MozillaZine

20030504 instable under XP, just like all the last nightlies

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
XF

User avatar
 
Posts: 2059
Joined: December 5th, 2002, 11:10 am
Location: Italy

Post Posted May 7th, 2003, 12:56 pm

Aqua. wrote:Strangely enough, the only program I have that can crash XP itself is Microsoft's Age of Empires I LOL, and it does it regularly.

What make my XPPro crash are (very rarely, but that's the only reason I got some BSODs) the ATI Radeon 7000's drivers...
..::XF::..

old Harry Waldron
Moderator
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted May 7th, 2003, 1:06 pm

Existing bookmarks can be a "showstopper" for deleting your existing profile in the "Documents and Settings" folder. Here's an alternative I've been using for a few years as I've quit using Favorites and Bookmarks altogether.

I use simple web pages with my favorite links stored in folders on my hard drive. With IE, Opera, and FB I always point to a portable web page as the "Home page" so I never have to worry with these no matter which web tool I use.

PORTABLE WEB PAGES -- alternative to bookmarks
http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7508

TGOS
 
Posts: 28
Joined: December 25th, 2002, 12:15 pm

Post Posted May 7th, 2003, 1:24 pm

harrywaldron wrote:Theoretically, no application should crash in XP (at least according to our friends in Redmond - LOL). Seriously though, I've never had an XP crash and I've been running XP since BETA 1 (Whistler).


WinXP doesn't crash, it's just Phoenix that crashes. More precisely WinXP kills it, maybe because of an overflow, NULL pointer exception, index out of bounds access, etc. So in fact crashing is the wrong term, nothing crashes. Windows detects a condition in Phoenix that isn't allowed and forces it to die.

WinXP however is not more stable than other Windows versions :-( In Win98 for example, often the Explorer crashed (desktop hangs) or the task manager (Windows freezes as a whole). Those components were improved in XP, but Win98 would be also more stable if it would have gotten an equally good explorer and task manager. The question is "Can you say Linux is more stable if KDE gets more stable, even though KDE is just a program running on top of the Linux kernel?"

WinXP reboots instead of a blue screen, but if you disable reboot on error, you can see blue screens :-/ On my experimental PCs, where I use Windows like I really want, with my fav. games installed, video and audio editors, digital satellite receiver and so on, Windows crashes as often as Win98 did. So what's XP good for if I can't use it the way I want to use it? MS just hides the same old problems behind roll-backs, uninstallers, auto-backup and auto-restore of system files. A MS system just for MS products? MS products aren't worth the money if you can get them for free. Guess why I'm not browsing with IE (otherwise I wouldn't be here).

But on my working PC, only the necessary software is installed and only MS signed/certificated drivers. And the only program I know that ever makes problems there is Phoenix right now. Everything else still works fine and I can safely let my PC perform heavy work for 9 hours while I'm not at home and everything is fine when I come home again.


NOTE TO TGOS -- I suspect a low-level driver issue (video cards can be an issue). Capture any abend codes and post back. You might lower your video resolution and make sure you have at least 1.5 times the amount of virtual RAM as you do real RAM.


Do you think anyone had gave me the same advise in a Linux group? ;-) A system that only runs stable in certain resolutions or with a certain amoung of v-ram is a useless system. And guess what, WinXP isn't useless. Poor in many aspects, but certainly not useless. Choose the highest resolution possible, disable all v-ram and WinXP will run nonetheless. If you run out of memory, Windows tells you so instead of killing programs. Many people have never seen it, but there exists a message box telling you that your system is low on memory. Despite that, WinXP works fine using 1280x1024, 64 MB RAM and swap file disabled and 10 MB free disk space. You just can't start plenty of programs and it may be slow, but it will work.




Nothing new on that list :-|

rparenton
 
Posts: 7
Joined: April 7th, 2003, 10:13 pm

Post Posted May 7th, 2003, 11:40 pm

TGOS wrote:WinXP however is not more stable than other Windows versions :-( In Win98 for example, often the Explorer crashed (desktop hangs) or the task manager (Windows freezes as a whole). Those components were improved in XP, but Win98 would be also more stable if it would have gotten an equally good explorer and task manager.
XP is based off of the 2K architecture, which itself was based off of the NT architecture. The NT architecture is completely different from the W9x architecture, the main difference being that unlike in 9x, very few processes have access to the kernel, making the OS itself much more stable. However, drivers must have kernel access, and thus a bad driver (which could be the driver for the digital satellite receiver) can cause problems (either on its own or via an application that stresses the driver such as an audio or video editor or a game). As for only using MS signed/certified drivers, that doesn't mean too much. On the Turtle Beach audio card on one of my machines, MS signed and certified a driver for it that would cause a BSOD anytime a CHKDSK /F was run.

