Return to version 36

I'd like to return to version 36. There are problems with a particular cloud-based software that does not work with the newer version of FireFox. How do I return to version 36?

You can install a portable (ESR) Firefox version to access websites that do not work with the current Firefox release.
The portable version comes with its own profile folder and doesn't interfere with the currently installed release version.
*http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable
*http://sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/Mozilla%20Firefox%2C%20Portable%20Ed./

Similar Messages

I can not return the version stored in the ICloud

I can not return the version stored in the ICloud for new IPhone

What exactly are you trying to do? Restore from an icloud backup? If so what error message are you getting?
Giving more details about your issue would go a long way.

How do I return to version 6?? Ever since 7 loaded, my speed is terrible and I have had crashes. Help!

I have always updated automatically,. When version 7 loaded the other day, I thought nothing of it. It has been extremely slow and buggy since it loaded and I want to return to version 6 right away. This has happened on every connection from hotel WiFi to my Verizon FiOS at my home office.
Help

The two or three problems may not be directly related. Firefox 6 is no longer supported or considered secure, it is not recommended that you downgrade to that.
# see [[firefox crashes]] <-- clickable link -- <br/>if you are seeing crashes lets try to find the cause, please read that article and attempt to provide the crash ID.
#* please also try to explain what you see and when these crashes occur
# Speed is terrible, what is happening freezing, slowly loading, slow downloading or something else ?
#* may be interesting in looking at this advice: <br/> http://blog.bonardo.net/2011/09/30/is-your-firefor-freezing-at-regular-intervals (May already be fixed in Beta Firefox 8 ? )
#* there is also another [/forums/contributors/707680?last=42955#post-42923 issue] and iirc a developer was trying to investigate the causes of that, meanwhile again a workaround is possible.
* if you do need to downgrade currently it would be recommended you use firefox 3.6.23, that is secure and supported, but you will loose some features and advantages & fixes of the newer versions
** see [[installing a previous version of firefox]]

How to return to version 10.5 (leopard)

I upgraded my MBP to 10.6 but now I have a problem with my printer since it does not yet have a driver and then my Quickbooks crashes way too often.
I need to know how I can return to version 10.5 while keeping all my files and applications intact on my hard drive.

If you want to go back to Leopard, then you will need to do an erase and install. I would first try the Leopard (i.e., 10.5) DVD. But, you may have to use the Snow Leopard (i.e., 10.6) DVD for the erase part. Let's assume the first for now. Startup from the DVD by holding down c when starting up. Next, when able, choose your language and stop. Then, using the menus at the top, select Disk Utility and erase you drive. Next, quit Disk Utility and continue the install. After the install is complete, insert your Leopard applications disk and install the programs you want. Now, you are done except for restoring you data, apps, and settings as best you can.
In the other case, you will have to exit the installer after exiting Disk Utility. Next, you would startup with your Leopard DVD again by holding c down during startup. Now, after selecting your language again, just click install. After the installer is finished, install your applications as above.

Updated to Firefox 18, but now have strange fugures at monitor (triangles and simialr) when Firefox is open. I should return to version 17. Is there solution ?

I always used Firefox and today updated at Firefox 18. After update I have strange figure (giant triangles , lines...) whixh are randomly appear and it s impossible use Firefox. I returned to Version 17 and everything is OK.
I am using Windows XP SP3 with Nvidia GS 7800 board.

Try to disable hardware acceleration in Firefox.
*Tools > Options > Advanced > General > Browsing: "Use hardware acceleration when available"
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Troubleshooting+extensions+and+themes
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration

CS6 returns wrong version number?

Hi all,
In Javascript, "apps" global object return "photoshop-60.032".
alert(apps);
result is below...
fireworks-10.0,fireworks-11.0,fireworks-12.0,aftereffects-11.0,ame-4.0,ame-5.0,ame-6.0,aud ition-5.0,bridge-2.0,bridge-3.0,bridge-4.0,bridge-5.064,devicecentral-1.0,devicecentral-2. 0,devicecentral-3.0,dreamweaver-10.0,dreamweaver-11.0,dreamweaver-12.0,dreamweaver-9.0,enc ore-6.0,estoolkit-2.0,estoolkit-3.0,estoolkit-3.5,estoolkit-3.8,exman-2.0,exman-5.0,exman- 6.0,flash-10.0,flash-11.0,flash-12.0,flash-9.0,flashbuilder-4.5,flashcatalyst-1.0,illustra tor-13.0,illustrator-14.0,illustrator-15.0,illustrator-16.064,incopy-8.0,indesign-5.0,inde sign-6.0,indesign-7.0,indesign-8.0,photoshop-10.0,photoshop-11.032,photoshop-12.032,photoshop-60.032,prelude-1.0,premierepro-6.0,stockphotos-1.5,switchboard-2.0
Is this correct?
Ten

