This forum is a discussion about improving the "Fix problems with RealPlayer add-ons" article. If you'd like to participate, please register.

If you need help with Firefox, please ask a question.

Flash 11.3 incompatibility and "Web Download and Recording"

  • 27 Replies
  • Last reply by CheckMate
  1. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    See https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/708430?page=3#post-47328 Flash 11.3 issues

    We should edit this article to either link to or include the information in Flash 11.3 doesn't load video in Firefox about turning off "Web Download and Recording" in Real Player preferences and mention the RP Browser Record Plugin extension has been blocklisted.

    See https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/708430?page=3#post-47328 Flash 11.3 issues We should edit this article to either link to or include the information in [[Flash 11.3 doesn't load video in Firefox]] about turning off "Web Download and Recording" in Real Player preferences and mention the RP Browser Record Plugin extension has been blocklisted.
  2. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    I see that Verdi added a link to the Flash 11.3 doesn't load video in Firefox article in his June 29th edit.

    I see that Verdi added a link to the [[Flash 11.3 doesn't load video in Firefox]] article in his June 29th edit.
    Modified by AliceWyman on
  3. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    I have made an attempt at a suitable edit. Discussion /forums/contributors/708430?&page=5#post-47732 Please feel free to modify as necessary.

    Some of the problems with even the latest RealPlayer version are due to Flash Player being in protected mode. Problems may occur with Flash 11.3 itself on Windows Vista and above if it is in protected mode. There is a long discussion in Flash 11.3 issues (was: flash 11.3 released) /forums/contributors/708430

    Consensus/mozilla view is apparently that manually changing protected mode is not the best solution to ordinary Flash 11.3 problems.

    RealPlayer use with FlashPlayer is a separate problem, and it seems at present suggesting manually turning off protected mode is a solution here, as is downgrading to Flash 11.2 or 10.3 as advised in /kb/flash-113-crashes#w_step-2-install-f... . (One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode)

    I have added as an alternative a link to the article containing downgrade advice,and a tip to use Windows Task Manager to indicate whether or not in protected mode is in use.

    I have made an attempt at a suitable edit. Discussion [/forums/contributors/708430?&page=5#post-47732] Please feel free to modify as necessary. Some of the problems with even the latest RealPlayer version are due to Flash Player being in protected mode. Problems may occur with Flash 11.3 itself on Windows Vista and above if it is in protected mode. There is a long discussion in ''Flash 11.3 issues (was: flash 11.3 released)'' [/forums/contributors/708430] Consensus/mozilla view is apparently that manually changing protected mode is not the best solution to ordinary Flash 11.3 problems. RealPlayer use with FlashPlayer is a separate problem, and it seems at present suggesting manually turning off protected mode is a solution here, as is downgrading to Flash 11.2 or 10.3 as advised in [/kb/flash-113-crashes#w_step-2-install-flash-10-3-or-11-2] . (One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode) I have added as an alternative a link to the article containing downgrade advice,and a tip to use Windows Task Manager to indicate whether or not in protected mode is in use.
    Modified by John99 on
  4. CheckMate 24 posts
    Report Abuse

    John99 said

    I have made an attempt at a suitable edit. Discussion /forums/contributors/708430?&page=5#post-47732 Please feel free to modify as necessary. Some of the problems with even the latest RealPlayer version are due to Flash Player being in protected mode. Problems may occur with Flash 11.3 itself on Windows Vista and above if it is in protected mode. There is a long discussion in Flash 11.3 issues (was: flash 11.3 released) /forums/contributors/708430 Consensus/mozilla view is apparently that manually changing protected mode is not the best solution to ordinary Flash 11.3 problems. RealPlayer use with FlashPlayer is a separate problem, and it seems at present suggesting manually turning off protected mode is a solution here, as is downgrading to Flash 11.2 or 10.3 as advised in /kb/flash-113-crashes#w_step-2-install-f... . (One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode) I have added as an alternative a link to the article containing downgrade advice,and a tip to use Windows Task Manager to indicate whether or not in protected mode is in use.

    @John99

    Hi John99,
    
        You say that "One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode", referring to downgrading to either 11.2 or 10.3. But, as I understand it , Protected Mode was only added with the 11.3, so that's not a problem with previous versions. If it were they wouldn't be working so well for so many people, even inexperienced users who do the roll back, and I've tested every one of the recommended ones and they all work to allow video content and download with RealPlayer ( as long as users remember to enable the blocked extension, of course).
    
    ''John99 [[#post-5488|said]]'' <blockquote> I have made an attempt at a suitable edit. Discussion [/forums/contributors/708430?&page=5#post-47732] Please feel free to modify as necessary. Some of the problems with even the latest RealPlayer version are due to Flash Player being in protected mode. Problems may occur with Flash 11.3 itself on Windows Vista and above if it is in protected mode. There is a long discussion in ''Flash 11.3 issues (was: flash 11.3 released)'' [/forums/contributors/708430] Consensus/mozilla view is apparently that manually changing protected mode is not the best solution to ordinary Flash 11.3 problems. RealPlayer use with FlashPlayer is a separate problem, and it seems at present suggesting manually turning off protected mode is a solution here, as is downgrading to Flash 11.2 or 10.3 as advised in [/kb/flash-113-crashes#w_step-2-install-flash-10-3-or-11-2] . (One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode) I have added as an alternative a link to the article containing downgrade advice,and a tip to use Windows Task Manager to indicate whether or not in protected mode is in use. </blockquote> @John99 Hi John99, You say that "One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode", referring to downgrading to either 11.2 or 10.3. But, as I understand it , Protected Mode was only added with the 11.3, so that's not a problem with previous versions. If it were they wouldn't be working so well for so many people, even inexperienced users who do the roll back, and I've tested every one of the recommended ones and they all work to allow video content and download with RealPlayer ( as long as users remember to enable the blocked extension, of course).
  5. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    John99, I think you made a "typo" of sorts in your edit when you wrote, two plugincontainer processes running indicate protected mode is in use. since when Flash 11.3 Protected Mode is on, you will see two "FlashPlayerPlugin_<version>.exe processes in Windows Task Manager (e.g., “FlashPlayerPlugin_11_300_257.exe). Instead of saying all that I would have simply said, "Starting in Flash Player 11.3, the Flash plugin runs in a Protected Mode in Windows Vista and above, which causes problems using RealPlayer in Firefox." and leave it at that. (If the Protected Mode link I used is too "techie", you can use this one instead).

    I really think you are making things too complicated, though. I don't think you need to mention Protected Mode at all, if you're suggesting a downgrade to Flash to 11.2 or 10.3 for people who want to get the RealPlayer Browser Record feature working in Windows Vista and above. What I was thinking to do was to add a note like this, under the "Flash videos or games on sites like Facebook or YouTube may appear, black, white or grey and never play" section that Michael Verdi added, by making a new edit based on Michael's last revision instead of yours:

    {for win} {note} Note: RealPlayer includes a Web Download & Recording feature that adds a Browser Record Plugin extension to Firefox. This causes problems with Flash content if Flash Player 11.3 is installed. If you don't use this feature, you can turn it off to avoid problems (see Flash 11.3 doesn't load video in Firefox). If you want to keep using this feature, another option is to uninstall Flash 11.3 and install an earlier Flash version as a temporary solution. See the Adobe Flash plugin has crashed - Prevent it from happening again article for detailed instructions.{/note} {/for}

    Let me know what you think. If you make a new edit, I'll review it again.

