Discussion:
OT: Last know good Thunderbird version that won't white-screen on Win-7?
(too old to reply)
Joerg
2015-01-09 15:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Folks,

By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
the issue has not been fixed or maybe cannot be fixed:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022

What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?

I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
John S
2015-01-09 15:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Joerg, FWIW I am using W7 and have no problems at all. I do not
understand the "white-screens" thing. What should I look for?
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-01-09 16:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John S
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and
where can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the
whole profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Joerg, FWIW I am using W7 and have no problems at all. I do not
understand the "white-screens" thing. What should I look for?
Maybe his swap file is too small. Not the thunderbirds settings...
HIS OS. I would have 4 or 8GB on the host OS drive (c:?)and another 4 or
8GB on another physical volume(not partition), if possible.
Joerg
2015-01-09 18:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John S
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Joerg, FWIW I am using W7 and have no problems at all. I do not
understand the "white-screens" thing. What should I look for?
TB slows down, mostly when deleting emails. The email window fades into
a whitish background and freezes up.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
rickman
2015-01-12 17:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by John S
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Joerg, FWIW I am using W7 and have no problems at all. I do not
understand the "white-screens" thing. What should I look for?
TB slows down, mostly when deleting emails. The email window fades into
a whitish background and freezes up.
Are you talking about a momentary slow down lasting a few seconds or so?
I am running Windows 8 and I see that with T-bird a lot. Mostly it is
not much different from other momentary delays such as when some OS
function is thrashing the hard drive for a bit. Sometimes though T-bird
will go into its own little frozen mode where I don't see anything maxed
out in the Task Manager display and it may last for 5 or 10 seconds,
very occasionally longer.

When this happens to me (the longer than 10 second delay) I shut it down
and restart T-bird.

I don't get a white screen though, so Windows doesn't think it is frozen.

It doesn't happen to me often enough to be a productivity killer, more
of a productivity annoyer.
--
Rick
Joerg
2015-01-12 18:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Post by John S
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Joerg, FWIW I am using W7 and have no problems at all. I do not
understand the "white-screens" thing. What should I look for?
TB slows down, mostly when deleting emails. The email window fades into
a whitish background and freezes up.
Are you talking about a momentary slow down lasting a few seconds or so?
Yup. Sometimes more than just a few seconds.
Post by rickman
I am running Windows 8 and I see that with T-bird a lot. Mostly it is
not much different from other momentary delays such as when some OS
function is thrashing the hard drive for a bit. Sometimes though T-bird
will go into its own little frozen mode where I don't see anything maxed
out in the Task Manager display and it may last for 5 or 10 seconds,
very occasionally longer.
When this happens to me (the longer than 10 second delay) I shut it down
and restart T-bird.
I don't get a white screen though, so Windows doesn't think it is frozen.
It doesn't happen to me often enough to be a productivity killer, more
of a productivity annoyer.
I have pretty much accepted that as well. It's a newly introduced
annoyance, probably thanks to a "modern" OS.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Jim Thompson
2015-01-09 15:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Just use Outhouse Excuse, it's just as good as Thunderbird >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Thompson
2015-01-09 17:53:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 08:54:26 -0700, Jim Thompson
Post by Jim Thompson
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Just use Outhouse Excuse, it's just as good as Thunderbird >:-}
...Jim Thompson
Or use Eudora Pro v7... it's now freely available since Qualcomm
relinquished its legal licensing requirements.

(Thunderbird is a poorly contrived rewrite of Eudora.)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
rickman
2015-01-12 17:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
(Thunderbird is a poorly contrived rewrite of Eudora.)
That is pure nonsense. At one point there was an effort to use the
flexibility of T-bird to give it an optional look and feel like Eudora.
I think it was called Penelope. But T-bird is totally independent
from Eudora and was designed and written without a thought of Eudora
which is very clear from the user interface, much less the workings.
--
Rick
Joerg
2015-01-09 18:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Just use Outhouse Excuse, it's just as good as Thunderbird >:-}
If it doesn't improve I might.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Don Y
2015-01-09 18:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by Jim Thompson
Post by Joerg
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Just use Outhouse Excuse, it's just as good as Thunderbird >:-}
If it doesn't improve I might.
Good luck with that -- if you thought converting a POP account to
IMAP was going to be a chore...
Lasse Langwadt Christensen
2015-01-09 16:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
I think I've seen there is problems with some virus scanners and thunderbird

especially something about mcafee real-time scanning, and thunderbirds own scanning conflicting


-Lasse
Joerg
2015-01-09 18:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lasse Langwadt Christensen
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
I think I've seen there is problems with some virus scanners and thunderbird
especially something about mcafee real-time scanning, and thunderbirds own scanning conflicting
Turned it off, that is not the cause.
Post by Lasse Langwadt Christensen
-Lasse
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Martin Brown
2015-01-09 20:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by Lasse Langwadt Christensen
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
I think I've seen there is problems with some virus scanners and thunderbird
especially something about mcafee real-time scanning, and thunderbirds
own scanning conflicting
+1 Not just with TB and not necessarily only that AV program.
But IME it usually manifests as huge emails that cannot be sent or
downloaded and not as unresponsive white screens or deadlocks.

ctrl-alt-del and look to see where the CPU is being used would be my
next way forwards or download some of the other detailed monitoring
tools from sysinternals to try and figure out what is going on.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/sysinternals/bb545021.aspx

I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version
of TB with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
Post by Joerg
Turned it off, that is not the cause.
I'll bet it is the cause. You need to completely unload it (not
recommended) but then I wouldn't recommend using McCoffee anyway.
I almost posted provided it isn't McC in the adjacent response.

I am at a loss to understand why so many corporates use it.

IMHO AV programs are getting almost as bad as the malware they are
supposedly "protecting" us from. Who has not seen the wonderful early
renewal notice that points to a website wanting 90% of full price when a
complete new copy can be had from Amazon for 1/2 to 1/3 of that.

I have also experienced reliability problems when the AV renewal screen
nagware is appearing during boot sequence with other AV progs.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Don Y
2015-01-09 21:09:11 UTC
Permalink
ctrl-alt-del and look to see where the CPU is being used would be my next way
forwards or download some of the other detailed monitoring tools from
sysinternals to try and figure out what is going on.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/sysinternals/bb545021.aspx
+42

it's helpful to know *if* the machine is doing anything, if it's blocking
in a system call, etc. E.g., lots of disk activity and it may be compacting
a "folder" -- possibly with a "bad spot" on the disk. *No* activity and
it may be blocking in a system call -- waiting on the resolver or one of
the remote services, etc. Lots of CPU activity but scant I/O then spinning
in a script. Etc.

[I've had Windows hang for long periods of time "unexpectedly" -- only to
LATER discover lots of complains about a failing disk in the syslog]
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
Martin Brown
2015-01-12 08:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Y
ctrl-alt-del and look to see where the CPU is being used would be my next way
forwards or download some of the other detailed monitoring tools from
sysinternals to try and figure out what is going on.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/sysinternals/bb545021.aspx
+42
it's helpful to know *if* the machine is doing anything, if it's blocking
in a system call, etc. E.g., lots of disk activity and it may be compacting
a "folder" -- possibly with a "bad spot" on the disk. *No* activity and
it may be blocking in a system call -- waiting on the resolver or one of
the remote services, etc. Lots of CPU activity but scant I/O then spinning
in a script. Etc.
[I've had Windows hang for long periods of time "unexpectedly" -- only to
LATER discover lots of complains about a failing disk in the syslog]
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
I thought he had just bought a brand new Dell with Win7 preinstalled and
unfortunately a whole bunch of corporate sponsorred nagware that they
try to pass off as evaluation copies wanting payment after 60 days.

I wouldn't trust any machine "protected" by McCoffee myself. YMMV

Regards,
Martin Brown
Don Y
2015-01-12 17:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Hi Martin,
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Don Y
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
I thought he had just bought a brand new Dell with Win7 preinstalled and
unfortunately a whole bunch of corporate sponsorred nagware that they try to
pass off as evaluation copies wanting payment after 60 days.
Dunno. I read it as "he just upgraded" -- which could mean "bought a new
machine with a factory install of W7" *or* "installed W7 over an existing
XP/Vista system". I've never had much faith in MS's "upgrade in place"
process. Seems rife for things to go bad in unpredictable ways...
Post by Martin Brown
I wouldn't trust any machine "protected" by McCoffee myself. YMMV
I've seen problems with many AV products, over the years. And, from the
machines I've been called on to "fix", it appears they are dubious, at
best, in providing the protection they advertise.

