InformAction Forums

Interesting.

CopyFileEx function
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 85%29.aspx

Bug 789816 - Clean up the copy/move file code in nsLocalFileWin
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789816

gmp51261 wrote:the shortened path didn't help. I did it the quick way (profile move) using Tools/Switch Profile after copying my profile folder to a shortened name in the root of the drive. What's next? Anyone got any ideas?

Since it appears (from later posts that it has something to do with copying of files), the method I posted might help. However, don't move your profile like that directly - instead follow the instructions I posted.
I had similar problems some time back, I moved the profile folder and it did work. YMMV, though.

It appears that Mozilla is simply using flags in its copy operations (its calls to [Windows] CopyFileEx function) that are not supported on Win2K [possibly even XP SP1?] & unless they decide to make a change in that respect (not likely since Win2K is no longer supported), Win2K users will have to find a work-around or do without.

If that's the case, the OP might have to look into replacing W2k's kernel32.dll with that from XP or the Wine project.

Is there a particular reason for staying on an operating system that has not been supported by Microsoft (ie no security patches) for years?

If price is the issue, then I can recommend Ubuntu Linux, or various other flavors, which can easily run straight from CD/DVD, or as a dual-boot, or in a virtual machine, if you want to try them out. They're becoming even more relevant now that Windows 8 has completely changed the Windows user interface; one way or another, you're going to have to change what you're used to, so you may as well look around at your options.

Replacing kernel32 with one from a newer version of Windows...you're definitely on your own there.

@ access2godzilla, Wine looks interesting. My contention is, why do I have to upgrade JUST BECAUSE Windows developers have decided to add "new function" calls in DLLs? The "patched install" I had mentioned earlier emulates XP pretty closely; at least enough so I hadn't had to deal with "unable to install" issues, until the FF/SM developers put a stumbling block in the way.

@ Thrawn, you asked why "Is there a particular reason for staying on an operating system that has not been supported by Microsoft (ie no security patches) for years?" YES -- I have your answer!! This computer is at a small business, and runs machinery that is used to create our graphics (vinyl design, screen printing) and the owner does NOT want to upgrade (VERY expensive; she tried to upgrade to XP back in 2005 with techie help, before I was here, with disastrous results!) I have no problem adding USB devices, such as a printer, but I am using two serial and two parallel ports for the hardware and am using a communication program by NetMOS that was written probably 10 years ago. Last April, I started a project to streamline this Win2K installation (it had 8 years of garbage installs -- all done before I joined this company in 2007.) I had two drives and did a total "clean install" of Win2K on it. And finding all of the drivers from the vendor sites was a nightmare! I now have them all backed up. Texas Instruments (NetMOS) did not have my drivers anymore, but I found a generic one that worked. Then, as I booted up for the first time, I had various issues. Finally got all the updates (MS does not keep Win2K updates available online now;) I got them through information on the MSFN website. Finally, after two weeks, all was well, and I was able to update Firefox/SeaMonkey to the latest version with all security updates.

This is no game or hobby for me -- this IS business, and this company needed the computer to work flawlessly, but also needed to be safe when on the Internet. (Which is why I value NoScript, AdBlock Plus, and Ghostery) I have secured it well through hardware and software, and now we can run the business without worry. Plus, the new Win2K install is 1/3 the size on disk of the old bloated install.

So, do you NOW see why I had to keep this old O/S running?? There are other people like me out there, struggling with old OSes that their business owners cannot or will not update.

But, we could extend the conversation to Windows XP. I bought a computer in October 2007 that has Windows XP installed, just six years ago, and enjoy using it for various things. It generally runs well (occasionally issues with HD videos,) but now, in April of 2014, once again, Microsoft has imperiously decided to quit supporting the OS. THIS time, there could be dire consequences, after reading the security journal that MS puts out. So, why do I have to update the OS? Why can't I keep it secure? We can ask this question again when Vista comes up to bat in a few years.

gmp51261 wrote:@ access2godzilla, Wine looks interesting. My contention is, why do I have to upgrade JUST BECAUSE Windows developers have decided to add "new function" calls in DLLs?

Well, I don't think anyone here wants to be held to account for what Microsoft does.

The "patched install" I had mentioned earlier emulates XP pretty closely; at least enough so I hadn't had to deal with "unable to install" issues, until the FF/SM developers put a stumbling block in the way.

Windows 2000 is no longer supported, and has not been for a long time; Mozilla isn't obligated to keep putting effort into compatibility with it. If you want to stay with an older version of FF/SM, or develop your own, you are free to do so, but Mozilla developers are focused on other things, and I think they're justified in doing that.

Is the Pale Moon browser any use to you, perhaps? The author cherry-picks changes from Firefox, rather than including them all, so it might not have this issue.

I have no problem adding USB devices, such as a printer, but I am using two serial and two parallel ports for the hardware and am using a communication program by NetMOS that was written probably 10 years ago.

Ah. Custom software would be an issue.

Any chance that that software would run successfully in Wine? If so, then you could experiment with Linux (using a live CD or virtual host).

There's no official preference for Linux here; NoScript is certainly supported on Windows - just not necessarily on unsupported versions of Windows. The reason I suggest Linux is because it doesn't cost anything to install, and it's easy to try it in a sandbox.

So, do you NOW see why I had to keep this old O/S running?? There are other people like me out there, struggling with old OSes that their business owners cannot or will not update.

Well, you may need to stay with older versions of Fx/SM or build your own. They are open-source.

But, we could extend the conversation to Windows XP. I bought a computer in October 2007 that has Windows XP installed, just six years ago, and enjoy using it for various things. It generally runs well (occasionally issues with HD videos,) but now, in April of 2014, once again, Microsoft has imperiously decided to quit supporting the OS. THIS time, there could be dire consequences, after reading the security journal that MS puts out. So, why do I have to update the OS? Why can't I keep it secure? We can ask this question again when Vista comes up to bat in a few years.

Well, when you bought the operating system, you only paid for a certain amount of support lifetime. After that, you don't have any claim on Microsoft any more to keep improving it for you. If you don't like it - they don't really care. Sorry, we can't help with that.