Thank you for your rely.
But in this time, I need to access specifier to use BridgeTalk. And I need to know It is only me or not. (something wrong in my installation or not? )
After that, I read some documents, and find this version number in Javascript tool guides. It's correct response and maybe Adobes mistake.
Ten

JniEnv- GetVersion() returns unknown Version on JRockit 27.3

Hi All,
I'm having trouble when trying to obtain the JNI-Version for JRockit 27.3
a call to jniEnv->GetVersion() returned 0x010006 which is neither JNI_VERSION_1_1, JNI_VERSION_1_2 nor JNI_VERSION_1_4
as long as i did not miss anything, this is not defined as Constant in the corresponding Headers of JRockit JNI.
Is there a possibility that this should indicate multiple versions? Or did i misinterpret something.
my code looked like this:
if (jniEnv->GetVersion() == JNI_VERSION_1_4) {
// JVM-Version >=1.4
else {
// JVM-Version <1.4
}any help appreciated
HaPe

Well, as your comment says, what you are looking for is "if
(jniEnv->GetVersion() >= JNI_VERSION_1_4)" (which is 0x010004) by the way.
JNI will report the highest version supported, which for all JRockits
above 27.* is actually JNI_VERSION_1_6. However, the headers shipped
with non-1.6 jdks are for the corresponding versions, i.e there is no
define for this in the include files you are using.
Short answer though, just do a greater-or-equal test instead and you'll
be fine.
/C
Hans-Peter Weidinger skrev:
Hi All,
I'm having trouble when trying to obtain the JNI-Version for JRockit 27.3
a call to jniEnv->GetVersion() returned 0x010006 which is neither JNI_VERSION_1_1, JNI_VERSION_1_2 nor JNI_VERSION_1_4
as long as i did not miss anything, this is not defined as Constant in the corresponding Headers of JRockit JNI.
Is there a possibility that this should indicate multiple versions? Or did i misinterpret something.
my code looked like this:
if (jniEnv->GetVersion() == JNI_VERSION_1_4) {
// JVM-Version >=1.4
else {
// JVM-Version <1.4
}any help appreciated
HaPe

How can I do to return a version of iPod software?

I have iOS 4,3,5 but I want to come back to 4.3.3 or previous.

Downgrading an iOS version is not supported by Apple.

Java - version does not return the version??

Hi,
The following is from a cmd window
C:\Program Files\JavaSoft\JRE\1.2\bin>java -version
C:\Program Files\JavaSoft\JRE\1.2\bin>
It seems to be missing the expected:
java version "1.2.2"
Classic VM (build JDK-1.2.2_006, native threads, symcjit)
Another side effect is that any application using java to launch creates a java process (briefly observed through task manager) and then dies almost instantly.
The machine is a Win2000 Server running JRE 1.2.2_006, I've tried uninstalling, re-installing, rebooting (between unistalling and reinstalling), setting the path and classpath variables to nothing and running from the folder.
Anyone seens this before? know what the resolution is?
Thanks
Dave

Thanks for the response, I've already tried that with no success.
It appears that it might be related to the fact that it's installed on a VMWare machine.
The java -version command works fine on the VMWare machine when the VM is running on the host machine that it was built on, however when the VMWare machine was moved to a new host it seems that when you run the java interpreter it launches and then just dies??
I still don't have an answer for why the Java -version does not work.
As I said before I have uninstalled and reinstalled JRE 1.2.2 a couple of times with no success, however a workaround appears to be to install the JRE 1.3.1.
After installing JRE 1.3.1 the java -version command works, fortunately the java applications I am using 'seem' to be compatible (with a few modifications to path variables etc) with the 1.3.1 version�.
Thanks
Dave

Cracking and popping has returned with version 4.3.5

I just updated to 4.3.5 and the popping and cracking is back. This is so annoying. A $300 iPod and have crap sound quality when using it in the car. I didn't have the issue with the cracking and popping when 4.3.4 was on the iPod. Can I go back to 4.3.4 on my Touch? This is unexcusable for such a high dollar mp3 player to have the same problem over and over and over. Hopefully Apple will get this taken care of.

You do see the devices heading on the left sidebar? If you don't see the sidebar, go to View>Show sidebar in the iTunes menu and then check to see if the device appears.
If that isn't the problem, go through the troubleshooting steps. It could be the Apple Mobile Device Service issue.
iOS: Device not recognized in iTunes for Windows - Support - Apple

(get-spfarm).buildversion is returning different version from what I currently have

I have SharePoint 2013 server installed inside windows serve 2008 r2. And I have install all the SharePoint updates using windows update (except October 2014 CU), and the final CU should include both SP1 and September 2014 CU.also i run the configuration
wizard and it worked succcfully.
However currently if I run the following command
(get-spfarm).buildversion
I will get
PS C:\Windows\system32> (get-spfarm).buildversion
Major Minor Build Revision
15 0 4641 1000
But on the following link
http://blogs.technet.com/b/steve_chen/archive/2013/03/26/3561010.aspx it mentioned that 4641 is related to august 2014 CU
and not September 2014. So can anyone advice please?
One simple note to consider is that September 2014 contained a fix regarding wiki pages, and I have this fix implemented on my current wiki site,, which I assume that I have September 2014 cu correctly installed… can anyone advice please ?