    John99, I think you made a "typo" of sorts in your edit when you wrote, ''two plugincontainer processes running indicate protected mode is in use.'' since when [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Flash_Player_11.3_Protected_Mode_-_Windows Flash 11.3 Protected Mode] is on, you will see two "FlashPlayerPlugin_<version>.exe processes in Windows Task Manager (e.g., “FlashPlayerPlugin_11_300_257.exe). Instead of saying all that I would have simply said, "Starting in Flash Player 11.3, the Flash plugin runs in a [http://blogs.adobe.com/asset/2012/06/inside-flash-player-protected-mode-for-firefox.html Protected Mode] in Windows Vista and above, which causes problems using RealPlayer in Firefox." and leave it at that. (If the Protected Mode link I used is too "techie", you can use [http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1018071 this one] instead). I really think you are making things too complicated, though. I don't think you need to mention Protected Mode at all, if you're suggesting a downgrade to Flash to 11.2 or 10.3 for people who want to get the RealPlayer Browser Record feature working in Windows Vista and above. What I was thinking to do was to add a note like this, under the "Flash videos or games on sites like Facebook or YouTube may appear, black, white or grey and never play" section that Michael Verdi added, by making a new edit based on Michael's last revision instead of yours: {for win} {note} '''Note:''' RealPlayer includes a Web Download & Recording feature that adds a Browser Record Plugin extension to Firefox. This causes problems with Flash content if Flash Player 11.3 is installed. If you don't use this feature, you can turn it off to avoid problems (see [[Flash 11.3 doesn't load video in Firefox]]). If you want to keep using this feature, another option is to uninstall Flash 11.3 and install an earlier Flash version as a temporary solution. See the [[Flash 11.3 crashes]] article for detailed instructions.{/note} {/for} Let me know what you think. If you make a new edit, I'll review it again.
  6. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    CheckMate said

    You say that "One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode", referring to downgrading to either 11.2 or 10.3. But, as I understand it , Protected Mode was only added with the 11.3, so that's not a problem with previous versions.

    I think John99 meant the Flash 11.3.300.262 installer linked in this note disables Protected Mode by default, which I've copied from http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Disabling_Protected_Mode_in_Flash_11.3


    Note: The Flash 11.3.300.262 plugin installer from this direct link apparently disables Protected Mode by default and requires adding ProtectedMode=1 to the Flash "mms.cfg" file to enable it. See this support.mozilla.org discussion thread for more information.


    So, Checkmate. What do you tink of my idea to simplify things by adding the note I suggested in my previous post to John99? You have to remember that we want thinks simple in SUMO's KB. Adding info on disabling Protected Mode, like in MozillaZine's article, is way too complicated, it seems, for SUMO.

    ''CheckMate [[#post-5489|said]]'' <blockquote> You say that "One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode", referring to downgrading to either 11.2 or 10.3. But, as I understand it , Protected Mode was only added with the 11.3, so that's not a problem with previous versions. </blockquote> I think John99 meant the Flash 11.3.300.262 installer linked in this note disables Protected Mode by default, which I've copied from http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Disabling_Protected_Mode_in_Flash_11.3 ----- '''Note:''' The Flash 11.3.300.262 plugin installer from [http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe this direct link] apparently disables Protected Mode by default and requires adding '''ProtectedMode=1''' to the Flash "mms.cfg" file to enable it. See [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/708470 this support.mozilla.org discussion thread] for more information. ----- So, Checkmate. What do you tink of my idea to simplify things by adding the note I suggested in my previous post to John99? You have to remember that we want thinks simple in SUMO's KB. Adding info on disabling Protected Mode, like in MozillaZine's article, is way too complicated, it seems, for SUMO.
  7. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    ok thanks for comments, another edit made.

    ok thanks for comments, another edit made.
  8. CheckMate 24 posts
    Report Abuse

    AliceWyman said

    CheckMate said
    You say that "One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode", referring to downgrading to either 11.2 or 10.3. But, as I understand it , Protected Mode was only added with the 11.3, so that's not a problem with previous versions.

    I think John99 meant the Flash 11.3.300.262 installer linked in this note disables Protected Mode by default, which I've copied from http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Disabling_Protected_Mode_in_Flash_11.3


    Note: The Flash 11.3.300.262 plugin installer from this direct link apparently disables Protected Mode by default and requires adding ProtectedMode=1 to the Flash "mms.cfg" file to enable it. See this support.mozilla.org discussion thread for more information.


    So, Checkmate. What do you tink of my idea to simplify things by adding the note I suggested in my previous post to John99? You have to remember that we want thinks simple in SUMO's KB. Adding info on disabling Protected Mode, like in MozillaZine's article, is way too complicated, it seems, for SUMO.

    @AliceWyman

    Hi Alice, 
         
         Thanks for the clarification about what John99 was referring to. I know you were referring to that about the different installers working differently in the 11. 303.262 earlier but it was just the way it read that I misunderstood him but now it makes sense what he was referring to. 
    
           Sorry for the long post, here - just trying to explain in enough detail so my reasoning is clear - and you know I'm not concise like you are.
     I'm still thinking about the edits you suggested, but I have a couple of suggestions so far.
      
        1- I definitely agree with you that the Protected Mode Steps are too complicated for the average user and obviously not necessary if you simply roll back the update which is what I always thought seemed the best choice . Keeping it simple was what I thought made sense from the beginning. Remember how I said that about the disabling Protected Mode step being an advanced step and it reduced security in my very first message to you on the other locked thread, which you posted (thanks) and then locked  again, and told me about SUMO?  You said then you agreed that editing an "obscure file" to disable Protected Mode, which reduced security was not the best solution. So I agree that Protected Mode doesn't even need to be mentioned at all here.
     
        2-But I want to suggest something important about the actual links to the rollback Flash versions in the Crash article. I noticed it's a direct link to the 10.3 for Firefox or the reference is to the archives for the 11.2 and yes, the trade off (newer functionality vs better security) is explained. It does say that for the 11.2 instructions, see the "How to do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player?" Now that page tells you everything,and gives both choices, the 10.3 and the 11.2, as well as linking to the page for the direct link to both versions of 10.3 (FF and IE). I got that link to the "Revert...."page from you. 
    
        When you run Adobe's uninstaller, it removes BOTH versions (FF plugin and Active for IE), so they both have to be reinstalled. Yes, I know the 11.3 is fine with IE but it's alot less confusing to simply use the direct links to the 10.3 for both. Or, with the zip files, the instrucition to reinstall the IE Active X (and which one to select) is needed. The instruction to choose the winax one for IE is on the "How do I revert..." page for zip files. But the Crash the article simply lists a direct link for the 10.3 with no instruction to reinstall for IE or how to do it and only gives the link to the "How to revert..." page only for instrucitons on the 11.2 and even there, not reminding you to reinstall both.
    
        One user, who had followed the advice of me and others on the thread  who had rolled back to 10.3  (I did provide others the link to the "How do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player" page with the choices)and said he found it "more stable" than the 11.2 but said he couldn't use the RealPlayer converter or play videos with it. I tested the converter - working perfectly, so I asked him to tell me every single step he did. He said he actually had followed the instructions in the Crash article (not mine) to install the 10.3 after running the uninstaller. But he was getting a pop up that said RealPlayer needs Internet Explorer to install Flash Player to work. So he tried a zip file, (I saw it coming already) and it opened with three choices and he chose the win.exe. I thought it should be the winax, but checked the instructions for choosing the zip file which are on the "How do I revert...." page - it 's the winax for IE!
    
          I told him it didn't work because he never installed it - he only installed the FF version again and told him to start over, uninstall and follow my instructions to reinstall both versions from the direct links page for the 10.3 from the the "How do I revert...."page. The next day he said everything was working perfectly and couldn't thank me enough and was glad this "ordeal" was over.
    
