Uninstalling disabled add-ons in Firefox 6.0?

Topic

New Reply

I’ve been googling trying to find a way to uninstall 3 add-ons that have been disabled by FF 6.0. I’ve tried Safe-Mode still no UnInstall / Remove button. I tried editing my profile…can’t find a folder with the name of the add-ons I want to uninstall. Anyone have any other ideas?
The three items are.

[*]HP Smart Web Printing 4.60
[*]Java Console 6.0.26
[*]MSN Toolbar 4.0 {don’t ever remember installing this one must have a drive by install!}.

All suggestions welcome. Otherwise FF 6.0 working just fine and faster! :cheers:

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Replies

If they don’t appear in add/remove programs or programs and features:
There are instructions for manually uninstalling Firefox plugins here. If that doesn’t work I found these spcific procedures

[*]HP Smart Web Printing 4.60 – See this page
[*]Java Console 6.0.26 – See option 2 in the bottom of this link. Haven’t tried it your YMMV.
[*]MSN Toolbar 4.0 {don’t ever remember installing this one must have a drive by install!}. Only found remove via control pane and the manual uninstall procedure above.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

Jerry,

Thanks…all gone! :cheers:

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

In Firefox, you uninstall or disable plugins using the tools / add-ons menu right in Forefox. You should find a list of them and disable / uninstall buttons for each. At least that’s how it works in Ubuntu.

What he is seeing are addons installed by third-party applications. For example, (on Windows) Java Console is installed (by default) into C:Program FilesMozilla Firefoxextensions when the user install Java Runtime Environment (JRE). By design, it cannot be installed from within Firefox’s Addon Mgr.

To “uninstall” it, one must first close Firefox. Next, open a Windows Explorer window, navigate to the above listed extensions folder, and delete the folder that looks like {CAFEEFAC . . . . }

For anyone interested in knowing what Java Console does, I found this on Oracle’s Java site: http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/deployment/deployment-guide/console.html

Reply | Quote

I’ve never bothered to uninstall Java; It is always superseded by later Java plugins & not to worry. The others are a non-issue

Reply | Quote

What about the Extensions that are Disabled because they are incompatible with FF6.0? How can you remove them.

There are 4 releases of Java Console that are incompatible, along with a couple of other Extensions.

Reply | Quote

Java Consoles do NOT remove themselves from Firefox. The only proven way to get rid of them is, BEFORE updating Java, go to the Java Control Panel (you may have to search this out in your Programs (x86) Directory under Java/JRE 6/bin/javacpl.exe (for Java JRE 6) and make a shortcut to your desktop for future use. From the Java Control Panel, click on the Advanced tab and expand the parts of the tree which deal with browser plug-ins. Uncheck Mozilla. And leave it that way unless you are a developer. With each new Java JRE update, you will need to make sure the checkbox is unchecked again. The Firefox Java Console Plug-in will magically disappear, never to be seen again until the next Java JRE update. This Administrator action applies to Firefox for all users. For older JRE versions, go to a site like Filehippo, temporarily install the older version, perform this procedure, and then uninstall (via Windows Add/Remove Programs) the old JRE version, and all those old Java Console Zombie Plug-ins should disappear.

Unless you are a developer, the Firefox Java Console plug-in does nothing of use. In fact, the FEBE Extensions backup plug-in cannot even find it to back it up. Java Quick Starter is also non-functional in Firefox since Version 4.

Toolbars are third-party programs, and should be uninstalled using the tools provided by their makers. Going this route cleans up the Registry entries which can make those old toolbars come back from the dead like Zombies, over and over. The same advice applies to third-party Firefox plug-ins (as opposed to Extensions, which can be removed safely just by using their Remove buttons, if they have any).