Firstly: Don't install CUs automatically. It isn't a universal opinion but the majority of the community advocates only installing CUs if they fix something you know is causing problems on your farm.
If you really want to install the CU, download it manually and install it manually. It will either tell you it's already installed and abort or install itself.
A more scientific approach would be to check your 'Manage Patch Status' page and search for the latest build number. That should be visible on there if you've installed the patch, although it should NOT be the only value there.
>>Firstly: Don't install CUs automatically. It isn't a universal opinion but the majority of the community advocates >>only installing CUs if they fix something you know is causing problems on your
farm.
i think this is not aligned with Microsoft recommendations, to always install the latest CU as it can have improvement for security and performance and not just bug fixes!!
>>If you really want to install the CU, download it manually and install it manually. It will either tell you it's already >>installed and abort or install itself.
Also on MSDN it is mentioned that the recommended approach to install CU for SharePoint is using windows update tool.... and not manully install them
>>A more scientific approach would be to check your 'Manage Patch Status' page and search for the latest build >>number. That should be visible on there if you've installed the patch, although it
should NOT be the only value >>there.
As i mentioned before, i have 4649 installed as per the "Patch status"inside the Central Administrator, but my get-spfarm.buildversion is saying that i got 4641. so the patch for september 2014 is installed using WU , but this is not reflected
inside the get-spfarm.buildversion ?? so i have the feeling that this is a bug in sharepoint , it is giving different build numbers ..
Can u advice ?

Hi! With version 36 I can no longer download videos; I can watch them, but download does not work. I use Win 8.1 and download helper. I returned to 35.1

Hello Community of Users
I actually want help from the experts; and with my question everything is said. As I wrote: I returned to version 35.01 (US - before I had a German version - both worked or work) for the time being; with 36.0 almost everything is fine except that I cannot download videos any more.
The " educated guesses" seem to be correct except for the Shockwave; at least I couldn´t find it in the list.
Oh, I forgot: I got a message from my firewall when I had downloaded version 36, stating that it had blocked some features of this app, then listing those features, but giving the possibility to grant access to them ("Zugriff zulassen") on which I clicked. - See uploaded screenshot.
Any idea where the problem could be?

Hi edmeister
thanks for dealing with my Problem. I´m using the latest Version of downloadhelper; I mentioned that I downloaded the US-Version of 35.01, but the screenshot came from my German Windows 8.1.
I just downloaded 36 again & separately, got the same warning from Windows, clicked again on "grant Access" (Zugriff zulassen), tried out parallel 35.01 - Video download o.k. and 36 - Video download did not function. So I did not get further. The Firewall lets me - so it seems - download with one Version of Firefox and without any changes executed does not let me download with the new one.
Greetings
Faustissifus

Returning to previous version of SC

Hello,
I've read several threads that say that returning on an older version of a DC is impossible as DC's don't have versions (Maybe this should be changed ?) .
However, if we have a version of an SC which has been approved , how do we return to this version of the source code once it has already evolved.
For exp : We approve and deploy SC1 1.0 in production. We then deploy version 1.1 but we find that the changes we did cause so many problems that it would be better to go back to version 1.0 and redesign.
How do we return to version 1.0 and restart development from there ?
Thanks

Hi Thierry,
if the approved version SC1 1.0 is assembled with sources I would create a new track, reimport all SCA into that track and continue development there. The old track could be used for reference purposes (what did we do wrong in 1.1? Don't want to repeat history) and I would remove all DTR write permissions on the old workspaces.
The issue basically is that you cannot really go back in time in a DTR workspace. Once there are newer versions for a resource you could only try to recreate an old state by creating a new version (with old content). If you have new workspaces (i.e. within another track) you can import the old versions there and they will be the current versions for that workspace. If that paragraph was confusing please ignore it, I get lost sometimes in those version graphs....
Regards,
Marc

SQL query return wrong Windows version

when excuting 'select @@VERSION' returns wrong Windows version. Why?

when excuting 'select @@VERSION' returns wrong Windows version. Why?
SELECT @@VERSION will return SQLServer version and not windows version
Even in case of sql, if you're seeing a different version from what your management studio suggests, then it may be that you're SSMS (client tool) is of another later version whereas the server instance which you're actually connecting to may
be of different (earlier) version.
Please Mark This As Answer if it solved your issue
Please Vote This As Helpful if it helps to solve your issue
Visakh
My Wiki User Page
My MSDN Page
My Personal Blog
My Facebook Page

Re: Returning Versions in directoryfiles on vms

Hi again
At 07:10 AM 6/23/99 +0200, you wrote:
Hi
using your suffix I get the list of all the files - fine, now all I need ithe FULL vms
file name to be able to open them.
By FULL VMS file name do you mean that you need to be able to get the
volume details into the filename? I think the SetVolume method
of file should help there.
your way of creating the versionno's could be expanded by checking for theexistence
of the file with each of the versionno's in the directory.... I will gofor that if noone suggests a
cleaner solution (The directory listing is on a remote node w/o forte, soeach lookup involves
some network traffic (read: delay)).
The ;0 ;-1 etc suffix will open the correct version of the file for you,
with ;0 being the most recent, and avoid having to repeatedly search the
directory for specific versions, which as you say will cause some delay.
thank you for your answerNo worries - hope it's some help
Cheers,
Andy
jens chr/KAD Denmark
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Grace <[email protected]>
To: JCJJ <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: 23. juni 1999 02:10
Subject: Re: Returning Versions in directoryfiles on vms
Hi,
If you pass listfiles the suffix parameter of '*;*' it will return all
versions of all files - the ;* can be tagged after whatever suffix you want
to return all versions of files with that suffix.
However, once it has returned the files determining their version is a
problem and I would be interested to hear what others have to say on this -
we use this rather crude method to display the files;
For all identical filenames in the listfiles array assume the first
occurrence is version ;0 and concat this to the filename for display in an
array of textdata. For each subsequent occurrence subtract 1 from the
version number and so on - so we can at least list our files thus
TEMP.DAT;0
TEMP.DAT;-1
enabling us to distinguish between without knowing their true version
number.
>>
Hope this helps
Andy
At 11:47 PM 6/22/99 +0200, you wrote:
Hi Forte Wizards
Again I'm troubled by something that I'm sure is just plain manual stuff,I just can't seem to
find the correct page to read...
SO:
How do I persuade a directoryfile's listfiles to return all versions of agiven file on VMS?
It seems to only recognize the name and not the versions...
may the forte be with you
Jens Chr /KAD Denmark
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/>
Andy Grace
Analyst/Programmer
Administrative Technology Services
tel 0064 - 3 - 479 8370
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/>
Andy Grace
Analyst/Programmer
Administrative Technology Services
tel 0064 - 3 - 479 8370
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/>

Hi again
At 07:10 AM 6/23/99 +0200, you wrote:
Hi
using your suffix I get the list of all the files - fine, now all I need ithe FULL vms
file name to be able to open them.
By FULL VMS file name do you mean that you need to be able to get the
volume details into the filename? I think the SetVolume method
of file should help there.
your way of creating the versionno's could be expanded by checking for theexistence
of the file with each of the versionno's in the directory.... I will gofor that if noone suggests a
cleaner solution (The directory listing is on a remote node w/o forte, soeach lookup involves
some network traffic (read: delay)).
The ;0 ;-1 etc suffix will open the correct version of the file for you,
with ;0 being the most recent, and avoid having to repeatedly search the
directory for specific versions, which as you say will cause some delay.
thank you for your answerNo worries - hope it's some help
Cheers,
Andy
jens chr/KAD Denmark
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Grace <[email protected]>
To: JCJJ <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: 23. juni 1999 02:10
Subject: Re: Returning Versions in directoryfiles on vms
Hi,
If you pass listfiles the suffix parameter of '*;*' it will return all
versions of all files - the ;* can be tagged after whatever suffix you want
to return all versions of files with that suffix.
However, once it has returned the files determining their version is a
problem and I would be interested to hear what others have to say on this -
we use this rather crude method to display the files;
For all identical filenames in the listfiles array assume the first
occurrence is version ;0 and concat this to the filename for display in an
array of textdata. For each subsequent occurrence subtract 1 from the
version number and so on - so we can at least list our files thus
TEMP.DAT;0
TEMP.DAT;-1
enabling us to distinguish between without knowing their true version
number.
>>
Hope this helps
Andy
At 11:47 PM 6/22/99 +0200, you wrote:
Hi Forte Wizards
Again I'm troubled by something that I'm sure is just plain manual stuff,I just can't seem to
find the correct page to read...
SO:
How do I persuade a directoryfile's listfiles to return all versions of agiven file on VMS?
It seems to only recognize the name and not the versions...
may the forte be with you
Jens Chr /KAD Denmark
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/>
Andy Grace
Analyst/Programmer
Administrative Technology Services
tel 0064 - 3 - 479 8370
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/>
Andy Grace
Analyst/Programmer
Administrative Technology Services
tel 0064 - 3 - 479 8370
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/>

Return to version 36

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for