A couple of bugs

[therube]

> The first issue has to do with Flash on whitelisted sites. When I visit www.ppradio.dk, which is a site I've whitelisted, the logo using Flash is blocked.

It's not actually blocked (depending on NoScript settings).

It is Flash & displays as such, only that what it displays (after perhaps a quick blip of the actual content?) is whited out (or otherwise fubared).
You can see it is Flash by right-clicking the object & the Flash menu comes up.

Actually, if you change NoScript's settings to 'Apply these restrictions to whitelisted sites too', so that you get the Flash placeholder, (on browser restart) clicking the placeholder & the Flash object will display correctly (depending on NoScript version).

That is with both Flash 10.3 r183 & 11.2 r202 & NoScript 2.3.1rc4 (as it was when I tested).
With the current NoScript, you still get the Flash placeholder, but after clicking, no Flash object appears, only a textual ad. (Same results with Flash 10 or 11.)

With the current NoScript & with 'Apply these restrictions to whitelisted sites too', NOT enabled, then you get the Flash object, but it is whited out (& again Flash 10 or 11).


(I still think you're fighting a loosing battle .)

(Is this getting more & more confusing as we go on?)

[Tom T.]

This version of Flash is unsupported on your Firefox version.

Internet Explorer 7.0 and above Mozilla Firefox 4.0 and above Google Chrome Safari 5.0 and above Opera 11

Flash player archive: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/ ... sions.html

They lie.

I believed the same thing until recently, and so did not update Flash. It would take an extensive search to find the thread, but therube said he installed the newest Flash successfully on a very old Firefox, and pointed me to a link to an executable installer vs. their former "download helper" thingy. (Since then, Adobe seems to have abandoned the 750K .aih method that calls back to their site, and replaced it with a proper, self-contained, 3+MB installer.exe.)

Short version: As of this moment, I am successfully running Flash 11.2.x on Firefox 2.0.0.20, expired Dec 2008, which is kept around for exactly such diagnostic purposes. And as I type this, said F2 is playing ppradio.dk's Flash object just fine, thank you.

Flash v11.x also was used all during this thread, in which I have been using Fx 3.6.28, also contrary to the "System Requirements" posted by Adobe.
Presumably, *advanced features* (3-D, higher def, etc.). may not be supported by older browsers. But the videos play.

OP's Flash version should not be an issue.

[dhouwn]

It refuses to install. Claims it's too old.

So it has sort of an expiration date? First time I hear of a stable software version having that. If it's just in the install you could try to somehow unpack the plugin dll from there manually and copy it to somewhere where Firefox can find it, or maybe you could try to set back your clock. (Considering that you are using a vintage Firefox version this would make the time-travel experience more complete. )

[Tom T.]

It refuses to install. Claims it's too old.

So it has sort of an expiration date? First time I hear of a stable software version having that. If it's just in the install you could try to somehow unpack the plugin dll from there manually and copy it to somewhere where Firefox can find it, or maybe you could try to set back your clock. (Considering that you are using an ancient Firefox version this would make the time-travel experience more complete. )

Again, finding the thread where therube told me of the successful install would be helpful, but you can search for it. Each of us has only +/- 3k posts to search through...

But in that thread, I verified OP's experience: Every time I tried to update Flash on Fx 3.6, at the "offical" d/l site, I was offered ONLY Flash 10.x.
And when I went there with F11, I was offered Flash 11.x.

Which is a PITA if one is running both browsers....

Bypassing their "System Requirements" and just d/l the *current* install_flash_player*.exe works fine.

Mocking OP isn't necessary. I opened the thread with the usual warnings about unsupported sw, but please keep in mind that newer is not always better. ("New" Windows Vista was regarded as one of the biggest tech flops, and biggest marketing disasters, ever - remember? )

[dhouwn]

I verified OP's experience: Every time I tried to update Flash on Fx 3.6, at the "offical" d/l site, I was offered ONLY Flash 10.x.

You are talking about what was offered to you, I believe OP was like me talking about the installation, i.e. running the downloaded .exe/.msi file (I just tried, had no problems downloading the zip file containing 10.3 Flash, maybe I'll try to install it in my XP VM later).

