W7 64 bit issues

Flash and some toolbars did not run on ie8. They did work earlier, HP support said the issue was program incompatibility with 64 bit. I now use ie8 on 32 bit as seperate from 64 bit with a different icon seems to work. FF works fine.

 

Simple, just don't use 'Internet Explorer (64-bit)'

inb4 don't use IE

 

Not much is made for 64-bit browsers, including flash i believe.

Just use 32-bit.

 

on the other paw, I have ie8 and flash running just fine on win7/64

try deleting ALL of those toolbars, deinstall flash (using the utility provided by adobe) and then reinstalling flash.

stay away from add-on toolbars for IE.

 

Windows 7 x64, but not IE x64, right?

 

- IE8 64-bit is not the default browser, and it has no easy way to be the default browser. There are reasons for this.

- What toolbars are you using?

 

Just use IE8 32bit.

Nothing supports 64bit browsers just yet, though we are all waiting.

 

I don't know why Adobe is taking so long to have a flash player to work with x64. Windows x64 have been around for many years but nothing yet.

 

Flash is a mess. I think it was originally coded by a bunch of monkeys.

 

that's quite a statement for someone who has likely never seen the source code.......

The 'problem' with the 32/64 bit transition is that a) Intel tried to foist Itanium-64 on all of us (fail) and AMD did push AMD-64 onto all of us (almost a fail).

AMD-64 really, really wants a memory controller co-located with the CPU cores. Intel didn't implement that until last year with the iCore and with their Opteron clones named Neahlem.

Flash is certainly a well-known example of a problematic JIT compiler that struggles to fit into both 32 and 64 bit spaces, but Java and ActiveX both have the same, nearly identical problems with memory leaks and security/privilege elevation violations.

It's a problem caused in large part by Intel screwing up the Pentium IV (netburst) architecture so badly and then trying to cover it up with C+ compiler tricks.

 

strange !!! i always thought IE8 64 bit supports flash.

 

If Flash was working under IE8 64-bit, then we would all be using 64-bit web browser instead. But we are not. Opera and Firefox are holding development of their 64-bit version because there is no Flash 64-bit. All we have Java 64-bit plug-in only.

 

There's almost no advantage to running a web browser in 64-bit mode. The only thing you would gain is the ability to use more than 4GB or RAM for the process. Otherwise, there is no speed advantage or anything else. Don't worry about it.

 

Not really. What benefits are plug-ins. Flash a CPU eater due to the fact that it uses the CPU to draw and uses vectoring. And Java well you can run full applications on it.

 

64-bit IE8, just like any other 64-bit application, only supports 64-bit plug-ins. That's because 64-bit code cannot call 32-bit DLLs. Of course, 64-bit IE8 would support a 64-bit Flash plug-in, if such a thing existed. So, the problem isn't with IE8, it's with Adobe not providing a 64-bit version of Flash.

What do you mean by "Not really"? There are no plug-ins that I am aware of that would benefit in any significant way from going to a 64-bit implementation. At least I have never seen a Flash animation, or any other plug-in object, that would require even 1GB of memory

 

64-bit implementation is more than just increase RAM limit. It's support for longer instruction code and new operation codes which allows the process to process information much faster.
Flash which is CPU intensive, can benefit from going 64-bit (assuming it's well done) by stressing less the CPU thanks to fewer instruction required and new operation codes, which translate to increase laptop battery life, and reduce CPU usage.

 

I know.

Turns that this this is rarely ever the case, and in the few cases where the 64-bit instructions result in faster code, the differences are modest. At least that is what all the benchmarks I have seen so far say. As a matter of fact, in quite a few cases the 64-bit versions of certain programs are actually (slightly) slower than the 32-bit code.

There's a hell of a lot of assuming going on in the quote above. I'll just say I believe it when I see it; but I won't hold my breath...

 

There is a difference between doing a 64-bit software nicely compiled with a good x86-64 (Intel64/AMD64) compiler, and just compiling in 64-bit to have a working 64-bit version.

Flash behavior is no assumption. I work with Flash since I was 14, and still do today (well today my main focus is C++). Anyway, Flash 10.1 is the first version of Flash that video playback is rendered by the GPU instead of the CPU.

 

O.k., so how many "well done" 64-bit versions of Flash have you used in that time? That's a rhetorical question, of course, since the answer is obviously "not a single one". Until that answer is different, all you have is idle speculation, and your experience with Flash is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

sign...
I know how a processor works, you don't. THAT is the difference.

 

This thread is going in a non-desirable direction and is now closed.