          So there needs to be an instruction to reinstall both versions after running the uninstaller. And either provide the direct link for the IE version as well, (the 10.3 or the 11.2.202.235) or link to the "How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player". (The direct link for the11.2.202.235 is now at the bottom of the "How do I revert.... page). Or for the 10.3, a link to the 10.3 direct links page where both versions are easily found, for IE and "for other browsers".
          
          And it has to be clear that the rollback is for BOTH problems (Crashes and Viewing), as we discussed, right? Yeah, thanks for suggesting I might want to edit it - I'm thinking about it
     
          On your note about the Web download and recording, I'm really glad you're open to modifying that - recognizing that people installed RealPlayer in the first place to be abe to download videos with it. I'm just really ambivalent about that step to to begin with but with your note explaining the choice to downgrade from the 11.3 if you want to continue using the feature, it's certainly reasonable if the step is still in the mix. And I don't think it should be. I think it's totally inappropriate to recommend that step although it's much more reasonable the way you put it - "If you're not using it". But even if people think they may not need it, the first time they try to download a video days later and don't know why they can't - not with any browser and forget or don't understand why... there's gonna be more problems - unless of course, they're only using it to watch movies, but I don't think that's true of most people. And users also should be reminded that even if they think they don't need it, that they're turning it off for all the browsers, not just Firefox.  
        
         But  the "Flash videos and games.... may appear white, etc" article links to the "Flash content doesn't load "article which really opens up a can of worms because the next two steps end with "uninstall RealPlayer" which makes no sense at all and only the last resort (again from Adobe) fourth step is to roll back the update. And you already know what I think of it as only a last resort.
    
        I know you're trying to simplify this and anything that gives  users the choice to roll back that infamous update without beating them over the head to kill RealPlayer is a step in the right direction.
    
          I'll get back to you very soon after I think about this I little more with a clear head, but it looks like something positive may be happening here. But these articles are really a bit confusing as if they're unrelated and I think they're very related.
    
    ''AliceWyman [[#post-5491|said]]'' <blockquote> ''CheckMate [[#post-5489|said]]'' <blockquote> You say that "One problem with that is apparently differing installers may or may not enable protected mode", referring to downgrading to either 11.2 or 10.3. But, as I understand it , Protected Mode was only added with the 11.3, so that's not a problem with previous versions. </blockquote> I think John99 meant the Flash 11.3.300.262 installer linked in this note disables Protected Mode by default, which I've copied from http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Disabling_Protected_Mode_in_Flash_11.3 ----- '''Note:''' The Flash 11.3.300.262 plugin installer from [http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe this direct link] apparently disables Protected Mode by default and requires adding '''ProtectedMode=1''' to the Flash "mms.cfg" file to enable it. See [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/708470 this support.mozilla.org discussion thread] for more information. ----- So, Checkmate. What do you tink of my idea to simplify things by adding the note I suggested in my previous post to John99? You have to remember that we want thinks simple in SUMO's KB. Adding info on disabling Protected Mode, like in MozillaZine's article, is way too complicated, it seems, for SUMO. </blockquote> @AliceWyman Hi Alice, Thanks for the clarification about what John99 was referring to. I know you were referring to that about the different installers working differently in the 11. 303.262 earlier but it was just the way it read that I misunderstood him but now it makes sense what he was referring to. Sorry for the long post, here - just trying to explain in enough detail so my reasoning is clear - and you know I'm not concise like you are. I'm still thinking about the edits you suggested, but I have a couple of suggestions so far. 1- I definitely agree with you that the Protected Mode Steps are too complicated for the average user and obviously not necessary if you simply roll back the update which is what I always thought seemed the best choice . Keeping it simple was what I thought made sense from the beginning. Remember how I said that about the disabling Protected Mode step being an advanced step and it reduced security in my very first message to you on the other locked thread, which you posted (thanks) and then locked again, and told me about SUMO? You said then you agreed that editing an "obscure file" to disable Protected Mode, which reduced security was not the best solution. So I agree that Protected Mode doesn't even need to be mentioned at all here. 2-But I want to suggest something important about the actual links to the rollback Flash versions in the Crash article. I noticed it's a direct link to the 10.3 for Firefox or the reference is to the archives for the 11.2 and yes, the trade off (newer functionality vs better security) is explained. It does say that for the 11.2 instructions, see the "How to do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player?" Now that page tells you everything,and gives both choices, the 10.3 and the 11.2, as well as linking to the page for the direct link to both versions of 10.3 (FF and IE). I got that link to the "Revert...."page from you. When you run Adobe's uninstaller, it removes BOTH versions (FF plugin and Active for IE), so they both have to be reinstalled. Yes, I know the 11.3 is fine with IE but it's alot less confusing to simply use the direct links to the 10.3 for both. Or, with the zip files, the instrucition to reinstall the IE Active X (and which one to select) is needed. The instruction to choose the winax one for IE is on the "How do I revert..." page for zip files. But the Crash the article simply lists a direct link for the 10.3 with no instruction to reinstall for IE or how to do it and only gives the link to the "How to revert..." page only for instrucitons on the 11.2 and even there, not reminding you to reinstall both. One user, who had followed the advice of me and others on the thread who had rolled back to 10.3 (I did provide others the link to the "How do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player" page with the choices)and said he found it "more stable" than the 11.2 but said he couldn't use the RealPlayer converter or play videos with it. I tested the converter - working perfectly, so I asked him to tell me every single step he did. He said he actually had followed the instructions in the Crash article (not mine) to install the 10.3 after running the uninstaller. But he was getting a pop up that said RealPlayer needs Internet Explorer to install Flash Player to work. So he tried a zip file, (I saw it coming already) and it opened with three choices and he chose the win.exe. I thought it should be the winax, but checked the instructions for choosing the zip file which are on the "How do I revert...." page - it 's the winax for IE! I told him it didn't work because he never installed it - he only installed the FF version again and told him to start over, uninstall and follow my instructions to reinstall both versions from the direct links page for the 10.3 from the the "How do I revert...."page. The next day he said everything was working perfectly and couldn't thank me enough and was glad this "ordeal" was over. So there needs to be an instruction to reinstall both versions after running the uninstaller. And either provide the direct link for the IE version as well, (the 10.3 or the 11.2.202.235) or link to the "How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player". (The direct link for the11.2.202.235 is now at the bottom of the "How do I revert.... page). Or for the 10.3, a link to the 10.3 direct links page where both versions are easily found, for IE and "for other browsers". And it has to be clear that the rollback is for BOTH problems (Crashes and Viewing), as we discussed, right? Yeah, thanks for suggesting I might want to edit it - I'm thinking about it On your note about the Web download and recording, I'm really glad you're open to modifying that - recognizing that people installed RealPlayer in the first place to be abe to download videos with it. I'm just really ambivalent about that step to to begin with but with your note explaining the choice to downgrade from the 11.3 if you want to continue using the feature, it's certainly reasonable if the step is still in the mix. And I don't think it should be. I think it's totally inappropriate to recommend that step although it's much more reasonable the way you put it - "If you're not using it". But even if people think they may not need it, the first time they try to download a video days later and don't know why they can't - not with any browser and forget or don't understand why... there's gonna be more problems - unless of course, they're only using it to watch movies, but I don't think that's true of most people. And users also should be reminded that even if they think they don't need it, that they're turning it off for all the browsers, not just Firefox. But the "Flash videos and games.... may appear white, etc" article links to the "Flash content doesn't load "article which really opens up a can of worms because the next two steps end with "uninstall RealPlayer" which makes no sense at all and only the last resort (again from Adobe) fourth step is to roll back the update. And you already know what I think of it as only a last resort. I know you're trying to simplify this and anything that gives users the choice to roll back that infamous update without beating them over the head to kill RealPlayer is a step in the right direction. I'll get back to you very soon after I think about this I little more with a clear head, but it looks like something positive may be happening here. But these articles are really a bit confusing as if they're unrelated and I think they're very related.
    Modified by CheckMate on
  9. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    CheckMate said

    2-But I want to suggest something important about the actual links to the rollback Flash versions in the Crash article. I noticed it's a direct link to the 10.3 for Firefox or the reference is to the archives for the 11.2 and yes, the trade off (newer functionality vs better security) is explained. It does say that for the 11.2 instructions, see the "How to do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player?" Now that page tells you everything,and gives both choices, the 10.3 and the 11.2, as well as linking to the page for the direct link to both versions of 10.3 (FF and IE). I got that link to the "Revert...."page from you.

    So there needs to be an instruction to reinstall both versions after running the uninstaller. And either provide the direct link for the IE version as well, (the 10.3 or the 11.2.202.235) or link to the "How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player". (The direct link for the11.2.202.235 is now at the bottom of the "How do I revert.... page). Or for the 10.3, a link to the 10.3 direct links page where both versions are easily found, for IE and "for other browsers".

    Thanks so much for mentioning that! The fact that you're a Real Player user who has been helping other RealPlayer users is so important to getting this article updated.

    I approved John99's edit, then I made a revision to the note he added, to link to Adobe's How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player page and explain about needing to reinstall both the Flash Player ActiveX and the Flash Player Plugin.

    ''CheckMate [[#post-5493|said]]'' <blockquote> 2-But I want to suggest something important about the actual links to the rollback Flash versions in the Crash article. I noticed it's a direct link to the 10.3 for Firefox or the reference is to the archives for the 11.2 and yes, the trade off (newer functionality vs better security) is explained. It does say that for the 11.2 instructions, see the "How to do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player?" Now that page tells you everything,and gives both choices, the 10.3 and the 11.2, as well as linking to the page for the direct link to both versions of 10.3 (FF and IE). I got that link to the "Revert...."page from you. <br><br> So there needs to be an instruction to reinstall both versions after running the uninstaller. And either provide the direct link for the IE version as well, (the 10.3 or the 11.2.202.235) or link to the "How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player". (The direct link for the11.2.202.235 is now at the bottom of the "How do I revert.... page). Or for the 10.3, a link to the 10.3 direct links page where both versions are easily found, for IE and "for other browsers". </blockquote> Thanks so much for mentioning that! The fact that you're a Real Player user who has been helping other RealPlayer users is so important to getting this article updated. I approved John99's edit, then I made a revision to the note he added, to link to Adobe's [http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1022066 How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player] page and explain about needing to reinstall both the Flash Player ActiveX and the Flash Player Plugin.
  10. CheckMate 24 posts
    Report Abuse

    AliceWyman said

    CheckMate said
    2-But I want to suggest something important about the actual links to the rollback Flash versions in the Crash article. I noticed it's a direct link to the 10.3 for Firefox or the reference is to the archives for the 11.2 and yes, the trade off (newer functionality vs better security) is explained. It does say that for the 11.2 instructions, see the "How to do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player?" Now that page tells you everything,and gives both choices, the 10.3 and the 11.2, as well as linking to the page for the direct link to both versions of 10.3 (FF and IE). I got that link to the "Revert...."page from you.

    So there needs to be an instruction to reinstall both versions after running the uninstaller. And either provide the direct link for the IE version as well, (the 10.3 or the 11.2.202.235) or link to the "How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player". (The direct link for the11.2.202.235 is now at the bottom of the "How do I revert.... page). Or for the 10.3, a link to the 10.3 direct links page where both versions are easily found, for IE and "for other browsers".

    Thanks so much for mentioning that! The fact that you're a Real Player user who has been helping other RealPlayer users is so important to getting this article updated.

    I approved John99's edit, then I made a revision to the note he added, to link to Adobe's How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player page and explain about needing to reinstall both the Flash Player ActiveX and the Flash Player Plugin.

    @AliceWyman


          That's great, Alice! Just one thing. My first reaction was "boy, was she fast in answering". But I've been editing other parts of my post for a while now as I was  understanding more and more the different articles and what was really being proposed here  so I don't know you if you saw my final edit on my  comments about your note on the Web download and recording and the choice to roll back the update if you're not using it. So depending on when you read it you might want to read it again after I finished modifying it. 
      
         By the way, I told the Case Manager from RealPlayer the same thing and he didn't realize it either. In fact, it was funny because he tried to tell me "No, each uninstallation is separate", so you don't have to uninstall the 11.3 Active X for IE. I asked him which uninstaller he was using and sure enough, it was Programs and Features in Windows. I know because I did it that way too the first time till I learned about Adobe's uninstaller.  It really surprised him when he realized why I was so sure it uninstalled both versions because it was the Adobe uninstaller. He agreed it's probably more thorough - and their KB article has the direct link to it. Don't know if I mentioned it but he also uses Firefox.
    
        I finally got to show him what's wrong with that one second step- after uninstalling the 11.3- to install the  .233 zip file from the archives page. too long, to easy to make a mistake, less security and their own link to the archives page didn't even work (he tested it and agreed with that too) and when I showed him the direct links to the 10.3, (and even the .235) he changed his mind and said he was recommending the changes to the Developers.
    
         One cool thing they did in that article is they gave a direct link to the uninstaller but also, they included links to two instruction videos, especially the steps to disable Protected Mode, done by one of their Developers,although that's their last alternative step following rolling back the update or changing browsers.
    
    ''AliceWyman [[#post-5494|said]]'' <blockquote> ''CheckMate [[#post-5493|said]]'' <blockquote> 2-But I want to suggest something important about the actual links to the rollback Flash versions in the Crash article. I noticed it's a direct link to the 10.3 for Firefox or the reference is to the archives for the 11.2 and yes, the trade off (newer functionality vs better security) is explained. It does say that for the 11.2 instructions, see the "How to do I revert to a previous version of Flash Player?" Now that page tells you everything,and gives both choices, the 10.3 and the 11.2, as well as linking to the page for the direct link to both versions of 10.3 (FF and IE). I got that link to the "Revert...."page from you. <br><br> So there needs to be an instruction to reinstall both versions after running the uninstaller. And either provide the direct link for the IE version as well, (the 10.3 or the 11.2.202.235) or link to the "How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player". (The direct link for the11.2.202.235 is now at the bottom of the "How do I revert.... page). Or for the 10.3, a link to the 10.3 direct links page where both versions are easily found, for IE and "for other browsers". </blockquote> Thanks so much for mentioning that! The fact that you're a Real Player user who has been helping other RealPlayer users is so important to getting this article updated. I approved John99's edit, then I made a revision to the note he added, to link to Adobe's [http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1022066 How do I revert to an earlier version of Flash Player] page and explain about needing to reinstall both the Flash Player ActiveX and the Flash Player Plugin. </blockquote> @AliceWyman That's great, Alice! Just one thing. My first reaction was "boy, was she fast in answering". But I've been editing other parts of my post for a while now as I was understanding more and more the different articles and what was really being proposed here so I don't know you if you saw my final edit on my comments about your note on the Web download and recording and the choice to roll back the update if you're not using it. So depending on when you read it you might want to read it again after I finished modifying it. By the way, I told the Case Manager from RealPlayer the same thing and he didn't realize it either. In fact, it was funny because he tried to tell me "No, each uninstallation is separate", so you don't have to uninstall the 11.3 Active X for IE. I asked him which uninstaller he was using and sure enough, it was Programs and Features in Windows. I know because I did it that way too the first time till I learned about Adobe's uninstaller. It really surprised him when he realized why I was so sure it uninstalled both versions because it was the Adobe uninstaller. He agreed it's probably more thorough - and their KB article has the direct link to it. Don't know if I mentioned it but he also uses Firefox. I finally got to show him what's wrong with that one second step- after uninstalling the 11.3- to install the .233 zip file from the archives page. too long, to easy to make a mistake, less security and their own link to the archives page didn't even work (he tested it and agreed with that too) and when I showed him the direct links to the 10.3, (and even the .235) he changed his mind and said he was recommending the changes to the Developers. One cool thing they did in that article is they gave a direct link to the uninstaller but also, they included links to two instruction videos, especially the steps to disable Protected Mode, done by one of their Developers,although that's their last alternative step following rolling back the update or changing browsers.
    Modified by CheckMate on
  11. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    I guess the Adobe uninstaller removing active x components is something that should be mentioned directly in the Adobe Flash plugin has crashed - Prevent it from happening again instructions. It is not a problem that will only affect RealPlayer. At the moment it seems we have to leave that to staff; with inside information; to edit, and they are apparently not doing any editing updates.

    I guess the Adobe uninstaller removing active x components is something that should be mentioned directly in the [[flash 11.3 crashes]] instructions. It is not a problem that will only affect RealPlayer. At the moment it seems we have to leave that to staff; with inside information; to edit, and they are apparently not doing any editing updates.
  12. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    CheckMate, Do you know if RealPlayer is going to be upddating their article at https://real.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9930/~/realplayer-plugin-blocked-by-firefox to take into account the issues you mentioned?

    I did re-read your posts but I don't see if anything different needs to be added to the last revision to this article. I didn't want to make the note too long but I did want to mention the Flash Player ActiveX for Internet Explorer removal and need to reinstall, since you say it's necessary for RealPlayer to function. I've found that can happen with certain software in the past and pointed it out here:


    Warning: Some software may not work properly unless the Flash ActiveX control is installed. [ref#1] [ref#2] If you only want to remove the Flash plugin for Firefox and other Mozilla applications, try removing the "Adobe Flash Player Plugin" from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs (see below).


    I'm not happy with SUMO's instructions for downgrading Flash using Adobe's uninstaller, by the way. I think that it would be better to tell users to uninstall just the Adobe Flash Player 11.3 Plugin from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs, instead of using Adobe's uninstaller That way, you only have to reinstall the Flash Player Plugin and you can leave the Internet Explorer Flash Player 11.3 ActiveX installed ... but for reasons I've posted elsewhere I'll leave that decision to Michael Verdi or other Mozilla employees.

    I've updated MozillaZine's RealPlayer article, by the way. See: http://kb.mozillazine.org/RealPlayer#RealPlayer_Browser_Record_Plugin_extension

    CheckMate, Do you know if RealPlayer is going to be upddating their article at https://real.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9930/~/realplayer-plugin-blocked-by-firefox to take into account the issues you mentioned? I did re-read your posts but I don't see if anything different needs to be added to the last revision to this article. I didn't want to make the note too long but I did want to mention the Flash Player ActiveX for Internet Explorer removal and need to reinstall, since you say it's necessary for RealPlayer to function. I've found that can happen with certain software in the past and pointed it out here: *http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Windows_uninstall ----- '''Warning:''' Some software may not work properly unless the Flash ActiveX control is installed. [[http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Printer-All-in-One-Software-and/HP-6500-Vista-Solution-Center-screen-blank/m-p/152055 ref#1]] [[http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54351.0 ref#2]] If you only want to remove the Flash plugin for Firefox and other Mozilla applications, try removing the "Adobe Flash Player Plugin" from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs ([http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Uninstall_using_Windows_Control_Panel see below]). ----- I'm not happy with SUMO's instructions for downgrading Flash using Adobe's uninstaller, by the way. I think that it would be better to tell users to uninstall just the Adobe Flash Player 11.3 Plugin from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs, instead of using Adobe's uninstaller That way, you only have to reinstall the Flash Player Plugin and you can leave the Internet Explorer Flash Player 11.3 ActiveX installed ... but for reasons I've posted elsewhere I'll leave that decision to Michael Verdi or other Mozilla employees. I've updated MozillaZine's RealPlayer article, by the way. See: http://kb.mozillazine.org/RealPlayer#RealPlayer_Browser_Record_Plugin_extension
  13. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    John99 said

    I guess the Adobe uninstaller removing active x components is something that should be mentioned directly in the Adobe Flash plugin has crashed - Prevent it from happening again instructions. It is not a problem that will only affect RealPlayer. At the moment it seems we have to leave that to staff; with inside information; to edit, and they are apparently not doing any editing updates.

    I agree but I'll leave that up to Mozilla employees. You might want to mention it in the Adobe Flash plugin has crashed - Prevent it from happening again article discussion, though. It might carry more weight if it comes from you and/or CheckMate since I seem to be persona non grata recently.

    ''John99 [[#post-5496|said]]'' <blockquote> I guess the Adobe uninstaller removing active x components is something that should be mentioned directly in the [[flash 11.3 crashes]] instructions. It is not a problem that will only affect RealPlayer. At the moment it seems we have to leave that to staff; with inside information; to edit, and they are apparently not doing any editing updates. </blockquote> I agree but I'll leave that up to Mozilla employees. You might want to mention it in the [[Flash 11.3 crashes]] article discussion, though. It might carry more weight if it comes from you and/or CheckMate since I seem to be persona non grata recently.
  14. CheckMate 24 posts
    Report Abuse

    AliceWyman said

    CheckMate, Do you know if RealPlayer is going to be upddating their article at https://real.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9930/~/realplayer-plugin-blocked-by-firefox to take into account the issues you mentioned? I did re-read your posts but I don't see if anything different needs to be added to the last revision to this article. I didn't want to make the note too long but I did want to mention the Flash Player ActiveX for Internet Explorer removal and need to reinstall, since you say it's necessary for RealPlayer to function. I've found that can happen with certain software in the past and pointed it out here:

    Warning: Some software may not work properly unless the Flash ActiveX control is installed. [ref#1] [ref#2] If you only want to remove the Flash plugin for Firefox and other Mozilla applications, try removing the "Adobe Flash Player Plugin" from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs (see below).


    I'm not happy with SUMO's instructions for downgrading Flash using Adobe's uninstaller, by the way. I think that it would be better to tell users to uninstall just the Adobe Flash Player 11.3 Plugin from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs, instead of using Adobe's uninstaller That way, you only have to reinstall the Flash Player Plugin and you can leave the Internet Explorer Flash Player 11.3 ActiveX installed ... but for reasons I've posted elsewhere I'll leave that decision to Michael Verdi or other Mozilla employees.

    I've updated MozillaZine's RealPlayer article, by the way. See: http://kb.mozillazine.org/RealPlayer#RealPlayer_Browser_Record_Plugin_extension

          About the RealPlayer KB, I explained that in my most recent post (reply to your  reply)... that the Case Manager changed his mind when I explained everything to him and is recommending the changes to the Developers. If you missed that the details are there where I said....
         " I finally got to show him what's wrong with that one second step- after uninstalling the 11.3- to install the  .233 zip file from the archives page. too long, to easy to make a mistake, less security and their own link to the archives page didn't even work (he tested it and agreed with that too) and when I showed him the direct links to the 10.3, (and even the .235) he changed his mind and said he was recommending the changes to the Developers." 
    
