Slashdot Mirror
Why Won't Macromedia Release 64-bit Flash?
Flashless Dancer asks: "Despite numerous online campaigns, blogs and forum postings, Macromedia has failed to release a 64 bit version of it's popular Flash Player for 64 bit architectures. Growing outcry in the Linux community recently spawned the online petition at PetitionOnline, but this seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
A recent posting to Macromedia's technotes, back in September, offers this explanation and advice to users and developers who are growing increasingly concerned that users with 64 bit architectures are unable to view online content created with Flash. It explains that users must downgrade to 32 bit browsers and use the 32 bit plugin. This simply isn't a good option for most users, in fact many Linux distributions, including FC2/3/4 install 64-bit browsers with their 64-bit distributions. This seems to breathe new life into the old GplFlash Project which is now back, after some time on the back burner. Future development of GplFlash2 promises support for Flash 6/7 but remains in development for now. Open speculation in chatrooms and web forums alleges all sorts of conspiracy theories but, what I'd like to know is: What's the real difficulty here for Macromedia?"
Today is the last day for the Macromedia Max conference. I had some coworkers attend the conference. Before they left, I asked them to ask the developers directly what the deal is. Hopefully some good will come out of it.
I don't have flash installed, and you know what?
I've found browsing to be much more injoyable!
Flash: mostly crap.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Ummmm... because they don't care?
I don't have the numbers immediately at hand, but I would think that the numbers don't support it. They don't have enough users that want 64-bit support to offset the man-hour costs of porting to 64-bit.
It's really not that complicated. The pencil pushers probably killed it straight from the beginning.
I use it now, Troll. Running XP, 64 bit edition. There are an awful lot of 64 bit processors on the market now, but most of them are running x32 systems. That's going to change as time goes on-- I'm just one of the early adopters.
Time to insert a random Apple flame/rant/spam
Nothing's been committed to CVS in a few months. One of the developers has a blog, and he said he'd be busy with other things through the end of September, but even so, it's been three weeks since. The dev mailing list has only had five posts in October to date.
New code is not necessary, but I for one wouldn't mind hearing something---anything---recent.
Homestarrunner aside, does anyone here actually go to flash sites? (especially when presented with a non-flash alternative upon entering the site?)
I have never found flash enabled sites to be any easier to navigate or more informative, usually the opposite.
Finkployd
I run AMD64 Debian sid, and I consider it a boon to my web browsing experience that I no longer have to deal with Flash. I've even gone to the point where I wrote a generic letter which I've sent to a few sites where the requirement for Flash has impeded my progress. I have yet to receive anything but a generic 'thank you for your input' response, but I still consider the letter to properly address the real issue at hand - Flash's pervasiveness as a replacement, rather than augmentation, of a reliable text-based browsing experience.
Well boys, all I can say is: welcome to the club. Try running Linux on anything that's not a 32-bit Intel (or clone) and you'll quickly find that most major software companies won't make their product available for it. (I speak from experience here, as I was using a PPC-based distro for several months over the summer after my x86 machine broke.)
/. isn't going to fix anything.
The problem is this: you are not yet a big enough market for them to care about. The majority of people use Windows on 32-bit Intel machines, therefore they develop for that first. Then they develop for the other big platforms if they feel it's worth it: Apple, and x86 Linux. Sorry, but you're just not big enough yet. Furthermore, if you're the viewer, they aren't going to care that much. Pester the websites using Flash about the fact that by doing so they are cutting down on potential customers (if they are a commercial site). Either they'll get tired of it and move to something that's more cross-platform, or they'll pester Macromedia enough that they'll cave in to the demands of the people that actually buy their software.
Sorry, but whining about it on
I just noticed that a few things have been committed to CVS in the past week. Yay!
And just when I think that I've done enough fact-checking...
Flash player users pay $0 per copy to Macromedia. Last I checked, the Flash player is neither adware nor spyware-encumbered, so they aren't making any money there, either.
Flash player users on 64-bit platforms are a vanishingly small percentage of Flash player users.
If Flash is not 64-bit clean, then it will probably be reasonably expensive for Macromedia to clean it up.
What can Macromedia expect for a return on this investment? Well, zero times 0.005 is still zero.
Writing good code is hard and expensive.