Mocking OP isn't necessary.

It's only mocking if you consider a time-travel experience to be a bad thing. (changed a single word in my post, maybe it sounds less mocking now, or maybe more, dunno)

newer is not always better

I don't disagree, I would just disagree if someone claimed that older is always better.

[therube]

I believe OP was like me talking about the installation, i.e. running the downloaded .exe/.msi file

Correct.
If you attempt to install an older version of Flash when a more recent version is already installed, you are told you cannot do so.

You must uninstall the newer first, then the older can install.

If it's just in the install you could try to somehow unpack the plugin dll

I was not successful in doing that.

from there manually and copy it to somewhere where Firefox can find it

Creating a /plugins/ directory within the FF 3.0 instal.Dir works.
(Might also work in a /plugins/ directory within a newer FF versions Profile, but not sure of that offhand?)
And actually what happens with that is that both version of Flash will show up.
Add-ons manager allows you to selectively enable/disable either or both.


That said, I do have a copy of Flash 10's NPSWF32.dll that I keep for these purposes.

(I didn't want to uninstall Flash, so I fired up Sandboxie, removed the relevant Adobe Flash entries from the Windows Registry <that would otherwise have blocked an earlier Flash installation>, installed Flash 10, then archive the associated DLL/OCX files.)

[azrael]

I've got no issues downloading earlier Flash versions, but the installer refuses to downgrade my installation.

I'll try temporarily uninstalling the latest version in favor of an older one even though I'm certain the issue is not with Flash (for once).

I'm going to do this for the reason I've tried everything else suggested in this thread. I've posted the bugs/issues I've discovered and thus it's my responsibility to follow up on every suggestion that might help or solve or just narrow down the problem. In all honesty the issue with the Flash banner only being shown when I uncheck a checkbox that shouldn't need to be unchecked is a minor nuisance at best. The issue that even unchecking the checkbox doesn't work as of NS 2.3.3 RC3 is more troubling, not to speak of the crash issues introduced with NS 2.3.6 RC4.

TheRube is right, by the way, about the Hotmail site not _always_ crashing. If you keep trying long enough eventually you get past the crash, but unlike the banking site going to Hotmail is dead certain to provoke that crash "when you need it" (and also when you absolutely don't).

I'm also not under any delusion these issues will be fixed soon, if at all, but as I've stated above I brought them to light, so I see it as my duty to follow through.

[azrael]

So... I temporarily uninstalled Flash 11.2 and installed Flash 10.3.

about:plugins lists it like this:

Code: Select all

Shockwave Flash

    File name: NPSWF32.dll
    Shockwave Flash 10.3 r183

MIME Type 	Description 	Suffixes 	Enabled
application/x-shockwave-flash 	Adobe Flash movie 	swf 	Yes
application/futuresplash 	FutureSplash movie 	spl 	Yes

As expected there was absolutely no difference in behavior compared to Flash 11.2 with regard to the Flash logo on ppradio.dk.

About Flash 11 not being compatible with Firefox below 4.0 that's a common tactic. Very often a lower limit is stated not because a given piece of software cannot run, but because it narrows the test matrix that support needs to concentrate on. For instance, at work a colleague of mine couldn't install Visual Studio 2005 because it required SP2 for Windows XP. However, SP2 removed some vital debugging features with regard to 16 bit code. I then stumbled upon this, which pretty much confirms what I just wrote.

[therube]

about the Hotmail site not _always_ crashing. If you keep trying long enough eventually you get past the crash

It was more (after starting out clean) it worked, it worked, it worked, it worked.
But then after screwing around, forcing the crash, cleaning up, forcing, cleaning up, forcing, then doing whatever, then ... at some point it got to where it was crashing consistently for me.

So for me, it started off working & at some point got to where it crashed repeatedly.

The last then ... started when I created a /plugins/ directory in the Profile directory, & populated that with some files. Was that the catalyst? Haven't a clue, but somewhere around that point, I was crashing repeatedly & did not get it stop crashing. Why should creating a new directory & some files cause any issue? But then why should creating ANY file within the extensions directory cause a crash, yet it certainly did?