            Or  do you just want to know if it's actually going to be approved  by their Developers? I'll keep you updated on that.
    
           Also, I just want to make sure you read my very last post because right before that paragraph I described how the Case Manager didn't realize what I was saying about the uninstaller removing both versions because he had used the Windows Control Panel uninstall list just like I did the first time and was trying to tell me it didn't work that way ( that you could selectively uninstall each version) until I asked him which uninstaller her was using. But his opinion was that the Adobe uninstaller would probably be more thorough, and the ONLY reason I started using Adobe's uninstaller is because.... you guessed it.... Adobe says so.  Their KB article does give the direct link to Adobe's uninstaller, however. And I didn't discuss a change on that yet because I wanted to be sure there's no big deal about not using it ... that it isn't necessarily "more thorough"   I can tell you I never had a problem using the uninstall list and neither did he. 
     
       But I too don't like it, for the very reasons we're discussing here, so I'm glad you told me you also didn't like the SUMO instruction on the uninstaller. And I'm not automatically convinced that it's "more thorough" or that it simply is an easy "more thorough" way of removing all versions of Flash, which, with the current problem , really isn't necessary and causes confusion, mistakes and, at the very least, extra work.
    
          Even very experienced techs say, in general, that if a program has it's own special uninstaller, that it's probably going to be more thorough and to use that, but I'm still not convinced that's always the case. For example, it's definitely true of the Norton Removal Tool. But that IS designed to remove almost every last trace of Norton. And they have a different program to just reinstall but save your settings. Other programs don't need special programs (FF, for ex.) And Adobe's doesn't remove the extra files and folders anyway (I don' t find that's even necessary and I was denied access to remove certain files - I can give myself those permissions but I didn't bother) so where's the "more thorough"?
    
         If we can confirm that there's really no advantage to using Adobe's uninstaller in this case, I'll suggest a change for that too.
    
    ''AliceWyman [[#post-5497|said]]'' <blockquote> CheckMate, Do you know if RealPlayer is going to be upddating their article at https://real.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9930/~/realplayer-plugin-blocked-by-firefox to take into account the issues you mentioned? I did re-read your posts but I don't see if anything different needs to be added to the last revision to this article. I didn't want to make the note too long but I did want to mention the Flash Player ActiveX for Internet Explorer removal and need to reinstall, since you say it's necessary for RealPlayer to function. I've found that can happen with certain software in the past and pointed it out here: *http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Windows_uninstall ----- '''Warning:''' Some software may not work properly unless the Flash ActiveX control is installed. [[http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Printer-All-in-One-Software-and/HP-6500-Vista-Solution-Center-screen-blank/m-p/152055 ref#1]] [[http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54351.0 ref#2]] If you only want to remove the Flash plugin for Firefox and other Mozilla applications, try removing the "Adobe Flash Player Plugin" from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs ([http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Uninstall_using_Windows_Control_Panel see below]). ----- I'm not happy with SUMO's instructions for downgrading Flash using Adobe's uninstaller, by the way. I think that it would be better to tell users to uninstall just the Adobe Flash Player 11.3 Plugin from the Windows Control Panel list of installed programs, instead of using Adobe's uninstaller That way, you only have to reinstall the Flash Player Plugin and you can leave the Internet Explorer Flash Player 11.3 ActiveX installed ... but for reasons I've posted elsewhere I'll leave that decision to Michael Verdi or other Mozilla employees. I've updated MozillaZine's RealPlayer article, by the way. See: http://kb.mozillazine.org/RealPlayer#RealPlayer_Browser_Record_Plugin_extension </blockquote> About the RealPlayer KB, I explained that in my most recent post (reply to your reply)... that the Case Manager changed his mind when I explained everything to him and is recommending the changes to the Developers. If you missed that the details are there where I said.... " I finally got to show him what's wrong with that one second step- after uninstalling the 11.3- to install the .233 zip file from the archives page. too long, to easy to make a mistake, less security and their own link to the archives page didn't even work (he tested it and agreed with that too) and when I showed him the direct links to the 10.3, (and even the .235) he changed his mind and said he was recommending the changes to the Developers." Or do you just want to know if it's actually going to be approved by their Developers? I'll keep you updated on that. Also, I just want to make sure you read my very last post because right before that paragraph I described how the Case Manager didn't realize what I was saying about the uninstaller removing both versions because he had used the Windows Control Panel uninstall list just like I did the first time and was trying to tell me it didn't work that way ( that you could selectively uninstall each version) until I asked him which uninstaller her was using. But his opinion was that the Adobe uninstaller would probably be more thorough, and the ONLY reason I started using Adobe's uninstaller is because.... you guessed it.... Adobe says so. Their KB article does give the direct link to Adobe's uninstaller, however. And I didn't discuss a change on that yet because I wanted to be sure there's no big deal about not using it ... that it isn't necessarily "more thorough" I can tell you I never had a problem using the uninstall list and neither did he. But I too don't like it, for the very reasons we're discussing here, so I'm glad you told me you also didn't like the SUMO instruction on the uninstaller. And I'm not automatically convinced that it's "more thorough" or that it simply is an easy "more thorough" way of removing all versions of Flash, which, with the current problem , really isn't necessary and causes confusion, mistakes and, at the very least, extra work. Even very experienced techs say, in general, that if a program has it's own special uninstaller, that it's probably going to be more thorough and to use that, but I'm still not convinced that's always the case. For example, it's definitely true of the Norton Removal Tool. But that IS designed to remove almost every last trace of Norton. And they have a different program to just reinstall but save your settings. Other programs don't need special programs (FF, for ex.) And Adobe's doesn't remove the extra files and folders anyway (I don' t find that's even necessary and I was denied access to remove certain files - I can give myself those permissions but I didn't bother) so where's the "more thorough"? If we can confirm that there's really no advantage to using Adobe's uninstaller in this case, I'll suggest a change for that too.
    Modified by CheckMate on
  15. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    Checkmate, I agree with everything you've said and I did read the edited version of your previous post, about your conversation with RealPlayer's Case manager. I just want to know , if RealPlayer is planning on updating its KB article so that I might be able to link to it, eventually ... if not here, then in MozillaZine's RealPlayer artcle ... sincr it's always a good idea to link to information on the software provider's site, if possible.

    Thanks again.

    Checkmate, I agree with everything you've said and I did read the edited version of your previous post, about your conversation with RealPlayer's Case manager. I just want to know , if RealPlayer is planning on updating its KB article so that I might be able to link to it, eventually ... if not here, then in MozillaZine's RealPlayer artcle ... sincr it's always a good idea to link to information on the software provider's site, if possible. Thanks again.
  16. CheckMate 24 posts
    Report Abuse

    @AliceWyman,

        Hi Alice,
    
       That's exactly what I thought you meant. You're too thorough to have missed that. But I only wrote the rest of if just in case. Yeah, like I said , I was going to keep you updated on that anyway for that very reason. It has to be approved by the Developers but the way the Case Manager put it, which sounded positive, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't agree to his recommendations and there were, I think three changes he said he was recommending. And I don't know how long that will take. Also, he knows about the story of the FFuser uninstaller  mistake incident so if that has to be spelled out to the Developers he can do that to, if he needs to. 
    
         But before the article actually got approval "officially", he explained that to get the commonly agreed on steps made "official", it would take a long time - their developers, Adobe's Developers, testing it ,blah blah. But  a few days later I called him and he told me it was just approved! 
    
        I really want to try to confirm the Adobe uninstaller business, though, because uninstalling from the installed programs list is a lot easier and less prone to mistakes on reinstalling.
    