<shrug>
rickman
2015-01-12 17:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Y
Hi Martin,
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Don Y
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
I thought he had just bought a brand new Dell with Win7 preinstalled and
unfortunately a whole bunch of corporate sponsorred nagware that they try to
pass off as evaluation copies wanting payment after 60 days.
Dunno. I read it as "he just upgraded" -- which could mean "bought a new
machine with a factory install of W7" *or* "installed W7 over an existing
XP/Vista system". I've never had much faith in MS's "upgrade in place"
process. Seems rife for things to go bad in unpredictable ways...
Post by Martin Brown
I wouldn't trust any machine "protected" by McCoffee myself. YMMV
I've seen problems with many AV products, over the years. And, from the
machines I've been called on to "fix", it appears they are dubious, at
best, in providing the protection they advertise.
I've been using Sophos for many years with good results, also it is free
if you are happy downloading a new password every month. But under
Windows 8 some of the UI is crippled such as the pop up that lets you
update the application checksums when it finds an app that has been
updated. Also every time I open Sophos I UAC takes over the entire
screen to warn me and get permission to run it. You'd think they could
figure out how to get around that sort of thing.
--
Rick
Joerg
2015-01-12 18:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Hi Martin,
Post by Don Y
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
I thought he had just bought a brand new Dell with Win7 preinstalled ...
Yes.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
... and
unfortunately a whole bunch of corporate sponsorred nagware that they try to
pass off as evaluation copies wanting payment after 60 days.
Only has 1-year pre-paid McAfee and that's turned off for such tests.
There is an MS-Office nagware on it as well but it is mostly quiet.
Those two I could not refuse during ordering.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Dunno. I read it as "he just upgraded" -- which could mean "bought a new
machine with a factory install of W7" *or* "installed W7 over an existing
XP/Vista system". I've never had much faith in MS's "upgrade in place"
process. Seems rife for things to go bad in unpredictable ways...
I wouldn't trust any machine "protected" by McCoffee myself. YMMV
I've seen problems with many AV products, over the years. And, from the
machines I've been called on to "fix", it appears they are dubious, at
best, in providing the protection they advertise.
I've been using Sophos for many years with good results, also it is free
if you are happy downloading a new password every month. But under
Windows 8 some of the UI is crippled such as the pop up that lets you
update the application checksums when it finds an app that has been
updated. Also every time I open Sophos I UAC takes over the entire
screen to warn me and get permission to run it. You'd think they could
figure out how to get around that sort of thing.
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
rickman
2015-01-12 21:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Hi Martin,
Post by Don Y
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
I thought he had just bought a brand new Dell with Win7 preinstalled ...
Yes.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
... and
unfortunately a whole bunch of corporate sponsorred nagware that they try to
pass off as evaluation copies wanting payment after 60 days.
Only has 1-year pre-paid McAfee and that's turned off for such tests.
There is an MS-Office nagware on it as well but it is mostly quiet.
Those two I could not refuse during ordering.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Dunno. I read it as "he just upgraded" -- which could mean "bought a new
machine with a factory install of W7" *or* "installed W7 over an existing
XP/Vista system". I've never had much faith in MS's "upgrade in place"
process. Seems rife for things to go bad in unpredictable ways...
I wouldn't trust any machine "protected" by McCoffee myself. YMMV
I've seen problems with many AV products, over the years. And, from the
machines I've been called on to "fix", it appears they are dubious, at
best, in providing the protection they advertise.
I've been using Sophos for many years with good results, also it is free
if you are happy downloading a new password every month. But under
Windows 8 some of the UI is crippled such as the pop up that lets you
update the application checksums when it finds an app that has been
updated. Also every time I open Sophos I UAC takes over the entire
screen to warn me and get permission to run it. You'd think they could
figure out how to get around that sort of thing.
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Uh, that's not Windows, that's Logitech. Get the updated driver if they
have one. Starting with Vista they made things more secure and new
drivers are needed. Many vendors didn't bother making your existing
(and out of production) products compatible with driver support. Not
MS's fault.
--
Rick
Joerg
2015-01-12 21:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Hi Martin,
Post by Don Y
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
I thought he had just bought a brand new Dell with Win7 preinstalled ...
Yes.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
... and
unfortunately a whole bunch of corporate sponsorred nagware that they try to
pass off as evaluation copies wanting payment after 60 days.
Only has 1-year pre-paid McAfee and that's turned off for such tests.
There is an MS-Office nagware on it as well but it is mostly quiet.
Those two I could not refuse during ordering.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Dunno. I read it as "he just upgraded" -- which could mean "bought a new
machine with a factory install of W7" *or* "installed W7 over an existing
XP/Vista system". I've never had much faith in MS's "upgrade in place"
process. Seems rife for things to go bad in unpredictable ways...
I wouldn't trust any machine "protected" by McCoffee myself. YMMV
I've seen problems with many AV products, over the years. And, from the
machines I've been called on to "fix", it appears they are dubious, at
best, in providing the protection they advertise.
I've been using Sophos for many years with good results, also it is free
if you are happy downloading a new password every month. But under
Windows 8 some of the UI is crippled such as the pop up that lets you
update the application checksums when it finds an app that has been
updated. Also every time I open Sophos I UAC takes over the entire
screen to warn me and get permission to run it. You'd think they could
figure out how to get around that sort of thing.
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Uh, that's not Windows, that's Logitech. Get the updated driver if they
have one. Starting with Vista they made things more secure and new
drivers are needed. Many vendors didn't bother making your existing
(and out of production) products compatible with driver support. Not
MS's fault.
What on earth requires a camera driver to be "more secure"? Some dear
leader snooping around in my audio or seeing that my hair line has
receded? Why can't they just offer continued use of the old camera?
Sorry, but IMHO the fault lands squarely at MS. For years a legacy
device always worked and now it no longer does. An OS is supposed to do
that. I do not buy the "things more secure" argument.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
rickman
2015-01-12 22:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Hi Martin,
Post by Don Y
I honestly don't think there is any problem running the current version of TB
with Win7 and a well behaved AV program.
It's also unclear if Joerg did a clean W7 install -- followed by a clean
Tbird install -- or tried to "upgrade" an older system.
I thought he had just bought a brand new Dell with Win7 preinstalled ...
Yes.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
... and
unfortunately a whole bunch of corporate sponsorred nagware that they try to
pass off as evaluation copies wanting payment after 60 days.
Only has 1-year pre-paid McAfee and that's turned off for such tests.
There is an MS-Office nagware on it as well but it is mostly quiet.
Those two I could not refuse during ordering.
Post by rickman
Post by Don Y
Dunno. I read it as "he just upgraded" -- which could mean "bought a new
machine with a factory install of W7" *or* "installed W7 over an existing
XP/Vista system". I've never had much faith in MS's "upgrade in place"
process. Seems rife for things to go bad in unpredictable ways...
I wouldn't trust any machine "protected" by McCoffee myself. YMMV
I've seen problems with many AV products, over the years. And, from the
machines I've been called on to "fix", it appears they are dubious, at
best, in providing the protection they advertise.
I've been using Sophos for many years with good results, also it is free
if you are happy downloading a new password every month. But under
Windows 8 some of the UI is crippled such as the pop up that lets you
update the application checksums when it finds an app that has been
updated. Also every time I open Sophos I UAC takes over the entire
screen to warn me and get permission to run it. You'd think they could
figure out how to get around that sort of thing.
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Uh, that's not Windows, that's Logitech. Get the updated driver if they
have one. Starting with Vista they made things more secure and new
drivers are needed. Many vendors didn't bother making your existing
(and out of production) products compatible with driver support. Not
MS's fault.
What on earth requires a camera driver to be "more secure"? Some dear
leader snooping around in my audio or seeing that my hair line has
receded? Why can't they just offer continued use of the old camera?
Sorry, but IMHO the fault lands squarely at MS. For years a legacy
device always worked and now it no longer does. An OS is supposed to do
that. I do not buy the "things more secure" argument.
You really have trouble with software don't you? The entire OS was made
more secure and part of that required the driver interface to change.
It has nothing to do with the camera or any other peripheral. It has to
do with the peripheral companies not being willing to spend the dime for
driver updates to let you continue to use your old products. Tall to
Logitech.

You don't have to buy any arguments. You just have to buy new
peripherals because Logitech won't give you an updated driver. If you
don't like the OS why do you keep using it? Jeeze. Grow up!
--
Rick
Martin Brown
2015-01-13 08:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Uh, that's not Windows, that's Logitech. Get the updated driver if they
have one. Starting with Vista they made things more secure and new
drivers are needed. Many vendors didn't bother making your existing
(and out of production) products compatible with driver support. Not
MS's fault.
What on earth requires a camera driver to be "more secure"? Some dear
Basically various hackers have found ingenious ways to see into kids
bedrooms by addition of malware. There is a Russian site with zillions
of private webcams showing in realtime. It had to be tightened up.

(most but not all are due to obvious default manufacturers passwords)
Post by Joerg
leader snooping around in my audio or seeing that my hair line has
receded? Why can't they just offer continued use of the old camera?
They tightened up the interface and so the old drivers are no longer
capable of running in the new more secure environment. And the makers
CBA to build new drivers for legacy kit - obviously they would prefer
you to buy a brand new one (trivial for a consumer item like a webcam -
seriously annoying for a £100+k scientific instrument). Most labs have a
stock of legacy PCs for use with older kit and a very hot firewall.

HP are a menace for this too. ISTR my old but excellent build quality
scanner would not work on post Vista OS's without third party drivers.
Post by Joerg
Sorry, but IMHO the fault lands squarely at MS. For years a legacy
device always worked and now it no longer does. An OS is supposed to do
that. I do not buy the "things more secure" argument.
Breaking legacy code that used sloppy insecure methods is the price you
have to pay in a more secure operating system. Stuff that used to work
no longer does because the loopholes it exploited lead to weaknesses and
have now been eliminated. This is one where MS is not at fault (apart
from having allowed the weaknesses to persist for so long).

Regards,
Martin Brown
Joerg
2015-01-13 15:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Uh, that's not Windows, that's Logitech. Get the updated driver if they
have one. Starting with Vista they made things more secure and new
drivers are needed. Many vendors didn't bother making your existing
(and out of production) products compatible with driver support. Not
MS's fault.
What on earth requires a camera driver to be "more secure"? Some dear
Basically various hackers have found ingenious ways to see into kids
bedrooms by addition of malware. There is a Russian site with zillions
of private webcams showing in realtime. It had to be tightened up.
Super-easy low-tech fix, employed here: My wife knitted a wool hat for
it. With brim and the color matches the monitor on which it perches.
Mainly to protect the lens from dust but it also guarantees privacy.
Post by Martin Brown
(most but not all are due to obvious default manufacturers passwords)
A password for a camera? C'mon.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
leader snooping around in my audio or seeing that my hair line has
receded? Why can't they just offer continued use of the old camera?
They tightened up the interface and so the old drivers are no longer
capable of running in the new more secure environment. And the makers
CBA to build new drivers for legacy kit - obviously they would prefer
you to buy a brand new one (trivial for a consumer item like a webcam -
seriously annoying for a £100+k scientific instrument). Most labs have a
stock of legacy PCs for use with older kit and a very hot firewall.
HP are a menace for this too. ISTR my old but excellent build quality
scanner would not work on post Vista OS's without third party drivers.
That is IMHO a fault of the OS designers. A good OS must be backwards
compatibility. This is one of the reasons for sluggish PC sales. I'v
seen many cases where old-style PCs and OS'es had to be bought because
the vendors of connected expensive legacy equipment no longer existed.
Then there's nobody left who can write a new driver.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Sorry, but IMHO the fault lands squarely at MS. For years a legacy
device always worked and now it no longer does. An OS is supposed to do
that. I do not buy the "things more secure" argument.
Breaking legacy code that used sloppy insecure methods is the price you
have to pay in a more secure operating system. Stuff that used to work
no longer does because the loopholes it exploited lead to weaknesses and
have now been eliminated. This is one where MS is not at fault (apart
from having allowed the weaknesses to persist for so long).
They should clearly give people the choice whetehr they want to use an
older driver and accept the risk. And not make the choice for them. If
they did it rightI'd buy a set of additional Win-7 licenses. But now I
won't. MS is leaving lots of money on the table these days.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Martin Brown
2015-01-13 16:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Uh, that's not Windows, that's Logitech. Get the updated driver if they
have one. Starting with Vista they made things more secure and new
drivers are needed. Many vendors didn't bother making your existing
(and out of production) products compatible with driver support. Not
MS's fault.
What on earth requires a camera driver to be "more secure"? Some dear
Basically various hackers have found ingenious ways to see into kids
bedrooms by addition of malware. There is a Russian site with zillions
of private webcams showing in realtime. It had to be tightened up.
Super-easy low-tech fix, employed here: My wife knitted a wool hat for
it. With brim and the color matches the monitor on which it perches.
Mainly to protect the lens from dust but it also guarantees privacy.
Post by Martin Brown
(most but not all are due to obvious default manufacturers passwords)
A password for a camera? C'mon.
Seriously that is necessary if the thing is available online!
(and a hard password too that won't fail by dictionary attack)
Think about the consequences of malign mafia types watching you input
secure banking passwords over a compromised webcam.

