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: Mac OS X 10.6.4 Carries Outdated Flash Player
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, Microsoft Windows XP bundled the then-current version of Flash -- as was noted earlier, the Welcome to Windows presentation was Flash based.
Microsoft has a longstanding tradition of only updating bundled software in its service pack releases with new "minor" versions, while keeping the "major" version constant.
If the customer wants to roll up to the next "major" release of a piece of any software that came bundled with Windows, they generally have the option to do so, but they have to install them separately from the service pack releases.
For example, Windows XP SP3 continues to to deliver bug fixes for IE6, and customers have to make an active decision to move on to IE7 or IE8.
In the case of the version of Flash Player bundled with XP, it was Flash 6. As long as Macromedia/Adobe continued releasing out new minor revisions of Flash 6, those updates eventually ended up being pushed out as part of Windows XP security fixes. This continued for a while, with Macromedia/Adobe releasing bug fixes to Flash 6 in parallel with new major releases such as Flash 7. After Flash 6 support was phased out completely, Microsoft stopped pushing new versions of the Flash player through Windows Update.
Apple includes Flash Player updates through its own "service pack" releases for the same reason Microsoft used to: because the Flash player was an integrated component of the original OS installation, and as such Apple has assumed a certain portion of the liability if things go wrong with that component.
Apple did not include this particular minor update to the Flash player in 10.6.4, most likely, for the reason already mentioned. Namely, because 10.6.4 probably had already gone GM before they had a chance to finish testing this new version of Flash.
As for accusations of Adobe "crying" or "whining" about this whole issue, well, all I can say is that some people here must have a very different definition of "crying" and "whining" than I do...
Microsoft has a longstanding tradition of only updating bundled software in its service pack releases with new "minor" versions, while keeping the "major" version constant.
If the customer wants to roll up to the next "major" release of a piece of any software that came bundled with Windows, they generally have the option to do so, but they have to install them separately from the service pack releases.
For example, Windows XP SP3 continues to to deliver bug fixes for IE6, and customers have to make an active decision to move on to IE7 or IE8.
In the case of the version of Flash Player bundled with XP, it was Flash 6. As long as Macromedia/Adobe continued releasing out new minor revisions of Flash 6, those updates eventually ended up being pushed out as part of Windows XP security fixes. This continued for a while, with Macromedia/Adobe releasing bug fixes to Flash 6 in parallel with new major releases such as Flash 7. After Flash 6 support was phased out completely, Microsoft stopped pushing new versions of the Flash player through Windows Update.
Apple includes Flash Player updates through its own "service pack" releases for the same reason Microsoft used to: because the Flash player was an integrated component of the original OS installation, and as such Apple has assumed a certain portion of the liability if things go wrong with that component.
Apple did not include this particular minor update to the Flash player in 10.6.4, most likely, for the reason already mentioned. Namely, because 10.6.4 probably had already gone GM before they had a chance to finish testing this new version of Flash.
As for accusations of Adobe "crying" or "whining" about this whole issue, well, all I can say is that some people here must have a very different definition of "crying" and "whining" than I do...
I don't see it as the "same situation".So does Apple's developer documentation. So no, I don't see the difference.
1. Apple just delivered an older version of a 3d party product.
2. Adobe didn't deliver at all, HW acceleration or not (arguable, yes).
In the eyes of the fans only Adobe is bad.
Oh, I do agree with that, the fanboys are lapping up what Steve is crapping out of his mouth like it was pure holy milk.
The simple truth is, no one is bad. Adobe didn't ship because 2 months with a new API is pretty darn short for a release as important as 10.1 was and 1 week for Apple to change 10.6.4 which was probably already packaged was already way too short.
It is the same situation though.
Yep.
Probably these are the same people who were frothing at the mouth a few weeks ago when the 10.0 security vulnerability was exposed.
I think you missed the undertone.
Cocoa hasn't changed significantly since its nextstep days. Theres not a lot of risk in using the latest Cocoa revision. .Net on the other hand, well.
It's not Cocoa, it is the rework of the Flash code necessary to use the HW acceleration APIs.
If you've ever delivered a software product that would be installed on millions of systems per day after it is released, you'd understand the importance of not making *any* unnecessary changes after the majority of beta testing is complete.
