Big problem since Firefox 106.1 (and confirmed on 106.2) on Windows 7. Not compatible anymore ?

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
619
So here is the thing. Since 106.1 after 105.x, Firefox started to be very slow, freeze, having stuterring videos and even videos non working flawlassely, back and forward on their own.
First I erased about anything that could help (cache, cookies etc etc) but nothing happened.
I desinstalled firefox and reinstalled it, only importing links and reinserting passwords. It become a bit lighter but nothing compared to 105.x.
Now going 106.2 it restarted doing exactly the same as on 106.1 upgrade.
In fact the first thing that doesn't work is Google search. It searches, give results but then I cannot access the page anymore as I cannot type or click on it, whatever I do. I have to type another address than Google.
On ly way to use Google is the type http:/www.google.com directly so it doesn't search Google and then type inside the Google page what I am looking for, and then sometimes it works, sometime it freezes like it happens on everytime I directly serach Through Mozilla search (which is Google).
Il was pissed I would have to reinstall the OS or something, but then I went to another computer with Windows 7, with quite the same hardware (and software), which is quite good (one AMD 2700 the other 2700X, and one 64GB RAM and the other 128GB RAM both ECC, one with AMD Vega 64 and the other with an AMD 580 8GB), and it was updated to Firefox 106.2 and it has exactly the same bad behaviour.

So then I went to another computer, also an AMD 2600 with 16GB ram ECC too and a Nvidia 730, and Windows 10 Pro. Firefox 106.2 had no problem at all, was flawless.

So the problem is clearly Firefox since 106.1. Not AMD, not insufficient GPU hardware not anyything else.
 

lilfiend

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
6,713
Sounds like the problem is you are running windows 7, its EOL.

Times change, update to 10/11 or if you're not a fan of what microsoft is doing with windows these days take the plunge into linux.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,536
Sounds like the problem is you are running windows 7, its EOL.

Times change, update to 10/11 or if you're not a fan of what microsoft is doing with windows these days take the plunge into linux.

It's more likely that Firefox made a change that broke compatibility than Windows 7 breaking compatibility. Win7 is still better than 11 in many ways.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,511
It's more likely that Firefox made a change that broke compatibility than Windows 7 breaking compatibility. Win7 is still better than 11 in many ways.
No it isn't better in any way. Upgrade to a newer one, it's free. That, or downgrade to xp, it's even better than 7! :p
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,470
It's more likely that Firefox made a change that broke compatibility than Windows 7 breaking compatibility. Win7 is still better than 11 in many ways.
There is absolutely zero things I can think of that are better in Windows 7 than Windows 11 other than the pretty translucent window UI.
 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,465
it's not win 7. I'm running win 7 pro w/ firefox 106.0.1, I don't have any of the above problems you mentioned.

My setup is i5 w/ 32 GB RAM and w/i it, a 14GB ram drive that I pipe firefox cache to it. So once I shut down the PC, all cache of all browser, (chrome, firefox) are all gone

but I have seen bugs w/ firefox in the past.

By the way, who would waste $ on ECC?
 

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
619
it's not win 7. I'm running win 7 pro w/ firefox 106.0.1, I don't have any of the above problems you mentioned.

My setup is i5 w/ 32 GB RAM and w/i it, a 14GB ram drive that I pipe firefox cache to it. So once I shut down the PC, all cache of all browser, (chrome, firefox) are all gone

but I have seen bugs w/ firefox in the past.

By the way, who would waste $ on ECC?
Thank you very much. It's what I wanted to know. So it's something else. I have some clue this might be linked to a Java upgrade.

I'm going to test my old Intel systams at the office, running Windows 7 too. Another possibility is this has to do with AMD, since Firefox corrected some problems related to Ryzen 1000 CPUs on 106. They may have messed something.

By the way : ECC should cost less than 9/8th of the non ECC RAM and is a nice safety against many kind of hardware errors. Also DDR5 has implemented some kind of ECC into the hardware. This is a proof that it is needed with the huge amounts of data that a modern PC treats.
 

