X
Tippen Sie hierhin, um die Version dieser Website für Mobilgeräte aufzurufen.

Hilfeforum

Which older version to install? 55 or 52ESR? Help please?!

Veröffentlicht

Hi Folks,

I'm still using an older version of firefox to keep essential add-ons that Quantum no longer had. I'm having problems on a windows 7 computer with the version I have on it, and would like advice on the best way to proceed.

I had copied over my profile from a different computer where I'd been using FF55. I'd had some problems with 55, so I installed 52 on this computer, but using that profile. It's not working very well as I can't get vertical tabs or vertical tabs reloaded to work, it's also crashing fairly often for no apparent reason, etc. Now even the "+" symbol to add a new tab has disappeared from the tab bar, and I don't have a clue why or how to get it back!). For what it's worth, this isn't a malware/virus problem - I'm running McAfee and also periodically malwarebytes etc., and scans aren't finding problems. Computer has been restarted several times and so on, and I'm still having the problems. Could this be because the profile was from a firefox 55 version and it's being used on a FF52 version? Or would that not cause this sort of problem?

I don't want to go to 56 because I gather it won't be able to access my older saved sessions (I use Session Manager and those are the sessions I'm concerned about - so if this is NOT a problem, please let me know). I'm concerned about this because wiki says: "...Another change was the introduction of the mozlz4 format, a proprietary variant of the lz4 compression format (.mozlz4 and .jsonlz4 file extensions instead of .json.lz4 as per unix/linux standard). Session data is stored in the lz4 format instead of plain text. Firefox 56 can not recognize the legacy plain text session files, only the lz4-encoded ones...."

So I'm wondering if I should go to 55 on this computer, or 52ESR? I gather the ESR would have better security - but want to know if there's a difference in add-on compatibility or other features since 52ESR is, I gather, based on older code than 55?

If someone could talk me thru the pros and cons of using 55 versus 52ESR I'd sure appreciate it!!!

Also, I would be VERY grateful if folks could point me towards: 1. a reasonably safe site where we can search and install legacy add-ons 2. any webpage which has a good information showing which legacy add-ons now have reasonable replacements in the current FF version.

Hi Folks, I'm still using an older version of firefox to keep essential add-ons that Quantum no longer had. I'm having problems on a windows 7 computer with the version I have on it, and would like advice on the best way to proceed. I had copied over my profile from a different computer where I'd been using FF55. I'd had some problems with 55, so I installed 52 on this computer, but using that profile. It's not working very well as I can't get vertical tabs or vertical tabs reloaded to work, it's also crashing fairly often for no apparent reason, etc. Now even the "+" symbol to add a new tab has disappeared from the tab bar, and I don't have a clue why or how to get it back!). For what it's worth, this isn't a malware/virus problem - I'm running McAfee and also periodically malwarebytes etc., and scans aren't finding problems. Computer has been restarted several times and so on, and I'm still having the problems. Could this be because the profile was from a firefox 55 version and it's being used on a FF52 version? Or would that not cause this sort of problem? I don't want to go to 56 because I gather it won't be able to access my older saved sessions (I use Session Manager and those are the sessions I'm concerned about - so if this is NOT a problem, please let me know). I'm concerned about this because wiki says: "...Another change was the introduction of the mozlz4 format, a proprietary variant of the lz4 compression format (.mozlz4 and .jsonlz4 file extensions instead of .json.lz4 as per unix/linux standard). Session data is stored in the lz4 format instead of plain text. Firefox 56 can not recognize the legacy plain text session files, only the lz4-encoded ones...." So I'm wondering if I should go to 55 on this computer, or 52ESR? I gather the ESR would have better security - but want to know if there's a difference in add-on compatibility or other features since 52ESR is, I gather, based on older code than 55? If someone could talk me thru the pros and cons of using 55 versus 52ESR I'd sure appreciate it!!! Also, I would be VERY grateful if folks could point me towards: 1. a reasonably safe site where we can search and install legacy add-ons 2. any webpage which has a good information showing which legacy add-ons now have reasonable replacements in the current FF version.
Zitieren

Mehr Details zum System

Installierte Plugins

  • Shockwave Flash 32.0 r0

Anwendung

  • User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:53.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/53.0

Weitere Informationen

Tyler Downer
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
1538 Lösungen 10738 Antworten
Veröffentlicht

You should not be using any old version of Firefox. The current version of Firefox is 70, please update to that. Older versions are no longer supported and it is incredibly unsafe to continue using them.

You should not be using any old version of Firefox. The current version of Firefox is 70, please update to that. Older versions are no longer supported and it is incredibly unsafe to continue using them.
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen? 0
Zitieren

Fragesteller

Thanks for the reply Tyler, but that's not helpful. I'm not updating to something that doesn't allow me to use the add-ons I rely on every single day. As to safety, it's my choice to take that risk - thus far I've done so without picking up any viruses or malware.