And, for all we know, Adobe's testing of the HW acceleration APIs showed problems that need to be addressed - perhaps even bugs in the Apple code (maybe fixed in 10.6.4?).
The "Adobe is bad" stance is naïve.
So does Apple's developer documentation. So no, I don't see the difference.
Apple's developer documentation is damn good.
You don need to go release some big buck brand hardware to understand that, you only need to join one of the Linux clubs at your local University. (Sad but true)
It is ? News to me and pretty much every dev out there. Try to write some sound output code using only the Audio Queue Services Programming Guide recently ? The darn thing starts out so well too, it just seems the guy who wrote it guy bored at chapter 3.
Because you're the collective conscience of every developer out there? No wonder why Flash sucks.
Ever tried overriding 2D graphics functions in C# .Net 3 without using DirectX only using the Microsoft guides?
(Hint Hint, Anecdotes suck)
Anecdotes ? Even just the sub-forum about iPhone or Mac programming here is ripe with complaints about the Apple documentation.
And I actually wrote some drawing code in pure Win32 for a class project back in 1997, so nothing can really phase me as far as graphics are concerned. Win32 requires about 200 lines of code to mute the sound or unmute it, it's about the worse API out there because it is so low level. Yet everything I needed I found on MSDN, 13 years ago, and managed to get it working.
Audio Queue Services still elude me to this day, I'm stuck using AVAudioPlayer objects in my iPhone doodles.
Not to mention any "evidence" of Flash sucking is as anecdotal as my Apple dev doc comment. Hence why I made it in the first place.
And every .Net forum I go too is about how badly Visual Studio 2010 crashes.
Forums are naturally a bad place to go to for examples, because most people that post on forums are too lazy to do the searching themselves. The sub forum here is just another giant Anecdote. Somebodies personal story on how they couldn't read some words on a PDF.
My Safari is not as smooth as before after upgrading to Safari 5 or 10.6.4, can't remember when exactly this started happening. But it's kinda like the Flash problem we had before in browsers, hope they'll fix it soon. (or, it could just be my own problem...)
If you understand that, then your previous comment is inconsistent:
I find it strange that given how Apple seems to hate Flash that they would bundle it with their OS updates. It's definitely a WTF moment for me.
I find it strange that given how Apple seems to hate Flash that they would bundle it with their OS updates. It's definitely a WTF moment for me.
It's an FTW moment for users though - people expect that the out-of-the-box experience will be the "whole web".
I'd agree with you except this is Apple we're talking about. They obviously don't care about that much or the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch would also include Flash. The iPad ads say that they can surf "every web site" but I guess that doesn't explain that some will just essentially reply with "get flash and come back" which will be of no avail to those users since Mr. Jobs said Flash is evil and he therefore cannot simply let the user decide whether to enable it or not.
There is a fundamental difference between Flash on the Mac and Flash on the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad. Flash on the Mac is handled by a plug-in. This software can easily be dragged to the Trash if it causes too much of a problem. Flash support on the handheld devices must be built into the OS. If it cause a problem, then you are just screwed. TTF (That's the ****).I find it strange that given how Apple seems to hate Flash that they would bundle it with their OS updates. It's definitely a WTF moment for me.
Where are you getting this information from? What do you mean by "built into the OS" ? iOS is still built from OSX. If Apple wanted to allow plugins, they could set it up to allow plugins or at least they could add one themselves. But the OS is still Unix and Unix uses libaries, file structures, etc. Just because you don't see it from the use interface, that doesn't mean it's not there or that it somehow operates in a completely alien manner from desktop Unix.
Besides, all Apple has to do is add a preference option in the Safari pane on the iPhone/iPad/Touch to disable (or enable) it. Flash doesn't have to be dragged to trash to disable it for goodness sake. How are you "just screwed" by that?
I know Adobe "released" 10.1 but if you go to their "check flash version" page http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/155/tn_15507.html the table still lists 10.0.45.2 as the "latest"
Or you know, just like it works on Android 2.2, you could have an option to either enable, disable or selectively enable it. Seriously, do these people even read what they type ? "needs to be integrated into the OS for mobile devices"... wow.
I know Adobe "released" 10.1 but if you go to their "check flash version" page http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/155/tn_15507.html the table still lists 10.0.45.2 as the "latest"
that's an old site, try: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/