Lost firefox 1.0.1

Hi there.
Little mystery for me there...
I upgraded firefox 1.0 to 1.0.1 a few days ago, using the installer file. Ok, reading the posts I now know that using the zip file is safer , anyway, it's been done that way at that time.
I had to restart the comp yesterday and now firefox is totally gone...
What happened??
- xp pro sp1
- no i can't remember uninstalling firefox 1.0 after install of upgrade
- no virus, no malware
- no change in the directories tree
actually haven't done anythg on that comp but surfing the web.

It's no big deal as my profile is still on the comp, so I'm going to reinstall it. I'm just a bit doubtful about setting up the upgrade on the other comps now :/.
Any idea what happened?

Edit : note : firefox 1.0.1 is still in the add/remove program list.

 

Hi christer

I did install the full version. Moving to a new version is what I call an "upgrade ". Otherwise it wud be an "update ".
But I understand what you mean : the new versions don't install over the previous ones properly. So "upgrading" is not mozilla-friendly, a proper installation over nothing is better. Not really convenient :/.
Right, I didn't know that, cos I was only used to mozilla on linux and netscape on windows. Each of them made for the respective systems. I'm quite new to mozilla on windows.
Gonna remove 1.0 before installing 1.0.1 on the other comps to avoid the gremlins then .

Still, if someone has an explanation for my 1st comp gremlin, my ears are all open.

 

I still don't understand the meaning of update, which, to me, and I think you, would mean the addition/subtraction/modification of part of a program to to improve it or whatever. But, of course, one has to think differently from Microsoft product, where "patches" are the norm. So, by the end of one year, the files may have doubled in size. But, in Mozilla/firefox/netscape there are no patches in the Microsoft sense, although it is possible to just add invidual files or folder, and make the program different.
In the above cases, the new installation is supposed to replace the older one, but it does not, and may cause all sort of problems, and the Registry still retains
information about the old program. All this is bad, but I am used to.
Now, you say that Firefox is "totally" gone. Do you mean that you went to installation location, usually, Program Files|Mozilla Firefox, and there is no folder there? To me, totally mean that there is nothing on the hard drive, but to many the simple fact that it is not where it is supposed to be, i.e. the Desktop shortcut is missing means absence. But, if the program is listed in the Add/Remove, it means that the registry is still there. A simpler way to check for the program, is to look at the Start Programs, Start|All Programs| is there a Mozilla Firefox. You can right click|Send shortcut to desktop from the Start function.

 

Such a MESS I have!!

Hello-Westside and All,
Naturally, I've done much the same as many posts say here. D/l 1.0.1 over 1.0!!!!!Now I've got 14 plus mgs. of really messed up FF!!!!

Programmers will have to make upgrades - updates, ect. more user friendly than this!! It's impossible to know what to do first!!!!!

I followed instructions to the letter - and I have duplicate builds in both admin rights and limited user areas....Have removed ALL FF builds from add/remove area and d/l new 1.0.1 and set up in admin rights....It's OK. though copying profile from 1.0 didn't work, nothing came over...

In limited user area, where all work is done, still duplicate builds and nothing works accept 1.0!!!! This is really confusing and unnecessary to use a great browser. Now - I'll have to pay my guru friend to help me out of the MESS!!!!!
John in Dallas.

 

No, when I say absence, it is absence. All the system files except my profile are gone. Not even in the bin, not even found by a professional data recovery tool, which clearly means to anyone : totally desintegrated.
Mozilla 1.0.1 is delivered with the most efficient eraser of all times.
That version must have a suicide option.

 

Hey Guys ...

Unfortunately, the Powers That Be at Mozilla.org don't seem to know the best ways to handle their own programs at times. I've been using both Firefox and Thunderbird for over two years now, and I suggest you see what I have to say in my posts in this thread.

In short, you don't EVER need to use an installer version of either program, and I'd recommend that you don't, even for your initial installation.

 

Hi JSS3rd

Don't misunderstand me, I've been a Netscape/Mozilla fan since I started the internet many years ago. And I won't change.
I just thought that the "installer" process would integrate the software more easily into the windows system, cos that's how that OS works. Obviously it fails in that mission.
So maybe mozilla should just stop trying to build installers, especially when they're not needed. Or put a huge "beta" after it. Trying to get into the windows market is also taking them into the windows weaknesses mess, and I wouldn't like Mozilla image to suffer from windows basic inabilities.

 

I added a "Sticky" at the top of this Forum detailing installation of both Firefox, and Thunderbird. I hope that this will help members avoid the pitfalls of installing on top of the existing version: Firefox and Thunderbird Upgrading FAQ's

There is nothing unsafe about using the Full Install (exe) file. Those users who install the aviaries, and nightly builds use the ZipInstall to keep their Registry from ballooning, not to mention the simplicity of the ZipInstall. I always use the EXE file for final versions, and for anything in the interim, the ZipInstall.

As for the AutoUpdate patch, well.... as far back as Communicator there were problems then with SmartUpdate, and anything other than a clean install is a gamble.

MHO,

Ramona

 

Ramona ...