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
619
About Windows 10/11. Same problem with the UI. MS needs to go back to the standard UI they abandoned nobody can explain why.
Oh yes : wasting our time on their system. Windows 7 and Mac have the best UI because it's fas while keeping all the choices at hand. Windows 8/10/11 UI are made for beginners. the kind that only use iPads all day.
And by the way, I never put the XP interface but changed that to Windows 2000 on all my systems. Microsoft understood that and put back the Windows 2000 interface on Vista and 7. The fact that it's translucent it's a nice touch and somehow helping, but it's far from being the only advantage. This is also that thing about the scrolling menus I avoid and come back to old icons and menus when possible.
I could compare on two people, one using the scrolling menus and the other using icons, shortcuts and menus, on Autocad. The difference in productivity is huge on the oldschool way. So now I force everybody to use the icons and menus.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,536
No it isn't better in any way. Upgrade to a newer one, it's free. That, or downgrade to xp, it's even better than 7! :p

You're wrong. A smaller install footprint is objectively better than a larger one. As if having less free space is ever a good thing.. Please get real. You have a bias for whatever reason.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,440
Arguably a "hack fest" for a computer isn't something I'd recommend to anyone. Upgrade to something supported, or stay off the Internet for certain.

But, I guess I am biased towards keeping people from getting hacked...
 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,465
Thank you very much. It's what I wanted to know. So it's something else. I have some clue this might be linked to a Java upgrade.

I'm going to test my old Intel systams at the office, running Windows 7 too. Another possibility is this has to do with AMD, since Firefox corrected some problems related to Ryzen 1000 CPUs on 106. They may have messed something.

By the way : ECC should cost less than 9/8th of the non ECC RAM and is a nice safety against many kind of hardware errors. Also DDR5 has implemented some kind of ECC into the hardware. This is a proof that it is needed with the huge amounts of data that a modern PC treats.
but I thought most motherboard does NOT support ECC RAM? doesn't it has to be workstation class motherboard that support ECC?
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,511
You're wrong. A smaller install footprint is objectively better than a larger one. As if having less free space is ever a good thing.. Please get real. You have a bias for whatever reason.
Lol! If you're judging os by install footprint, go back to Ms dos. In the meantime don't pollute our internet with a zombie rig. Disk space is cheap, $30 for a 512gb ssd nowadays.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,536
Lol! If you're judging os by install footprint, go back to Ms dos. In the meantime don't pollute our internet with a zombie rig. Disk space is cheap, $30 for a 512gb ssd nowadays.

A smaller install footprint is objectively a good thing. Why would you want your O.S. install to be 1TB if it could be 500GB? By that logic, why not fill your hard drive up to the brim to almost being full? Obviously smaller is better when it comes to system requirements. I'm objectively correct. Larger O.S.es and applications are part of what would force someone to have to spend more money on things. Saving money is a good thing. It's objectively a good thing. You are biased. This has nothing to do with using DOS. It has to do with saving money and time. Lol!
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,511
A smaller install footprint is objectively a good thing. Why would you want your O.S. install to be 1TB if it could be 500GB? By that logic, why not fill your hard drive up to the brim to almost being full? Obviously smaller is better when it comes to system requirements. I'm objectively correct. Larger O.S.es and applications are part of what would force someone to have to spend more money on things. Saving money is a good thing. It's objectively a good thing. You are biased. This has nothing to do with using DOS. It has to do with saving money and time. Lol!
:ROFLMAO:. That is all... The point clearly went over your head and I don't care to debunk this silliness.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,536
:ROFLMAO:. That is all... The point clearly went over your head and I don't care to debunk this silliness.

You didn't actually have a valid point. You attempted to prove that my assertion was wrong, and failed at it. Hahah.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,956
You didn't actually have a valid point. You attempted to prove that my assertion was wrong, and failed at it. Hahah.
Unless you can not afford something larger than a 60GB harddrive, space is cheap, so complaining about a Windows 10 OS install size being larger than Windows 7 as some valid reason to keep an old, easily exploitable and hacked to heck OS running, is silly and makes no sense.
How much disk space do you currently have and how much of that is empty?
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,536
complaining about a Windows 10 OS install size being larger than Windows 7 as some valid reason to keep an old, easily exploitable and hacked to heck OS running, is silly and makes no sense.