Otherwise like US military "intelligence" you will wake up one morning
to find your Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts hacked and defaced
by Islamic State. Good luck trying to get the hackers extradited!
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
leader snooping around in my audio or seeing that my hair line has
receded? Why can't they just offer continued use of the old camera?
They tightened up the interface and so the old drivers are no longer
capable of running in the new more secure environment. And the makers
CBA to build new drivers for legacy kit - obviously they would prefer
you to buy a brand new one (trivial for a consumer item like a webcam -
seriously annoying for a £100+k scientific instrument). Most labs have a
stock of legacy PCs for use with older kit and a very hot firewall.
HP are a menace for this too. ISTR my old but excellent build quality
scanner would not work on post Vista OS's without third party drivers.
That is IMHO a fault of the OS designers. A good OS must be backwards
compatibility. This is one of the reasons for sluggish PC sales. I'v
They try to do that but sometimes the old ways were just so bad and
insecure that there is no alternative but to redesign it.

PC sales are sluggish because most people find tablets more convenient
and plenty fast enough for the things they use them for. If you haven't
got one already I highly recommend the ASUS T100 with detatchable
keyboard as one way into the Win8 model that isn't too painful.

The T200 out now has a much larger SSD. Very portable and slick. YMMV
Post by Joerg
seen many cases where old-style PCs and OS'es had to be bought because
the vendors of connected expensive legacy equipment no longer existed.
Then there's nobody left who can write a new driver.
So have I it is an occupational hazard in the scientific instrument
business.
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Sorry, but IMHO the fault lands squarely at MS. For years a legacy
device always worked and now it no longer does. An OS is supposed to do
that. I do not buy the "things more secure" argument.
Breaking legacy code that used sloppy insecure methods is the price you
have to pay in a more secure operating system. Stuff that used to work
no longer does because the loopholes it exploited lead to weaknesses and
have now been eliminated. This is one where MS is not at fault (apart
from having allowed the weaknesses to persist for so long).
They should clearly give people the choice whetehr they want to use an
older driver and accept the risk. And not make the choice for them. If
they did it rightI'd buy a set of additional Win-7 licenses. But now I
won't. MS is leaving lots of money on the table these days.
Think of it as having found a dangerous socket they conclude that the
only way of fixing it is to have an extra wire to a connector. The old
code doesn't have any way to provide that new info so it cannot work any
more. Many older drivers will work provided you stay 32 bit but on the
x64 platform in the early days even major vendors installers failed!

OS/2 stuck to rigid backwards compatibility and died out as a result.
Like Betamax it was technically superior but lacked critical mass.

I don't think MS cares any more.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Joerg
2015-01-13 17:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Uh, that's not Windows, that's Logitech. Get the updated driver if they
have one. Starting with Vista they made things more secure and new
drivers are needed. Many vendors didn't bother making your existing
(and out of production) products compatible with driver support. Not
MS's fault.
What on earth requires a camera driver to be "more secure"? Some dear
Basically various hackers have found ingenious ways to see into kids
bedrooms by addition of malware. There is a Russian site with zillions
of private webcams showing in realtime. It had to be tightened up.
Super-easy low-tech fix, employed here: My wife knitted a wool hat for
it. With brim and the color matches the monitor on which it perches.
Mainly to protect the lens from dust but it also guarantees privacy.
Post by Martin Brown
(most but not all are due to obvious default manufacturers passwords)
A password for a camera? C'mon.
Seriously that is necessary if the thing is available online!
(and a hard password too that won't fail by dictionary attack)
Think about the consequences of malign mafia types watching you input
secure banking passwords over a compromised webcam.
How? There is a knitted sock over it while not in use plus they'd only
see my face.
Post by Martin Brown
Otherwise like US military "intelligence" you will wake up one morning
to find your Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts hacked and defaced
by Islamic State. Good luck trying to get the hackers extradited!
Minor problem for hackers: I have no accounts with any of them.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
leader snooping around in my audio or seeing that my hair line has
receded? Why can't they just offer continued use of the old camera?
They tightened up the interface and so the old drivers are no longer
capable of running in the new more secure environment. And the makers
CBA to build new drivers for legacy kit - obviously they would prefer
you to buy a brand new one (trivial for a consumer item like a webcam -
seriously annoying for a £100+k scientific instrument). Most labs have a
stock of legacy PCs for use with older kit and a very hot firewall.
HP are a menace for this too. ISTR my old but excellent build quality
scanner would not work on post Vista OS's without third party drivers.
That is IMHO a fault of the OS designers. A good OS must be backwards
compatibility. This is one of the reasons for sluggish PC sales. I'v
They try to do that but sometimes the old ways were just so bad and
insecure that there is no alternative but to redesign it.
I seriously doubt that WRT simple webcams.
Post by Martin Brown
PC sales are sluggish because most people find tablets more convenient
and plenty fast enough for the things they use them for. ...
That's the consumer market and that is long gone. People have become
less creative and become more sedentary consumers, consuming pre-canned
stuff. It was never a lucrative market anyhow because everyone fought
about the last buck to be saved. What I meant is industry where writing
a $2k check for a powerful machine is not an issue. But when that check
isn't written because they fear tons of compatibility issues then that
is an issue for PC vendors and Microsoft. Because that's where the real
profit potential is.
Post by Martin Brown
... If you haven't
got one already I highly recommend the ASUS T100 with detatchable
keyboard as one way into the Win8 model that isn't too painful.
The T200 out now has a much larger SSD. Very portable and slick. YMMV
http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Transformer-Detachable-Touchscreen-Laptop/dp/B00OBQ59UK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421169665&sr=8-1&keywords=Asus+T100

Neat, although the reviews aren't all stellar. But I do not like Windows
8 and will stay with my trusty Samsung NC10. After many years it still
sports an impressive 8h battery runtime which is very important to me.
Most of all I have no software compatibility issues with it.

I'd really love a tablet but I use my gear for business and a lot of
legacy software must be able to run. Including DOS stuff. Hence I am one
of those hold-outs who will not buy because of OS incompatibilities, and
might never buy a tablet because of it.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
seen many cases where old-style PCs and OS'es had to be bought because
the vendors of connected expensive legacy equipment no longer existed.
Then there's nobody left who can write a new driver.
So have I it is an occupational hazard in the scientific instrument
business.
When you stay with an older OS the problem goes away :-)
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Sorry, but IMHO the fault lands squarely at MS. For years a legacy
device always worked and now it no longer does. An OS is supposed to do
that. I do not buy the "things more secure" argument.
Breaking legacy code that used sloppy insecure methods is the price you
have to pay in a more secure operating system. Stuff that used to work
no longer does because the loopholes it exploited lead to weaknesses and
have now been eliminated. This is one where MS is not at fault (apart
from having allowed the weaknesses to persist for so long).
They should clearly give people the choice whetehr they want to use an
older driver and accept the risk. And not make the choice for them. If
they did it rightI'd buy a set of additional Win-7 licenses. But now I
won't. MS is leaving lots of money on the table these days.
Think of it as having found a dangerous socket they conclude that the
only way of fixing it is to have an extra wire to a connector. The old
code doesn't have any way to provide that new info so it cannot work any
more. Many older drivers will work provided you stay 32 bit but on the
x64 platform in the early days even major vendors installers failed!
OS/2 stuck to rigid backwards compatibility and died out as a result.
No, that died because IBM screwed up the marketing. Backwards
compatibility is very important to me and was the core reason for
deciding against some software purchases in the past. For example, I
expect my database software to read files back to 1989 and it does.
Post by Martin Brown
Like Betamax it was technically superior but lacked critical mass.
Sony lost a major corporate arm wrestling.
Post by Martin Brown
I don't think MS cares any more.
Yeah, they had their days.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Don Y
2015-01-13 18:05:58 UTC
Permalink
On 1/13/2015 9:25 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

[attrs elided]
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
(most but not all are due to obvious default manufacturers passwords)
A password for a camera? C'mon.
Seriously that is necessary if the thing is available online!
(and a hard password too that won't fail by dictionary attack)
Think about the consequences of malign mafia types watching you input secure
banking passwords over a compromised webcam.
Otherwise like US military "intelligence" you will wake up one morning to find
your Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts hacked and defaced by Islamic
State. Good luck trying to get the hackers extradited!
It's not just having access *to* the camera (i.e., the video that it
creates). Drivers tend to connect to an OS at a much higher level of
privilege. Any time you can find an "unanticipated/unexpected" way
around a protection barrier, you're ripe for exploit.

(this is why I have been so obsessed with locking down *every* path
into my automation system; no desire to discover that a friend spending
the night and accessing the 'Net from the drop in the guest bedroom has
provided a vector for malware to infiltrate my system!)
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
leader snooping around in my audio or seeing that my hair line has
receded? Why can't they just offer continued use of the old camera?
They tightened up the interface and so the old drivers are no longer
capable of running in the new more secure environment. And the makers
CBA to build new drivers for legacy kit - obviously they would prefer
you to buy a brand new one (trivial for a consumer item like a webcam -
seriously annoying for a £100+k scientific instrument). Most labs have a
stock of legacy PCs for use with older kit and a very hot firewall.
HP are a menace for this too. ISTR my old but excellent build quality
scanner would not work on post Vista OS's without third party drivers.
That is IMHO a fault of the OS designers. A good OS must be backwards
compatibility. This is one of the reasons for sluggish PC sales. I'v
They try to do that but sometimes the old ways were just so bad and insecure
that there is no alternative but to redesign it.
Exactly. (MS)DOS had no concept of security. Win3 was just a shell
*on* DOS, etc. MS has been VERY slow to adopt even the most basic
concepts of protection domains within their products -- because they
didn't want to make too big of a step forward and break all that
existing software (from the days of DOS, etc.).

The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it. It
wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today. And, *retrofitting*
security is never easy, always expensive and usually ineffective!

Sheesh, how many of MS's updates *still* speak of "buffer overruns" and
other security related issues?

[The same is also true of many of our modern "systems" in society -- esp
infrastructure!]
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
seen many cases where old-style PCs and OS'es had to be bought because
the vendors of connected expensive legacy equipment no longer existed.
Then there's nobody left who can write a new driver.
So have I it is an occupational hazard in the scientific instrument business.
I've a friend who makes a good living selling old kit that he picks up
for scrap prices at auctions -- and reselling it at obscene prices to
folks who are desperate to get their hands on the stuff (as the alternative
is having to get a new product *designed* to meet their "old" needs!)
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
They should clearly give people the choice whetehr they want to use an
older driver and accept the risk. And not make the choice for them. If
they did it rightI'd buy a set of additional Win-7 licenses. But now I
won't. MS is leaving lots of money on the table these days.
Think of it as having found a dangerous socket they conclude that the only way
of fixing it is to have an extra wire to a connector. The old code doesn't have
any way to provide that new info so it cannot work any more. Many older drivers
will work provided you stay 32 bit but on the x64 platform in the early days
even major vendors installers failed!
And, think of the consequences to the user and other apps. Sure, you
*claim* you are willing to live with the consequences of this older
driver. But, when your *system* crashes and you *lose* what you are
working on, will you rightly blame the old driver? (will you even
KNOW that it is the problem??) Will you then blame *yourself* for
opting to install it instead of buying a new <whatever> that is supported
on your current OS? *Or*, will you complain about "frigging Microsoft..."?

