I think I can add something to the Forums corporate memory of this Firefox problem. If you are using AVG with Firefox, I suggest you keep reading <grin>.
Yesterday, I downloaded and began using Firefox 3.6.6. Because it is the newest and, hopefully, an improved version of FF, I figured FF would have finally solved its long-running aversion to the AVG anti-virus program.
More exactly, its the Link Scanner function of AVG. I say FireFox wont run without crashing if you use AVGs Link Scanner function. This was discussed in CNETs AVG forum thread AVG: why?. You can go to my response Question: Why is AVG not compatible with Firefox? at <http://forums.cnet.com/5208-19703_102-0.html?messageID=3308914&tag=mncol;lst;5#3308914>
Months ago, as soon as I disabled my AVGs Link Scanner function, my FireFox crashes *stopped*, cold turkey. The positive change in Firefoxs behavior was as if Id flipped a switch. Since then, I have not suffered any more back-to-back FireFox crashes. Until yesterday, that is <g>.
After loading the new FireFox 3.6.6, I again enabled my AVG Link Scanner function. Like I said, I gambled that FireFox, Inc. would have fixed this obvious problem by now.
WRONG! An hour or so after I began using FF 3.6.6. with Link Scanner, FF crashed. Ugh! Deja vu, all over again. But I kept on going thinking the initial crash could have just been an anomaly. Not so: several hours later, FF crashed again. Soon after that, I turned off my computer for the night.
This morning, less than 30 minutes after starting my computer, Firefox crashed again. That was it for me. I immediately *disabled* the AVG Link Scanner function and now, six hours later, I have not (yet) suffered another crash. I can only hope that this problem remains the old bugaboo, Link Scanner vs. FF and not something new. Better the devil we know . . . <g>.
So, if you are having crash problems with Firefox, including the newest version, try disabling your AVG's Link Scanner function. If you dont use AVG, Im sorry, I dont have another quick fix. Good luck, though.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)