Have you read the entire thread? If not please do so. I'm not complaining that the Windows 10 install size is a valid reason to keep an old, easily exploitable and hacked to heck OS running as you claimed that I am. I am correcting GoldenTiger 's incorrect assertion that Windows 7 is not better in any way than Windows 10. It sounds like you didn't fully read the thread. It is obviously objectively better to have more free space than it is to have less free space. This is the reason people sometimes upgrade to larger sized hard drive when they already have a hard drive.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,956
Have you read the entire thread? If not please do so. I'm not complaining that the Windows 10 install size is a valid reason to keep an old, easily exploitable and hacked to heck OS running as you claimed that I am. I am correcting GoldenTiger 's incorrect assertion that Windows 7 is not better in any way than Windows 10. It sounds like you didn't fully read the thread. It is obviously objectively better to have more free space than it is to have less free space. This is the reason people sometimes upgrade to larger sized hard drive when they already have a hard drive.
Yes, i did read the entire thread and you again just proved my points
It is obviously objectively better to have more free space than it is to have less free space.

Not at the cost of

... easily exploitable and hacked to heck OS
Windows 7 is not safe, you are not safe running windows 7, if disk space is SUCH a concern for you, then you need more. Otherwise, what is the point of "empty" disk space, if you are not using it? It is the same as people who buy 16GB of ram, but get upset when applications like chrome use 2G of memory to run.. Why buy more ram if you do not want anything to use it?

Same as disk space.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,511
Of course it's not. But that has nothing to do with GoldenTiger 's false assertion. Are you THAT big of a Windows 11 fanboy that you're totally blind to one single disadvantage that it has over another O.S.?
It's an irrelevant one. Congrats on finding one semantic thing to harp on I guess?
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,511
Irrelevant to you of course. But not irrelevant to everybody, so your retort is moot. We weren't talking about your specific use case, nice try though lol.
No, we were talking about storage, which is your use case. One with a nice ssd is typical, unlike yours. You're pointing out the equivalent of 0.1 fps when we're already at 300. It is irrelevant and so negligible it doesn't matter. Your use case is moot.
 
Last edited:

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,536
Your use case is moot.

That is obvious. But we weren't even talking about my use case. We were talking about how it's better for applications to be smaller than larger, since this has a direct correlation to the amount of free space anyone would have. Nice attempt there at changing the goalpost, however you're still wrong about 7 not having an advantage over 10. I'm still waiting for you to explain how having less free space is a good thing. I'm still waiting, lol.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,956
Of course it's not. But that has nothing to do with GoldenTiger 's false assertion. Are you THAT big of a Windows 11 fanboy that you're totally blind to one single disadvantage that it has over another O.S.?
Curious, why you assume I am a windows 11 fanboy? FYI, I run Manjaro linux as my primary OS.
Windows 11, yes, has its flaws due to changes, but at the core, it is a more secure OS over windows 7 in the current threat landscape. Yes, Windows 11 has it's security holes, as does any OS, but at least they get patched.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,956
That is obvious. But we weren't even talking about my use case. We were talking about how it's better for applications to be smaller than larger, since this has a direct correlation to the amount of free space anyone would have. Nice attempt there at changing the goalpost, however you're still wrong about 7 not having an advantage over 10. I'm still waiting for you to explain how having less free space is a good thing. I'm still waiting, lol.

Over time, applications grow, because application are expected to do more, thus get bigger. As someone else noted above, if space is such a concern, go back to Windows XP, or 98, or something?

Applications will continue to get BIGGER over time, not smaller. it is how the software world works. New features are added, more secure code is written, more compatibility included.. thus = more lines of code.....


Certainly there are plenty of lazy and bad dev's out there who write crappy code that could be better and use less lines, but for the most part, it is what it is.

I am curious, as you did not answer above, how much free disk space do you have?
Why is disk space usage such a huge concern for you?
Why do you feel like, having free, unused disk space, is a bigger benefit, to everything else newer OS's offer?
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
11,120
Using less space isn't always better. We could use DVDs VS Blu-ray, or a game taking more space after you install it's larger texture packs, or DLC. Objectively better then. Better quality, more space.

Windows 10 and beyond is better because that extra space comes with extra security and support and features.

