Discuss: YouTube Stopping Flash Support

Hewlett-packard / Hp pavilion g6 notebook p...
February 5, 2015 at 16:52:15
Specs: Windows 7, 1.4 GHz / 5610 MB
Hi all,

This week's poll question is about news that YouTube will discontinue its support of Adobe Flash on modern browsers. Discuss here if you think Flash will soon become a thing of the past, and, if you like, the poll results themselves.

Thanks,
Justin


See More: Discuss: YouTube Stopping Flash Support

Report •

#1
February 6, 2015 at 02:04:38
Am disappointed that Flash is not properly maintained. e.g. when viewing youtube, it stutters, on older systems.

For long, this problem has been reported all over the internet yet nothing is done to correct. Any suggestion (e.g. submit a report or whatever) from Flash Player is just a delaying tactic.

Use the older version 10 of Flash Player and no stuttering. Please Adobe, correct problems, rather than attemptoing to place blame elsewhere.

Little wonder others become disillusioned.

Good Luck - Keep us posted.


Report •

#2
February 8, 2015 at 16:06:19
I am surprised that Mike and others have had difficulty with Flash. Presumably it must react badly with some computers and/or their connection devices. Apart from the early days on XP I have found it fine, never stops, doesn't miss a beat. Still fine on Win 8.1.

On the general topic I get a feeling they are jumping the gun a bit in order for us to switch to HTML5 - so far so good with that too. I get the general impression that HTML5 will be safer but only time will tell. There are still plenty of websites that require Flash - the UK BBC for starters (although "they are working on it").

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#3
February 9, 2015 at 21:28:08
I'm not sure exactly what is improved in newer versions of Adobe Flash. I'm not sure what the user gains other than slower performance and shorter battery life on laptops, etc. I just know that the system requirements have blown up.

I think at work we still use 11.2.xxx.xxx for computer-based training, which is still being patched by Adobe. The very frequent patch release schedule is really inconvenient for large enterprises and legacy systems.

You can use Adobe Flash 9+ on Youtube (I confirm that even old Flash 7 and 8 work with the Windows 95/NT 4.0 spoofer), and Flash 10+ on Hulu and most other sites.

http://sdfox7.com


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
February 10, 2015 at 02:08:25
Whatever it's replaced with it would be helpful if Apple also recognised it, and thus allow it to work on Mac systems; where at present it doesn't (iPads etc.)

Report •

#5
February 10, 2015 at 09:19:57
Re #3
We are way above that Adobe version but the reasons for all the updates are security. That is an important issue because the hackers often attack it and I'm not sure that a patched earlier version is as secure. Maybe a good reason for switching to HTML but I'm no expert on its relative security.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

message edited by Derek


Report •

#6
February 13, 2015 at 12:27:40
Mike

Have you tried disabling Hardware acceleration in flash? (Right click playing video -> Settings -> Display -> Untick "Enable hardware acceleration)
I have had a few issues on older systems that can be traced back to that.


Report •

#7
February 13, 2015 at 20:41:35
Derek

I understand where you are coming from. I agree that security issues should be patched but couldn't we still be using 9.xxx.xxx or 10.xxx.xxx?

Coming out with a new numbered update (15, 16, etc) seems a little ridiculous. Are we going to run Flash Player 394 someday? You don't see Microsoft release a new version of Windows every time there is a bug. They just release an update to patch it. In my opinion new version numbers just make it more difficult to do regression testing and make sure everything works correctly.

I also believe they must be adding unnecessary features because after Flash Player 9 the system requirements jumped quite a bit. Maybe there are NSA mandated features being added :P

http://sdfox7.com


Report •

#8
February 14, 2015 at 08:15:33
"they must be adding unnecessary features"
That would be no surprise - just about every program seems to add things to try to keep us interested (most of us are not). I don't like the way they try to foist unwanted goodies on us either - AV's and Toolbars for example.

As for numbers, well yes, I get your point but I suppose that's just their way of doing things. Firefox, which I like, also do the same thing. Just another cross to bear I guess.

Maybe if their days are numbered it will be a good thing.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#9
February 18, 2015 at 14:31:35

Report •

#10
February 19, 2015 at 14:56:36
Hi Thomas , I tried disabling hardware acceleration to no effect.

I think the problem is evolving programs need ever larger resources, which older pc's simply cannot provide.

Regards - Mike


Report •

#11
February 19, 2015 at 16:21:12
That is unfortunate, but you probably hit the nail on the head.

As computers become increasingly more powerful, less time is spent on creating efficient, reliable code.


Report •

#12
February 19, 2015 at 16:30:52
Sure thing #11 and that has been happening progressively for donkeys years, starting with modular programming.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#13
February 20, 2015 at 12:05:25
In my opinion the end of efficient code came in 1997, when Microsoft introduced a bloated "feature" call Active Desktop. Most computers from that era would not even run it very well and would bring computers to a crawl. I never installed it on my Windows 95 or NT 4.0 systems.

Ever since then it's been downhill. Why write efficient code when you can just prod people to buy new computers?

In 2008 when Chrome was released, it was praised for being lean and mean. However, if you compare performance of old versions and new versions, they are worlds apart.

You would think with all the mobile products in the world code would become leaner not more and more bloated. If you can make light, fast and battery-friendly programs on mobile, why not on desktop? (I realize desktops don't use batteries).

http://sdfox7.com

message edited by sdfox 7


Report •

#14
February 20, 2015 at 13:12:16
Probably all comes down to manpower -v- computer power, the former being more expensive.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

Ask Question