I don't allow unsigned binaries in my automation system. You can modify
and create all sorts of scripts to move data in assorted ways (e.g.,
pipe the *audio* from the front door camera *to* the telephone -- actually,
I can think of a use for that!). But, because the underlying system is
unalterable, the controls that *it* puts in place ensure that the apps
running on the system aren't compromised by your "allowed" actions.

E.g., you can't point one of the external security cameras at the Sun
"accidentally" (or deliberately -- to effectively toast it and render
it ineffective at its intended role) because the system won't let
that happen. OTOH, if I allowed you to modify the *system* software
(in the name of "backward compatibility", etc.), then an error on
the part of your code -- or your application -- can render that camera
ineffective for the *other* applications that use it!
Post by Martin Brown
OS/2 stuck to rigid backwards compatibility and died out as a result. Like
Betamax it was technically superior but lacked critical mass.
I don't think MS cares any more.
I don't think MS *ever* cared...
Bill Sloman
2015-01-14 00:51:07 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Don Y
Exactly. (MS)DOS had no concept of security. Win3 was just a shell
*on* DOS, etc. MS has been VERY slow to adopt even the most basic
concepts of protection domains within their products -- because they
didn't want to make too big of a step forward and break all that
existing software (from the days of DOS, etc.).
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it.
Not true. The original "packet-switched network" idea behind the ARPA Net came from Paul Baran and the Rand Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran

And the idea was to provide a secure and hard-to-destroy military communications network. Around 1980, I did a bit of work with Donald Davies - who'd come up with the same idea independently - on setting up a fully encrypted packet switching service within the Teletex (communicating word processor) protocol. Donald Davies was very tuned into security and encryption, as evidence by the book he wrote (with W.L. Price) "Security for Computer Networks" ISBN 0 471 90063 X.

The current Internet may be excessively open, but it didn't have to be.
Post by Don Y
It
wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today. And, *retrofitting*
security is never easy, always expensive and usually ineffective!
It was conceived with security very much in mind - that's where it came from - but the expansion from ARPA Net to the World-Wide-Web represents a rather extensive re-purposing.

<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Don Y
2015-01-14 01:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sloman
Exactly. (MS)DOS had no concept of security. Win3 was just a shell *on*
DOS, etc. MS has been VERY slow to adopt even the most basic concepts of
protection domains within their products -- because they didn't want to
make too big of a step forward and break all that existing software (from
the days of DOS, etc.).
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it.
Not true. The original "packet-switched network" idea behind the ARPA Net
came from Paul Baran and the Rand Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran
And the idea was to provide a secure and hard-to-destroy military
communications network. Around 1980, I did a bit of work with Donald Davies
- who'd come up with the same idea independently - on setting up a fully
encrypted packet switching service within the Teletex (communicating word
processor) protocol. Donald Davies was very tuned into security and
encryption, as evidence by the book he wrote (with W.L. Price) "Security for
Computer Networks" ISBN 0 471 90063 X.
The current Internet may be excessively open, but it didn't have to be.
You've mistated my comment. I could similarly rephrase your comment:
"MSWindows is excessively insecure, but it didn't have to be." (ESP in
lieu of other existing MATURE OS's available from which they could
have learned/borrowed technology)

SHOW ME the security in the current internet protocols. I.e., IP, UDP,
DNS, etc.

Note: security isn't just "pass phrases" but, actually, any aspect of the
protocol that can be exploited in unintended ways to subvert or deny access
to the "system".
Post by Bill Sloman
It wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today. And,
*retrofitting* security is never easy, always expensive and usually
ineffective!
It was conceived with security very much in mind - that's where it came from
- but the expansion from ARPA Net to the World-Wide-Web represents a rather
extensive re-purposing.
Bill Sloman
2015-01-14 06:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Exactly. (MS)DOS had no concept of security. Win3 was just a shell *on*
DOS, etc. MS has been VERY slow to adopt even the most basic concepts of
protection domains within their products -- because they didn't want to
make too big of a step forward and break all that existing software (from
the days of DOS, etc.).
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it.
Not true. The original "packet-switched network" idea behind the ARPA Net
came from Paul Baran and the Rand Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran
And the idea was to provide a secure and hard-to-destroy military
communications network. Around 1980, I did a bit of work with Donald Davies
- who'd come up with the same idea independently - on setting up a fully
encrypted packet switching service within the Teletex (communicating word
processor) protocol. Donald Davies was very tuned into security and
encryption, as evidence by the book he wrote (with W.L. Price) "Security for
Computer Networks" ISBN 0 471 90063 X.
The current Internet may be excessively open, but it didn't have to be.
You've mistated my comment.
Your comment is exactly as you posted it. I may have misunderstood what you intended to say, but that's another story - if you don't want to be misunderstood, express yourself more clearly.

<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Don Y
2015-01-14 07:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
Exactly. (MS)DOS had no concept of security. Win3 was just a shell
*on* DOS, etc. MS has been VERY slow to adopt even the most basic
concepts of protection domains within their products -- because they
didn't want to make too big of a step forward and break all that
existing software (from the days of DOS, etc.).
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it.
Not true. The original "packet-switched network" idea behind the ARPA
Net came from Paul Baran and the Rand Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran
And the idea was to provide a secure and hard-to-destroy military
communications network. Around 1980, I did a bit of work with Donald
Davies - who'd come up with the same idea independently - on setting up
a fully encrypted packet switching service within the Teletex
(communicating word processor) protocol. Donald Davies was very tuned
into security and encryption, as evidence by the book he wrote (with
W.L. Price) "Security for Computer Networks" ISBN 0 471 90063 X.
The current Internet may be excessively open, but it didn't have to be.
You've mistated my comment.
Your comment is exactly as you posted it. I may have misunderstood what you
intended to say, but that's another story - if you don't want to be
misunderstood, express yourself more clearly.
"The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it."
and, the sentence that followed (which you elided):
"It wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today."

Note that the pronoun "it" refers to The Internet, not the ARPANET, etc.

Seems pretty clear to me. And, anyone who knows the difference between
ARPANET and The Internet.

The ARPANET is not The Internet. The purpose of creating the internet
protocols was to move the reliability *out* of the network (fabric) and
into the hosts that used it. Because the original ARPANET implementation
was incompatible with other contemporary networks. The desire to
/internetwork/ all of these disparate networks into a homogenous whole.

If you look back through the history of the internet protocol, you will
see that it is inherently a *trusting* implementation. Nodes were not
expected to intentionally misbehave (i.e., try to subvert the network).

I'm still waiting for you to show me where the "security" lies in The
Internet. Feel free to dig back to *its* founding and see where it
was *removed* (if you think that is the case from YOUR comment, to
explain why there are so many current vulnerabilities) or *added* (to
explain why things have improved -- e.g., IPv6).

You may want to actually look at some implementations to see just how
rife the *protocol* (forget *implementation* deficiencies) is with
"problems" and reliance on cooperative, *trusted* nodes. If you
can't come up with a way to *break* (as in "cause to malfunction")
an implementation, then you're not trying hard enough!

You can then move on to look at the other protocols on which Internet
traffic relies and examine their vulnerabilities, as well.

[BTW, The World-Wide-Web is NOT The Internet, either -- any more than
USENET, etc.]
Bill Sloman
2015-01-14 13:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
Exactly. (MS)DOS had no concept of security. Win3 was just a shell
*on* DOS, etc. MS has been VERY slow to adopt even the most basic
concepts of protection domains within their products -- because they
didn't want to make too big of a step forward and break all that
existing software (from the days of DOS, etc.).
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it.
Not true. The original "packet-switched network" idea behind the ARPA
Net came from Paul Baran and the Rand Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran
And the idea was to provide a secure and hard-to-destroy military
communications network. Around 1980, I did a bit of work with Donald
Davies - who'd come up with the same idea independently - on setting up
a fully encrypted packet switching service within the Teletex
(communicating word processor) protocol. Donald Davies was very tuned
into security and encryption, as evidence by the book he wrote (with
W.L. Price) "Security for Computer Networks" ISBN 0 471 90063 X.
The current Internet may be excessively open, but it didn't have to be.
You've mistated my comment.
Your comment is exactly as you posted it. I may have misunderstood what you
intended to say, but that's another story - if you don't want to be
misunderstood, express yourself more clearly.
"The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it."
"It wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today."
Note that the pronoun "it" refers to The Internet, not the ARPANET, etc.
That may be what you had in mind, but the internet is built on ARPANET, and the claim that the "initial user base" wasn't security conscious is exceedingly bizarre.
Post by Don Y
Seems pretty clear to me. And, anyone who knows the difference between
ARPANET and The Internet.
The initial user base was the ARPA net.
Post by Don Y
The ARPANET is not The Internet. The purpose of creating the internet
protocols was to move the reliability *out* of the network (fabric) and
into the hosts that used it. Because the original ARPANET implementation
was incompatible with other contemporary networks. The desire to
/internetwork/ all of these disparate networks into a homogenous whole.
That's a way of looking at it. It still makes the ARPA net users the intial users. The rest of us have just hopped on the bandwaggon since then.
Post by Don Y
If you look back through the history of the internet protocol, you will
see that it is inherently a *trusting* implementation. Nodes were not
expected to intentionally misbehave (i.e., try to subvert the network).
That doesn't mean that the initial users didn't have security in mind. They did have other things to worry about as well.
Post by Don Y
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the "security" lies in The
Internet.
Why should I? My query was of your statement about the "initial users" which you seem to want to define as the "initial users of 'the internet'" which you want to define to be different from the people who created and used the ARPA net.

<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Don Y
2015-01-14 17:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it.
Not true. The original "packet-switched network" idea behind the
ARPA Net came from Paul Baran and the Rand Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran
And the idea was to provide a secure and hard-to-destroy military
communications network. Around 1980, I did a bit of work with
Donald Davies - who'd come up with the same idea independently - on
setting up a fully encrypted packet switching service within the
Teletex (communicating word processor) protocol. Donald Davies was
very tuned into security and encryption, as evidence by the book he
wrote (with W.L. Price) "Security for Computer Networks" ISBN 0 471
90063 X.
The current Internet may be excessively open, but it didn't have to be.
You've mistated my comment.
Your comment is exactly as you posted it. I may have misunderstood what
you intended to say, but that's another story - if you don't want to be
misunderstood, express yourself more clearly.
"The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it." and,
the sentence that followed (which you elided): "It wasn't *designed* with
security in mind because it's initial user base didn't include the sorts
of threats so common, today."
Note that the pronoun "it" refers to The Internet, not the ARPANET, etc.
That may be what you had in mind, but the internet is built on ARPANET, and
the claim that the "initial user base" wasn't security conscious is
exceedingly bizarre.
No. The Internet was a melding of networks. The Internet's initial user base
wasn't security conscious. Examine the protocols from the bottom up. See
where "security" factors into the implementation.