The original "might as well use MS-DOS" really did go over your head imo. The point was that the OS uses considerably less space, but that isn't to say that is an objectively better point regarding it and some sort of redeeming quality.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
11,120
Over time, applications grow, because application are expected to do more, thus get bigger. As someone else noted above, if space is such a concern, go back to Windows XP, or 98, or something?

Applications will continue to get BIGGER over time, not smaller. it is how the software world works. New features are added, more secure code is written, more compatibility included.. thus = more lines of code.....


Certainly there are plenty of lazy and bad dev's out there who write crappy code that could be better and use less lines, but for the most part, it is what it is.

I am curious, as you did not answer above, how much free disk space do you have?
Why is disk space usage such a huge concern for you?
Why do you feel like, having free, unused disk space, is a bigger benefit, to everything else newer OS's offer?
The issue with this line of thinking is, he didn't say he has hard drive space issues. He said that windows 7 does have one redeeming quality over windows 10/11 and that is space. Not that he doesn't have the space, or it's a concern.

But like I said above, would be also claim that MSDOS has that same redeeming quality over his windows 7 install? Not likely.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,956
The issue with this line of thinking is, he didn't say he has hard drive space issues. He said that windows 7 does have one redeeming quality over windows 10/11 and that is space. Not that he doesn't have the space, or it's a concern.

But like I said above, would be also claim that MSDOS has that same redeeming quality over his windows 7 install? Not likely.

if you look at it from another angle the way they are pushing it, that using more space is a bad thing for an OS to do, thus why they are sticking on Windows 7...which then falls into what you noted, if space usage of the OS was such an big selling point, why are they even on Windows 7...
 

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
619
Here are the interesting points in having Windows 7 over Windows 10/11, from my point of view. Windows 8 is so bad in every detail, it's out of the question for everybody, I believe.

1) I have professional software I bought, that rare very good and usable and compatible by today standards. They have great value and I bought them forever. They are not working great on Windows 10. I had to reinstall old version of Windows 10 on one computer to make them work with some minor problems. Today, that company, which I name it, Autodesk (but I could add Adobe too but with much cheaper products), only makes subscriptions that costs are close on a by year base, to a complete buy forever use, 10 years ago. As you sow recently, Microsoft with Office is going the same path. As I mentioned, Windows 10 and 11 are an unstable OS, always evolving and forcing you to update, which needs to have subscriptions on all software you install.

2) Another thing with this policy of upgrading all the OS is that one is always on an upgrade path. Not only have to wait for the spontaneous update at unwanted time, but all the previous adaptions to the UI or modifications are lost, since MS is updating most of them to the basic new standard of his. And this is about every 6 months. I am thinking at my parents, nearly 90, who are ok with Windows 7 and Mac, but could not adapt to new standards every 6 months and having my configuration made for them erased every several months. Also the fact that I mainly use Windows 7 and them too is easier for me to help. And as I said, Apple who hasn't really changed his UI for about 20 years needs no adaptation and looks very close to Windows 7. I won't argue about how MS introduced bugs in their forced upgrades to people who have left the MS policy rule and who happened to become unwillingly and unknowingly beta testers.

I have to add the fact That I am in fact using Windows 7 Pro. That OS has the great feature to be able to include a full XP virtualization with that makes that OS the most compatible all times with everything running from MS-DOS to Windows 7. I can even use a very old plotter that only has a a driver made for Windows 2000 as the last OS supported. That plotter works very well and I don't need to replace it with a new one as large paper printing need has become rare and I have full stock of cartridges and some heads for many years.

4) Now, about the UI in Window 8, 10, 11 : MS has rethought his UI as if all the users were coming form tablets. I mean, everything is made for full screen and big icons to click on. So because of the many features some people use with their software, one needs to chose and since the options are reduced, those icons and choices will be made by the software. This is not my behaviour, being for 40 years a hard learner of my software, I know every inch of their features and I would use them my way.
There is also that ribbon feature, MS introduced in 2007. It is the same thing were MS decides what feature to show you. All those behaviours are made for small screens to avoid showing full menus, and full set of icons. Like I said, people coming from tablets, with non professional use of computers. Because of these screen limitations and need to show everything, I use several screens since the 90s for all my computers, I even move with my laptop and an additional screen of the same size. This is the modern way for me, not the tiny little thing where MS or any other software manufacturer think and decides of how to use their OS and software. So since 2007, I have to reshape the software to get rid of the ribbon and recall the icons. Good thing, the option is still there, mostly hidden even on today software (for instance in Auto desk products).

