Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Enables Mac Hardware-Accelerated Decoding in Updated Flash Player 10.1
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm using Vista right now on Bootcamp. Inconsistent wireless access, UI inconsistencies, what are you talking about? It's like you've never even seen a Windows computer in person, but have this image of a totally crippled and completely unusable at all computer, with no video drivers, and cracking sounds, and accept whatever image you have as if it were fact. Perhaps you saw Windows 95 one time running on a 5Mhz computer with 1mb of ram, and that's your image of Windows 7.
This will fix all flash issues....
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/30682/clicktoflash
Best Program EVER...
my computer does not crash anymore.
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/30682/clicktoflash
Best Program EVER...
my computer does not crash anymore.
i saw a Mac back in the Windows 95/98 days, and i felt so sorry for the poor soul who had to use it. he actually had to assign memory to programs
The classic Mac OS was a fine paradigm for single-tasking systems. Once multitasking became mainstream, the classic Mac OS was adapted to embrace it without damaging compatibility with their older software. This led to a fundamentally broken system, which only got worse as computer RAM continued to grow. Apple knew it. And they moved on.
Mac OS X deserves better than to be thrown in the same heap as classic Mac OS.
Crashes Safari
Installed this new Adobe Flash. It crashes Safari after watching YouTube videos in full screen.
2009 MBP running 10.6.4, Safari 5.0.1 (6533.17.8)
Installed this new Adobe Flash. It crashes Safari after watching YouTube videos in full screen.
2009 MBP running 10.6.4, Safari 5.0.1 (6533.17.8)
Wrong!
That's where you're wrong. I work as a systems administrator in a Fortune 100 based business and we evaluated Vista as a potential corporate platform for a division of the company and we nixed it.
Vista with no service packs never should have been released. Vista with Service Pack 1 is still bad but at least muddles along. Vista with Service Pack 2 is still horribly slow but mostly works.
Let's start with the issues we ran into: We started shortly after it was released so that meant Vista with no service packs: if you have a dual monitor system and lock the keyboard: your monitoring resolution and positioning is ruined.
That should have been caught in testing but wasn't - it got fixed but that wasn't the worst.
The amount of drivers available at launch for how long it had been in testing in the field was laughable. We repeatedly had to start from scratch building images for the test systems we wanted to deploy because of the showstoppers we would encounter. You just spent three hours building a system with a "corporately approved image" and one little change nuked the
whole works and you might have to start over. Lots of software we use internally just didn't work and the developers hadn't been given a beta of Vista (despite numerous ones floating
around for many years) so we had to jury-rig XP-only versions to work on an OS that just didn't want to run properly.
Oh, by the way you can't deploy the corporate image you just slaved over because licensing under Vista makes BluRays bag of hurt seem polite - they assumed everyone would want it but they made the mistake of having 5000 developers work on that thing for five years. NEVER DESIGN BY COMMITTEE! M$ made the mistake of thinking their $h1t didn't stink.
The worst: The second you put that Vista machine on an active directory resource domain you lost the ability to perform windows updates. And if you've got a Vista machine with no service packs that can't update you've got serious issues. Maybe 6 out of 10 machines could be force upgraded to SP1 which fixed problems but a lot of systems simply wouldn't update
to SP2 at all no matter what you did - you had to wipe it and start over.
That bug was fixed and repaired numerous times with each update thru Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2 - to add insult to injury we ran into numerous incidents of inconsistent wireless functionality - we ran into this time and time again across offices in different states connecting to different WAPs and you just couldn't trust it.
It would just drop off. Some of it was attributable to poor vendor supplied drivers but a lot of it still hangs on in 7 though not as bad.
7 is better, faster on the same hardware than Vista (you'll get a 20% speed boost if you upgrade) but a lot of us in the I.T. field jokingly call Windows 7 "Vista Service Pack 3".
Didn't want to hijack the thread but what works just fine in a home office on a local wireless becomes a different ball of hurt on a corporate resource domain with thousands of machines.
That's where you're wrong. I work as a systems administrator in a Fortune 100 based business and we evaluated Vista as a potential corporate platform for a division of the company and we nixed it.
Vista with no service packs never should have been released. Vista with Service Pack 1 is still bad but at least muddles along. Vista with Service Pack 2 is still horribly slow but mostly works.
Let's start with the issues we ran into: We started shortly after it was released so that meant Vista with no service packs: if you have a dual monitor system and lock the keyboard: your monitoring resolution and positioning is ruined.
That should have been caught in testing but wasn't - it got fixed but that wasn't the worst.
The amount of drivers available at launch for how long it had been in testing in the field was laughable. We repeatedly had to start from scratch building images for the test systems we wanted to deploy because of the showstoppers we would encounter. You just spent three hours building a system with a "corporately approved image" and one little change nuked the
whole works and you might have to start over. Lots of software we use internally just didn't work and the developers hadn't been given a beta of Vista (despite numerous ones floating
around for many years) so we had to jury-rig XP-only versions to work on an OS that just didn't want to run properly.
