X
Tap here to go to the mobile version of the site.

منتدى الدعم

This thread was closed and archived. Please ask a new question if you need help.

How to go back one version?

Posted

I don't want to use version 23. How can I revert to 22? Windows Vista

And why isn't there a FAQ for this? I tried various questions and got nothing useful.

I don't want to use version 23. How can I revert to 22? Windows Vista And why isn't there a FAQ for this? I tried various questions and got nothing useful.

Chosen solution

There actually is an article in the knowledge base, but maybe the title didn't jump out at you: Install an older version of Firefox.

Since I answered your question, will you answer the questions about why you feel it's necessary to downgrade?

Read this answer in context 2

Additional System Details

Installed Plug-ins

  • Adobe PDF Plug-In For Firefox and Netscape 10.1.7

Application

  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/23.0

More Information

Tyler Downer
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
1530 solutions 10669 answers

You shouldn't revert as using old versions of Firefox leaves you at horrible security risks. What issues are you having with 23?

You shouldn't revert as using old versions of Firefox leaves you at horrible security risks. What issues are you having with 23?

Question owner

That is not an answer. How do I go back to 22?

That is not an answer. How do I go back to 22?
kobe 441 solutions 5048 answers

This is a question. What is your problem with the new version? We could easily fix it, instead of having you suffer thru security issues.

refer to august 6th: https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/

This is a question. What is your problem with the new version? We could easily fix it, instead of having you suffer thru security issues. refer to august 6th: https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8692 solutions 71041 answers

Chosen Solution

There actually is an article in the knowledge base, but maybe the title didn't jump out at you: Install an older version of Firefox.

Since I answered your question, will you answer the questions about why you feel it's necessary to downgrade?

There actually is an article in the knowledge base, but maybe the title didn't jump out at you: [[Install an older version of Firefox]]. Since I answered your question, will you answer the questions about why you feel it's necessary to downgrade?

Helpful Reply

That is close to what I asked, but it did not show up in my several questions. The page is 95% "don't do it" and is oriented towards installing an older version, not reverting a simple upgrade. I will look at it later to see if it looks reasonable (I suspect it requires handstands if not carwheels...). So thanks anyway for a plausible lead.

"Since I answered your question, will you answer the questions about why you feel it's necessary to downgrade? "

I am not aware of any quid pro quo, and I have separately submitted feedback about some of the lousy new features in 23. Forcing users to go to About Config is a really awful way to separate the idiots who need a babysitter from users who take responsibility for their browsing needs.

re Mr "downer" -- "old versions of Firefox leaves you at horrible security risks" If 22 was so horrible, shame on whoever released it in the first place. I mean really!

re WFF: "We could easily fix it" I have to call b*llsh*t. Last time I reported a new bug was 2008 or 2009 when I first started using Firefox. It got reported by others in bugzilla under various threads for YEARS before something happened at the user end despite followups and plenty of what looked like developer chit chat. So "you" have zero credibility. Read your feedback, please. I can't seem to find my submission under dozens or more new feedbacks and my History doesn't seem to have a unique entry for my feedback form/page. I had to submit new feedback just to find the "feedback dashboard" just now despite trying a couple of searches (without recalling 'dashboard' or 'input' terms being involved).

In this case "you" have chosen to dumb down 23. It's annoying.

That is close to what I asked, but it did not show up in my several questions. The page is 95% "don't do it" and is oriented towards installing an older version, not reverting a simple upgrade. I will look at it later to see if it looks reasonable (I suspect it requires handstands if not carwheels...). So thanks anyway for a plausible lead. "Since I answered your question, will you answer the questions about why you feel it's necessary to downgrade? " I am not aware of any quid pro quo, and I have separately submitted feedback about some of the lousy new features in 23. Forcing users to go to About Config is a really awful way to separate the idiots who need a babysitter from users who take responsibility for their browsing needs. re Mr "downer" -- "old versions of Firefox leaves you at horrible security risks" If 22 was so horrible, shame on whoever released it in the first place. I mean really! re WFF: "We could easily fix it" I have to call b*llsh*t. Last time I reported a new bug was 2008 or 2009 when I first started using Firefox. It got reported by others in bugzilla under various threads for YEARS before something happened at the user end despite followups and plenty of what looked like developer chit chat. So "you" have zero credibility. Read your feedback, please. I can't seem to find my submission under dozens or more new feedbacks and my History doesn't seem to have a unique entry for my feedback form/page. I had to submit new feedback just to find the "feedback dashboard" just now despite trying a couple of searches (without recalling 'dashboard' or 'input' terms being involved). In this case "you" have chosen to dumb down 23. It's annoying.
kobe 441 solutions 5048 answers

Yes Firefox does have to be "dumbed down"

refer to: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill

See what happens when he disables Javascript on google.

and there are many addons to restore features such as

So yes, i can easily fix your problem, nor is any product perfect at security.