5) Up to Ryzen 3000 and Intel 9th generation, for sure even if non officially, without any real hack (some minor configuration hacks against some artificial limitations form the manufacturers to please MS), you could use full featured Windows 7, that kind of beat Windows 10 in every inch. Also, I can see that Windows 7, Windows Security Essentials installed and Windows Live, are still updated today on their security features, which is good. Microsoft even provided with new Edge browser to take on MSIE.

I have a thought about Windows 10 LTSC, especially 2021 version. I believe this is the new Windows 7 by today standards with new hardware. If you buy new hardware, including a Threadripper, this is the best option, especially for non subscription software that still exist or is still compatible with this OS. W10 LTSC 2021, supports PCIe 4.0, nvme, all new chipsets with improved drivers, etc and Zen 3 and Intel Core 12th gen (and so probably 13th gen too). On LTSC you can adapt your UI, return close to W7 behaviour by hand to full W7 behaviour by software and that won't move from MS support only based on security.
 
Last edited:

DrezKill

Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
624
it's not win 7. I'm running win 7 pro w/ firefox 106.0.1, I don't have any of the above problems you mentioned.
No problems with latest FF on Win7, but it does load and run faster for me in Linux and Win10 than in Win7. My Win7 Firefox install was almost 8 years old and had become unstable and was running like ass. I uninstalled it, did a fresh install about a month or two ago, been great since.

I run Manjaro linux as my primary OS.
Same. Good shiznit right there.
 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,465
No problems with latest FF on Win7, but it does load and run faster for me in Linux and Win10 than in Win7. My Win7 Firefox install was almost 8 years old and had become unstable and was running like ass. I uninstalled it, did a fresh install about a month or two ago, been great since.


Same. Good shiznit right there.
my firefox at win 7 pro loads up instantly. I use NVMe drive, it also run very fast, everything is instant
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,956
Jandor one not, not Windows 10 LTSC is NOT a good option, for anyone, WIndows 10 LTSC is based off of Windows 10 IoT version. You would be better off getting an ISO of Windows 10 /11 EU edition to just remove cortana, search and some other things and be done with it. LTSC so many people have the wrong idea about it and what it should be used for.
AS for all your other notes, you have a very very very niche use case where you want to use old plotters and such, most of the world does not.

And yes,some people have issues, I have had Windows 11 on my rig for several months now (dual boot with Manjaro linux as my main OS) and for all I use it for, works great, and I have had several version upgrades and not one single setting has changed for me, so again, sure it can happen, but the majority, no issues exist like that.

And just because MS updates their AV, does not mean your OS is patched, that is the problem here, the core OS is unpatched and insecure and easily exploited, most AV is about 30% effective when it comes down to it, and there are several methods to run malicious code and get around Defender.

Agree, Windows 8 was a joke for MS trying to combine tablet users and desktop, but WIndows 10/11 - are not that different from 7 with the start menu and you can remove items and adjust as needed also. I feel like most people who crap all over a new OS from MS, have not used it for more than 5 minutes, or just read the people crapping on it from the internet, with out any real long term usage of it.

As said, when Windows 7 came out, Windows XP people swore up and down they would never use it, it was crap, unstable "insert the same lines every person throws around when MS drops a new OS" - and yet, here we are...how many people moved to Windows 7?

Just know running an old outdated, unpatched OS = you are part of the current security problem of the world.

FYI - I can still run plenty of old apps and games and problems on Windows 11, with out subscriptions.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,134
Yeah, boy running Windows 7, eating meat and using a ICE car makes you worse than literal terrorists.
 

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
619
Firefox 106 was the problem on some of the following : Win7, AMD CPU or some other hardware (GPU). Seems fixed in 107.
 

techie81

[H]ard for [H]ardware
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
6,052
Yeah, boy running Windows 7, eating meat and using a ICE car makes you worse than literal terrorists.
You are definitely safer with all the telemetry running in the background... ;)
 
Top