Search Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

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

  • 4 ŋuɖoɖowo
  • 29 masɔmasɔ sia le wosi
  • 15 views
  • Nuɖoɖo mlɔetɔ 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.

All Replies (4)

more options

Ɖɔɖɔɖo si wotia

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.

fsheff trɔe

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?