HP Smart Web Printing I would leave in place, but if you really dislike it, the HP OEM software package should have a removal tool, or else Windows Add/Remove Programs should have an entry for it. Finding the Extension inside of Firefox might pose problems, especially if it has a Hexadecimal Name instead of a plain-English title. I have an Epson All-In-One, and I like its Web To Page browser plug-in. It works better than using the browser to print web pages. But to each their own, I guess.

The link provided earlier in this thread also seems to be a complete solution to the HP Web Printing Extension issue. I am not sure that all of those Firefox files are the same now as they were when the reference was posted, but if they are found, it couldn’t hurt to purge them.

For actual Firefox Extensions, usually if they are disabled, they have a Remove button available. Just click this, restart Firefox, and these outdated Extensions should be gone. Before doing this, however, you might want to use the little Gear Button in the Firefox Add-ons Extensions Tab to Look For Updates. Sometimes this is all that’s needed to find and install a working newer version of your favorite Extensions. Extension Developer Home Pages sometimes also have newer versions, although many of these are betas.

Built-in Firefox Plug-ins should not be removed, even if they are not working. The risk of messing up Firefox is simply too great, in my experience. And there are security programs which install plug-ins into Firefox. These should be left alone.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

As I pointed out above, there are instructions for manually uninstalling Firefox plugins here. This is from the Mozilla web site so it should be safe. I think this is what Retired Geek used to remove the old Java Consoles. I agree with Bob that you should only use this procedure if you don’t have any other options. But if you don’t have any other options, this procedure appears to be safe.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

Hi RG,
I know this is a bit late, but, disabled items can safely be left alone as FF will check for updates for them if set to do so.

Reply | Quote

I’ve been googling trying to find a way to uninstall 3 add-ons that have been disabled by FF 6.0. I’ve tried Safe-Mode still no UnInstall / Remove button. I tried editing my profile…can’t find a folder with the name of the add-ons I want to uninstall. Anyone have any other ideas?
The three items are.

[*]HP Smart Web Printing 4.60
[*]Java Console 6.0.26
[*]MSN Toolbar 4.0 {don’t ever remember installing this one must have a drive by install!}.

I’ve got the same issue with the Java Console. Just for grins, I checked my FEBE extensions backup folder–there’s not an XPI file for the Java Console like there is for other disabled extensions.

My guess is that the Java Console is part of the larger Java installation (and may not even be a true extension, in some technical sense). I tried the second tip in the link given above, and that did the trick.

As for the HP Smart Web Printing: Have you tried uninstalling your HP software via add/remove programs?

I’ve no suggestions for the MSN Toolbar–I’ve never encountered it. Maybe it was installed when you clicked through the installer for a free app?

My guess is that, while annoying to see, these disabled items don’t affect your FF installation, so I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over them.

Reply | Quote

I’ve got the same issue with the Java Console. Just for grins, I checked my FEBE extensions backup folder–there’s not an XPI file for the Java Console like there is for other disabled extensions.

My guess is that the Java Console is part of the larger Java installation (and may not even be a true extension, in some technical sense). I tried the second tip in the link given above, and that did the trick.

As for the HP Smart Web Printing: Have you tried uninstalling your HP software via add/remove programs?

I’ve no suggestions for the MSN Toolbar–I’ve never encountered it. Maybe it was installed when you clicked through the installer for a free app?

My guess is that, while annoying to see, these disabled items don’t affect your FF installation, so I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over them.

Good guess on the Java add-ons. They are not generated by Firefox, but by the Java Runtime itself. And as I pointed out, they can be unchecked in the Java Control Panel and gotten rid of forever.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I wouldnt be too worried about these. For one thing Mozilla have been sweeping through versions lately and that process has not completed. We should be on Firefox 7 in the very enar future and who knows if that is the end of this quick-fire round of new versions.

Third party developers must be tearing their hair out as each successive version wipes out their add-ons and they have to modify them.

I would wait and take stock once the current round of updates has finished. Any decent add-on will be quickly brought up to date and maybe some will be redundant as Mozilla covers their functions.

My only bug-bear has been the number of tabs that have opened recently infiorming me that an add-on now has a new version to cope with Firefox releases. Having said that its also reassuring that the add-ons themselves are continually being developed.

Reply | Quote

I wouldnt be too worried about these. For one thing Mozilla have been sweeping through versions lately and that process has not completed. We should be on Firefox 7 in the very enar future and who knows if that is the end of this quick-fire round of new versions.

Third party developers must be tearing their hair out as each successive version wipes out their add-ons and they have to modify them.

I would wait and take stock once the current round of updates has finished. Any decent add-on will be quickly brought up to date and maybe some will be redundant as Mozilla covers their functions.

My only bug-bear has been the number of tabs that have opened recently infiorming me that an add-on now has a new version to cope with Firefox releases. Having said that its also reassuring that the add-ons themselves are continually being developed.

Mozilla has moved Firefox (and Thunderbird, too) onto a rapid release plan. Instead of “sub” version releases (x.1, x.2, etc.) every 6 weeks, starting with Fx 4,
major versions are planned on being released every 6 week. This mimics what Google has been doing with Chrome for some time now.

Reply | Quote

Mozilla has moved Firefox (and Thunderbird, too) onto a rapid release plan. Instead of “sub” version releases (x.1, x.2, etc.) every 6 weeks, starting with Fx 4,
major versions are planned on being released every 6 week. This mimics what Google has been doing with Chrome for some time now.

Just as you say that, version 6.01 was released today.

Reply | Quote

Just as you say that, version 6.01 was released today.

The reason why:

Firefox 6.0.1 and Firefox 3.6.21 revoke the root certificate for DigiNotar due to fraudulent SSL certificate issuance. For additional details, see http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate.

Oh, and, Fx 6 to 6.0.1 is much different than Fx 6 to Fx 7.

Reply | Quote

My only bug-bear has been the number of tabs that have opened recently infiorming me that an add-on now has a new version to cope with Firefox releases. Having said that its also reassuring that the add-ons themselves are continually being developed.

Individual add-ons that show a “first run” page typically have a setting for whether or not to do that, but I am not aware of a global setting for this.

Reply | Quote

And to make things even more difficult,Mozilla is talking about hiding the version numbers completely from users, so that we will never even know which version we are running or upgrading to. Really smart move, Mozilla folks — NOT!!

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Bob, Mozilla backed down on hiding version numbers. See:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/mozilla-abandons-plan-to-hide-firefox-version-numbers/14427

Jerry

Reply | Quote

Bob, Mozilla backed down on hiding version numbers. See:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/mozilla-abandons-plan-to-hide-firefox-version-numbers/14427

Jerry

Good news. Now, as one of the Comments there says, if only Mozilla would stop breaking the add-ons with each full-version upgrade. :o:

My point in including that comment is, hiding the version number was only a symptom of a much larger issue at Mozilla Development. They lack centralized and strong leadership, and so everyone seems to go off in multiple directions without much coordination. This is exactly the kind of disorganization which plagues much of Open Source program development. The inability to get a working Java Console, Java QuickStarter, and inability to produce a rational way for Java updates to remove Mozilla plug-ins, are all part of this lack of coordinated development in Firefox. The sudden abandonment of traditional Themes in favor of Personas in Firefox 4 and the abandonment of the UserChrome folder is yet another example of poorly coordinated development. Then they even broke the Stylish Extension in Firefox 5 or 6.

I see examples of very good projects which somehow veer off course and end up in the ditches. And I also see a few good projects which are well managed and produce reliable upgrades. Firefox, unfortunately, is not one of those well managed Open Source projects.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Good news. Now, as one of the Comments there says, if only Mozilla would stop breaking the add-ons with each full-version upgrade. :o:

My point in including that comment is, hiding the version number was only a symptom of a much larger issue at Mozilla Development. They lack centralized and strong leadership, and so everyone seems to go off in multiple directions without much coordination. This is exactly the kind of disorganization which plagues much of Open Source program development. The inability to get a working Java Console, Java QuickStarter, and inability to produce a rational way for Java updates to remove Mozilla plug-ins, are all part of this lack of coordinated development in Firefox. The sudden abandonment of traditional Themes in favor of Personas in Firefox 4 and the abandonment of the UserChrome folder is yet another example of poorly coordinated development. Then they even broke the Stylish Extension in Firefox 5 or 6.

I see examples of very good projects which somehow veer off course and end up in the ditches. And I also see a few good projects which are well managed and produce reliable upgrades. Firefox, unfortunately, is not one of those well managed Open Source projects.

The latest Stylish version works fine for me in the current version of Firefox (and development versions, too).

For a way to not have each version of Firefox disable your addons, install Addon Compatibility Reporter. Not only does it disable addon compatibility checking, it has a reporting feature which helps both the folks at addons.mozilla.org and addon authors know if their addons work with the version of the browser you are using, and you can also report what problems you may be having with a particular addon, too.

Reply | Quote

The latest Stylish version works fine for me in the current version of Firefox (and development versions, too).

For a way to not have each version of Firefox disable your addons, install Addon Compatibility Reporter. Not only does it disable addon compatibility checking, it has a reporting feature which helps both the folks at addons.mozilla.org and addon authors know if their addons work with the version of the browser you are using, and you can also report what problems you may be having with a particular addon, too.

I don’t do much of my own customizing of Firefox, so I only notice when an existing add-on breaks. It’s nice to know that there’s a way to report these incidents, but I stand by my words that the very existence of such breakage, and the frequency with which it occurs, speaks volumes about the lack of coordination of Firefox development.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I don’t do much of my own customizing of Firefox, so I only notice when an existing add-on breaks. It’s nice to know that there’s a way to report these incidents, but I stand by my words that the very existence of such breakage, and the frequency with which it occurs, speaks volumes about the lack of coordination of Firefox development.

Is it Firefox’s’ job to make sure that all the hundreds of addons and plugins made by outside sources remain compatible with the browser? Or is it their job to provide a fast and secure browser that competes with all the other browsers?

Reply | Quote

Is it Firefox’s’ job to make sure that all the hundreds of addons and plugins made by outside sources remain compatible with the browser? Or is it their job to provide a fast and secure browser that competes with all the other browsers?

Your post does not actually argue against what I said in my post. the developers of add-ons are not keeping pace with the version upgrading scheme of the Firefox main line of development. This is what I mean by a lack of coordinated development. I sincerely doubt that most Firefox users are interested in testing each add-on to determine whether it broke with the upgrade, or whether it simply has not had its Compatibility Rating updated, or whatever other nonsense Mozilla has created as a workaround to the underlying issue.

Sorry, but I am not going to risk wrecking my Firefox Profiles by using potentially truly incompatible add-ons. I have had this experience too many times to trust an add-on or utility which fudges the compatibility data for all add-ons. And I am not interested in fussing with a reporting scheme which the Firefox mainstream developers almost never respond to anyway.

Yes, it is the responsibility of Mozilla to keep the development of Firefox add-ons in sync with the development of the browser. If Google can do it, Mozilla can do it.

The issue remains the same: I have never had an add-on to Google Chrome show up as actually or supposedly incompatible with a Chrome update. This is a result of Google’s centralized and coordinated controls over the entire development process — including paid or unpaid add-ons authorship.

The difference is clear, and it is probably the most significant reason for the complete lack of corporate interest in Firefox. And the growing numbers of individual users who are jumping from Firefox to Chrome.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Additional information regarding why Fx went from 6 to 6.0.1: http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2011/09/02/diginotar-removal-follow-up/

Reply | Quote

And now there is a 6.02 version available for download. It is however not showing up as an upgrade yet.

Reply | Quote

Has anyone noticed how little Java (not JavaScript) is used on the Internet these days? I’ve been browsing with it disabled in the browser for a good while now and haven’t noticed the lack of it. I don’t mean the Java Console that I’ve always disabled anyway but more the entire plugin.

Firefox hasn’t been compatible with Java since Version 4. What folks get confused about is that javascript looks like it ought to have something to do with Java. But the two are totally unrelated. The originators of javascript were simply trying to make a name for themselves, and Java, Sun and Oracle have never been happy about the resulting user confusion. But apparently, there was no trademark infringement, so the confusion persists.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

There appears to be a lack of understanding about addons. Let’s see if I can clear things up for everyone.

First, most addons are authored/written by people and companies other than Mozilla. What Mozilla has done is written all it’s programs to be extensible. Anyone can create an extension or theme to add features to or customize the appearance of Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, Seamonkey, etc. (With this thread focusing primarily on Firefox, I will limit my references to it.)

As a part of that extensibility, Mozilla has defined certain parameters that addon authors need to follow. The specific one at issue in this thread is that addon authors must define the range of Firefox versions over which their addon will be “compatible.” The typical meaning of this is the range of versions that the author has tested their addon on.

Inside both Firefox and addons.mozilla.org, there are compatibility check routines that will disable and/or prevent the installation of incompatible addons. This is what is happening at the moment when Firefox releases a new version such as going from 4 to 5 and now 6. If the user has an addon that is not (yet) officially compatible with the version of Firefox in use, it will be disabled unless Firefox finds a newer, compatible version of the addon available from addons.mozilla.org. This compatibility checking routine protects the unsuspecting user from running Firefox with addons that may, in fact, be functionally incompatible with the browser.

So, the truth is this. Most addons are not “breaking” because of the release of the new version of Firefox. They are being disabled because the addon compatibility checking routine only knows that the addon is not considered “compatible.” However, for most addons, they are not functionally incompatible as the addon still works as the author intended despite whatever changes are introduced in the new version of Firefox.

This is where the Addon Compatiblity Reporter (ACR) addon that I mentioned in a previous post comes in handy. By installing this addon, the user will disable Firefox’s internal addon compatibility checking routine and allow the user to keep enabled addons that are not (yet) officially compatible with the version of Firefox they are using.

ACR, as noted by “Reporter” in it’s name, also has a reporting feature where users can report to addons.mozilla.org and the addon author whether or not their addon still works with the version of Firefox they are running. This activity can be quite beneficial as the typical addon author is only volunteering their free time to developing their addons.

ACR also will allow a user to install what may be an officially incompatible addon when visiting addons.mozilla.org. Without ACR, users won’t be able find a link to install officially incompatible addons.

With the new rapid release plan for Firefox that Mozilla has instituted, ACR may very well be the most important addon to have installed. With ACR, users won’t be left without the use of their addons just because Firefox updates to a new version.

Finally, addons.mozilla.org does provide compatibility updates to addons that are determined to be functionally compatible with version of Firefox the user is running.

To conclude, most addons are not “breaking” because of Firefox releasing new versions. They are being disabled because they are not (yet) officially compatible with the new version. Users can install ACR to allow them to keep “incompatible” addons enabled, test those addons and report back if those addons are truly compatible or not. ACR will also allow users to install officially incompatible addons from addons.mozilla.org

Reply | Quote

I have Firefox 6 installed and find that Java applets will run in it.

I won’t argue with your experiences. But many reports have been posted at the Firefox support forums about Java applets and web site apps which have not been working. Personally, I have seen the National Weather Service Live Radar site, whose animations fire up Java Runtime. That app does seem to work, as of Firefox 5. Haven’t tried it on 6 yet. But that is just one of many Java applets, so others may not be working. The Java Console and other Java controls are said not to work in Firefox since Version 4. That comes straight from the Mozilla developers themselves.

