Senior Member
Yes, 64-bit Flash is only available for Linux. That means no 64-bit Flash for the 64-bit version of IE. And OS X probably uses nspluginwrapper for Safari which AFAIK is also 64-bit.Originally Posted by portets43
And you can compile a 64-bit version of Firefox with a 64-bit GCC. But Mozilla doesn't do a 64-bit version for Windows. And I don't know what their OS X version is.
Senior Member
I guess the answer is obvious, and the answer is NO. But is there any way to quantitatively benchmark flash's HD Video rendering? Basically, a sample movie where you can get an average FPS. Again, I guess the answer is NO? (it would be very handy to test new releases like today's)
Senior Member
Just because they don't BUILD it doesn't mean that they don't MAKE it. Its open source, so in the end, the vast majority of ALL non-windoze mozilla users do NOT use the version that is built by mozilla. I believe that probably 99.999999% of windoze mozilla users use the prebuilt binaries (because windoze users are dumb), more like .000001% of linux users use the mozilla prebuilt binaries. Practically EVERYBODY will use the version that is built by their distro, and then the few supergeeks will build it themselves.
My impression of the linux mozilla binaries is this;
It isn't intended or expected to be used for general use -- it is for EMERGENCY use, and since 32bit binaries run on 64bit CPUs, a 32bit version makes the most sense for emergencies since it is a SINGLE build that works on ALL hardware.
The intention and EXPECTATION is that users will mostly use the one built by their distro!
The disconnect here is, of course, that adobe are morons who think like windoze users.... so they're under the mistaken belief that 99.999999% of linux users will use the PREBUILT BINARIES, when this is simply NOT THE CASE!!!
This would probably be a good time to repeat myself.... ADOBE are MORONS!has adobe only made a 64 bit beta for linux?
Some really good stuff though, regarding adobe shooting themselves in the head.....
Android phone -- no flash.
Apple phone -- no flash.
Motorola phone -- no flash.
Nokia phone -- no flash.
RIM phone -- no flash.
Why? Because ADOBE are MORONS -- they just can't write good code! They've PROMISED flash for android (among other things), but so far have yet to deliver. Its basically vaporware, and the only alpha versions that have been demoed to date have been SO SLOW and CPU intense that they'll basically suck the life out of a top end GN1!! And so they keep pushing it back and pushing it back... turning into a duke nukem forever.
Which is a GREAT thing.... with the vast majority of phones being unable to play flash (are there ANY that DO?), and the typical user switching their net use from a sit-down computer to a smartphone, websites are being forced to adapt, which means NO FLASH!!! Its DYING!!!
Slowly, but hopefully this will speed along as more and more phone users can't see websites.
And a little note: I've personally noticed a significant reduction in the number of websites with flash. Most websites now actually view properly on a phone. There's a few that use stupid flash advertisements, but who wants to see adds anyways? It is actually a GOOD FEATURE of the adds from my perspective, since they *don't work*!!!!
Junior Member
Dear Flash,
Please just die already.
thanks,
linuxjacques
Senior Member
I am seriously considering remove Flash from my (64-bit Linux) computer.
Senior Member
Isn't flash video (FLV) just a container like MKV? They play fine in mplayer using the likes of ffmpeg, or even video decode hardware (if equipped and encoding happens to be compatible).
This leads to a couple of things;
1) The PROBLEM with things like youtube isn't so much the video as the fact that they force you to use their "player.swf", which just loads the applicable "video.flv" (literally -- that is the name of the video -- Content-Type: video/x-flv, Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="video.flv").
2) The video itself can be remuxed on the fly without significant server load.
3) Playing the video is simply a matter of grabbing the FLV and handing it over to a proper media player.
Senior Member
Red Hat people did some measurements and the overhead was not noticeable. I don't remember if that was < 0.1% or < 1%. So it was not considered as an issue. Unless you have testcases to disprove this?
Junior Member
Nokia's Symbian S60 (recent ones at least) and Linux Maemo phones do have flash.
Don't know about the other vendors.
Junior Member
I've had a number of S60 phones. They have "flash lite" - so some things work, some don't.
I also have an N900. Yes it has full flash (9.4 currently, 10.1 has been demoed) but 9.4 is slow for full rate video -- very jerky playback presumably due to lack of acceleration.
No surprise since my new W500 laptop (2.5 Ghz core 2 duo) spins a cpu trying to play a flash video too. That is just ridiculous regardless of Adobes rants. Basically unless that is fixed very soon flash will die, at least for full screen video.
Of course it's a real shame that the alternative isn't even "free" due the licensing of H264....
Senior Member
And who is going to kill it? There's a lot of Flash applications out there. Flash isn't going anywhere for the same reason Windows isn't going anywhere: large amounts of applications for it.
But as you said, for video, it *might* get beaten; depends on whether the browser makers get their act together with the list of supported codecs for HTML5 video.
Reply With Quote