The only question is which will function better for me, 55, 56, or 52ESR - and not just in terms of safety, but also functionality, add-ons, memory usage/leaks, reliability/not crashing, and so on.

So I'd still very much appreciate help with my question as originally posted, not admonitions to upgrade to the most current version, which won't work for my needs.

Thanks for the reply Tyler, but that's not helpful. I'm not updating to something that doesn't allow me to use the add-ons I rely on every single day. As to safety, it's my choice to take that risk - thus far I've done so without picking up any viruses or malware. The only question is which will function better for me, 55, 56, or 52ESR - and not just in terms of safety, but also functionality, add-ons, memory usage/leaks, reliability/not crashing, and so on. So I'd still very much appreciate help with my question as originally posted, not admonitions to upgrade to the most current version, which won't work for my needs.

Geändert am von Anonymoose

Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren
Tyler Downer
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
1538 Lösungen 10738 Antworten
Veröffentlicht

Which add-ons are you worried you will lose upon updating? I'd suggest installing Firefox 70, and migrating to either new add-ons, or new versions that support a modern version of Firefox.

Which add-ons are you worried you will lose upon updating? I'd suggest installing Firefox 70, and migrating to either new add-ons, or new versions that support a modern version of Firefox.
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen? 0
Zitieren

Fragesteller

Is there some easy way I can create a list of the add-ons I have to upload? There are quite a few that I use every day, and last I checked (it's been some time tho) they didn't have replacements. Then there's also FireFTP, which last I knew it wasn't possible to do FTP from within FF anymore.

Is there some easy way I can create a list of the add-ons I have to upload? There are quite a few that I use every day, and last I checked (it's been some time tho) they didn't have replacements. Then there's also FireFTP, which last I knew it wasn't possible to do FTP from within FF anymore.
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren
Tyler Downer
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
1538 Lösungen 10738 Antworten
Veröffentlicht

For FTP, I'd suggest using https://www.filezilla-project.org.

What other add-ons? You're free to upload a screenshot of your add-on manager

For FTP, I'd suggest using https://www.filezilla-project.org. What other add-ons? You're free to upload a screenshot of your add-on manager
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen? 0
Zitieren

Fragesteller

Ok, here you are. Some of the ones that are disabled I want to work - for example, either vertical tabs or vertical tabs reloaded (I don't care which, but need one or the other). Some I use periodically and enable when needed. A few that are disabled I don't need I guess - for example I'm using ublock so I could remove adblockplus - but that really doesn't matter here because I know both of those are available for current FF.

Pretty sure a number of the others that I use daily aren't, however. IF they were, I'd upgrade even tho I know some of the newer add-ons such as videodownload helper don't work as well in the newer FF compared to the ease with which we could use them in the pre-quantum versions.

But I'd have to have a lot of these with comparable or better replacements available to be willing to upgrade to the current version. FF really killed it for me and millions of others when you went to Quantum and killed our extensions that we like and rely on.

Apparently I have to upload the images one by one - it's not letting me select them all in the "browse" function. Sigh.

Ok, here you are. Some of the ones that are disabled I want to work - for example, either vertical tabs or vertical tabs reloaded (I don't care which, but need one or the other). Some I use periodically and enable when needed. A few that are disabled I don't need I guess - for example I'm using ublock so I could remove adblockplus - but that really doesn't matter here because I know both of those are available for current FF. Pretty sure a number of the others that I use daily aren't, however. IF they were, I'd upgrade even tho I know some of the newer add-ons such as videodownload helper don't work as well in the newer FF compared to the ease with which we could use them in the pre-quantum versions. But I'd have to have a lot of these with comparable or better replacements available to be willing to upgrade to the current version. FF really killed it for me and millions of others when you went to Quantum and killed our extensions that we like and rely on. Apparently I have to upload the images one by one - it's not letting me select them all in the "browse" function. Sigh.
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren

Fragesteller

Tyler, I did as you asked and posted the add-ons I'm using - only to have you go silent.

Would someone please answer my initial question about the pros and cons of FF55 vs. FF52ESR (and if FF56 is unable to "see" prior version sessions from session manager?).

Tyler, I did as you asked and posted the add-ons I'm using - only to have you go silent. Would someone please answer my initial question about the pros and cons of FF55 vs. FF52ESR (and if FF56 is unable to "see" prior version sessions from session manager?).
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8799 Lösungen 71970 Antworten
Veröffentlicht

Anonymoose said

Would someone please answer my initial question about the pros and cons of FF55 vs. FF52ESR (and if FF56 is unable to "see" prior version sessions from session manager?).

Most support volunteers have probably forgotten unusual performance issue differences among those old versions by now. I certainly have.

Since you are using the legacy Session Manager extension to manage your sessions -- an extension that uses its own sessions folder in your profile -- the fact that Firefox's native storage format changed in Firefox 56 to a compressed file isn't really relevant to you, is it?