You might want to refresh your knowledge of Internet history to get a better
feel for just how many DIFFERENT networks came together to form The Internet
instead of arbitrarily attributing their lineage to ARPANET.

Or, instead, ask yourself the simple question: why didn't ARPANET simply
replace all of those OTHER networks? *Especially* if it was designed with
security in mind AND the "initial INTERNET user base WAS security conscious".

[Ans: it paid no attention to security -- in the network -- either!]
Post by Bill Sloman
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the "security" lies in The
Internet.
Why should I? My query was of your statement about the "initial users" which
you seem to want to define as the "initial users of 'the internet'" which
you want to define to be different from the people who created and used the
ARPA net.
(sigh) You seem to have a short memory. What I said (for the third time)
was:
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it. It
wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today.
I made no mention of ARPANET. Or UUCP. Or BITNET. Or... -- ALL existing
networks that the Internet allowed to co-operate.

*YOU* seem to place an extra reverence on ARPANET's role in this. Again,
if *ARPANET's* initial user's were so security conscious, why didn't they
carry that notion of security FORWARD into the unification of these networks
under The Internet? C'mon, they're all experts -- why couldn't they impose
their will -- especially for such a ubiquitous communication system?
(they're not looking to hook together a COUPLE of machines!)

Packet-switching CAN give you ROBUSTNESS. It, in itself, doesn't do
*anything* to address SECURITY. It just gives you a way to share a
physical channel *and*, with packet memory/acknowledgement in the
fabric, a way to retry a packet's delivery if it appears to have been
lost. (note that it doesn't even GUARANTEE delivery! just a notification
that the message *appeared* to have been delivered in a specific amount
of time allotted to its delivery)

It does nothing to prevent an adversary from forging a packet, replacing
a packet, etc. There are no "secrets" inherent in the data stream. If
you can fabricate a packet with the correct headers, you can pretend to be
the originator of that packet. An adversary can use this to corrupt
many of the services on which The Internet relies for proper operation
(e.g., masquerade as a name server).

Even ARPANET made no guarantees as to SECURITY -- just ROBUSTNESS.
I.e., if you could gain access to the interconnect medium (typically
PHONE LINES), *you* could fabricate messages that another IMP would
be incapable of determining was NOT "genuine".

[Of course, few folks had a spare mainframe in their basement to
devote to this sort of subterfuge...]

I.e., if you'd like, I'll rephrase my claim:
The same is true of **ARPANET** and the protocols that drive it. It
wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today.
There? Happy? I've raised the bar even higher. Would you care to
tell me how the initial *ARPANET* users addressed SECURITY?? Armed guards
at every IMP? Armored PSTN cables between sites?? Surely, nothing in the
*protocols* addressed security!

A site could interpose a PLI between an IMP and the Host -- with a
similar PLI at each "other" host to layer encryption *atop* the
network. But, ARPANET itself had none (just like the PSTN had no
concept of "voice scrambling" -- despite making its use possible. Would
you consider the PSTN to be "security conscious"? Or, just a means
of moving voice around the globe??).

ARPANET required the IMP's (which were considered as part of the *fabric*)
to move traffic around the network. The Internet eliminated the need for
these dedicated (and costly) boxes. Instead of the *network* (IMP-to-IMP)
making the delivery guarantees (or not), the individual *hosts* took on
that role directly.

[ARPANET had hosts "hiding" behind IMPs. So, it employed *two* layers of
addressing: an IMP and a Host-at-that-IMP. So, you could leverage the
cost of the IMP (considerable!) over more than one Host. IMPs were the
equivalent of gateways or routers, depending on how you look at it]

Many of us *are* concerned AND interested in ensuring that information
exchange is *secure* so, naturally, have a far more critical view of the
existing implementation and its many areas of exploit. Like *most* users,
I suspect it's just BFM to you!
Post by Bill Sloman
Why should I? My query was of your statement about the "initial users" which
you seem to want to define as the "initial users of 'the internet'" which
you want to define to be different from the people who created and used the
ARPA net.
And, my EVEN BOLDER assertion:
The same is true of **ARPANET** and the protocols that drive it. It
wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today.

(i.e., my *direct* challenge of YOUR statement regarding ARPANET's creators)
Care to disprove *that*? I stand by my comments. ALL of them!

Go reread your history. Examine the protocols. And, carry on this argument
with yourself in a mirror. You clearly don't understand the technology
that you're talking about!

(sigh) Sad seeing a mind suffering from bitrot...

BYE.
Bill Sloman
2015-01-14 23:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Don Y
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it.
Not true. The original "packet-switched network" idea behind the
ARPA Net came from Paul Baran and the Rand Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran
And the idea was to provide a secure and hard-to-destroy military
communications network. Around 1980, I did a bit of work with
Donald Davies - who'd come up with the same idea independently - on
setting up a fully encrypted packet switching service within the
Teletex (communicating word processor) protocol. Donald Davies was
very tuned into security and encryption, as evidence by the book he
wrote (with W.L. Price) "Security for Computer Networks" ISBN 0 471
90063 X.
The current Internet may be excessively open, but it didn't have to be.
You've mistated my comment.
Your comment is exactly as you posted it. I may have misunderstood what
you intended to say, but that's another story - if you don't want to be
misunderstood, express yourself more clearly.
"The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it." and,
the sentence that followed (which you elided): "It wasn't *designed* with
security in mind because it's initial user base didn't include the sorts
of threats so common, today."
Note that the pronoun "it" refers to The Internet, not the ARPANET, etc.
That may be what you had in mind, but the internet is built on ARPANET, and
the claim that the "initial user base" wasn't security conscious is
exceedingly bizarre.
No. The Internet was a melding of networks.
But the international - world-spanning - part came from ARPANET.
Post by Don Y
The Internet's initial user base wasn't security conscious.
Since you haven't defined who they were - except in the sense that you don't think that they include ARPANET users - this is a dubious claim.
Post by Don Y
Examine the protocols from the bottom up. See
where "security" factors into the implementation.
What would that tell me about the initial user base?

<snip>
Post by Don Y
Post by Bill Sloman
Why should I? My query was of your statement about the "initial users" which
you seem to want to define as the "initial users of 'the internet'" which
you want to define to be different from the people who created and used the
ARPA net.
(sigh) You seem to have a short memory. What I said (for the third time)
The same is true of "The Internet" and the protocols that drive it. It
wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today.
I made no mention of ARPANET. Or UUCP. Or BITNET. Or... -- ALL existing
networks that the Internet allowed to co-operate.
*YOU* seem to place an extra reverence on ARPANET's role in this. Again,
if *ARPANET's* initial user's were so security conscious, why didn't they
carry that notion of security FORWARD into the unification of these networks
under The Internet? C'mon, they're all experts -- why couldn't they impose
their will -- especially for such a ubiquitous communication system?
(they're not looking to hook together a COUPLE of machines!)
That's a different - and probably more interesting - question.
Post by Don Y
Packet-switching CAN give you ROBUSTNESS. It, in itself, doesn't do
*anything* to address SECURITY. It just gives you a way to share a
physical channel *and*, with packet memory/acknowledgement in the
fabric, a way to retry a packet's delivery if it appears to have been
lost. (note that it doesn't even GUARANTEE delivery! just a notification
that the message *appeared* to have been delivered in a specific amount
of time allotted to its delivery).
Your argument was that the Internet isn't secure because it's initial user base wasn't security conscious. It's initial user base was actually security conscious, but didn't bother making the Internet secure. It might be interesting to ask why, now that we've established that you original hypothesis was nonsense.
Post by Don Y
It does nothing to prevent an adversary from forging a packet, replacing
a packet, etc. There are no "secrets" inherent in the data stream. If
you can fabricate a packet with the correct headers, you can pretend to be
the originator of that packet. An adversary can use this to corrupt
many of the services on which The Internet relies for proper operation
(e.g., masquerade as a name server).
But you can protect yourself by adding extra information to your packets - which was what Donald Davies had in mind for the Teletex communicating word-processor network (which actually ran commercially in Germany and the Nordic countries for a while in the 1980's before being washed away by the Internet). My contribution was limited to pointing out how the Teletex protocol could accommodate this (which it did, quite neatly).

Pretty Good Privacy offers security over the internet today.
Post by Don Y
Even ARPANET made no guarantees as to SECURITY -- just ROBUSTNESS.
I.e., if you could gain access to the interconnect medium (typically
PHONE LINES), *you* could fabricate messages that another IMP would
be incapable of determining was NOT "genuine".
But you could add additional information to each one of your packets to make sure that nobody could make a packet that looked genuine to the people with whom you were exchanging your data. It does nothing to stop a "denial of service" attack, but such an attack is pretty obvious.
Post by Don Y
[Of course, few folks had a spare mainframe in their basement to
devote to this sort of subterfuge...]
The same is true of **ARPANET** and the protocols that drive it. It
wasn't *designed* with security in mind because it's initial user base
didn't include the sorts of threats so common, today.
There? Happy? I've raised the bar even higher. Would you care to
tell me how the initial *ARPANET* users addressed SECURITY?? Armed guards
at every IMP? Armored PSTN cables between sites?? Surely, nothing in the
*protocols* addressed security!
They didn't have to. The packet structure allowed you to insert whatever extra security you thought you needed. Donald Davies had worked at Bletchley Park.

<snip>
Post by Don Y
(sigh) Sad seeing a mind suffering from bitrot...
BYE.
My irony meter just pegged.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-01-14 01:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Y
Post by Martin Brown
OS/2 stuck to rigid backwards compatibility and died out as a result.
Like Betamax it was technically superior but lacked critical mass.
What utter horseshit. OS/2 'died' because Bill backed out of his
agreement to provide full win32 API information to them, as promised.
This is EXACTLY what ALSO happened to the Quarterdeck product of the time,
"DesqViewX".

Microsoft reneged on a lot of 'deals' back then. Even after they had
court findings against them, they never paid the penalties. They made
more 'deals' with the US government. That is where your NSA backdoors
came from, and why the governments in this nation get Windows cheaper than
you, me or corporate Earth gets.

And that didn't kill it either. It lived in every bank in the world
(practically) up until well after Windows 200 was released, and then
integrated into the banking system. How scary.

And it appears his grasp of Betamax sits near nil as well. Hell,
idiot! BETAMAX is STILL in use EVERY DAY.

Ask Sony if they think it "died".
Post by Don Y
Post by Martin Brown
I don't think MS cares any more.
I don't think MS *ever* cared...
I don't think they ever had the brains to care. They have ALWAYS, and
consistently downplayed any lack of POSIX compliance, or various other
networked computing security paradigms as unimportant or not applicable.

Now, go hunt up on google what the best anti-virus, anti-machine
invasion software is.

Don't forget to figure in the 'half your computer speed' effect it has
on your computing experience as well.
Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.
2015-01-12 22:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
I've been using Sophos for many years with good results, also it is free
if you are happy downloading a new password every month. But under
Windows 8 some of the UI is crippled such as the pop up that lets you
update the application checksums when it finds an app that has been
updated. Also every time I open Sophos I UAC takes over the entire
screen to warn me and get permission to run it. You'd think they could
figure out how to get around that sort of thing.
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
--
Regards, Joerg
Sounds like you have other issues brewing,.,.