Yes Firefox does have to be "dumbed down" refer to: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill ''See what happens when he disables Javascript on google.'' and there are many addons to restore features such as * https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-with-one-tab/ * https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/image-block/?src=search * https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quickjs/?src=search So yes, i can easily fix your problem, nor is any product perfect at security.

Modified by kobe

Question owner

I dug through the dashboard and found a permalink: https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/dashboard/response/3892861

That's from about 5 minutes in 23 so it's likely I could add more issues to it. This thread isn't about 23 failings, but someone asked. If you must offer dumbed down versions, why not offer a simple Advanced User option under the Advanced Settings icon in Options?

I dug through the dashboard and found a permalink: https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/dashboard/response/3892861 That's from about 5 minutes in 23 so it's likely I could add more issues to it. This thread isn't about 23 failings, but someone asked. If you must offer dumbed down versions, why not offer a simple Advanced User option under the Advanced Settings icon in Options?

Question owner

Getting back to the topic, what do I have to watch out for if I "reinstall" 22, what is at risk of being lost or corrupted etc? How do I go about protecting or saving stuff and then making it show up in 22? I only upgraded to 23 today, btw. I did not see ANY info at the linked knowledge base page about how to go about reverting. That's kind of astounding in a :( way.

Getting back to the topic, what do I have to watch out for if I "reinstall" 22, what is at risk of being lost or corrupted etc? How do I go about protecting or saving stuff and then making it show up in 22? I only upgraded to 23 today, btw. I did not see ANY info at the linked knowledge base page about how to go about reverting. That's kind of astounding in a :( way.
kobe 441 solutions 5048 answers

Reverting one version down (ill give you another warning that its a bad idea) will unlikely cause data corruption. I would still just install the addon(s) to get the selected functionality back as i have already stated.

Refer to

Reverting one version down (ill give you another warning that its a bad idea) will unlikely cause data corruption. I would still just install the addon(s) to get the selected functionality back as i have already stated. Refer to * [[Back up and restore information in Firefox profiles]]
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8692 solutions 71041 answers

Not quid pro quo as in legal obligation, just a courtesy. Thank you for the additional info.

In some cases, an upgrade will irreversibly change a data or settings file so that it's simply no longer downwards compatible. I'm not aware of anything between Firefox 22 and Firefox 23 that would cause a major problem, but I do suggest making a backup copy of your profile folder(s) (this article has tips: Back up and restore information in Firefox profiles) so that if the Firefox 22 installer scrambles some data or settings, you have the possibility of recovering from a clean reference point. And that's the downgrade process: run the Firefox 22 installer: it should find your settings folder and there's a reasonable chance it will work on the first try. As noted above, the main concern about downgrading is that known vulnerabilities have been published. Although you may manage to steer clear of exploits through conservative browsing habits or luck, it's always recommended to use a version where those holes have been closed.

With respect to the two missing checkboxes, I'm not sure whether you are objecting on principle or whether you used them frequently. They are rather crude tools for managing pages, so while it was handy that they were there, I suspect there are better ways to accomplish what you were using them for. Could you describe your use case?

With respect to "going to nonsecure pages from secure pages," what change have you noticed in Firefox 23? We just had a lengthy thread about this in Firefox 22 (How do disable this Warning? Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection) and I wasn't aware of any changes.

Not ''quid pro quo'' as in legal obligation, just a courtesy. Thank you for the additional info. In some cases, an upgrade will irreversibly change a data or settings file so that it's simply no longer downwards compatible. I'm not aware of anything between Firefox 22 and Firefox 23 that would cause a major problem, but I do suggest making a backup copy of your profile folder(s) (this article has tips: [[Back up and restore information in Firefox profiles]]) so that if the Firefox 22 installer scrambles some data or settings, you have the possibility of recovering from a clean reference point. And that's the downgrade process: run the Firefox 22 installer: it should find your settings folder and there's a reasonable chance it will work on the first try. As noted above, the main concern about downgrading is that known vulnerabilities have been published. Although you may manage to steer clear of exploits through conservative browsing habits or luck, it's always recommended to use a version where those holes have been closed. With respect to the two missing checkboxes, I'm not sure whether you are objecting on principle or whether you used them frequently. They are rather crude tools for managing pages, so while it was handy that they were there, I suspect there are better ways to accomplish what you were using them for. Could you describe your use case? With respect to "going to nonsecure pages from secure pages," what change have you noticed in Firefox 23? We just had a lengthy thread about this in Firefox 22 ([https://support.mozilla.org/questions/964250 How do disable this Warning? Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection]) and I wasn't aware of any changes.
James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11246 answers

re Mr "downer" -- "old versions of Firefox leaves you at horrible security risks" If 22 was so horrible, shame on whoever released it in the first place. I mean really!