''Anonymoose [[#answer-1268458|said]]'' <blockquote> Would someone please answer my initial question about the pros and cons of FF55 vs. FF52ESR (and if FF56 is unable to "see" prior version sessions from session manager?). </blockquote> Most support volunteers have probably forgotten unusual performance issue differences among those old versions by now. I certainly have. Since you are using the legacy Session Manager extension to manage your sessions -- an extension that uses its own ''sessions'' folder in your profile -- the fact that Firefox's native storage format changed in Firefox 56 to a compressed file isn't really relevant to you, is it?
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
17587 Lösungen 159101 Antworten
Veröffentlicht

You should see all extensions listed on the "Help -> Troubleshooting Information" (about:support) page.

Firefox 52.9.0 ESR was more recent released than Firefox 55, so from a security point of view 52.9.0 ESR would be a better choice. Also keep in mind last year's issue with the intermediate certificate used for signing extensions.

You should see all extensions listed on the "Help -> Troubleshooting Information" (about:support) page. Firefox 52.9.0 ESR was more recent released than Firefox 55, so from a security point of view 52.9.0 ESR would be a better choice. Also keep in mind last year's issue with the intermediate certificate used for signing extensions.
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren

Fragesteller

jscher2000 said

Most support volunteers have probably forgotten unusual performance issue differences among those old versions by now. I certainly have.

Understandable - tho I still hope perhaps someone might recall that way! :0)

Since you are using the legacy Session Manager extension to manage your sessions -- an extension that uses its own sessions folder in your profile -- the fact that Firefox's native storage format changed in Firefox 56 to a compressed file isn't really relevant to you, is it?

That's what I was wondering - I wasn't sure if they were tied together in any way, or totally separate. Sounds as if perhaps they're separate? In which case, would you suggest I go with FF56, or the FF52ESR?

''jscher2000 [[#answer-1268463|said]]'' <blockquote> Most support volunteers have probably forgotten unusual performance issue differences among those old versions by now. I certainly have.</blockquote> Understandable - tho I still hope perhaps someone might recall that way! :0) <blockquote>Since you are using the legacy Session Manager extension to manage your sessions -- an extension that uses its own ''sessions'' folder in your profile -- the fact that Firefox's native storage format changed in Firefox 56 to a compressed file isn't really relevant to you, is it?</blockquote> That's what I was wondering - I wasn't sure if they were tied together in any way, or totally separate. Sounds as if perhaps they're separate? In which case, would you suggest I go with FF56, or the FF52ESR?
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren

Fragesteller

cor-el said

You should see all extensions listed on the "Help -> Troubleshooting Information" (about:support) page. Firefox 52.9.0 ESR was more recent released than Firefox 55, so from a security point of view 52.9.0 ESR would be a better choice. Also keep in mind last year's issue with the intermediate certificate used for signing extensions.

Thank you Cor-el! I knew there was somewhere to get a listing of installed extensions, but heck if I could recall where. So I appreciate the info.

Thanks also for the reminder about the certificate - yes, I very much recall that - it was a royal pain in the patootie. I've got that add-on also. Do you recall if there was something else that users had to do other than just have the add-on for the problem? I suppose I can look that up on Mozilla's site if you don't happen to recall offhand.

Regardless, thanks to both of you for the replies! Still open to any other thoughts or suggestions from folks - or info on where I can still access legacy add-ons safely, or a good listing/table showing what common legacy add-ons have comparable ones in the latest FF version (or anything post Quantum anyhow).

''cor-el [[#answer-1268505|said]]'' <blockquote> You should see all extensions listed on the "Help -> Troubleshooting Information" (about:support) page. Firefox 52.9.0 ESR was more recent released than Firefox 55, so from a security point of view 52.9.0 ESR would be a better choice. Also keep in mind last year's issue with the intermediate certificate used for signing extensions. </blockquote> Thank you Cor-el! I knew there was somewhere to get a listing of installed extensions, but heck if I could recall where. So I appreciate the info. Thanks also for the reminder about the certificate - yes, I very much recall that - it was a royal pain in the patootie. I've got that add-on also. Do you recall if there was something else that users had to do other than just have the add-on for the problem? I suppose I can look that up on Mozilla's site if you don't happen to recall offhand. Regardless, thanks to both of you for the replies! Still open to any other thoughts or suggestions from folks - or info on where I can still access legacy add-ons safely, or a good listing/table showing what common legacy add-ons have comparable ones in the latest FF version (or anything post Quantum anyhow).
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
17587 Lösungen 159101 Antworten
Veröffentlicht
See this article for more detail: *https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-disabled-or-fail-to-install-firefox
Hat Ihnen das weitergeholfen?
Zitieren
Stellen Sie eine Frage

Sie müssen sich mit Ihrem Benutzerkonto anmelden, um auf Beiträge zu antworten. Bitte stellen Sie eine neue Frage, wenn Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben.