dko wrote:On the 2nd point I am unsure

So am I. IMHO Mozilla developers don't explain their plans enough clearly and regularly and don't do it in one place only. If you want to know what is really going on you should dig in Mozilla blogs, bug trackers, changelogs etc.

dko wrote:I have one question however Usher on your suspicion. IF MBAE is over zealously blocking some files would it not block flvsniff.dll Ver 1040 (as well as flvsniff.dll ver 1058).

It's also a very common issue. In the past there were similar reports for Kaspersky AV/IS blocking files from newest FDM builds, and lately there have been more reports about problems with Malwarebytes software. Someone just should report false alerts and crashes to Malwarebytes developers.

dko wrote:Am I correct that, as I am not a XP user that there is no reason why I cannot just use flvsniff.dll Ver 1040 or is Ver 1058 supposed to address other issues that would affect me if I do not use it.

It's not only about using Windows XP or newer OS, it's more about the way flvsniff.dll integrates with browsers. It's been changed and it will be changed in the future for many reasons, f.e. because of changes in web sites (see reported problems with Youtube) and web browsers (see reported problems with Chrome, Firefox and IE). Build 1058 should work better in more cases (on more websites) than build 1040.

dko wrote:I know it would only be your opinion (and nothing more) but do you have any personal view on the merit of retaining and using MBAE.

The best AV is your brain. The best software for you is the one that is least annoying for you, my opinion is irrelevant and inadequate from your point of view.

dko wrote:With these changes the Add-on authors cannot or will not want to keep up (too much hard work in many cases). IMHO

Mozilla people try to eliminate add-ons of poor quality, outdated or created by developers that don't follow Mozilla developing rules. Note that for Mozilla it's not only a web browser, It's also Firefox OS. For similar reasons Apple and Google try to control development of apps for iOS and ChromeOS respectively.

HI Usher

dko wrote:I have one question however Usher on your suspicion. IF MBAE is over zealously blocking some files would it not block flvsniff.dll Ver 1040 (as well as flvsniff.dll ver 1058).

Usher wrote:It's also a very common issue. In the past there were similar reports for Kaspersky AV/IS blocking files from newest FDM builds, and lately there have been more reports about problems with Malwarebytes software. Someone just should report false alerts and crashes to Malwarebytes developers.

Very interesting info Usher thanks. I feel I cannot, at this stage, report a possible false alert in this case to MB because MBAE has not raised an alert or crashed. I am sure Alex has good reasons for suspecting MBAE based on analysing the dump I sent him but they are unknown to me.

dko wrote:Am I correct that, as I am not a XP user that there is no reason why I cannot just use flvsniff.dll Ver. 1040 or is Ver 1058 supposed to address other issues that would affect me if I do not use it.

Usher wrote:It's not only about using Windows XP or newer OS, it's more about the way flvsniff.dll integrates with browsers. It's been changed and it will be changed in the future for many reasons, f.e. because of changes in web sites (see reported problems with Youtube) and web browsers (see reported problems with Chrome, Firefox and IE). Build 1058 should work better in more cases (on more websites) than build 1040.

Thanks again Usher. I will wait for the next version of flvsniff.dll and hope Firefox/MBAE and a newer version of flvsniff.dll will "play nice with each other" .My other alternatives are 1) to use 1040 until it no longer works for me OR 2) disable the "Monitor Video downloads in browsers" or 3) uninstall MBAE (unless it upgrades and the issue goes away).
I think on balance MBAE will end up going if a newer version of flvsniff.dll does not work on my system.
Uninstalling Firefox or FDM are NOT options

dko wrote:I know it would only be your opinion (and nothing more) but do you have any personal view on the merit of retaining and using MBAE.

Usher wrote:The best AV is your brain. The best software for you is the one that is least annoying for you, my opinion is irrelevant and inadequate from your point of view.

you should be a politician or a diplomat Usher . Fair point I must and WILL decide for myself.
For you information, I personally feel as I have Avast AV free, Comodo Firewall (free) , Windows Defender SpywareBlaster together with Firefox Add-ons: HTTPS Everywhere, uBlock, Better Privacy, Disconnect, Self Destructing Cookies & Trusteer Rapport & WOT I am very well served without MBAE.
I ALSO regularly run Hitman Pro and MBAM (free versions so no real time protection).

dko wrote:With these changes the Add-on authors cannot or will not want to keep up (too much hard work in many cases). IMHO

Usher wrote:Mozilla people try to eliminate add-ons of poor quality, outdated or created by developers that don't follow Mozilla developing rules. Note that for Mozilla it's not only a web browser, It's also Firefox OS. For similar reasons Apple and Google try to control development of apps for iOS and ChromeOS respectively.

Those are good points Usher . I do feel E10 is unfortunately catching many decently written Add-ons as well as bad or outdated ones, purely because their Authors wrote their Add-ons were not written with E10 in mind and some are a major task to convert.

I do monitor Firefox blogs, Forums and developer Notes etc. on a very regular basis (and other software) but sometimes what they say (especially Developer blogs/Forums) goes over my head in varying degrees, unless someone explains it in a more simple "User" language (and not Developer only jargon).

Thanks for you reply and all your input Usher. Its appreciated
Dave

there is still crashes in Windows XP with this version, for example after install, I guess somebody broken the NON-SSE2 CPUs compatiblity

Alex, if you are compiling with VS2013 make sure XP compatibility is enabled in platform toolset "v120_xp", and also compiled with <EnableEnhancedInstructionSet>NoExtensions</EnableEnhancedInstructionSet>

MELERIX wrote:there is still crashes in Windows XP with this version, for example after install, I guess somebody broken the NON-SSE2 CPUs compatiblity

Hello,

What is your CPU?

Alex wrote:

MELERIX wrote:there is still crashes in Windows XP with this version, for example after install, I guess somebody broken the NON-SSE2 CPUs compatiblity

Hello,

What is your CPU?

hi Alex, the CPU is an AMD Athlon XP 2000+, is not my PC but a machine running XP SP3 where I've installed FDM to test.

3.9.6 build 1556 is released.

when download complete. file is overlap how to fix problem?

https://showss.net/image/Svg

thank you..

I have lite version installed.
Checking for updates gives this upgrade but full version?
It should give lite version upgrade.

Link in first post still points to RC - just remove /rc for fixing.

pormaster wrote:when download complete. file is overlap how to fix problem?
https://showss.net/image/Svg

Could you explain more detaily, what is the problem, please?
Why do you use desktop as a download folder? It's the worst place to keep broken or unfinished downloads.

Alex wrote:3.9.6 build 1556 (2015-6-22)
Changes:
[+] Bittorrent: sequential downloads.

This feature should be disabled by default, but I can't see any option to enable or disable it. How it is implemented?

RicLev wrote:Link in first post still points to RC - just remove /rc for fixing.

Fixed. Thanks.

Usher wrote:This feature should be disabled by default, but I can't see any option to enable or disable it. How it is implemented?

It is. See Settings | Bittorrent tab.

Alex wrote:It is. See Settings | Bittorrent tab.

Now it is, when you have fixed the download link. I'd like to see it implemented also as per torrent option - like seeding.

BTW. Sending updated language file...

Alex wrote:See Settings | Bittorrent tab.

There should be more place for "Sequential downloads" translation reserved.