This is the same difficulty that's kept Mozilla bug 156493, "Browser should tolerate plug-in (plugin) malfunctions, like with a separate (own) process", unfixed for the past three years. I'm reminded of this in particular, because starting plugins as separate processes (which was requested to prevent buggy plugins from crashing the entire Firefox/Mozilla process) would simultaneously have made it much easier for 64-bit browsers to support 32-bit plugins.
So it is true that Macromedia is lagging behind the leading edge of technology... but do you have to sound so self-righteous about it? If our browsers used interprocess communication instead of cooperative multitasking (a concept far more outdated than 32 bit binaries) then this wouldn't be a practical problem.
Considering Macromedia's reticence to release a Shockwave (*NOT FLASH*) player for anything other than Windows or MacOS, why would they release a 64 bit version of ANYTHING?
/bots - there is a BIG difference between Flash and Shockwave - Shockwave is a superset of Flash).
(For the clueless
www.eFax.com are spammers
I'm just assuming here, but I'd guess that he doesn't mean that the numbers aren't growing (we all understand that they are), what he means is that the current number of users of a 64-bit desktop architecture is so small as to be negligable.
...is to keep up with the changes of architectures and OSes. I imagine moving flash player to x64 is tougher than moving it from Windows ME to Windows XP, since it contains multimedia codecs using at least some assembly language.
That oughtta force them to move the core of the player to opensource so people would do most of the porting jobs for new OSes, while they just build on that code to make it a 'professional' version for selling.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
It's not all that hard to buy an AMD64 machine with Windows XP, and modern Pentium 4 chips are 64-bit capable. The percentage of new Windows PCs with 64-bit processors is only going to increase.
It's not just about Linux and alternative OS/architecture combinations, it's about running on leading-edge (or perhaps bleeding-edge) hardware, regardless of OS.
At least, I don't recall seeing that a 64-bit version of Flash was available for Windows. Certainly TFA only refers to "64-bit operating systems." But if there is one, I'm sure you can point it out to me.
I so need to upgrade!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Is this a problem only with 64bit Linux browsers or does 64bit windows systems have the same problem?
It's difficult to be sad when the prime competitor is Microsoft (the other is SVG), but if they went to the trouble of nailing down all of the corners, they would be protecting Flash's crown as most ubiquitous web animated gaudiness language.
Somewhere along the line, they seem to have lost the plot to that particular story, else a Linux port of Shockwave would have been here two years ago.
Locking competitors out is important because it sells Macromedia's expensive (AUD$760+GST for Dreamweaver 2004) development tools and entrained related products. A working GPLflash would be of enormous benefit to Macromedia. If they had any corporate sense, they'd do a deal with the author(s).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
the video editors you know- who are doing work on 64-bit machines? ask them what apps they use?
I cannot find any windows NLE video editing apps 'designed' and working well under 64-bit.. some will sorta work..
Amazingly enough, video editing is one of the 'major fields' touted at microsoft, but it seems no app uses 64 bit.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Last time I checked, web browers were not even taking advantage of 32bit architecure. I don't see a lot of high performance 64 bit web browsers out there.
Anyways, the question is moot as there are few HOME desktop based 64bit only solutions out there, really. None actually. All have a 32bit support mode. Why cater to a small market of 64 bit only powerhouse enterprise servers, people using these systems are not interested in browsing websites, just serving them to millions.
If 64bit web servers were unable to serve Flash content, I am sure Macromedia would get on the ball, but I don't think the computer world is for lack of a 64 bit Flash plug-in to feed those power hunger high performance 64 bit web browsers nobody is using.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I saw a page on macromedia's site awhile back. They were looking to hire someone to port the player to Linux properly.
What bothers me more is that there is no director player for Linux. While it isn't used often, it is quite annoying when someone links me a new director game I can't play.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
"It's not all that hard to buy an AMD64 machine with Windows XP"
It's not all that hard to buy an AMD64 machine with Windows XP 32-bit Edition. This of course renders most 64-bit goodness moot. I have yet to see a machine in any of the major high street and online shops (read: where most people still get their PC's from) that ships with XP x64, I guess because it's only available in it's 'Professional' flavour - not the shockingly different 'Home' flavour.
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.
Don't expect the majority of people to be properly 64-bit enabled until Longhorn and a bit (for OS turnover in the consumer world). One of the umpteen LH flavours is sure to support your nice juicy new processor.
One question, are "modern Pentium 4 chips", "64-bit capable"? And to what extent? I wasn't aware any of the P4's were in anyway 64-bit (atleast no corny dun-dun-dun-dun adverts on TV bragging about 'Intel 64-bit technology' yet)
Why would they devote resources to something only a tiny fraction of people use?