         Thanks, Alice
    
    @AliceWyman, Hi Alice, That's exactly what I thought you meant. You're too thorough to have missed that. But I only wrote the rest of if just in case. Yeah, like I said , I was going to keep you updated on that anyway for that very reason. It has to be approved by the Developers but the way the Case Manager put it, which sounded positive, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't agree to his recommendations and there were, I think three changes he said he was recommending. And I don't know how long that will take. Also, he knows about the story of the FFuser uninstaller mistake incident so if that has to be spelled out to the Developers he can do that to, if he needs to. But before the article actually got approval "officially", he explained that to get the commonly agreed on steps made "official", it would take a long time - their developers, Adobe's Developers, testing it ,blah blah. But a few days later I called him and he told me it was just approved! I really want to try to confirm the Adobe uninstaller business, though, because uninstalling from the installed programs list is a lot easier and less prone to mistakes on reinstalling. Thanks, Alice
    Modified by CheckMate on
  17. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    I was under the impression sometimes there is no alternative but to use the Adobe Uninstaller.

    I have a vague recollection of a comment (probably in one of our recent threads or a link from them) that the Adobe uninstaller removed registry entries, (presumably the control panel method does not always succeed in this) and that otherwise the subsequent attempted Flash Install will not proceed.

    I was under the impression sometimes there is no alternative but to use the Adobe Uninstaller. * I did read http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Uninstall_using_Windows_Control_Panel I have a vague recollection of a comment (probably in one of our recent threads or a link from them) that the Adobe uninstaller removed registry entries, (presumably the control panel method does not always succeed in this) and that otherwise the subsequent attempted Flash Install will not proceed.
  18. CheckMate 24 posts
    Report Abuse

    John99 said

    I was under the impression sometimes there is no alternative but to use the Adobe Uninstaller. I have a vague recollection of a comment (probably in one of our recent threads or a link from them) that the Adobe uninstaller removed registry entries, (presumably the control panel method does not always succeed in this) and that otherwise the subsequent attempted Flash Install will not proceed.

    @John99

    Hi John99,

       That's exactly what I'm trying to verify because I've discovered it's not true, at least so far as the subsequent reinstall is concerned. Techs always give that explanation without really investigating whether it's actually true. If that were always a good idea, then running Revo Uninstaller ( which has four levels depending on how deep you want to go in removing registry entries), would always be good to run routinely. I tried that, and the first time I couldn't open Firefox ( or maybe it was Norton Internet Security) after running it routinely when I didn't need to, I had to roll back using system restore to undo whatever it pulled. So I learned that it's ONLY supposed to be used if the program's own uninstaller can't uninstall it routinely, despite what Revo says.
    
          I'm fairly convinced that the only reason Adobe recommends their uninstaller is because it's an easy way of ensuring that ALL versions of Adobe flash are uninstalled, so it's really kind of generic, covering the most users with most problems. But in the current case, the IE version of the 11.3 is not causing problems, so it doesn't need to be uninstalled. That's why I actually tested it that way (only uninstalling the Firefox plugin but NOT uninstalling the 11.3 ActiveX for IE) and then reinstalled the earlier version with no problems at all. That's why the Case Manager was trying to tell me that you can uninstall selectively (not both versions) when I told him what happened to that user who didn't reinstall the correct version for IE. He had uninstalled from the Control Panel and didn't realize I was talking about the Adobe uninstaller. But I then asked his opinion and he said it' probably more thorough. But he's only assuming that and he also had no problem uninstalling from the List of Installed Programs and then reinstalling the earlier version.
    
          It's the same thing with Adobe's next instruction to delete those extra files and folders for a "clean install".  I tried that and I was denied permission to delete certain files. I know how to give myself those permissions but I didn't bother because the average user certainly would not know how to do that and I asked a couple of experienced techs. and they said that's generally not necessary unless there's a special problem. RealPlayer has similar instructions for a clean install but that's not their normal re - installation instruction. 
    
         One more example of Adobe's stupidity when it comes to instructions. Just got a post from a woman who got another popup telling her to install a new update with fixes for FF. Last time she got the same one but trusts me to advise her. That's when I found it was the 11.3.303.262 which only addressed the crash issue ( it didn't even do that) and  she never had that problem so I warned her not to update.(I also tested it anyway and reported that) This time I checked again - nothing new on Adobe's Announcement page and another user posted "Just updated cuz they said it was fixed..... it wasn't.....back to 10.3..... I'm sure glad I didn't clear my Downloads list". 
          
            The woman sent posted  a screen shot showing where it clearly says if you're using Firefox you should install this update immediately! They actually should be WARNING you NOT to run it unless you're having crash problems. An update detector I use from FileHippo is also still only detecting the 11.3.300.262 for FF and the 11.300.257 for IE.
    
           With what I've learned about Adobe and the sloppy way they handle everything from their beta testing to their troubleshooting instructions to their passing the buck on the current issues to RealPlayer, to their update instructions, I wouldn't trust anything they said without testing it myself.
    
             I'm still trying to verify  this about the uninstaller, but that's what I've learned so far and it looks pretty conclusive that it's not required unless there's some special problem uninstalling, or if you're trying to uninstall both versions. And by the way the phrase "does not always succeed in this" may still sometimes be true, logically, and that's the time I would run Adobe's uninstaller. I will try to find out more about this, however. 
         Update- An HP tech told me the same thing - it's not necessary unless you want to remove all versions or there's a special problem.
    
    ''John99 [[#post-5503|said]]'' <blockquote> I was under the impression sometimes there is no alternative but to use the Adobe Uninstaller. * I did read http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Uninstall_using_Windows_Control_Panel I have a vague recollection of a comment (probably in one of our recent threads or a link from them) that the Adobe uninstaller removed registry entries, (presumably the control panel method does not always succeed in this) and that otherwise the subsequent attempted Flash Install will not proceed. </blockquote> @John99 Hi John99, That's exactly what I'm trying to verify because I've discovered it's not true, at least so far as the subsequent reinstall is concerned. Techs always give that explanation without really investigating whether it's actually true. If that were always a good idea, then running Revo Uninstaller ( which has four levels depending on how deep you want to go in removing registry entries), would always be good to run routinely. I tried that, and the first time I couldn't open Firefox ( or maybe it was Norton Internet Security) after running it routinely when I didn't need to, I had to roll back using system restore to undo whatever it pulled. So I learned that it's ONLY supposed to be used if the program's own uninstaller can't uninstall it routinely, despite what Revo says. I'm fairly convinced that the only reason Adobe recommends their uninstaller is because it's an easy way of ensuring that ALL versions of Adobe flash are uninstalled, so it's really kind of generic, covering the most users with most problems. But in the current case, the IE version of the 11.3 is not causing problems, so it doesn't need to be uninstalled. That's why I actually tested it that way (only uninstalling the Firefox plugin but NOT uninstalling the 11.3 ActiveX for IE) and then reinstalled the earlier version with no problems at all. That's why the Case Manager was trying to tell me that you can uninstall selectively (not both versions) when I told him what happened to that user who didn't reinstall the correct version for IE. He had uninstalled from the Control Panel and didn't realize I was talking about the Adobe uninstaller. But I then asked his opinion and he said it' probably more thorough. But he's only assuming that and he also had no problem uninstalling from the List of Installed Programs and then reinstalling the earlier version. It's the same thing with Adobe's next instruction to delete those extra files and folders for a "clean install". I tried that and I was denied permission to delete certain files. I know how to give myself those permissions but I didn't bother because the average user certainly would not know how to do that and I asked a couple of experienced techs. and they said that's generally not necessary unless there's a special problem. RealPlayer has similar instructions for a clean install but that's not their normal re - installation instruction. One more example of Adobe's stupidity when it comes to instructions. Just got a post from a woman who got another popup telling her to install a new update with fixes for FF. Last time she got the same one but trusts me to advise her. That's when I found it was the 11.3.303.262 which only addressed the crash issue ( it didn't even do that) and she never had that problem so I warned her not to update.(I also tested it anyway and reported that) This time I checked again - nothing new on Adobe's Announcement page and another user posted "Just updated cuz they said it was fixed..... it wasn't.....back to 10.3..... I'm sure glad I didn't clear my Downloads list". The woman sent posted a screen shot showing where it clearly says if you're using Firefox you should install this update immediately! They actually should be WARNING you NOT to run it unless you're having crash problems. An update detector I use from FileHippo is also still only detecting the 11.3.300.262 for FF and the 11.300.257 for IE. With what I've learned about Adobe and the sloppy way they handle everything from their beta testing to their troubleshooting instructions to their passing the buck on the current issues to RealPlayer, to their update instructions, I wouldn't trust anything they said without testing it myself. I'm still trying to verify this about the uninstaller, but that's what I've learned so far and it looks pretty conclusive that it's not required unless there's some special problem uninstalling, or if you're trying to uninstall both versions. And by the way the phrase "does not always succeed in this" may still sometimes be true, logically, and that's the time I would run Adobe's uninstaller. I will try to find out more about this, however. Update- An HP tech told me the same thing - it's not necessary unless you want to remove all versions or there's a special problem.
    Modified by CheckMate on
  19. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    I know no-one mentioned it but we obviously can not start recommending direct regedit registry hacks, and in an effort to keep it simple probably will recommend the current adobe installer. Alternatives I think of are (I numbered, in my order of preference, but suggestions not necessarily mutually exclusive)

