We're calling on all EU-based Mozillians with iOS or iPadOS devices to help us monitor Apple’s new browser choice screens. Join the effort to hold Big Tech to account!

搜尋 Mozilla 技術支援網站

防止技術支援詐騙。我們絕對不會要求您撥打電話或發送簡訊,或是提供個人資訊。請用「回報濫用」功能回報可疑的行為。

了解更多

Firefox process continues running, firefox is not accessible without task manager/end process

  • 4 回覆
  • 29 有這個問題
  • 15 次檢視
  • 最近回覆由 gyrussfanx

more options

Closing firefox does not end the firefox.exe process; attempting to open firefox results in the "FIREFOX IS ALREADY RUNNING" message; there is no way to open firefox without going to task manager and ending the firefox.exe process.

Closing firefox does not end the firefox.exe process; attempting to open firefox results in the "FIREFOX IS ALREADY RUNNING" message; there is no way to open firefox without going to task manager and ending the firefox.exe process.

所有回覆 (4)

more options

選擇的解決方法

more options

Thanks to the answerers; I'd have gotten closer by myself if there had been some ëarlier nexus between my "doesn't close" and the knowledgeable community's "hang". Now my task is to re-enable the add-ons one by one to isolate the culprit. So far the Orange Surge" theme has been exonerated.

由 fsheff 於 修改

more options

Seems as if it is Symantec IPS 3.2 that has the effect of blocking firefox.exe's closure.

more options

I do not have an answer myself but I have seen this issue for some time now. I recall during the installation of the latest version of Firefox that it complained about Symantec software and some kind of incompatibility but I don't recall what it was. I do recall it saying that it would disable the feature but when I went into the addons (this morning) and looked they were all enabled. I narrowed down the hang to the exact problem everyone has above. I am questioning what happened between the newest install and finding the offending addon enabled? I don't know how that would have happened. Did a new Symantec install add in a newer version and re-enable it? Did the Mozilla install fail to disable it in the first place? Does this issue really belong to Symantec?