Oh, by the way you can't deploy the corporate image you just slaved over because licensing under Vista makes BluRays bag of hurt seem polite - they assumed everyone would want it but they made the mistake of having 5000 developers work on that thing for five years. NEVER DESIGN BY COMMITTEE! M$ made the mistake of thinking their $h1t didn't stink.
The worst: The second you put that Vista machine on an active directory resource domain you lost the ability to perform windows updates. And if you've got a Vista machine with no service packs that can't update you've got serious issues. Maybe 6 out of 10 machines could be force upgraded to SP1 which fixed problems but a lot of systems simply wouldn't update
to SP2 at all no matter what you did - you had to wipe it and start over.
That bug was fixed and repaired numerous times with each update thru Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2 - to add insult to injury we ran into numerous incidents of inconsistent wireless functionality - we ran into this time and time again across offices in different states connecting to different WAPs and you just couldn't trust it.
It would just drop off. Some of it was attributable to poor vendor supplied drivers but a lot of it still hangs on in 7 though not as bad.
7 is better, faster on the same hardware than Vista (you'll get a 20% speed boost if you upgrade) but a lot of us in the I.T. field jokingly call Windows 7 "Vista Service Pack 3".
Didn't want to hijack the thread but what works just fine in a home office on a local wireless becomes a different ball of hurt on a corporate resource domain with thousands of machines.
And yet those Mac vs PC commercials from Apple kept comparing their current OSX with problems Windows had back in the 95, 98 era, and exaggerating them, and making it seemed as if they were current problems. I had a Mac, but as someone who's more familiar with Windows the obvious FUD really turned me off to Apple. It's not the Apple vs Microsoft, but the way a corporation tries to mislead.
I understand you guys had your problems, but you were suggesting that people who get Windows 7 are going to have wireless and UI glitches, and I haven't seen any. I've been using Vista this past week, no problems at all, and 7 before that, and before that Vista again. Vista was rushed, but the 1st service pack made things pretty much normal, especially as drivers that supported Vista kept coming out. I'm using Vista right now because I can't simply go to Apple and download the Windows 7 drivers, and the bluetooth and lack of sound was really annoying, because of no drivers. (Had to buy a USB sound card.) In order for me to get the latest drivers for 7 I have to buy snow leopard, and I refuse to do that, because I'm really not appreciating Apple forcing people to buy their latest product, while in the PC world you simply go to the product's website and download the latest drivers.
Does this mean we can crash even faster????
Just kidding... cool to see Adobe updating this for the Macs.
Yes it does. I almost never had flash related crashes. updated today and had around 30 crashes so far.
WTG Adobe.
Now how do I undelete and return to an older version ?
A, You can download the Mac's drivers from the respective makers of the hardware in the mac.
B, The requirements of an Admin are a lot stricter than one of a consumer. What might be acceptable for a consumer could be utterly rubbish for a sys admin. We don't want things to just work, we want things to work well, because whatever goes wrong gets put on our heads, regardless if its not our fault. That's why the new infrastructure is a RHEV/RHEL based one at work, it works well (Better than MS/VMWARE) at a fraction of the cost and its given me reliability beyond what I've seen from a Windows 7/2008 based one.
The control panel in 7 is just not on Microsoft.
Did you uninstall the old version of flash before updating it? Try completely removing it with the flash uninstaller then try installing the newest version again.
I can blame Adobe. They could simply licence quicktime and use the quicktime format and movie player for all video. They also can stop using Flash for buttons, animations and other useless gimmicks and use Java and HTML5 instead. Then they could get out of the Flash business altogether and donate their codecs to the public so that we can play legacy content. Then they can fire everyone ever involved in the Flash business and apologize for wasting peoples time. Then they finally can refocus on what they do best: Photoshop, Premiere, Acrobat, Lightroom and such. These are great programs. Improve them, make them faster, lower the prices, sell more. Make a Photoshop Elements ultralight for PC, linux, Mac, WebOS and iPad for $39.99 (although this would hurt Pixelmator which I think is the future of Photoshopping unless you're a Pro who need all features).
It's only "better" because of the random spam and crap you get, that is, comments, commercials, DRM, and related videos. I could do without all of these, and it wouldn't hamper my youtube experience at all. The main justification is ads, and the fact that ripping HTML5 videos is of course easy (not like the flash container was hard either, though).
Ugh, yes. I hate when compatibility is expressed in terms of Mac manufacture dates which I have a hard time figuring out. I don't think I can look up on my mac and see its manufacture date. I need to find the model, then find an online list that references model/version numbers with manufacture dates.
Hell, why don't we just reference model numbers with a list of special color codes and then have those color codes referenced to a list of manufacturing dates while were at it
Why stop at just 2 steps?!!??! This needs to be more of a challenge than it already is! 
Hundreds of thousands is small compared to Flash dependant sites.
Mac Users don't have a need for Flash? Hmmm... bit of a stretch. I was looking for a photography site recently and a lot of them use Flash. At this time it would be difficult for them to subsitute flash for something else and have the same functionality.
Anyway, the vast majority of users don't care if something is developed in Flash or HTML5 as long as things works.
I'll second that... you need to uninstall the old version before installing the new version of flash. There should be a flash uninstaller app in your applications folder.