    • User Recommendations
      1. Adobe Uninstaller only IF Control Panel does not work.
        This looks the simplest and best idea. Advise Control panel uninstall and only try the Adobe uninstaller as a last resort. Most users will be; or should; be aware of; how to use the Control panel uninstall. Maybe we should include more detail in the suggstion to make sure users uninstall the correct item.
        • Suggested wordings for current situation please ?
          that would be generic enough not to need immediate change with each version or link change
      2. Adobe Uninstaller but add cautionary note that it may remove too much
        That at least fore warns the user. We are recommending an Adobe installer for an Adobe problem. It solves the main Firefox problem being asked about, but we have been fair and advised the user the method has a downside. Otherwise we get: I followed Firefox's recommendation, but now Firefox does not work with xxxx, and yyyy is broken
      3. Recommend the Uninstaller
        Situation as it is. In my opinion worse than the suggestions above. The possible saving graces being
        • it is (I hope) a temporrary workaround
        • a simple one step solution that solves the immediate problem
        • we can attempt to blame !! Adobe for any subsequent problems
      4. using Registry utilities

    No Go. In my opinion far too many potential problems. Unless we can discover and recommend a detailed specific and almost universally successful method, and I suspect that is unlikely. Probably a difficult and complicated suggestion to attempt to maintain on our KBs.

    • Our Alternatives
      • Do Nothing
        Storm in a teacup. Employees with inside information are sure it is a temporary problem soon to be totally solved. And ;-) of course we will never have to think about similar problems and strategies for dealing with future potential Flash Problems
        (May come to pass, no Linux support, HTML5 becomes dominant, Flash security totally locks out recording possibilities etc. Even Adobe drops Firefox support )
      • Modify KBs
        We can discuss and try to think what may work. We will not get anywhere at the moment with getting approval without staff input and agreement. I am happy to try to ask and raise points, but I think I have a lot less or a chance than you Alice of getting any staff attention, other than a rebuke for making ill considered comments. I would at least like to see the recommendations from the two of you first.
      • Mention on AdobeForums or File Adobe bugs
        Checkmate, that looks likely to be something you may have expertise in doing
    I know no-one mentioned it but we obviously can not start recommending direct regedit registry hacks, and in an effort to keep it simple probably will recommend the current adobe installer. Alternatives I think of are (I numbered, in my order of preference, but suggestions not necessarily mutually exclusive) * <u>User Recommendations</u> *# Adobe Uninstaller only IF Control Panel does not work.<br/>This looks the simplest and best idea. Advise Control panel uninstall and only try the Adobe uninstaller as a last resort. Most users will be; or should; be aware of; how to use the Control panel uninstall. Maybe we should include more detail in the suggstion to make sure users uninstall the correct item. *#* Suggested wordings for current situation please ? <br/>that would be generic enough not to need immediate change with each version or link change *# Adobe Uninstaller but add cautionary note that it may remove too much <br/>That at least fore warns the user. We are recommending an Adobe installer for an Adobe problem. It solves the main Firefox problem being asked about, but we have been fair and advised the user the method has a downside. Otherwise we get: ''I followed Firefox's recommendation, but now Firefox does not work with xxxx, and yyyy is broken '' *# Recommend the Uninstaller <br/> Situation as it is. In my opinion worse than the suggestions above. The possible saving graces being *#* it is (I hope) a temporrary workaround *#* a simple one step solution that solves the immediate problem *#* we can attempt to blame !! Adobe for any subsequent problems *# using Registry utilities<br/> No Go. In my opinion far too many potential problems. Unless we can discover and recommend a detailed specific and almost universally successful method, and I suspect that is unlikely. Probably a difficult and complicated suggestion to attempt to maintain on our KBs. * <u>Our Alternatives</u> ** Do Nothing <br/>Storm in a teacup. Employees with inside information are sure it is a temporary problem soon to be totally solved. And <nowiki>;-)</nowiki> of course we will never have to think about similar problems and strategies for dealing with future potential Flash Problems <br/>(May come to pass, no Linux support, HTML5 becomes dominant, Flash security totally locks out recording possibilities etc. Even Adobe drops Firefox support ) ** Modify KBs<br/>We can discuss and try to think what may work. We will not get anywhere at the moment with getting approval without staff input and agreement. I am happy to try to ask and raise points, but I think I have a lot less or a chance than you Alice of getting any staff attention, other than a rebuke for making ill considered comments. I would at least like to see the recommendations from the two of you first. ** Mention on AdobeForums or File Adobe bugs <br/>Checkmate, that looks likely to be something you may have expertise in doing
  20. AliceWyman 5156 posts
    Report Abuse

    John99 said

    1. Adobe Uninstaller only IF Control Panel does not work.
    This looks the simplest and best idea. Advise Control panel uninstall and only try the Adobe uninstaller as a last resort. Most users will be; or should; be aware of; how to use the Control panel uninstall. Maybe we should include more detail in the suggstion to make sure users uninstall the correct item.

    I agree with that suggestion. I started a new thread in the Adobe Flash plugin has crashed - Prevent it from happening again article discussion forum, on Uninstalling Flash instructions for Windows:

    ''John99 [[#post-5505|said]]'' <blockquote> 1. Adobe Uninstaller only IF Control Panel does not work.<br/>This looks the simplest and best idea. Advise Control panel uninstall and only try the Adobe uninstaller as a last resort. Most users will be; or should; be aware of; how to use the Control panel uninstall. Maybe we should include more detail in the suggstion to make sure users uninstall the correct item. </blockquote> I agree with that suggestion. I started a new thread in the [[Flash 11.3 crashes]] article discussion forum, on Uninstalling Flash instructions for Windows: *https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/flash-113-crashes/discuss/2517
    Modified by AliceWyman on
  1. 1
  2. 2