm using XP SP3, too, with FF9.01 and no issues.

reply to neftv
No issues here.

reply to neftv
With or without add-ons installed?[missed your 2nd post] (Will the add-ons you're using in 3.6.26 even work in 10?)

This will be the nature of Rapid Release more so than before Rapid Release was implemented. Whether your issue is bug-related or not, there will certainly be more opportunity for bugs to be found soon after release than before. (Yes, 10.0.1 will be out shortly.)

If you really want to try the "newer" (than 3.6.26? really?) Firefox, then try 9.0.1 instead.
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting."

Can't seem to get to a Mozilla link for 9.0.1 there is all these third party sites. When I do update from help in 3.6 it takes me to download 10.0. I think that is the version causing me the problem.

This is one place:
»releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla···2/en-US/
(I don't use the Mozilla release myself; I use the portable versions from PortableApps.com -- hosted at SourceForge.net -- don't have the exact link there yet... OK, here's that one:
»sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/
You might also be able to find the link at the PortableApps.com site. Here's the "complete" list of Firefox Portable versions on SourceForge:
»sourceforge.net/projects/portabl···e%20Ed./
)
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting."

reply to neftv
Firefox 10.0 and my 31 extensions works just fine for me in Windows XP Home/SP3.

Back when, I installed Firefox 4.0 in a separate folder from 3.X and used a new profile while doing so. Since FF4.0 I've been updating via in the internal updater. So, perhaps you might try with a new profile.

10.0 is working now. I guess uninstalling then reinstalling 3.6 then upgrading to 10.0 seems to have fixed it. Probably some addon was not agreeing with 10.0.

reply to neftv
I have an IBM Aptiva running W2K and FF 10 is running well.

Seriously, how many other new browser versions work with 2000?

FF12 is going to be the last version of FF to work with Windows 2000, although I guess another project like Palemoon or Waterfox could get it working if they tried hard enough.

reply to mod_wastrel
FF 10 is doing the same thing now. As soon as it starts up I don't even get a chance to do anything the application just shuts down. I hardly used it since I last responded to this thread.

First of all, there's no particular reason why you need to update to the latest release level (10) if what you've been using works OK for you (and since it's had the latest security updates to 3.6.whatever). But if you want to "take a look" at the latest Firefox versions, then Firefox Portable is the best way to do it--you can install it alongside the older, presently installed version, even run both at the same time if you like (just requires a setting value change in the .ini file for the portable version). Then you can install the add-ons one by one to see which one might be causing the problem (presuming it's an add-on for the moment--could be an extension or a plug-in which needs to be updated too or something else). Firefox Portable uses a completely self-contained group of files, so you can mess around with it without affecting other installs.
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting."