You are here

FF 3.6 betas not useful.

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
wvJotyV8O8N43X8DMXpN
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 11 months ago
Joined: 2009-11-17 14:47
FF 3.6 betas not useful.

I'm sorry to say this but the 3.6 beta series of FF is a disaster.

None of the three of them are working properly. It is flooding with chrome errors even if all extensions are disabled.
I'm talking about the upgrade situation from version 3.5.5 and I'm not going to do a fresh install because I don't want to reinstall and reconfigure all of my about 40 extensions.

And furthermore it keeps constantly messing around with extensions.ini. 9 out of 10 times it doesn't recognize the path properly and then I have to set it manually in that file.

I don't see why that file is useful in the first place. Without that file it recognizes all extensions always except that they don't work.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 6 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Beta, One Half, Clean

As this is a beta release, it should *NOT* be used as your everyday browser. It's designed so you can test things out. Only 1/2 of extensions have been updated to support it.

So you should not be using it to upgrade a 3.5.5 install. You can install it alongside to test it out and try some of your favorite extensions and see what work. That's the reason it defaults to FirefoxPortableTest instead of upgrading an existing FirefoxPortable install.

Basically, it's a "beta" for a reason.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

m-p-3
m-p-3's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-06-17 21:25
Beta is a beta

It is to be expected to have problems, since these are not a final release and are meant for bug finding.

And most of the extensions at the moment are not tested for 3.6, so don't expect them to work out of the box.

And having 40 extensions installed is certainly not helping.

I know it is a pain to reinstall the extensions, especially with that amount, but it will give you an insight of which extension cause problem.

I'd suggest to install the beta to another location as suggested by the installer to avoid modifying your normal installation and see what happen when you install your extensions.

Gizmokid2005
Gizmokid2005's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-01-17 19:24
It is beta as both previous

It is beta as both previous posts have stated. On the other hand, all my extensions work beautifully, and I haven't had one issue with FF3.6 beta at all. Typically it's due to a configuration issue in your profile when you see these errors.

wvJotyV8O8N43X8DMXpN
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 11 months ago
Joined: 2009-11-17 14:47
So beta cannot be used to update

Thanks for your reactions.
Unfortunately it's too late for me.
There's now something seriously wrong with my installation, because somehow I can't deinstall whatever extension. Firefox says it does so but nothing happens and the extension remains active.

Probably I now have to do a fresh install anyway. Sad

Gizmokid2005
Gizmokid2005's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-01-17 19:24
It depends on what you've

It depends on what you've done. For me, I just copied my profile from my FirefoxPortable install to the 3.6 Beta, installed the add-on compatibility Reporter and all is happy and fine here.

wvJotyV8O8N43X8DMXpN
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 11 months ago
Joined: 2009-11-17 14:47
Found a solution

Well, the most annoying problem at the moment for me seems to be that the extensions.ini file has a tendency to disappear for unknown reasons in between sessions on different computers. This renders the extensions in the profile useless.

However I've found a solution on the internet.
It says that you need to delete these files from your profile:

extensions.cache
extensions.ini
extensions.rdf

And if you do so Firefox will recreate them at the next startup.
I've tried this and it works always, even if extensions.ini has disappeared on its own. The only drawback is that startup takes a while longer.

May be John can integrate this as a feature. I know that it is not allowed to physically alter the distribution of Firefox due to licensing reasons, but may it can be integrated as a switch to the Firefoxportable.exe file or otherwise in an ini-file.

Gizmokid2005
Gizmokid2005's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-01-17 19:24
I doubt it would be

I doubt it would be integrated, as your case seems to be an isolated one. I, for one, have never had an issue like this.

Log in or register to post comments