You misread or misunderstood. He was Saying Firefox 22.0 (and earlier) is potentially vulnerable due to not having security fixes that have been found and or fixed after the 22.0 release in the Firefox 23.0 version. https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox.html

'''''re Mr "downer" -- "old versions of Firefox leaves you at horrible security risks" If 22 was so horrible, shame on whoever released it in the first place. I mean really!''''' You misread or misunderstood. He was Saying Firefox 22.0 (and earlier) is potentially vulnerable due to not having security fixes that have been found and or fixed after the 22.0 release in the Firefox 23.0 version. https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox.html

Modified by James

Question owner

Sometimes I want to turn JavaScript off then turn it on again. Sometimes I want to disable image autoload. I don't want to add extensions. While 22 and before were far from perfect, 23 is worse.

" crude tools for managing pages" and 23 makes that worse.

re secure and nonsecure pages, I can't believe you're asking me. I never had a problem in 22 or before that. Now I have to manually approve every damn instance each time I go try to use the ordinary link on the secure page, or I have to remember to open it in a new tab or window. That's, frankly, asinine.

From that thread, "What is wrong with you that you keep sprouting this drivel?" I ask you too, what's wrong with you? Also from that thread, "only when a POST is submitted from a secure site to an insecure site". Well, I'm not clear on POST but while I didn't fill out any form on the starting page, the website might be using POST behind the scenes. That worked fine in 22. As I said before forums.craigslist.org shows the problem. Go there and try the CL or craigslist link in the top frame. You don't have to be logged in as a CL forums user. If CL is violating standard practices, that's one thing, but I'm telling you 22 was fine so it's something "you" changed for the worse.

Sometimes I want to turn JavaScript off then turn it on again. Sometimes I want to disable image autoload. I don't want to add extensions. While 22 and before were far from perfect, 23 is worse. " crude tools for managing pages" and 23 makes that worse. re secure and nonsecure pages, I can't believe you're asking me. I never had a problem in 22 or before that. Now I have to manually approve every damn instance each time I go try to use the ordinary link on the secure page, or I have to remember to open it in a new tab or window. That's, frankly, asinine. From that thread, "What is wrong with you that you keep sprouting this drivel?" I ask you too, what's wrong with you? Also from that thread, "only when a POST is submitted from a secure site to an insecure site". Well, I'm not clear on POST but while I didn't fill out any form on the starting page, the website might be using POST behind the scenes. That worked fine in 22. As I said before forums.craigslist.org shows the problem. Go there and try the CL or craigslist link in the top frame. You don't have to be logged in as a CL forums user. If CL is violating standard practices, that's one thing, but I'm telling you 22 was fine so it's something "you" changed for the worse.

Question owner

James, I did neither. I dismissed his arrogance in a nutshell. His comment was totally out of line and yours is insulting on top of that.

James, I did neither. I dismissed his arrogance in a nutshell. His comment was totally out of line and yours is insulting on top of that.

Question owner

sigh, at craigslist the problem occurs in forums, like https://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=1564 -- the link I gave came out as just the forums list page (choose any forum from there to test). That list page seems to behave but the individual forums page links break/lock up.

sigh, at craigslist the problem occurs in forums, like https://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=1564 -- the link I gave came out as just the forums list page (choose any forum from there to test). That list page seems to behave but the individual forums page links break/lock up.
James
  • Moderator
1596 solutions 11246 answers

Insulting.. right. so I take it you think your comment If 22 was so horrible, shame on whoever released it in the first place. I mean really! was not out of line in any way.

He was clear enough that he was referring to security risks and not saying Firefox 22.0 itself was horrible.

Really the main reason it is discouraged to downgrade is due to the potential security vulnerabilities (mentioned in the link I posted) the older version can encounter. The only older version that is still almost as secure as 23.0 is the 17.0.8esr (released when 23.0 was) meant more for Enterprise users.