For scanners and maybe even cams, you need to install the 32 bit
software..

One of the reasons is the TWAIN interface. Last time I looked, most
of the hardware makers were supplying both the 32bit and 64 bit versions
of their tools that come with them.

Windows 64 has this thing call WIA, I think it is, it expects all new
hardware that wants to allow other apps to link to it like TWAIN does,
to use theirs.

So from what I understand, at the time, the TWAIN group didn't thing it
was worth their time to write a 64 bit version.

So you may want to install the 32 bit software that came with your
original equipment and go from there.

Jamie
Michael A. Terrell
2015-01-13 09:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.
Post by Joerg
Post by rickman
I've been using Sophos for many years with good results, also it is free
if you are happy downloading a new password every month. But under
Windows 8 some of the UI is crippled such as the pop up that lets you
update the application checksums when it finds an app that has been
updated. Also every time I open Sophos I UAC takes over the entire
screen to warn me and get permission to run it. You'd think they could
figure out how to get around that sort of thing.
Windows 7 managed to refuse my old Logitech Quickcam. Same thing as with
the printer, no error messages, it just plain don't work. Same for the
microphone. Great.
Sounds like you have other issues brewing,.,.
For scanners and maybe even cams, you need to install the 32 bit
software..
One of the reasons is the TWAIN interface. Last time I looked, most
of the hardware makers were supplying both the 32bit and 64 bit versions
of their tools that come with them.
Windows 64 has this thing call WIA, I think it is, it expects all new
hardware that wants to allow other apps to link to it like TWAIN does,
to use theirs.
So from what I understand, at the time, the TWAIN group didn't thing it
was worth their time to write a 64 bit version.
So you may want to install the 32 bit software that came with your
original equipment and go from there.
Jamie
http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/supported-scanners.html is the list od
scanner supported under several operating systems. Win, Linux & Mac.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
John Devereux
2015-01-09 16:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
That is a pretty vague bug, i.e. could be caused by anything, virus
scanners, hardware, corrupted profile. I have not read (or remembered)
the whole of this thread but are you sure it is a problem with a
particular version rather than a particular situation?

I would try in windows safe mode with networking, virus scanner turned
off.

You can prove if it is a corrupted profile by temporarily moving it out
of the way (rename the folder or edit the profile.ini IIRC).

Or similarly create a new user on the machine and start thunderbird as
that user.

Apologies if you already did all this...

Oh you mentioned IMAP, should be no problem to add a new IMAP account
then just drag all your old email over to it and delete the old account
when done. Pretty sure you do not have to do one mail at a time,
certainly you do not between different IMAP accounts say. Of course you
need to get it working first...
Post by Joerg
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and
where can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the
whole profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
Profiles are easy enough to move/copy once you find them. If slightly
clunky.
Post by Joerg
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
--
John Devereux
Joerg
2015-01-09 18:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Devereux
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
That is a pretty vague bug, i.e. could be caused by anything, virus
scanners, hardware, corrupted profile. I have not read (or remembered)
the whole of this thread but are you sure it is a problem with a
particular version rather than a particular situation?
I would try in windows safe mode with networking, virus scanner turned
off.
You can prove if it is a corrupted profile by temporarily moving it out
of the way (rename the folder or edit the profile.ini IIRC).
Or similarly create a new user on the machine and start thunderbird as
that user.
Apologies if you already did all this...
Oh you mentioned IMAP, should be no problem to add a new IMAP account
then just drag all your old email over to it and delete the old account
when done. Pretty sure you do not have to do one mail at a time,
certainly you do not between different IMAP accounts say. Of course you
need to get it working first...
Thanks, but I've had more than my fair share of trouble with this
Windows 7 migration and I really do not want to do anything anymore that
could upset this apple cart ever so slightly.

For now I'll just mark to be deleted emails and wait until lunch break
to hit delete. Then it can recover while I eat.
Post by John Devereux
Post by Joerg
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and
where can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the
whole profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
Profiles are easy enough to move/copy once you find them. If slightly
clunky.
That's what I thought. Until yesterday. For example, Windows 7 seems to
take the liberty to re-assign directories as it sees fit.
Post by John Devereux
Post by Joerg
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
Took me five minutes to write this because the darn thing froze again
four times.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-01-09 18:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Took me five minutes to write this because the darn thing froze again
four times.
Try increasing the Windows swapfile size by a couple GB.

Maybe they are like Android and iPad apps where the idiots are data
mining your machine CONSTANTLY and sending an entire bio back to the data
suckers R us crew.
Joerg
2015-01-09 18:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Post by Joerg
Took me five minutes to write this because the darn thing froze again
four times.
Try increasing the Windows swapfile size by a couple GB.
Maybe they are like Android and iPad apps where the idiots are data
mining your machine CONSTANTLY and sending an entire bio back to the data
suckers R us crew.
The swap file is huge and it's an 8GB machine. I always turn all
feedback options off because I do not trust them.

Why is it that nowadays one needs gigabytes to write "Hello World"? Have
most programmers lost their bearings? I sure think so.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
rickman
2015-01-12 17:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Post by Joerg
Took me five minutes to write this because the darn thing froze again
four times.
Try increasing the Windows swapfile size by a couple GB.
Maybe they are like Android and iPad apps where the idiots are data
mining your machine CONSTANTLY and sending an entire bio back to the data
suckers R us crew.
The swap file is huge and it's an 8GB machine. I always turn all
feedback options off because I do not trust them.
Why is it that nowadays one needs gigabytes to write "Hello World"? Have
most programmers lost their bearings? I sure think so.
I notice you aren't writing software... :)

My laptop has 16 GB of RAM just so I wouldn't have to think about RAM
any more. But the browsers are so RAM hungry that if I have a few dozen
tabs open RAM usage gets up to 15 GB. Wow! I don't see any other apps
using anything remotely like that much memory including the OS.

So don't blame programmers. Just blame browser programmers. BTW, why
didn't you get 16 or 32 GB of RAM? Are you planning to throw away this
machine in 6 months?
--
Rick
John Devereux
2015-01-12 17:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Post by Joerg
Took me five minutes to write this because the darn thing froze again
four times.
Try increasing the Windows swapfile size by a couple GB.
Maybe they are like Android and iPad apps where the idiots are data
mining your machine CONSTANTLY and sending an entire bio back to the data
suckers R us crew.
The swap file is huge and it's an 8GB machine. I always turn all
feedback options off because I do not trust them.
Why is it that nowadays one needs gigabytes to write "Hello World"? Have
most programmers lost their bearings? I sure think so.
I notice you aren't writing software... :)
My laptop has 16 GB of RAM just so I wouldn't have to think about RAM
any more. But the browsers are so RAM hungry that if I have a few
dozen tabs open RAM usage gets up to 15 GB. Wow! I don't see any
other apps using anything remotely like that much memory including the
OS.
This is basically just aggressive caching AIUI. The memory is still
available for other programs if they need it. The browsers just use
memory that is not being used for anything else. In case you want to
suddenly go back 200 pages in your browsing history then the website is
there, pre-rendered. If you only had 4G of RAM the browser would still
work fine.
Post by rickman
So don't blame programmers. Just blame browser programmers. BTW, why
didn't you get 16 or 32 GB of RAM? Are you planning to throw away
this machine in 6 months?
32G here :) useful for running VMs.

I still brought it to its knees by running "make -j" to build some
downloaded software. I think there were about 1000 instances of gcc
going simultaneously before it ground to a virtual halt :)
--
John Devereux
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-01-12 18:17:12 UTC
Permalink
32G here useful for running VMs.
I still brought it to its knees by running "make -j" to build some
downloaded software. I think there were about 1000 instances of gcc
going simultaneously before it ground to a virtual halt
Pretty cool. Under Windows or Linux? (I am betting the latter).

I use compiling the MAME emulator package. Get all the dependencies and
the build takes quite a while on my 4 core i3 laptop. I can't remember if
I ever compiled it on my i7 3930k 12 core yet.

But that is what I use now, instead of kernel compiles, which used to be
my "fun benchmark tool".
John Devereux
2015-01-12 18:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
32G here useful for running VMs.
I still brought it to its knees by running "make -j" to build some
downloaded software. I think there were about 1000 instances of gcc
going simultaneously before it ground to a virtual halt
Pretty cool. Under Windows or Linux? (I am betting the latter).
Yes linux, natively (compiling kicad). Instructions said to type "make"
so I thought I would cleverly speed things up a bit with "-j", meaning
roughly "compile in parallel using as many processes as you
like". Should have used "-j8" or similar so as to limit it to one per
(hyperthread) core.
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
I use compiling the MAME emulator package. Get all the dependencies and
the build takes quite a while on my 4 core i3 laptop. I can't remember if
I ever compiled it on my i7 3930k 12 core yet.
Laptop is a i7-4900mq (thinkpad w540). It really flies.
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
But that is what I use now, instead of kernel compiles, which used to be
my "fun benchmark tool".
--
John Devereux
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-01-12 18:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by rickman
I notice you aren't writing software...
My laptop has 16 GB of RAM just so I wouldn't have to think about RAM
any more. But the browsers are so RAM hungry that if I have a few dozen
tabs open RAM usage gets up to 15 GB. Wow! I don't see any other apps
using anything remotely like that much memory including the OS.
before cookies and all the spam and data mining horseshit, it didn't
happen either. Then again, not too bright to think of having 10 or 20 or
50 'tabs' open. absolutely no need for it when the history panel works
just fine with only a few tabs open.

Why test the system?

However, IF you really wanted performance, then you should run your 16GB
multi-tabbed environment under a Linux kernel. Gets rid of all that "half
your CPU cycles anti-spam-anti-virus 'front end'. To hell with the junk
in yout trunk! Look at that belly!