You know that I respect your well-deserved reputation as a Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird guru, and I don't mean to seem argumentative, but I stand by my statements that Firefox and Thunderbird NEVER need to be installed on a Windows system ... that the zipped versions are completely sufficient, and certainly are easier to "install ". I never meant to imply that the "installer" versions are unsafe ... they're just more complicated, and completely unnecessary.

To respond to Not_a_quitter's observation that

"I just thought that the 'installer' process would integrate the software more easily into the windows system, cos that's how that OS works. "​

Although the majority of programs written for Windows require installation, there are many that do not ... they simply run from their own folders, without "integrating" themselves into the OS. I have more than two dozen such programs on my computer. Firefox and Thunderbird act similarly ... they do NOT need to be installed, although they DO create entries in the registry when initially opened.

This can be verified by following the instructions in this post, followed by an additional registry search for firefox just to prove that the Firefox entries now exist.

MY (apparently not so) HO.

 

Jim,

I'm not being argumentative either, but from your statement:

I didn't want any user to get the impression there was something wrong, or unsafe about using the FullInstall file. If I were a new user, I would certainly think that you were inferring there was some reason you should never use the installer version.

As long as the information is accurate, I welcome everyone's opinion, yours included. I don't happen to agree with you, but then that's my opinion.

Ramona

 

Ramona ...

Which is precisely why I said in post #11

"...the zipped versions are completely sufficient, and certainly are easier to 'install'. I never meant to imply that the 'installer' versions are unsafe ... they're just more complicated, and completely unnecessary. "​

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Good thread.

Much prefer programs that don't need to be "installed" by the OS.

My inclination is to follow Jim's method - a whole lot less complicated and "cleaner ", getting rid of it is much easier.

Regards - Charles

 

The Firefox installer now adds the following registry entry needed for WMP9 or WMP10 when embedded in webpages, otherwise the WMP6.4 control is used:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MediaPlayer\ShimInclusionList\firefox.exe
See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193883

Also, from http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/important.html

There may be other plugin issues affecting zipped builds that are avoided by using the installer.

 

Charles ...

THANK you! I was beginning to feel a bit paranoid while trying to formulate my response to Christer.

Mike ...

Thanks for the post. That issue hasn't come up for me (so far).

Christer ...

You raise some valid points, but

stuck in my mind.

In the first place, I don't believe that the majority of users you describe are even going to try FF and/or Tbird. They are the ones who will continue to use IE and OE, simply because they come with the OS and their use is relatively painless.

I confess that I work almost entirely from within Windows Explorer, supplemented by a highly customized Start menu, and I tend to forget that many (perhaps most) Windows users work from Desktop icons. For me, it's much easier to navigate (in Explorer) to the file I want to work on, and double-click to open it in the program associated with the filetype than it is to open the program and then try to remember what file I want to work on and where it's located. If I want to open it in a different program, it's a simple matter of right-clicking on the file and selecting the program from the context menu.

A prime example is any type of image file. Mine are all associated with ACDSee, and a double-click on an image file opens it immediately, for viewing or simple editing. If I want to do something other than just view it, a right-click presents me with an extensive menu from which to select.

If I want to open a program directly, I do it from the Start menu.

Very easy to do in Explorer, especially if you use a designated downloads folder.

Or, unless your name is Jim, and you want to UNcomplicate things.

Installing with the *.exe file is not quite as simple as you make it sound, and there's no "wham" about it. Instead, you have to work your way through the installer, and a number of selections and choices must be made, particularly if you use the Custom installation and install to other than the default location.

"If You go *.zip ", as you put it, there's no "fiddle-fiddle" involved if you do it the right way. From within Windows Explorer, right-click on the *.zip file in the downloads folder and drag it to the desired location (in the screenshot, the destination folder is Internet ... I would already have renamed the Firefox program folder to XFirefox). Releasing the right button opens the context menu ... highlight WinZip and select "Extract to here ". Finished!

There's nothing complicated about the way I do it, and the only reason the registry ever got mentioned was because another user wondered how she could get rid of multiple listings of FF in Add/Remove. And, as I've said several times, it's easier to do than it is to explain.

In the end, though, I say toe-may-toe, and you say toe-mah-toe ... "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks!"

Whew!

 

Hi Christer,

Since this has gotton to be about uninstalling and the efficacy of uninstallers, a long time ago, I aquired the happy habit of installing software with a program that monitors before and after file changes. First it was with InCtrl5, an od PCMAG utility that recorded before and after, and now with TotalUninstall http://www.webattack.com/get/totaluninstall.shtml that does that and will do the uninstalling as well. There is another one called InstallWatch.

but maybe an uninstallation through Add/Remove will also remove the registry entries created by the installer
XP and 9X rely on the software's uninstaller, in which I have generally lost faith in a long time ago.

The emphasis of "maybe" is mine

Regards - Charles

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't.

I, on the other hand, use it nearly every day. I maintain a zipped archive of every program installed on my computer (that's not on a CD), as well as a lot that aren't, and I refer to them regularly, for a variety of reasons.