Re: Flash, and 32 vs. 64
Danny Piccirillo wrote: > Until i got the 64-bit version of flash, YouTube would crash everytime i > scrolled on a Not to mention it was slowww. All of those things have been > fixed now that i'm using the native 64-bit version and i've had zero > problems > Let me clarify that we've only tested this with Jaunty, not Intrepid nor Karmic; but yes, the native 64-bit alpha flash seems to work better than the 32-bit wrapper approach. We're trying to decide at this point if we should go ahead and roll out a 64-bit distribution to most of our workstations in the next upgrade cycle from Hardy to Jaunty. Because we're a scientific computing environment, it's already been pointed out that we're going to reduce the amount of memory available to user space applications by doing this (64-bit pointers take up twice as much space as 32-bit pointers). On the other hand, memory is fairly cheap these days. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Aside from Flash, another concern was java run in the browser, but this seems to work fine too in Jaunty. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Flash, and 32 vs. 64
Until i got the 64-bit version of flash, YouTube would crash everytime i scrolled on a page or used HD (flash would freeze and hang my browser and i'd have to wait for it to crash before i could use my browser again), and flash would immediately crash when i tried to fullscreen anything. Not to mention it was slowww. All of those things have been fixed now that i'm using the native 64-bit version and i've had zero problems On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:47, Markus Hitter wrote: > > Am 17.06.2009 um 20:57 schrieb Patrick Goetz: > > > As far as I can tell, the 64-bit Flash plugin is fairly stable and > > works with all the content we could think to try out. > > The last time I tried to use Adobe's 64-bit player was in Intrepid > and it refused to load YouTube videos. Is this solved? > > For now I'm back to swfdec. I prefer it for the minor, but very > convenient feature to load flash after a click on a placeholder, only. > > > Markus > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter > http://www.jump-ing.de/ > > > > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Flash, and 32 vs. 64
Am 17.06.2009 um 20:57 schrieb Patrick Goetz: > As far as I can tell, the 64-bit Flash plugin is fairly stable and > works with all the content we could think to try out. The last time I tried to use Adobe's 64-bit player was in Intrepid and it refused to load YouTube videos. Is this solved? For now I'm back to swfdec. I prefer it for the minor, but very convenient feature to load flash after a click on a placeholder, only. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Flash, and 32 vs. 64
Olá Patrick e a todos. On Wednesday 17 June 2009 19:57:56 Patrick Goetz wrote: > Once we switched to using the 64-bit Flash alpha plugin, the 64-bit > firefox was slightly faster than the 32-bit version. As far as I can > tell, the 64-bit Flash plugin is fairly stable and works with all the > content we could think to try out. I've been using the 64 bits flash from adobe since the day it came out, without any major problem directly related to it. I do notice it is *much* lighter then nspluginwrapper. The only downfall is not having auto-updates for it, but thats only because, from what gnomefreak told me, there isnt a tarball and MD5 with all we need to package it. :( -- Hi, I'm BUGabundo, and I am Ubuntu (whyubuntu.com) (``-_-´´) http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB http://BUGabundo.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