Insulting.. right. so I take it you think your comment '''''If 22 was so horrible, shame on whoever released it in the first place. I mean really!''''' was not out of line in any way. He was clear enough that he was referring to security risks and not saying Firefox 22.0 itself was horrible. Really the main reason it is discouraged to downgrade is due to the potential security vulnerabilities (mentioned in the link I posted) the older version can encounter. The only older version that is still almost as secure as 23.0 is the 17.0.8esr (released when 23.0 was) meant more for Enterprise users.
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8692 solutions 71041 answers

Hi joetoday, I can't replicate the problem. I tried various links on the forums, and around Craig's List. The links to load messages in the frame only use GET requests which do not (normally) generate secure-to-insecure error messages. Perhaps there is an extension issue?

Hi joetoday, I can't replicate the problem. I tried various links on the forums, and around Craig's List. The links to load messages in the frame only use GET requests which do not (normally) generate secure-to-insecure error messages. Perhaps there is an extension issue?

Question owner

jscher2000, Since you don't say you tried the specific links I mentioned which show the problem, I'm dropping out since you're just wasting my time and this is way off topic. " Go there and try the CL or craigslist link in the top frame."

James, If 22 had vulnerabilities which allowed horrible risks, it was horrible in that regard.

jscher2000, Since you don't say you tried the specific links I mentioned which show the problem, I'm dropping out since you're just wasting my time and this is way off topic. " Go there and try the CL or craigslist link in the top frame." James, If 22 had vulnerabilities which allowed horrible risks, it was horrible in that regard.
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8692 solutions 71041 answers

Oh, the top frame links to leave the forum. Yes, I see now. Some of the links load http pages instead of https pages (screem shot).

Normally, that would not trigger a mixed content warning, but apparently the logic is different in a frameset, because switching an insecure page into a frameset may be a security issue. However, I think there is a bug here: the link has target="_top" meaning that the frameset goes away and is replaced by the insecure page. That is not a mixed content situation. Hopefully someone is already working on fixing that.

Edit: I see you mentioned those two links in an earlier post. I read up from the end of the thread and tested your link without noticing the earlier instructions. Apologies for the oversight.

Oh, the top frame links to leave the forum. Yes, I see now. Some of the links load http pages instead of https pages (screem shot). Normally, that would not trigger a mixed content warning, but apparently the logic is different in a frameset, because switching an insecure page into a frameset may be a security issue. However, I think there is a bug here: the link has target="_top" meaning that the frameset goes away and is replaced by the insecure page. That is not a mixed content situation. Hopefully someone is already working on fixing that. ''Edit: I see you mentioned those two links in an earlier post. I read up from the end of the thread and tested your link without noticing the earlier instructions. Apologies for the oversight.''

Modified by jscher2000

Warehouseman 0 solutions 4 answers

I am surprised at this simple concern turning so unnecessarily ugly. I think you guys at Mozilla are great and, personally, after at least a decade of nearly 100% problem free browsing, free of charge, I'd be ashamed to treat you the way joetoday has done.

But to get to the point:

I have a perfectly adequate reason for wanting to revert from 23 to 22. I use Selenium (& SEL-Blocks) for testing purposes in a virtual machine where I have 0 worries about security.

As of upgrading to 23 yesterday my Selenium scripts are broken.

http://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=6055

Imho, a "revert upgrade" command for FireFox would be a capability welcomed by anyone whose work depends in one way or another on FireFox add-ons that may, or may not, survive some version updates.

( My dev VM is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, and I upgraded with apt-get. )

''I am surprised at this simple concern turning so unnecessarily ugly. I think you guys at Mozilla are great and, personally, after at least a decade of nearly 100% problem free browsing, free of charge, I'd be ashamed to treat you the way joetoday has done.'' '''But to get to the point:''' I have a perfectly adequate reason for wanting to revert from 23 to 22. I use Selenium (& SEL-Blocks) for testing purposes in a virtual machine where I have 0 worries about security. As of upgrading to 23 yesterday my Selenium scripts are broken. [http://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=6055 http://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=6055] Imho, a "revert upgrade" command for FireFox would be a capability welcomed by anyone whose work depends in one way or another on FireFox add-ons that may, or may not, survive some version updates. ( My dev VM is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, and I upgraded with apt-get. )
kobe 441 solutions 5048 answers

Warehouseman: the .deb packages are handeled by Ubuntu, you can downgrade from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ though.

Warehouseman: the .deb packages are handeled by Ubuntu, you can downgrade from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ though.