TGOS
 
Posts: 28
Joined: December 25th, 2002, 12:15 pm

Post Posted May 9th, 2003, 1:04 pm

rparenton wrote:XP is based off of the 2K architecture, which itself was based off of the NT architecture. The NT architecture is completely different from the W9x architecture, the main difference being that unlike in 9x, very few processes have access to the kernel, making the OS itself much more stable.


This is a marginally difference. The kernel of Win9x wasn't less stable than the one of NT. It's not the kernel itself that crashed, it were services running on top of the kernel that brought the system down. And the kernel of Win9x was also 32 Bit and protected against changes using the protected mode ring system (kernel code was on ring 0, user code on ring 3 and ring 3 code can't overwrite ring 0 code).

For me it's mainly a marketing aspect. Sure, WinNT has only 32 Bit code, while Win9x still had 16 Bit code, but 16 Bit code is not "instable" because it is 16 Bit. It is only instable if it is poorly written :-( (and limited in performance when you perform 32 Bit calculations).

However, drivers must have kernel access, and thus a bad driver (which could be the driver for the digital satellite receiver) can cause problems (either on its own or via an application that stresses the driver such as an audio or video editor or a game).


The original plan of Intel was to have 4 rings. Ring 0 for the kernel, ring 1 for the drivers, ring 2 for the APIs and ring 3 for applications. And code within one ring can only access code within a higher ring or code within the same ring.

And I don't know why this concept was never used (today's OSes only know kernel and user space, the other two aren't used and drivers are in the kernel space). Also I don't understand how buffer overflows on the heap oder stack can be used to smuggle code into a system, because actually there is an executable flag for memory pages and only those with that flag may contain code that is executable. I will never understand why for example the stack is within memory blocks that have this flag set.

As for only using MS signed/certified drivers, that doesn't mean too much. On the Turtle Beach audio card on one of my machines, MS signed and certified a driver for it that would cause a BSOD anytime a CHKDSK /F was run.


So you can't trust into MS? Tell me something new :-)
But what is MS's certificate good for after all if they don't check whether the driver is secure?


BTW, I still couldn't find a way to trigger the bug reliably. I'm still hoping that maybe someone can extract some useful information from my talkback data (I filed a new bug in bugzilla and entered two example talkback ids). In the past I had success with that in case of Mozilla bugs.

YourAverageJoe
 
Posts: 6
Joined: January 27th, 2003, 8:14 am

Post Posted May 13th, 2003, 7:43 am

TGOS wrote:
djst wrote:Could you do us and maybe even yourself a favor?

Please download a build you know where stable before and then create a new profile for that version and use it (with that profile) for a day or so.


That means I had to go back quite a bit. I don't know the exact date, but some of the first April builds were still all stable (at least they never crashed as far as I can tell). However, what's the point of this action? If I use an old version, where I knew it won't crash, with a new profile (that certainly won't crash it either), as the result is already now predictable: It won't crash :-|

FYI, I haven't changed my hardware anymore since fall last year. Neither installed a new driver, nor switched the positions of two PCI cards. I didn't even pluged in a new USB device since then, my BIOS is still the same, the settings, too and I haven't updated anything of the Windows OS after Service Pack 1 for XP. I'm not the kind of guy who tweaks his working PC all the time, therefor I have an older experimental PC with no important data on it.


"If I use an old version, where I knew it won't crash, with a new profile (that certainly won't crash it either), as the result is already now predictable: It won't crash"

This is not true. Maybe if you saved an image of your computer at the time and reloaded it, yes, but otherwise your computer is essentially different from what it was last month. Drivers have been installed, your registry has changed, etc, etc.

If everyone elses builds are working except for yours, then it means it's something wrong/conflicting with your computer.

But if you want to continue to argue and not be a part of the solution that's fine too. You're the one with the problem. Not us.

whorfin

User avatar
 
Posts: 326
Joined: April 1st, 2003, 3:11 pm

Post Posted May 13th, 2003, 7:51 am

XF wrote:
Aqua. wrote:Strangely enough, the only program I have that can crash XP itself is Microsoft's Age of Empires I LOL, and it does it regularly.

What make my XPPro crash are (very rarely, but that's the only reason I got some BSODs) the ATI Radeon 7000's drivers...


I had a Radeon 7500 card. I had been a confirmed ATI user for a long, LONG time before that.

After my experiences with the POS drivers for that, I've been on nVidia ever since.

whorfin

User avatar
 
Posts: 326
Joined: April 1st, 2003, 3:11 pm

Post Posted May 13th, 2003, 7:54 am

BTW, where Firebird and XP are concerned, I get the occasional Firebird crash, but I haven't experienced hardly any problems (recently). I run XP Pro SP1.

I was getting this problem where scrolling using the mouse wheel during a page paint in Phoenix would freeze my system hard (not even the reset button would work). It turned out to be a problem with my network driver stack.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests