1. I know it seems extreme, but my reaction was different. Uninstall old version. Uninstall new version. Check MS updates to make sure things worked. Doublecheck Netscape 4.0 to make sure it still works. Set Firefox on back burned next to Thunderbird.

Harsh? Maybe, but as much trouble as I had with Thunderbird, it wasn't a difficult decision.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Ken Camp

2. I have major problems with Firefox 1.0.2, it fails to load. I had the unfortunate luck to notice I had 1.0 and 1.01 in my add/remove program list. I was running 1.01 so i removed 1.0 via the add/remove function in xp pro. At this point firefox would not open, so I decided to start fresh, downloaded 1.0.2, removed 1.0.1 via add/remove programs and tried to install 1.0.2.Early in the installation process I get an uncompressing xpcom failed error, then the install dies. I went to explore and deleted all the files that were in the firefox folder, and the folder itself. Still no good, same error. In hind sight I should have used the uninstall that came with firefox, but now I don't know what to do. Any help is appreciated.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by dhayden

3. Heh, I had this problem with 1.0.1 and this time again. I installed the 1.0.2RC build the day it was made available, and when I checked the Add/Remove programs list, it showed Firefox 1.0, 1.0.1 and 1.0.2

The installer needs to remove the old uninstaller entry from the registry, at the very least. Of course, like you said, automatically uninstalling the previous version before installing the new would be ideal.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Kunal Kundaje

4. This is very odd info. Without this prior knowledge, I blindly followed the "critical upadate" instructions and had Mozilla 1.0.1 update itself to 1.0.2 without any problems what so ever.

I then updated all the extensions that needed updating (after restarting FF) and still, everything works perfectly.

Glad I didn't bother to do this uninstall thing. I wonder why everyone else is having problems...

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Dave M.

5. Like Dave M, I just followed the auto installation, and I've had no problems either.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Andy

6. I just updated using the online update - no problems (yet). All extensions seem to be working fine, and thats a great improvement too the online update to 1.0.1...

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by torgeir

7. Dave, Andy, torgeir:

Does your Add/Remove Programs list more than one version of Firefox? I did not report any "problems" with how Firefox ran after the update. In fact, it ran fine. But it is making a mess of the Registry and programs list on my system (and a number of others' as well).

That's what we're discussing here. Not the fact that it runs OK. Please add a reply comment. I'd really like to know if this is another RWA (Random Windows Anomaly) or is consistent for most users.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

8. This raises an interesting point. At first, my reaction was to get defensive since I love Firefox, but I do see what you're saying.

I guess the questions are:

1) Why doesn't it uninstall and reinstall and leave on in the ADD/REMOVE?
2) Why doesn't it rename the old version description and say "DO NOT REMOVE"?

It could always do what IE does with hotfixes and add the updates as another icon AWAY from the main application.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Patrick Grote

9. Patrick:

Definitely do not get defensive. I really enjoy using Firefox. It's my primary browser these days. I rarely use IE except for cross-browser testing and the occasional IE-only site.

They need to learn how to the update thing right. That's all I'm saying.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

10. OK, first off, yes, I have a bunch of entries for Firefox and Thunderbird. Firefox 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, and Installer.

Now, let me explain something about the Add or Remove Programs screen. Just because there are 3 entries for Firefox in my Add or Remove Programs screen doesn't mean there are 3 copies of Firefox on my HD. It means that Mozilla or who ever makes up the install decided to change the name of the install for each version. Putting the version number in parentheses. When a program installs, it looks to see if can use an existing entry in the Add or Remove Programs data. If an entry already exists with the same name as the program currently installing, it will use that entry again. However, if it can't find an entry in that screen, it will create a new entry.

If the folks packaging up the install for Firefox and Thunderbird stopped putting the version number in parentheses, you would not see multiple entries in your Add or Remove Programs screen.

There are free programs like "Windows Configurator" that allow you to remove those entries easily.

The only reason to "uninstall" first, is so that the old entry in Add or Remove Programs is removed.

If you look at your Add or Remove Programs screen, you will probably see many entries that have "duplicates". In mine, I have several Java JRE's, a few entries for my java development environment, and a couple of games along with Firefox and Thunderbird. All have version numbers in them. The entries that don't have duplicates are ones that also don't have version info in the name.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Dave M.

11. Dave: I'll take your word for it when you say that the duplications are limited to listings in the Add/Remove Programs list and that Firefox is not actually installing redundant files. That's good news.

But it's sloppy coding and unacceptable if Firefox is going to become a mainstream alternative to IE. The fact that other programmers are equally sloppy gives me no comfort and is no excuse. If someone can create a free program to clean up this mess, it shouldn't be hard to avoid making it in the first place.

And telling users that it's their problem and that they have to take the draconian step of uninstalling the old version is worse than sloppy. It's confusing and intimidating, especially to non-technical users.

Bottom line - I still think it's a mess and it's critical that the Firefox team figure out how to make the mess go away. They know it. Read the dev list - they're talking about it.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

12. The "sloppy coding" you are refering to would be the person responsible for making the installs. I would be glad to help them, but I find it hard to believe that they don't understand why the multiple entries are showing up in the Add or Remove Programs screen.

I'm not familiar with how to interact with either this dev list you are talking about or Bugzilla. If you are, could you tell me how to do it. I would be glad to help them straighten out the problem.

FWIW: I downloaded Windows Configurator and removed the redundant entries in about 2 minutes.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Dave M.

13. I followed the Auto Install and then got .dll problems until I figured out I had to uninstall all of my extenstions. It was a pain in the asterix.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Cameron Reilly

14. Further Comment on the Java Multiple Lines in the Add/Remove programs list. Yes, there is an installed version for each line there taking up 100+ MB of space, unlike FireFox which mostly is just a leftover entry. And Yes, in the interests of security and diskspace, you should remove all your old Java Runtime Engine instances.

I for one vote for Firefox cleaning up the act on the installs. It causes much confusion and trouble when someone decides to do their cleanup to remove an old 0.93 entry to find it wiped the latest version.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Sean

15. Just checked the add/remove programs and find several copies:
Firefox 0.9 - 18.09 MB
Firefox 1.0 - 18.77 MB
Firefox 1.0PR - 18.64 MB
Firefox 1.01 - 22.21 MB
Firefox 1.02 - 22.29 MB
Firefox directory shows 21.4 MB, even with a 2-3 MB of addons.
the Java multiple entries show upto 2 MB each, so not overly worried and not the 100+ MB mentioned earlier
It looks confusing to a newb, but would be nice of the team to clean up all the old installs

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Steve

16. Yeah, I noticed this little annoying feature. FF should get this sorted :(. Still gonna carry on using it, though, it's too useful.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Mark Kenny

17. Mark: Same here. Despite these rough edges, this is and will continue to be my primary browser.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

18. I have problems with the auto-update too. I clicked on the auto-update, it said it needed to update me to Firefox 1.0.2. I said OK to that and let it download. The update then said there was an error in two of the files and the update would need to be downloaded again.

Restated Firefox and received:

Error. The program must close to allow a previous installation attempt to complete. Please restart.

Rebooted PC, tried again and same error. I receive this even if I try to start Firefox in safe mode. So now I have no working Firefox and Firefox 1.0 and 1.0.1 in Add/Remove. No 1.0.2.

I agree with the others who say the automatic update needs to be improved.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Peter

19. The next release of Firefox will have this issue resolved. At least that is what it says in the release notes of the next version.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Dave M.

20. I had the same problem as in comment #18, and it's making my life a living hell (i.e., I have to run IE to get to the web).

I was running Firefox under a limited user account, and got the "critical updates needed" icon, which I foolishly pressed. Then I find out it can't install unless I'm an admin, so I log back in as admin, finish the install, and it won't run.

Various combinations of uninstalling firefox, rebooting, cleaning firefox keys from the registry, rebooting, reinstalling firefox still result in the error message "The program must close to allow a previous installation to complete".

Firefox is a great browser, but the auto-install procedure is seriously broken, and needs fixing. I'd also like to find some info somewhere on how to fix this problem.

Posted at 6:20AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Peter O'Shea