Flash version (10 or 11, I did not look at anything earlier) does not seem to be an issue.
AFAIK, & not like I should know, using a current Flash (11) with an earlier "unsupported" browser version is not an issue. If I saw a difference, something working with 10 & not 11, then you could say you should use the "specified" version for a particular browser version, & with that I would have to correct my earlier post (elsewhere). As it is, if it were me, I'd stick with the current (11).

[Tom T.]

Mocking OP isn't necessary.

It's only mocking if you consider a time-travel experience to be a bad thing. (changed a single word in my post, maybe it sounds less mocking now, or maybe more, dunno)

.... or maybe you could try to set back your clock.

sounded kind of like sarcasm or mocking to me.

newer is not always better

I don't disagree, I would just disagree if someone claimed that older is always better.

I've never said that. I don't use Win 98, or MS-DOS, or a Commodore 64 ...


> installed Flash 10, then archive the associated DLL/OCX files.)
@ therube: I don't allow any ActiveX, and long ago deleted all, except for the one needed by Win Media Player. Just renamed that one to .bak, and Flash @ YT works fine. ... maybe needed for "advanced" Flash features, though.


@ azrael: I'm sure you're right about narrowing the required support base. BUT Fx 3.6.28 was, and still is, supported (for a few more days). So they should have offered Flash 11.x to it, esp. because therube pointed out some critical vulnerabilities in the older versions. Shame.

Just tried again. Went to http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ (from adobe.com > Downloads > Flash Player)

Adobe Flash Player 10.3.183.18 (3.02 MB)

* Your system: Windows 32-bit , English, Firefox

So, that's what they still offer, if you let them decide.


@ ALL: "System Requirements" (from Flash 10.x link)

* 2.33GHz Intel® Pentium® 4, AMD Athlon® 64 2800+, or faster processor (or equivalent)
* 128MB of RAM
* 128MB of graphics memory1
* Internet Explorer 6.0 and above Mozilla Firefox 3.0 and above Google Chrome2 Safari 4.0 and above Opera 9.5 and above AOL 9.0 and above

1. Recommended for GPU hardware acceleration–dependent features. Flash Player will use software mode for systems that do not meet the system requirements

I have a slow, crummy, 1.6 GHz CPU. 30% less than "required". It works.

Maybe things don't d/l, stream, whatever, as fast, and the 3-D doesn't work on this old box anyway, so their footnote about having a fallback for non-hw-accel support is nice. But the main Requirements are misleading, esp. as to browser support.

[dhouwn]

If you attempt to install an older version of Flash when a more recent version is already installed, you are told you cannot do so.

Ah OK, that makes more sense than what I assumed (an expiration date, which is why I suggested setting back the system clock).

Why should creating a new directory & some files cause any issue?

While Firefoy was running? Because I remember that fiddling with plugins (e.g. updating/replacing) while an Firefox instance is active creates quite some oddities in that Firefox instance.

[Tom T.]

If you attempt to install an older version of Flash when a more recent version is already installed, you are told you cannot do so.

Ah OK, that makes more sense than what I assumed (an expiration date, which is why I suggested setting back the system clock).

Ohhh, SYSTEM clock!

Coupled with a smiley, yes, that would be more easily read as being facetious.
I read your previous as "the clocks in your home, office, car, etc." -- which, being much more ridiculous, did sound like mocking.

I retract the comment about mocking OP.

O/T: "facetiously" is one of only two words in the English language (not counting chemical names, foreign-borrowed, etc.) that contains all six vowels, in the same order as they appear in the alphabet. Do you know the other one? (no cheating; no spoilers from the audience, please. )

[azrael]

As FF3 is still listed as being supported I've been trying some of the more recent builds in the hope they might silently have fixed my issues. Alas, they haven't. I suppose considering this thread has made its way to page 3 by now means there probably won't be any attempt to fix the reported bugs. Well, can't say I'm surprised, but it's still a shame...

[Tom T.]

As FF3 is still listed as being supported ....

Fx 3 ended support on April 24, 2012. Here is an official announcement, although the date is missing. Where are you seeing it being listed as "supported"?

[therube]

And that was 3.6, far different (in that 3.6 was supported till just recently) from the 3.0 that you are running.