Spyware Blaster can't see Mozilla

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by 1joker1, Jul 28, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 1joker1

    1joker1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Posts:
    9
    When I run Spyware Blaster it tells me: "Mozilla not installed"

    But it is installed and can be run at any time.

    When I click for information, it tells me:

    There are no Mozilla user profiles on your computer (for this account).

    My questions are:

    1. what can I do about this?
    2. what does "for this account" mean?
    3. can I create the appropriate user profiles and, if so, how?

    Thanks in advance for your help.
     
  2. dangitall

    dangitall Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Posts:
    430
    Location:
    New Hamster, USA
    The new version of SpywareBlaster requires that you be running Mozilla v1.7+ and/or Firefox v0.9.2 + for the Mozilla/Firefox protection; earlier versions will not work with SWB 3.2.
     
  3. 1joker1

    1joker1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Posts:
    9
    Hi, Dangitall. Thanks for trying but that's not correct. On one machine (let's call it machine #1) I'm running Spyware Blaster 3.2 and Mozilla 1.5 and everything works fine. On the other machine (machine #2) I'm also running Spyware Blaster 3.2 and Mozilla 1.5 and I have the problem that started this thread. Any other thoughts?
     
  4. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    Hi; Dangitall is indeed correct. Machine #1 is the exception here, it "got lucky" or some other thing like that... Checking Javacool's release announcement thread for SWB 3.2 will show that versions Javacool says SWB is compatable with.
     
  5. 1joker1

    1joker1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Posts:
    9
    "got lucky" !!o_O You've got to be kidding. Sounds more like Javacool missed something in their research.
     
  6. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    This is the problem you want to solve

    This is what Javacool's release notes say

    I don't think Javacool missed anything here

    ;)
     
  7. 1joker1

    1joker1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Posts:
    9
    Somehow I think you missed the point.

    SWB DOES detect Mozilla 1.5 installation on one machine but not on another.

    What Javacool may have missed is that there ARE conditions under which SWB will detect Mozilla 1.5 and protect it and under other conditions it will not. But to suggest that a machine "got lucky" is absurd.

    Would it help if I described the architecture of the two machines in question?
     
  8. burrism

    burrism Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    10
    I've posted numerous times that I have two machines running 1.7 and I have the identical problem as you. Came up right away on one but nothing on the other, even after trying all the workarounds that were offered.

    I've compared the location of the files and so forth, but went nowhere.

    burris
     
  9. 1joker1

    1joker1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Posts:
    9
    Hi Burris. Well, with any luck we might get some answers that'll help both of us.
     
  10. Tassie_Devils

    Tassie_Devils Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Posts:
    2,514
    Location:
    State Queensland, Australia
    HI joker/burrism.....

    Indeed JC did indicate that SWB3.2 was targetting 1.7+ and 0.9+ builds of Moz and FF, so Detox was correct.

    Yes, understand the frustration you must be getting, but I also reiterate machine #1 "got lucky" I have not seen many posts where it would run under 1.7, but I have seen a couple and the owners were just happy and did not question about not having to upgrade.

    However, this does not solve your problem.

    *Maybe* you have not seen this thread, I gave some tips in there. Try if you already haven't and see what happens. :)

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=42999

    Cheers, TAS
     
  11. 1joker1

    1joker1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Posts:
    9
    We seem to be drifting rather far from my concern. To clarify, let me repeat
    part of my reply to Dangitall:

    Quote:
    On one machine (let's call it machine #1) I'm running Spyware Blaster 3.2
    and Mozilla 1.5 and everything works fine. On the other machine (machine
    #2) I'm also running Spyware Blaster 3.2 and Mozilla 1.5 and I have the
    problem that started this thread.

    Now please let's not hear any more about machine #1 being "lucky". This is
    not a lottery.

    I offered to post the architectures of these two machines in the hope that
    someone would be able to suggest why they treat the interaction between
    SWB 3.2 and Mozilla 1.5 differently. I repeat that offer here and I hope that
    someone will take me up on it because I'd really like to understand what's
    going on so that maybe I could fix it or maybe the folks at Javacool would
    become interested in looking into it.

    Please note that I'm talking about Mozilla 1.5 --- not Mozilla 1.7 --- nor am
    I talking about Firefox.
     
  12. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    First and foremost....folks at Javacool ....is simply an individual who goes by the name JavaCool. As has been offered on more than one occasion to you.....are possible reasons and links to what you can try IF your determined to keep Mozilla 1.5 which is NOT supported by JavaCool or in version 3.2 of SpywareBlaster for the reasons given in the various comments not only in this thread but in the links shared. If by chance you you attempt some of the possible fixes that have been mentioned....possible fixes that are for Mozilla 1.7 and above BTW....and your fortunate enough for SpywareBlaster to now recognize Mozilla....the question becomes....are you truly protected. That answer will have to come from you.... since the author and others have stated version 1.5 is not supported. Peace of mind that a program is acctually protecting me is far more important than beating my head against the wall attempting to make one PC be as lucky as the other.

    Internet Security in todays environment is to risky to play games with or choose the mentality of....make it run even IF it's not protecting me.
     
  13. burrism

    burrism Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    10

    So that I'm not misunderstood, I do appreciate the work that has gone into this and other freeware products.

    I always thought I had a pretty good comprehension of computers, but I fail to understand the reasoning as to why 3.2 works on one of my 1.7 machines and not the other, even after following all the suggested work-arounds.

    I'm not a programmer and I am not looking for proprietary information, but why is it so difficult for the designer to see the problem? Perhaps in the installation process, a choice of where the vital profile exists or how to find it, would offer a chance to install it correctly.

    burris
     
  14. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    Hey burris,

    So that I am not mis-understood....the programmer(JavaCool)....is very aware of the problem some users are having concerning Mozilla\Firefox and the supported versions....Mozilla 1.7 & Firefox 0.9 and up.

    He is burning the midnight oil with this problem....as he is with a few other glitches some users are having. Unfortunately there is not at this time a quick fix for all users....even for those users that have followed....all the suggested work-arounds.

    Patience is a virtue and ALL Javacool asks is patience....patience in the understanding that he IS working deligently to address those supported issues. Those users who choose to be patient will be better served in the end.
     
  15. 1joker1

    1joker1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Posts:
    9
    Hi Burris. Keep up the good fight. I wish you well. I'm bailing out of this useless dialog. I originally started this thread in the hope of getting some intelligent answers from resident experts who visit or moderate this forum, but I get nothing more enlightening than "lucky machines" and "don't use Mozilla 1.5" rather than any attempt to get at the underlying technical issue.

    I didn't know that Javacool was a single individual. If so, he's done a remarkable job and he can certainly be forgiven for missing something. After all, Micro$oft with its many thousands of programmers makes huge mistakes that dwarf any shortcomings of SWB.

    Now to Bubba: I will continue to use SWB on my so-called "lucky" machine since I know from independent analysis that it's working fine and is providing the protection that I expected from it.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.