Adobe Flash Player 11 Release Candidate

Adobe is working on a new Flash Player. This one integrates X86 and X64 flash player into one software program, I'll wait until its rtm, then install.
this release has new features as well, It will work on laptops as well.

Adobe Flash Player 11 Release Candidate for Desktops | applications, content and videos - Adobe Labs

Summary of new features:

Adobe Flash Player 11 Release Candidate for Desktops Features - Adobe Labs

Cheers
3Fees

 

Good news! As well as the H.264/AVC SW Encoding...

 

thanks, just downloaded and installed

 

Yeah, it's in the dev version of Chrome.

 

I have to say that I hate it when people make fanboy comments against IE.

Well, it's also not pretty when they're directed at other products.

Please contain yourself and remember to be constructive. No one is here for you to tell them how much their choice in software sucks.

 

Only if it's home made.

Actually, I just finished preparing some chocolate chip cookie dough for baking on Thursday. The best you've ever had.

 

Oh, good thing you told me. I'll switch back to Firefox...

 

Check that Flash Player 32 bit and 64 bit browsers active x plug ins are separately installed not integrated into one install program,,maybe later,,,

Download Adobe Flash Player 11 Release Candidate for Desktops - Adobe Labs

Cheers
3Fees

 

i want to see you doing that on your chromebook

reminds me to call the eu to sue google to force people to use their browser in chromeos, not allowing other browsers..



i forgot.. news about adobe: jaaaaawnn lets take bets on which version of flash to be the last version of flash.

 

So how much more bloat will this consume? How much more processing power? HTML 5 can't be here soon enough!

 

Lol, yes, because the EU isn't a bunch of trigger-happy morons. Their antitrust suits are a joke and they're the reason it's taken so long for so many great features in Windows to come, we've had to wait until 8.

It's not antitrust if the OS doesn't support the things that Firefox supports. If Firefox could run with the limitations of ChromeOS it would be fine.

That's like saying Java can sue Google for antitrust because they can't use the Chrome sandbox. If Firefox came out with an application that could run on the OS anyone could install it with root.

 

well. chrome os is an os, that does not allow me to chose the default browser.

according to eu, that would be illegal. and i have no problem with that part of the law actually. the issue i have is the "if you're not the dominant os, you can do what ever you like. else, we sue" part, that absolutely sucks.

why can apple force you to a default browser? why can google? why can most phone os'? why just not microsoft.

i'm curious how microsoft markets the ie10 in win8. as it's now an integral part of the whole os, i'm really quite curious how they want to explain that to the eu


one can install applications in chrome os, rooting it? that's not how that concept was planned btw..

 

Only becuase no one has ported their browser to it. If there was a Firefox that was designed for it it coul dbe installed.

Apple and IE are the default browsers by default on their respective OS's until you install a new one.

And Microsoft has been the subject of a long-term antitrust case.

No, certainly the idea of giving users root was not to install a new browser but likely so that they could further the development of the project.

But the choice is there. I would never bother because Firefox is a POS and IE would never be ported.

And native client would allow you to run a VM with another browser or in it or if a browser were compiled for nacli it could run directly within Chrome.

IE10 is an integral part of the whole OS? How so? Reputation checks are independent I believe.

 

the idea of chrome os is to do everything trough the browser. the one installed default browser. the idea is to NEVER install anything locally. so going root is not the way an end user should use it.

so the intended way is to never give the ordinary user a choice of browser. that would be illegal according to the eu.

and no, in the eu, you don't have a default ie anymore if you have a clean installation and do windows updates. it removes ie, and then asks which browser do you want. just in case you've never seen that.

and no, i would not plan to install another browser in chrome os. not that i would ever plan to use that at all. but that's not the topic.

i don't care much if the ruling of the eu is fair or not. i do care if they use different judging on different corporations.


and yes, ie10 is the part of win8 that drives the html5 javascript css version of WinRT, the new default and only future windows api. the replacement of about 20 year old win32.

 

The user is not intended to do that. But they can.

That's why it's different.

The renderer in IE has always been used in different parts of th eOS.

 

Besides, the "antitrust suit" would be essentially saying any computer sold with an OS is illegal because that OS was chosen by default. When you buy ChromeOS you get ChromeOS. That means Chrome too.

 

Fine and dandy but I am staying away from Adobe Flash Beta or RC version - simple reason is that they update their normal version with security patches too often, and that these Beta and RC will not keep up with it.

cheers ...

 

qhn, the RC got the latest security patches that I've seen.

 

Not so sure myself, RC date was September 6th, and latest Flash player 10.3.183.10 update was on the 22nd

cheers ...

 

Eh, I just know that it did on the Chrome dev channel. It got it before even the Adobe release in fact.

 

But the RC version is 11.x.xxx. I don't know why you compare the dates of two different versions. The security patches should be up-to date in the RC.

 

Yeah, I couldn't get it (Flash 11 RC) to work with IE on Windows 8 even though that's what was offered when IE referred me to Adobe's website. I man ally installed 10.3 and Firefox and all is well.

Cheers,