Search similar:
|
|
uniqs
1350 |
|
 |
|
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:8 |
Mele20
Premium Member
2016-Jun-16 9:48 am
Flash Player 22.0.0.192Latest Flash Player is out. » www.adobe.com/products/f ··· on3.htmlI don't know if it is something about Fx 45.2 ESR but it showed both the earlier version and the current one in Plugins. I have not needed to restart Fx43 as it just automatically removes the old version and recognizes the new without a restart but with Fx 45, I had to restart the browser to get rid of the earlier version. I also had to restart Vivaldi which surprised me too. --
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson | |
4 edits |
i think it is good to uninstall the old versions of "flash player" before installing the new ones, doing a "clean install".. if you have problems with "flash player", try doing a "clean install" and see if that resolves the problems.. here is a webpage for downloading the flash player uninstaller: » helpx.adobe.com/flash-pl ··· ows.htmlp.s. it seems weird to me that you have multitudinous versions of "firefox" installed.. no wonder you have problems with them.. my advice would be to clean up your computer by uninstalling all of the multitudinous versions of "firefox" that you have installed (and "palemoon", too, and any other clones of "firefox", too) and then do a "clean install" of the latest version of "firefox".. i think that would resolve all of the seemingly neverending problems that you seem to have with all of the various, multitudinous versions of "firefox" that you have installed.. i don't think it is good to have both the "palemoon" browser and the "firefox" browser installed since "palemoon" is just a clone of "firefox" and there could be conflicts between the two.. that probably is one of the reasons why you seem to have so many seemingly neverending problems with "firefox", because you have both the "palemoon" browser and the "firefox" browser installed.. when i tried "palemoon", all of its folders were labeled "mozilla".. i don't know if that is still the case, but, if it is, that probably is part of the reason why you have so many seemingly neverending problems with the multitudinous versions of "firefox" that you have installed, because both the palemoon browser and firefox browser(s) are sharing the same "mozilla" folders.. (of course, when i tried using "palemoon", knowing that it was a clone of "firefox", i had enough sense to uninstall "firefox", so that there wouldn't be any conflicts between the two).. i don't know why you would have to update "flash player" multitudinous times, for each firefox-installation, when there is only one "flash player".. maybe if you had 8 different versions of "firefox" open, there were conflicts since they all share the same, one "flash player".. (i am assuming that you don't, somehow, also have multitudinous versions of "flash player" installed).. or maybe you do have multitudious versions of "flash player" installed, one for each of the multitudinous versions of firefox that you have installed, plus ones for each of the firefox-clones that you have installed? (do you also have multitudinous versions of the various firefox-clones installed?) p.p.s. it is not unusual to have to restart programs before files are updated.. that is why MS always prompts people to restart "windows" after updates have been installed, so that the updated files can be loaded.. | |  therube
join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD ·Xfinity
 ·Verizon Online DSL
|
therube
Member
2016-Jun-16 10:59 am
> i think it is good to uninstall the old versions of "flash player"
> before installing the new ones
Can't hurt to do that.
In my case, there hasn't been the need.
> multitudinous versions of "firefox" installed.. no wonder you
> have problems with them
The number of versions doesn't matter.
What you do to them, or otherwise to your system, does.
> uninstalling all of the multitudinous versions of "firefox"
No reason for that.
> i think that would resolve all of the neverending problems that you seem to have
No, not hardly.
Most of her issues are simply brought on by herself, due to the way she does things. Not criticizing, just saying that's how it is.
> i don't think it is good to have both, the "palemoon" browser
> and the "firefox" browser installed
Makes no difference.
Other then being from the same stock, they're independent of one another.
> when i tried "palemoon", all of its folder were labeled "mozilla"..
Makes no difference what things are called, so long as they're in their own directory structures (trees), which they are. There is no "sharing".
> i don't know why you would have to update "flash player"
> multitudinous times, for each firefox-installation
You don't.
Flash is not installed "into" FF, it is installed system-wide.
Once installed, FF sees it, that's all.
> maybe if you have 8 different versions of "firefox" open, there
> are conflicts since they all share the same one "flash player"..
Now that is certainly possible.
> p.p.s. it is not unusual to have to restart programs before
> files are updated..
Flash always used to require the (non-IE) browser to be closed before it would even install - even if there was no reason for that - which often times there was not. And that sucked.
Now, you can install, but if Flash happened to be in use, they say something like a (browser) restart is necessary before the changes are seen.