Again, let’s make sure that you are talking about Java Applets, not JavaScripts.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I won’t argue with your experiences. But many reports have been posted at the Firefox support forums about Java applets and web site apps which have not been working. Personally, I have seen the National Weather Service Live Radar site, whose animations fire up Java Runtime. That app does seem to work, as of Firefox 5. Haven’t tried it on 6 yet. But that is just one of many Java applets, so others may not be working. The Java Console and other Java controls are said not to work in Firefox since Version 4. That comes straight from the Mozilla developers themselves.

Again, let’s make sure that you are talking about Java Applets, not JavaScripts.

I have 3 Java entries in my 6.02 version of Firefox. In the extensions is the Java Console which is incompatible with FF 6.X. In my plugins I have Java Deployment toolkit 7.0.0.147 10.0.0.147. I also have Java(TM) Platform SE 7 10.0.0.147. I believe it is the Java(TM) Platform SE 7 plugin that allows Java applets to run in the browser. Both of these plugins are enabled and not incompatible.

Reply | Quote

I am surprised to hear of an addon “wrecking” a profile. Having used the “bleeding edge” development versions of Firefox known as Nightly (formerly known as Minefield or Trunk) since at least Firefox 3, I am probably using the worst case scenario. Those worst cases have, at the most, necessitated my creating a new profile and copying over the key files from the old profile to the new one. (For more information and instructions on how to create a new profile and copy data from your old profile to the new one, see Transferring data to a new profile – Firefox in the Mozillazine Knowledge Base.)

The simply fact is that most if not all addons do not interact with the profile files that contain the user’s personal data in ways that corrupt or otherwise delete that data. If there is a group whose experience would show whether or not addons or major feature changes adversely affect the personal data contained in profiles, it would be the regular Nightly users like me. That is simply not the case. In fact, it is we who regularly use Nightly that helps protect those who only use Firefox from the inevitable bugs that occur when changes are made to the browser or when new features are introduced.

And, as you will see, there are ways to back up that data that every user should do on a regular basis.

With the inclusion of Firefox Sync, users have a convenient way to back up (and share across multiple computers and other devices) their personal data including browsing history, form data, logins/passwords, open tabs from their previous browsing session and even their preferences. Also, there are other ways for users to back up their profiles meaning that it is incumbent upon the user to have the proper discipline to back up their important data and files including their profiles. (Utilities like Dropbox add even more convenience (for free, too) to the backing up of one’s important data and files.)

With this being said, it becomes much harder to make the case that Firefox’s rapid release plan unduly increases the risk to the user of irretrievable data loss whether from functional incompatibility with an addon or the introduction of a new feature in the browser especially if the user exercises common sense and regularly backs up their important data and files including their Firefox profiles.

Reply | Quote

OK, well there we have it. Java seems to work in Firefox 6, but not many folks use it on the Web. The Java Console seems to be the main thing which is not compatible with recent Firefox versions. That is, by the way, an Oracle/Sun/Java console, not anything Mozilla or any Extensions developers put together.

Yes, Firefox profiles can get wrecked during upgrade operations. This is more common if Personas or Themes are being used, but I have had incidents which I cannot trace to those features with several recent Firefox upgrades. Strange thing is, it’s usually my Limited User Account which gets into trouble and needs to have its profile recreated or restored. If Admin privileges are present, I haven’t had nearly so much trouble. I have two Limited Users and one Administrator Accounts (plus the Hidden Administrator Account, which is not messed with) on my Windows XP Pro SP3 laptop.

It is usually the display of the Firefox windows or menu drop-downs which gets wrecked. This is possibly due to corruption of the user chrome or whatever has replaced that folder in more recent versions. That area can be restored, and all is well again — until the next upgrade. This hasn’t happened when going from FF5 to FF6, so let’s cross everything and hope for the best going forward.

I never have to back up and recover user profile data in Chrome — never. Having to go through extra hoops to maintain Firefox in a usable condition is simply not acceptable from a productivity perspective, given the current Rapid Release schedule.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I’m done with this thread.

Reply | Quote