This was brought up in the Contributors forum:<br>
<del>https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forum/3/694423</del> Problem getting Adobe Flash for Firefox http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/694423
Looks like Flash 10.1 is now available. For Windows, the [[Managing the Flash plugin|#Updating_Flash|Updating Flash]] link needs to be updated to http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/thankyou/?installer=Flash_Player_10.1_for_Windows_-_Other_Browsers since the existing Flash 10 link now redirects to the normal Adobe Flash download page, http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
(Linux and Mac links should probably be updated also, or at least, change those links to the normal Adobe Flash download page).
We wanted to avoid using Adobe's normal download page because of reported problems with Adobe's DLM installation method. We came up with the existing "direct download" link because it still takes you to Adobe's site and at the same time, starts a download of the installer file.
Related discussion:<br>
<del>http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forum/3/518327</del> Updating Flash <br>
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/518327 <br>
''..... fixed links. ''
1) update the Installing the Flash Plugin and Managing the Flash Plugin articles to include the links indicated.
2) comment out the PFS instructions on the Installing the Flash Plugin article since PFS doesn't work with 10.1 yet
3) Put a warning on the SUMO front page asking users to update flash in light of the security exploit.
Here's what I plan to do:
1) update the [[Installing the Flash Plugin]] and [[Managing the Flash Plugin]] articles to include the links indicated.
2) comment out the PFS instructions on the [[Installing the Flash Plugin]] article since PFS doesn't work with 10.1 yet
3) Put a warning on the SUMO front page asking users to update flash in light of the security exploit.
'''michro,'''
I detached your comment about problems with SHOWFOR in the [[Installing the Flash plugin]] article.
Your post is here:
[https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forum/5/695408]
cww, can we maybe also work on a higher level to ensure that people can update their plugins the same way they install them, without having to go through that convulted process?
cww, can we maybe also work on a higher level to ensure that people can update their plugins the same way they install them, without having to go through that convulted process?
I edited the Troubleshooting section of *Managing the Flash plugin to remove the content under "Flash does not work properly and/or will not update", and replaced it with a link to the newly-approved article, Flash does not work properly or will not update. I also added links to other Flash troubleshooting articles.
(Needs review/approval)
I edited the Troubleshooting section of [[*Managing the Flash plugin]] to remove the content under "Flash does not work properly and/or will not update", and replaced it with a link to the newly-approved article, [[Flash does not work properly or will not update]]. I also added links to other Flash troubleshooting articles.
(Needs review/approval)
I fixed the download links for the Flash installers for Windows Mac and Linux (they have already been fixed in the [[Installing the Flash plugin]] article) and then approved my edits.
We talked about the painful Flash update process. Kev Needham from Mozilla is meeting with Adobe this week about the issue.
(For the record)
The following was posed in the [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Support/Weekly_Meetings/Minutes_2010-11-01 SUMO meeting minutes from 11-01-2010]
*We talked about the [http://www.flickr.com/photos/djst/sets/72157624948644143/ painful Flash update process]. Kev Needham from Mozilla is meeting with Adobe this week about the issue.
I added a section to *Managing the Flash plugin under "Troubleshooting" with "SHOWFOR" for Mac and Firefox4.0 to resolve an issue where Flash no longer works on some Mac OS X 10.6 systems in Firefox 4 Beta 7. (It doesn't affect my Mac 10.6 system, by the way).
I added a section to [[*Managing the Flash plugin]] under "Troubleshooting" with "SHOWFOR" for Mac and Firefox4.0 to resolve an issue where Flash no longer works on some Mac OS X 10.6 systems in Firefox 4 Beta 7. (It doesn't affect my Mac 10.6 system, by the way).
Workaround is to run Firefox in 32-bit mode.
...Based on:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Flash_does_not_work_in_Firefox_4_Beta_7_-_Mac_OS
Recent Support Forum threads:
*https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/764533 Sites using flash don't work on Firefox 4 beta 7, why not
*http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/765367 Flash not working in Firefox Beta 7 on OSX 10.6.5
* http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/764078 Flash videos and games on are missing/show up as black boxes with firefox 4 beta 7
Needs review/approval.
An alternative should be to install the 64-bit flash plugin http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/ - I haven't tested this yet. Is anyone using this?
I use the 64-bit Flash plugin in 64-bit Minefield and it works. As it is in alpha status and 64-bit version of Firefox 4.0 is not scheduled, I don't think we must talk about that in this article.