And something like that could be a reason for what Mele is seeing. | | | therube |
to Mele20
quote:
Flash Player 22.0.0.192
Oh, & as far as that goes, covered here, Security Advisory for Adobe Flash Player APSA16-03 (too). | | Frodo
join:2006-05-05
kudos:1  ·magicJack
2 edits |
to Mele20
Updated using the auto-updater. Appears that Pepper Flash is still on the prior version 
File times show the files just loaded (central time). I noticed when using Flash in Internet Explorer 11, that DcomLauncher will launch a medium integrity level process FlashUtil64_22_0_0_192_ActiveX.exe so that the low integrity level player, Flash64_22_0_0_192.ocx can install a virus do useful things. That setting can be disabled on "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Low Rights\ElevationPolicy\{FAF199D2-BFA7-4394-A4DE-044A08E59B32}" On a 64 bit system, HKLM\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Low Rights\ElevationPolicy\{FAF199D2-BFA7-4394-A4DE-044A08E59B32} I set the value "Policy" to zero. Video play fine, and the medium integrity level flash process doesn't launch. Adobe reset the value to 3 on the update so it had to be switched to zero again. In my post install script, I added the following commands on 64 bit Win7 reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Low Rights\ElevationPolicy\{FAF199D2-BFA7-4394-A4DE-044A08E59B32}" /v Policy /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Low Rights\ElevationPolicy\{FAF199D2-BFA7-4394-A4DE-044A08E59B32}" /v Policy /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
| | ·CenturyLink
|
Pepper Flash updated to 22_0_0_192 for me via distribution3 page @ 11:24 AM MST --
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit | | Frodo
join:2006-05-05
kudos:1 |
Frodo
Member
2016-Jun-16 7:32 pm
My pepper flash updated about two hours after the other did using the internal updater. But, there was a period of time when it was bringing in files that was the previous version. All set now, though. | | tlbepson
Premium Member
join:2002-02-09
Washington, DC |
to redwolfe_98
>>redwolfe_98: i don't think it is good to have both the "palemoon" browser and the "firefox" browser installed since "palemoon" is just a clone of "firefox" and there could be conflicts between the two..
There is NO conflict between FF and PM! It's also no problem if one has multiple versions of FF as there are a number of ways to set that up so there is again, no conflict.
>>(of course, when i tried using "palemoon", knowing that it was a clone of "firefox", i had enough sense to uninstall "firefox", so that there wouldn't be any conflicts between the two)..
You just made more work for yourself and reduced your browser options to absolutely no purpose. | | | Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:8
2 edits |
to redwolfe_98
????? Pale Moon is NOT a clone of Fx. In fact, Mozilla is making noises about Pale Moon because it has a new engine now (not gecko anymore) and is moving further and further from Fx. Ever since Mozilla introduced the ESR version of Fx years ago, I have had it and a regular version of Fx. Lots of users do this. Soon, I will also need the developer version as will most of us who tweak and like extensions. With the real Opera that ended at 12.18, I had multiple versions RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME. No conflicts. That's how advanced Opera was. I also use SeaMonkey and it has a lot of Fx code in it now. Have you heard of Vivaldi (the new Opera)? I have it and it requires a different Flash Player from what gecko browsers use. I also have Flash for IE but can no longer update it (IE 10) so I've had to disable it there. I have three different Flash Players because I don't just have one browser. Active X, NPAPI, and PPAPI based. Vivaldi acted the same way and showed two versions, both active, until I restarted it. Probably Fx 45.2 behaves differently than Fx 43 in regards to whether or not the browser needs to be restarted after installing a new Flash version. The PPAPI version actually requires that you use the WEB based Settings Manager and not the one accessed via the Windows Control Panel. Oh, I know why Vivaldi and Fx 45.2 ESR needed restarting after installing the latest Flash version. I had TWCtv open (and I was logged in) on both browsers when I updated Flash. TWCtv uses Flash Player. » forums.mozillazine.org/v ··· =2821799--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson | | | |
Please forgive me if this post is a bit off-topic, but can this version of Flash be installed on Chrome for XP?
Thanks. | | | |
GuruGuy
Member
2016-Jun-17 12:06 pm
said by KachiWachi:Please forgive me if this post is a bit off-topic, but can this version of Flash be installed on Chrome for XP?
Thanks.