Windows is disgusting, and STILL VULNERABLE. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Joerg
2015-01-12 18:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Post by rickman
I notice you aren't writing software...
My laptop has 16 GB of RAM just so I wouldn't have to think about RAM
any more. But the browsers are so RAM hungry that if I have a few dozen
tabs open RAM usage gets up to 15 GB. Wow! I don't see any other apps
using anything remotely like that much memory including the OS.
before cookies and all the spam and data mining horseshit, it didn't
happen either. Then again, not too bright to think of having 10 or 20 or
50 'tabs' open. absolutely no need for it when the history panel works
just fine with only a few tabs open.
Why test the system?
However, IF you really wanted performance, then you should run your 16GB
multi-tabbed environment under a Linux kernel. Gets rid of all that "half
your CPU cycles anti-spam-anti-virus 'front end'. To hell with the junk
in yout trunk! Look at that belly!
<looks into mirror> ... Oh! Need to do even more mountain biking.
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Windows is disgusting, and STILL VULNERABLE. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
When I retire I try Linux again.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.
2015-01-12 23:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rickman
Post by Joerg
Post by DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Post by Joerg
Took me five minutes to write this because the darn thing froze again
four times.
Try increasing the Windows swapfile size by a couple GB.
Maybe they are like Android and iPad apps where the idiots are data
mining your machine CONSTANTLY and sending an entire bio back to the data
suckers R us crew.
The swap file is huge and it's an 8GB machine. I always turn all
feedback options off because I do not trust them.
Why is it that nowadays one needs gigabytes to write "Hello World"? Have
most programmers lost their bearings? I sure think so.
I notice you aren't writing software... :)
My laptop has 16 GB of RAM just so I wouldn't have to think about RAM
any more. But the browsers are so RAM hungry that if I have a few dozen
tabs open RAM usage gets up to 15 GB. Wow! I don't see any other apps
using anything remotely like that much memory including the OS.
So don't blame programmers. Just blame browser programmers. BTW, why
didn't you get 16 or 32 GB of RAM? Are you planning to throw away this
machine in 6 months?
WTF, you make no sense at all...

a programmer is a programmer...

But I'll say in the case of FF and TB, I can tell it was a piece meal
project of using existing modules and apps where it just got linked
together to get it out there.

That kind of programming practice usually results in a app that is
slow, lardy and full of problems and maybe even back doors from the
various sources of code and modules they used to get it working.

You don't have programmers any more, what you have is modules, COM,DOM,
ACTIVEX, linkable LIBS with no source code, many of which maybe using
other peoples modules, snap together wannabe programmers.

Put that all together and what you have is a bloated app with a lot of
redundant code in there.

More like script writers to me.

A good programmer can wrote an app that can do plentiful things with
very few bugs if not none to be noticed, with minimum resources..

Not that I mark my self as an expert coder however, I can give you a
comparison..

I have a DSP app designed for Ham Radio that decodes/Enocdes Slow Scan
TV. It has it's problem but nothing to do with lardy code, mostly me.

This app does all the FFT(DSP) code of decoding/encoding Slow Scan TV,
FTP file up loader, 4 screen Web Cam viewer (HTTP)Not using external
browser or WebObj, connects to the Twain devices to grab images, has
Microsoft Video for windows to get motion video capture. Basic on the
fly image editing needs, connect to other apps if you wish, like paint
programs etc..

I can do all this in a single app and all at once with out slowing the
system down to a crawl, actually, the system sees it as very little
taxing to it.

Total memory required from the system is `10megs and the file size
total with no external object code needed to run = ~1.2Megs

I just recently recompiled it using FPC to get ready for a 64 bit
version and the final file size so far is 2.6Megs. with all that working


So, that is just a basic example

Learn what a real programmer can do..

Oh, btw I did use some in line ASM code to speed this up.

Jamie
Martin Brown
2015-01-09 16:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am running 31.3.0 and touch wood have not had it lock out on me.
Are you sure you don't have a dodgy add-in or script causing trouble?
Post by Joerg
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
TTman
2015-01-09 17:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am running 31.3.0 and touch wood have not had it lock out on me.
Are you sure you don't have a dodgy add-in or script causing trouble?
Post by Joerg
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
I use 31.3 .0 as well with win 7, no problems.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Joerg
2015-01-09 18:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am running 31.3.0 and touch wood have not had it lock out on me.
Are you sure you don't have a dodgy add-in or script causing trouble?
Haven't added a thing to it.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many prople have apparently already done so to no avail.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Martin Brown
2015-01-09 20:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am running 31.3.0 and touch wood have not had it lock out on me.
Are you sure you don't have a dodgy add-in or script causing trouble?
Haven't added a thing to it.
What AV are you running?

Certain ones are as dumb as a rock (I though this was fixed) and break
the transport stream if you have particularly large emails in transit.

This is a fault in the AV program - essentially for a large enough file
the time spent scanning the thing for viruses exceeds the timeout limit
on the link and the data transfer goes into a tarpit. The last time I
got caught by it there were multiple 20MB+ emails in the queue for me.

But it didn't white screen TB it merely resulted in an email that would
never ever finish downloading.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Joerg
2015-01-12 18:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am running 31.3.0 and touch wood have not had it lock out on me.
Are you sure you don't have a dodgy add-in or script causing trouble?
Haven't added a thing to it.
What AV are you running?
During these tests none (turned it off, just to make sure).
Post by Martin Brown
Certain ones are as dumb as a rock (I though this was fixed) and break
the transport stream if you have particularly large emails in transit.
This is a fault in the AV program - essentially for a large enough file
the time spent scanning the thing for viruses exceeds the timeout limit
on the link and the data transfer goes into a tarpit. The last time I
got caught by it there were multiple 20MB+ emails in the queue for me.
But it didn't white screen TB it merely resulted in an email that would
never ever finish downloading.
I get the occasional white-screen. It's not full white, more milky where
you can still see the email text through a thick haze. But it will not
react to any keyboard input then. So now there are certain actions I
only do before brief or longer breaks.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Martin Brown
2015-01-12 20:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
I am running 31.3.0 and touch wood have not had it lock out on me.
Are you sure you don't have a dodgy add-in or script causing trouble?
Haven't added a thing to it.
What AV are you running?
During these tests none (turned it off, just to make sure).
What makes you think turning it off from the user interface actually
stops it from interfering with the correct operation of other software?

To be sure the AV isn't responsible for the deadlock you have to force
it to completely unload itself from memory or temporarily uninstall it.

These programs have become almost as bad as the malware that they are
supposed to be protecting us from.
Post by Joerg
Post by Martin Brown
Certain ones are as dumb as a rock (I though this was fixed) and break
the transport stream if you have particularly large emails in transit.
This is a fault in the AV program - essentially for a large enough file
the time spent scanning the thing for viruses exceeds the timeout limit
on the link and the data transfer goes into a tarpit. The last time I
got caught by it there were multiple 20MB+ emails in the queue for me.
But it didn't white screen TB it merely resulted in an email that would
never ever finish downloading.
I get the occasional white-screen. It's not full white, more milky where
you can still see the email text through a thick haze. But it will not
react to any keyboard input then. So now there are certain actions I
only do before brief or longer breaks.
That is more likely a badly behaved addin that you have accidentally
permitted to "help" you and is taking an excessive time with large mail
files. I still suspect that your choice of AV is unfortunate and largely
responsible for the strange failures that you are seeing.

Look for the common ground in what triggers your whiteouts.

I do see TB sometimes do what you describe for fractions of a second
when it is very busy compacting huge mailbases but nothing that would
ever slow me down. That is with or without the SSD cache running.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Jon Elson
2015-01-13 20:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
I get the occasional white-screen. It's not full white, more milky where
you can still see the email text through a thick haze. But it will not
react to any keyboard input then. So now there are certain actions I
only do before brief or longer breaks.
Hmm, I'm running TB 31.2.0 on Ubuntu 12.04 and have never seen this.
Sometimes FF will hang for a moment, and I get a box
saying a script may be hung, but I have not seen it in TB.
I only have 4 GB of memory and am running Win XP on VirtualBox (used
to use VMWare, but VirtualBox seems to do everything VMWare does, and
some things even better.)

Jon
Joerg
2015-01-13 21:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Elson
Post by Joerg
I get the occasional white-screen. It's not full white, more milky where
you can still see the email text through a thick haze. But it will not
react to any keyboard input then. So now there are certain actions I
only do before brief or longer breaks.
Hmm, I'm running TB 31.2.0 on Ubuntu 12.04 and have never seen this.
Sometimes FF will hang for a moment, and I get a box
saying a script may be hung, but I have not seen it in TB.
I only have 4 GB of memory and am running Win XP on VirtualBox (used
to use VMWare, but VirtualBox seems to do everything VMWare does, and
some things even better.)
It may be yet another problem of Windows 7, who knows. Longer term I
want to migrate some stuff into virtual XP as well. Last known good
Windows OS, it seems.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Michael A. Terrell
2015-01-17 19:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Elson
Post by Joerg
I get the occasional white-screen. It's not full white, more milky where
you can still see the email text through a thick haze. But it will not
react to any keyboard input then. So now there are certain actions I
only do before brief or longer breaks.
Hmm, I'm running TB 31.2.0 on Ubuntu 12.04 and have never seen this.
Sometimes FF will hang for a moment, and I get a box
saying a script may be hung, but I have not seen it in TB.
I only have 4 GB of memory and am running Win XP on VirtualBox (used
to use VMWare, but VirtualBox seems to do everything VMWare does, and
some things even better.)
Jon
I've been using FF 34.0.5 on Win7 without any problems. It just
updated to FF 35.0, so I'll see what happens.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
SMS
2015-01-20 23:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Jon Elson
Post by Joerg
I get the occasional white-screen. It's not full white, more milky where
you can still see the email text through a thick haze. But it will not
react to any keyboard input then. So now there are certain actions I
only do before brief or longer breaks.
Hmm, I'm running TB 31.2.0 on Ubuntu 12.04 and have never seen this.
Sometimes FF will hang for a moment, and I get a box
saying a script may be hung, but I have not seen it in TB.
I only have 4 GB of memory and am running Win XP on VirtualBox (used
to use VMWare, but VirtualBox seems to do everything VMWare does, and
some things even better.)
Jon
I've been using FF 34.0.5 on Win7 without any problems. It just
updated to FF 35.0, so I'll see what happens.
31.4.0 for Windows 7 and 8 works fine for me.

m***@att.net
2015-01-09 23:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP.
Here's my experience with Thunderbird and Win7. I migrated a user from
their old XP box to a Win7 box. They used POP3 email, always
downloading the email to the XP box and then deleting it off the server.
They didn't sort their mail into any folders other than the Inbox, Sent
Mail, and Trash folders that Thunderbird provides by default. The XP
box had F-Prot antivirus on it.

For their new box, I got a refurbished Dell with Win7 on it. Since this
PC originally shipped with Vista, the refurbisher didn't restore the OS
image that came from Dell; they installed it from a "clean" Win7 CD. I
ran the PC for a few days in the "as found" condition to make sure the
hardware was OK. I then removed the hard drive that was in it,
installed a newer blank hard drive, and did a fresh install of Win7 to
that hard drive. Then I installed the latest version of the apps they
had on their XP box, including Thunderbird. I was doing this right
after Christmas - a couple of weeks ago - so it was whatever version of
Thunderbird was current at that time. I also installed F-Prot antivirus
on the machine.

To migrate their email, I followed the directions on the Thunderbird web
site to copy the profile directory from the XP box to the Win7 box. I
then started up Thunderbird and it Just Worked[tm] - it could log into
the POP3 server and retrieve mail, and all their existing mail was there
in the Inbox, Sent Mail, and Trash folders.

On Win7, the only "maintenance" thing I did to Thunderbird was to delete
most of the emails in the Trash folder (mostly spam) from within
Thunderbird. I then right-clicked each folder in the Thunderbird folder
list and selected "Compact". This made the Trash folder file much
smaller, but didn't do much for the Inbox and Sent Mail folders.

