5 Replies Latest reply on Jan 15, 2016 5:40 PM by EstebanC_Intel

    Why Did   www.intel.com   Make Objection to Firefox v43.0.4?

    RDTEDude

      Dear Intel® Support ,

       

      It is hoped that this information may be helpful to the Commmunity and will be received by the Support staff as helpfully intended.

       

      There seeems to be an overlay banner at the top of Main frame, not seen on prior visits,  that says (perhaps among other things),

       

      "The browser version you are using is not recommended for this site.
      "Please consider upgrading to the latest version of your browser by clicking one of the following links.

      This appeared again, upon browsing to  < Intel® Support >.URL = www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support.html

       

      N.B.  - -  Latest Firefox browser version released by Mozilla is 43.0.4, which is offered tonight for downloading to specified OSes at

      <  Mozilla Firefox Web Browser — Download Firefox in your language — Mozilla  >

       

      This system is H-P Pavilion g7 Notebook (i.e., laptop) with Intel inside™ CORE™ i3-3110M, 6GB RAM, presently running Windows 8 x64 v6.2.9200 and Firefox x86 v43.0.4 (x86).  Haven't opened the Firefox (x64)  v43.0.4 program yet - will report on whether the issue repeats with that browser  tomorrow, if tme permits.

       

      Intel® Support is respectfully requested to investigate + report cause of subject anomaly, and advise corrective action if any..

        • 1. Re: Why Did   www.intel.com   Make Objection to Firefox v43.0.4?
          EstebanC_Intel

          Hello, RDTEDude:

           

          I just tested the browser mentioned, it worked fine, no banner appeared in my screen.

           

          I downloaded the version that you have v43.0.4

           

          I look forward to your reply and outcome on this.

           

          Regards,

          Esteban C

          • 2. Re: Why Did   www.intel.com   Make Objection to Firefox v43.0.4?
            RDTEDude

            Hello, Esteban, and gracias,

             

                I just spent a half-hour or more composing a thorough reply, but in switching back and forth  among tabs, my work product was dumped - my bad.

             

            So, too late in the night to do all that work again. Will try to catch you mañana.     (that's about the limit of my Spanish   :-)

            • 3. Re: Why Did   www.intel.com   Make Objection to Firefox v43.0.4?
              EstebanC_Intel

              Hello RDTEDude:

               

              I am looking forward to your reply regarding this.

               

              Regards,

              Esteban C

              • 4. Re: Why Did   www.intel.com   Make Objection to Firefox v43.0.4?
                RDTEDude

                Hi, Esteban,

                 

                   I checked again after exiting and opening Firefox (x86) v43.0.4, and repeating again was the phenomenon described in my initial item above.

                 

                   This 32-bit version of Firefox and the 64-bit version, were  downloaded from  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#en-US.  After running Uninstall on the single-line, x86 Mozilla Firefox item in Windows 8's Programs and Features, and observing that no trace remained in Programs and Features, ran the downloaded file and installed Mozilla Firefox (x86) v43.0.4 in Windows 8's C:\Program Files (x86) folder branch, where it presently is seen to be residing, as shown in Windows Explorer.

                 

                   Exiting the 32-bit Firefox,  the downloaded Firefox (x64) v43.0.4 was installed into the C:\Program Files folder branch.   (This is the branch for 64-bit programs, as you know.)  When opened and set to the same URLs as above ( namely, to     http://www.intel.com    and then to   http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support.html ),  the same phenomenon repeated, every time.    This message is being written in Firefox (x64) v43.0.4.  In Firefox add-on NoScript v2.9.0.2, I have white-listed both intel.com and intel.net in both browsers, and have Allowed the Omniture tracker in Ghostery v5.4.10, the only tracker used on that page, apparently.  

                 

                             <<<<               Went offline for several hours, since about 5 PM until the main Debate started on Fox Business (on cable TV). 

                 

                    NEW!   Maybe this is "it."

                    In the Options dialogbox of NoScript, in its tab labeled Advanced, subtab HTTPS, sub-subtab Permissions, I just now changed the option from Always   to   When using a proxy  (and I have not been using a proxy - don't have TOR or any other anonymizer or proxy installed).  But, returning to the Intel® Support page on http://www.intel.com., the phenom did not repeat.  ...  Ok, setting it back to  Always, refreshed the page  and the phenom appeared again.  This is in the x64 Firefox.  ...  Checked the box for Allow HTTPS scripts globally in HTTPSdocuments. Refreshed the page again and the phenom appeared again, so, that didn't help.   Removed that checkmark and changed the setting back to   When using a proxy. and OK'd to close the options dialog (OK'd, every time i changed one of these settings, of course.) and, no problem!   This is the x64 browser. Will want to prove it with the x86 brwser, but I am hopeful that this information will be useful to Firefox+NoScript users from now on.      <<  The Advanced Option that I described, the HTTPS tab,  should not be set to Always. >>  

                   Please let me know what you think.  And I will check out the x86 browser tomorrow, if all goes well,  and will mark this thread answered if it is all OK.

                .  

                                   <<      H-P Pavilion g7 Notebook PC,  Intel inside™ CORE™ i3-3110M,  6 GB RAM,    Windows 8 (x64) v6.2.9200          >>

                • 5. Re: Why Did   www.intel.com   Make Objection to Firefox v43.0.4?
                  EstebanC_Intel

                  Hello, RDTEDude:

                   

                  Thank you for the feedback provided regarding this scenario you are encountering with.

                   

                  Indeed it would be good to have a future feedback on how the system reacted after some days.

                   

                  Regards,

                  Esteban C