Chrome has its own built in flash --
GuruGuy | | | |
said by GuruGuy:Chrome has its own built in flash
True, but they stopped updating it for Windows XP and Windows Vista last month.  Thanks. | | | |
Slimjet still works on Vista and XP, it's built on Chromium like Chrome is and can use Chrome extensions. » www.Slimjet.com | | | |
to redwolfe_98
said by redwolfe_98:i think it is good to uninstall the old versions of "flash player" before installing the new ones, doing a "clean install"..
if you have problems with "flash player", try doing a "clean install" and see if that resolves the problems..
And if that new version breaks something? You likely will not be able to always rollback. There's no guarantee what they remove is even flash. What if other applications are using those libraries you've now just removed?. Exactly. said by redwolfe_98:p.s. it seems weird to me that you have multitudinous versions of "firefox" installed.. no wonder you have problems with them..
my advice would be to clean up your computer by uninstalling all of the multitudinous versions of "firefox" that you have installed (and "palemoon", too, and any other clones of "firefox", too) and then do a "clean install" of the latest version of "firefox".. i think that would resolve all
of the seemingly neverending problems that you seem to have with all of the various, multitudinous versions of "firefox" that you have installed..
Based on what? Mozilla constantly rolls more breakage into new releases. UI changes, completely removing options, etc. Using the latest version because it's new is not necessarily a good thing. said by redwolfe_98:i don't think it is good to have both the "palemoon" browser and the "firefox" browser installed since "palemoon" is just a clone of "firefox" and there could be conflicts between the two.. that probably is one of the reasons why you seem to have so many seemingly neverending problems with "firefox", because you have both the "palemoon" browser and the "firefox" browser installed..
Don't think you're referring to the same Palemoon. It is not a "clone", it's a fork and quite different. said by redwolfe_98:when i tried "palemoon", all of its folders were labeled "mozilla".. i don't know if that is still the case, but, if it is, that probably is part of the reason why you have so many seemingly neverending problems with the multitudinous versions of "firefox" that you have installed, because both the palemoon browser and firefox browser(s) are sharing the same "mozilla" folders..
This must be a Windows thing? Palemoon defaults to "~/.Moonchild Productions" said by redwolfe_98:(of course, when i tried using "palemoon", knowing that it was a clone of "firefox", i had enough sense to uninstall "firefox", so that there wouldn't be any conflicts between the two)..
i don't know why you would have to update "flash player" multitudinous times, for each firefox-installation, when there is only one "flash player"..
maybe if you had 8 different versions of "firefox" open, there were conflicts since they all share the same, one "flash player".. (i am assuming that you don't, somehow, also have multitudinous versions of "flash player" installed).. or maybe you do have multitudious versions of "flash player" installed, one for each of the multitudinous versions of firefox that you have installed, plus ones for each of the firefox-clones that you have installed? (do you also have multitudinous versions of the various firefox-clones installed?)
p.p.s. it is not unusual to have to restart programs before files are updated.. that is why MS always prompts people to restart "windows" after updates have been installed, so that the updated files can be loaded..
Given your disingenuous use of "multitudinous",I had to look up the definition of "multitudinous". | | therube
join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD ·Xfinity
·Verizon Online DSL
|
quote:
And if that new version breaks something?
You'll never know until you try? quote:
You likely will not be able to always rollback.
Why not? Uninstall the version you just put in, then install any version you want (assuming you have on hand or can find your wanted older version for download). (That said, I did something ? the other day, & a message came up, something like "this is an older version, & there is an update available..." kind of thing. Wasn't paying much attention, not even sure anymore what I was even trying to do ? but I just dismissed the dialog at that point.) quote:
There's no guarantee what they remove is even flash.
If not Flash, then just what do you think it might try to remove? quote:
What if other applications are using those libraries you've now just removed?
I suppose that is possible? Can't say I know offhand of any applications that rely on or interact directly with Adobe Flash (what, .dll I suppose?) in that manner? Plus once you install a different version, wouldn't that connection be back again anyhow? quote:
Mozilla constantly rolls more breakage into new releases. UI changes, completely removing options, etc.
Yep. That's what you get for "progress"  . quote:
Using the latest version because it's new is not necessarily a good thing.
If you're negatively affected by changes in a newer version, that would hold true. Though typically only the newest version (& the latest ESR version) get the latest security fixes. quote:
{Profile Folder} This must be a Windows thing?
No, he probably just didn't realize that even if it was called "mozilla", it was still in a separate tree, so no issues would ensue. quote:
multitudinous
Heh. I didn't even know (until now) that it was a real word. Nonetheless I did know what he meant by it even it happened that it wasn't. | |
|
·
·
·
.