That PC has been with the user for about a week and half now and I know
they've used their email in that time. No complaints so far.

Possibly useless information: At least for POP3, Thunderbird stores
email in basically flat files, one file per folder, with (IIRC) a
separate index file. If you delete an email, it's just marked "deleted"
in the flat file; Thunderbird doesn't re-write the whole file to remove
the deleted message. Over time, this can make the file kind of large.
When you tell Thunderbird to "compact" a folder, it reads through the
entire flat file for that folder, and writes a new file containing only
messages that haven't been deleted. It also updates the index file as
it does this. Finally, it replaces the old folder file (with deleted
messages) with the new one and life goes on.
Post by Joerg
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7
I don't know.
Post by Joerg
and where can one get it?
http://www.oldversion.com/windows/mozilla-thunderbird/ may help. It is
a third-party site, but I've downloaded other applications from them
before, and they seemed to work OK.
Post by Joerg
Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole profile again
(was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I did the "Manually moving files" method in
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/moving-thunderbird-data-to-a-new-computer
which refers you to
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-tb
which tells you how to do it.

I think I'm going to join my voice to the "dump McAfee" chorus. First
try uninstalling it. If that's not possible, or you think it hasn't
uninstalled all the way, look in Task Manager to find the names of the
McAfee processes that are running, and try to match those up to the .exe
files in (probably) "C:\Program Files\McAfee" or (maybe)
"C:\Program Files (x86)\McAfee" or similar. Then boot into Safe Mode,
go into that directory, and rename the relevant .exe files to .xex. Then
reboot normally and see what happens.

If McAfee is currently installed in the "Program Files (x86)" directory,
that could be part of your problem. That directory is for 32-bit
programs, which "mostly" work OK on 64-bit Win7 - mostly. If you bought
this computer new recently - like within the past year or two - they
*should not* have installed a 32-bit antivirus, but OEMs do all kinds of
dumb things. Getting a 64-bit version of whatever antivirus you would
like to use would be better.

Standard disclaimers apply: I don't get money or other consideration
from any companies mentioned.

Matt Roberds
Michael A. Terrell
2015-01-10 03:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@att.net
Post by Joerg
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP.
Here's my experience with Thunderbird and Win7. I migrated a user from
their old XP box to a Win7 box. They used POP3 email, always
downloading the email to the XP box and then deleting it off the server.
They didn't sort their mail into any folders other than the Inbox, Sent
Mail, and Trash folders that Thunderbird provides by default. The XP
box had F-Prot antivirus on it.
For their new box, I got a refurbished Dell with Win7 on it. Since this
PC originally shipped with Vista, the refurbisher didn't restore the OS
image that came from Dell; they installed it from a "clean" Win7 CD. I
ran the PC for a few days in the "as found" condition to make sure the
hardware was OK. I then removed the hard drive that was in it,
installed a newer blank hard drive, and did a fresh install of Win7 to
that hard drive. Then I installed the latest version of the apps they
had on their XP box, including Thunderbird. I was doing this right
after Christmas - a couple of weeks ago - so it was whatever version of
Thunderbird was current at that time. I also installed F-Prot antivirus
on the machine.
To migrate their email, I followed the directions on the Thunderbird web
site to copy the profile directory from the XP box to the Win7 box. I
then started up Thunderbird and it Just Worked[tm] - it could log into
the POP3 server and retrieve mail, and all their existing mail was there
in the Inbox, Sent Mail, and Trash folders.
On Win7, the only "maintenance" thing I did to Thunderbird was to delete
most of the emails in the Trash folder (mostly spam) from within
Thunderbird. I then right-clicked each folder in the Thunderbird folder
list and selected "Compact". This made the Trash folder file much
smaller, but didn't do much for the Inbox and Sent Mail folders.
That PC has been with the user for about a week and half now and I know
they've used their email in that time. No complaints so far.
Possibly useless information: At least for POP3, Thunderbird stores
email in basically flat files, one file per folder, with (IIRC) a
separate index file. If you delete an email, it's just marked "deleted"
in the flat file; Thunderbird doesn't re-write the whole file to remove
the deleted message. Over time, this can make the file kind of large.
When you tell Thunderbird to "compact" a folder, it reads through the
entire flat file for that folder, and writes a new file containing only
messages that haven't been deleted. It also updates the index file as
it does this. Finally, it replaces the old folder file (with deleted
messages) with the new one and life goes on.
Post by Joerg
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7
I don't know.
Post by Joerg
and where can one get it?
http://www.oldversion.com/windows/mozilla-thunderbird/ may help. It is
a third-party site, but I've downloaded other applications from them
before, and they seemed to work OK.
Post by Joerg
Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole profile again
(was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I did the "Manually moving files" method in
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/moving-thunderbird-data-to-a-new-computer
which refers you to
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-tb
which tells you how to do it.
I think I'm going to join my voice to the "dump McAfee" chorus. First
try uninstalling it. If that's not possible, or you think it hasn't
uninstalled all the way, look in Task Manager to find the names of the
McAfee processes that are running, and try to match those up to the .exe
files in (probably) "C:\Program Files\McAfee" or (maybe)
"C:\Program Files (x86)\McAfee" or similar. Then boot into Safe Mode,
go into that directory, and rename the relevant .exe files to .xex. Then
reboot normally and see what happens.
If McAfee is currently installed in the "Program Files (x86)" directory,
that could be part of your problem. That directory is for 32-bit
programs, which "mostly" work OK on 64-bit Win7 - mostly. If you bought
this computer new recently - like within the past year or two - they
*should not* have installed a 32-bit antivirus, but OEMs do all kinds of
dumb things. Getting a 64-bit version of whatever antivirus you would
like to use would be better.
Standard disclaimers apply: I don't get money or other consideration
from any companies mentioned.
Matt Roberds
I won't use McAfee AV on any computer.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
John S
2015-01-10 14:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7
Joerg - I am using TB 31.3.0 on Win 7 Enterprise, V6.1, Service Pack 1.

No problems.
Joerg
2015-01-12 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John S
Post by Joerg
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7
Joerg - I am using TB 31.3.0 on Win 7 Enterprise, V6.1, Service Pack 1.
No problems.
I use V24 right now. It runs somewhat ok, or let's say well enough for
now as long as I don't do certain things.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Joerg
2015-01-12 18:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@att.net
Post by Joerg
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP.
Here's my experience with Thunderbird and Win7. I migrated a user from
their old XP box to a Win7 box. They used POP3 email, always
downloading the email to the XP box and then deleting it off the server.
They didn't sort their mail into any folders other than the Inbox, Sent
Mail, and Trash folders that Thunderbird provides by default. The XP
box had F-Prot antivirus on it.
For their new box, I got a refurbished Dell with Win7 on it. Since this
PC originally shipped with Vista, the refurbisher didn't restore the OS
image that came from Dell; they installed it from a "clean" Win7 CD. I
ran the PC for a few days in the "as found" condition to make sure the
hardware was OK. I then removed the hard drive that was in it,
installed a newer blank hard drive, and did a fresh install of Win7 to
that hard drive. Then I installed the latest version of the apps they
had on their XP box, including Thunderbird. I was doing this right
after Christmas - a couple of weeks ago - so it was whatever version of
Thunderbird was current at that time. I also installed F-Prot antivirus
on the machine.
To migrate their email, I followed the directions on the Thunderbird web
site to copy the profile directory from the XP box to the Win7 box. I
then started up Thunderbird and it Just Worked[tm] - it could log into
the POP3 server and retrieve mail, and all their existing mail was there
in the Inbox, Sent Mail, and Trash folders.
On Win7, the only "maintenance" thing I did to Thunderbird was to delete
most of the emails in the Trash folder (mostly spam) from within
Thunderbird. I then right-clicked each folder in the Thunderbird folder
list and selected "Compact". This made the Trash folder file much
smaller, but didn't do much for the Inbox and Sent Mail folders.
That PC has been with the user for about a week and half now and I know
they've used their email in that time. No complaints so far.
Possibly useless information: At least for POP3, Thunderbird stores
email in basically flat files, one file per folder, with (IIRC) a
separate index file. If you delete an email, it's just marked "deleted"
in the flat file; Thunderbird doesn't re-write the whole file to remove
the deleted message. Over time, this can make the file kind of large.
When you tell Thunderbird to "compact" a folder, it reads through the
entire flat file for that folder, and writes a new file containing only
messages that haven't been deleted. It also updates the index file as
it does this. Finally, it replaces the old folder file (with deleted
messages) with the new one and life goes on.
I am aware of all of that and regularly cull emails to keep the file
sizes reasonable.
Post by m***@att.net
Post by Joerg
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7
I don't know.
Post by Joerg
and where can one get it?
http://www.oldversion.com/windows/mozilla-thunderbird/ may help. It is
a third-party site, but I've downloaded other applications from them
before, and they seemed to work OK.
Aha! Thanks.
Post by m***@att.net
Post by Joerg
Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole profile again
(was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I did the "Manually moving files" method in
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/moving-thunderbird-data-to-a-new-computer
which refers you to
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-tb
which tells you how to do it.
I think I'm going to join my voice to the "dump McAfee" chorus. First
try uninstalling it. If that's not possible, or you think it hasn't
uninstalled all the way, look in Task Manager to find the names of the
McAfee processes that are running, and try to match those up to the .exe
files in (probably) "C:\Program Files\McAfee" or (maybe)
"C:\Program Files (x86)\McAfee" or similar. Then boot into Safe Mode,
go into that directory, and rename the relevant .exe files to .xex. Then
reboot normally and see what happens.
If McAfee is currently installed in the "Program Files (x86)" directory,
that could be part of your problem. That directory is for 32-bit
programs, which "mostly" work OK on 64-bit Win7 - mostly. If you bought
this computer new recently - like within the past year or two - they
*should not* have installed a 32-bit antivirus, but OEMs do all kinds of
dumb things. Getting a 64-bit version of whatever antivirus you would
like to use would be better.
Standard disclaimers apply: I don't get money or other consideration
from any companies mentioned.
Right now it's all turned off. But I will ditch it because it messes wit
the Windows firewall and I do not like it when other SW cut into my
decision making.
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Bill Sloman
2015-01-09 23:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg
Folks,
By now I know that I am by far not the only one. Thunderbird
white-screens a lot where it sits there totally unresponsive. A real
productivity killer. Happens only in Windows 7, not in XP. It appears
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926022
What is the last known good release that works ok in Windows 7 and where
can one get it? Can it somehow be installed without losing the whole
profile again (was a major pain to restore yesterday)?
I am asking here because else I'll likely be told to just file a bug
report and many people have apparently already done so to no avail.
I'm running Thunderbird 31.30 under Window 7 ( version 6.1, build 7601, service pack 1) without anything exciting happening. Sometimes an e-mail takes a while to down-load and the relevant window doesn't display any content until the whole e-mail has downloaded, but that's a bad as it gets.

I use Norton for computer security, and it pops up and claims to have done something useful from time to time.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Loading...