Most people are running 32-bit Windows. As more people start going 64-bit (ie. when Windows 64-bit is on a lot of the desktops) then Macromedia can port.
It just doesn't make business sense to go 64-bit too early. They're probably working on it as we speak, there is no rush though.
WTF? There hace been versions of Flash for Solaris for a while now. Why not 64b Linux.
Flash makes my eyes bleed. It is one of the great virtues of current 64 bit platforms, that Flash is missing. Browsing is so much nicer an experience witout all those hideos Flash ads that somehow evade IEs/Firefox's/Safari's pop up blockers.
Flash is a disease, and I for one am happy for the fact that it's not available on 64 bit software.
People who like this garbage are in serious need of some form of medication.
Argh. I'd forgotten that 64-bit XP was *still* only XP Pro.
As for the Pentium 4's 64-bit capability, a quick Google search turned up a couple of sources and dates. The first Pentium 4 processors with EM64T support -- Intel's version of AMD64 (because there's no way they'd actually use a name with AMD in it!) -- came out in March, and apparently the "majority" of the Pentium 4 line has been 64-bit since June. Maybe PR is keeping quiet because the average user will be using XP Home?
January: The Pentium 4 adds 64-bit Extensions
March: Intel's 64-Bit Pentium 4s Hit The Streets
June: Intel Shifts Pentium 4 to 64-Bits
Yes, there are 64-bit Pentium 4s. According to a quick scan of review sites, the Pentium 4 6xx series is 64-bit, and there may be others that I haven't spotted yet.
Because 95% of the market isn't demanding it _right now_. They may be soon-ish, but right now, it's a very select few linux nerds who can't run the 32bit plugin somehow. Not the market MacroDobe caters to.
I'm sitting in front of my 64 bit box right now running flash.
.txt file in the tarball (it involves copying some files into the plugins subdirectory) rather than doing the auto install (which will bomb).
1) Just go to getfirefox.org, run the automatic installation of that
2) Download the official macromedia flash tarball
3) Untar it and follow the manual install instructions in
4) Restart firefox.
Is tihs really that hard? Is there some mystical advantage to running 64 bit flash on my 64 opteron bit box when the 32 bit version works just fine?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
"users with 64 bit architectures are unable to view online content created with Flash..."
Yeah, when I try to visit homestar runner on my 64-bit PowerMac G5, I... oh, wait--it works.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Ever actually work?
Best regards, A.C.
That only works because your distribution installed 32bit libraries and is using emulation. If your distribution was 64bit, or you didn't want to use a different set of libraries for Mozilla, you wouldn't be able to run Flash.
That's going to change as time goes on-- I'm just one of the early adopters.
ITYM unpaid beta tester. HTH.
There's no difficulty, read my lips: They Don't Care. You have 1991 signatures, thats less than the enrollment at some high schools. If there was a business case, i.e. if they actually made money on it, then Macromedia would do something. To appease 1991 geeks running a fringe OS on (admit it) fringe hardware? C'mon...
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
One of which is memory protection, yes, but that's not the only one, and it's not tied to the cooperative multitasking problem. For example, if Mozilla/Firefox were to run plugins in separate threads rather than separate processes it wouldn't add any memory protection, but it would add (or rather it would start using the kernel's) preemptive multitasking.
I do understand that the kernel can context switch between processes and kernel-level threads without any application support for that capability, but that doesn't matter if two separate codes are effectively running as two user-level threads in one kernel thread. Netscape API plugins work that way: they're not executables that get run, they're dynamically linked libraries that get loaded and called. Because of this, if the plugin code goes into an infinite wait or infinite loop, the browser process which invoked it can be frozen as well. Back on topic, if the plugin code can't be linked to the browser code because of different binary types, then the plugin can't be loaded by the browser, even if the OS can run both types of code.
I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but everything from PetitionOnline falls on deaf ears. No one cares about internet petitions, it takes almost no effort to fill out an internet petition. If you want someone to take you seriously, send a fax and follow up with a certified snailmail.
From what I understand konqueror works as a 64 bit browser with 32 bit plugins due to it's use of DCOP.
Certainly a deal clencher for me, buy an AMD64 and get no more Flash popups and intro pages!
Makes FlashBlock a little redundant now though....
#include <sig.h>
Konqueror can work in 64bit while using 32bit Flash. That's what I use on my AMD64.