I use the 64-bit Flash plugin in 64-bit Minefield and it works. As it is in alpha status and 64-bit version of Firefox 4.0 is not scheduled, I don't think we must talk about that in this article.
First, we’ve switched from a ppc/i386 universal binary to an i386/x86_64 universal binary. The default architecture on Mac OS X 10.6 will be x86_64. The default architecture on Mac OS X 10.5 will be i386. You will be able to run in i386 mode on Mac OS X 10.6 if you choose to do so but you will not be able to run in x86_64 mode on Mac OS X 10.5. Performance is the primary motivation for the move to x86_64. These numbers comparing Firefox 4b7 i386 to Firefox 4b7 x86_64 on Mac OS X 10.6.4 give some idea of the kinds of gains we’re seeing <snip>
I have seen others suggest the 64-bit Flash player but it's a pre-release ("experimental") build. I think that the "workaround" of running Firefox in 32-bit mode is a much simpler option even though Firefox 4 has better performance in 64-bit mode. It's also lots easier to reverse, by simply unchecking the "open in 32-bit mode" option. (screenshot)
...Edited to fix link to 64-bit Flash plyer. aw
Firefox 4 Beta 7 defaults to 64-bit mode on 64-bit Mac OS 10.6. Ref: (post by Josh Aas, Mozilla developer)
http://boomswaggerboom.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/firefox-4-for-mac-os-x-under-the-hood/
<blockquote>First, we’ve switched from a ppc/i386 universal binary to an i386/x86_64 universal binary. The default architecture on Mac OS X 10.6 will be x86_64. The default architecture on Mac OS X 10.5 will be i386. You will be able to run in i386 mode on Mac OS X 10.6 if you choose to do so but you will not be able to run in x86_64 mode on Mac OS X 10.5. Performance is the primary motivation for the move to x86_64. These numbers comparing Firefox 4b7 i386 to Firefox 4b7 x86_64 on Mac OS X 10.6.4 give some idea of the kinds of gains we’re seeing <snip></blockquote>
I have seen others suggest the [http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10_square.html 64-bit Flash player] but it's a pre-release ("experimental") build. I think that the "workaround" of running Firefox in 32-bit mode is a much simpler option even though Firefox 4 has better performance in 64-bit mode. It's also lots easier to reverse, by simply unchecking the "open in 32-bit mode" option. ([http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5470/fx4b7getinfo.png screenshot])
''...Edited to fix link to 64-bit Flash plyer. aw''
Can we get some more info on instances where Flash is not working for Fx4/Mac?
Even though Firefox 4 defaults to 64-bit on Snow Leopard, it will still run 32-bit plugins. I have Snow Leopard and can testify that it works. Plus it says so in the second last paragraph of Josh's blog post. :-)
There is a minimum version requirement of Flash for Firefox 4. Only Flash 10.1 and up will work properly on Firefox 4 on Mac. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589670
Although that may not be the exact issue in the linked support threads, I think we are misleading users (and ourselves) into thinking that you need to run Firefox in 32-bit mode for Flash to work on Firefox 4/Mac.
Can we get some more info on instances where Flash is not working for Fx4/Mac?<br>
Even though Firefox 4 defaults to 64-bit on Snow Leopard, it will still run 32-bit plugins. I have Snow Leopard and can testify that it works. Plus it says so in the second last paragraph of Josh's blog post. :-)
There ''is'' a minimum version requirement of Flash for Firefox 4. Only Flash 10.1 and up will work properly on Firefox 4 on Mac.<br>
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589670<br>
Although that may not be the exact issue in the linked support threads, I think we are misleading users (and ourselves) into thinking that you need to run Firefox in 32-bit mode for Flash to work on Firefox 4/Mac.
The "bug" seems to occur on some (older?) Mac 10.6 systems. As I said earlier, I don't see the issue myself. Flash 10.1 works fine with Firefox 4 Beta 7 running in 64-bit mode on my new iMac.
I found this (unconfirmed) bug that describes the problem:
The "bug" seems to occur on some (older?) Mac 10.6 systems. As I said earlier, I don't see the issue myself. Flash 10.1 works fine with Firefox 4 Beta 7 running in 64-bit mode on my new iMac.
I found this (unconfirmed) bug that describes the problem:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=610526 <br>
Bug 610526 - Firefox never loads flash in "out of process" mode
Bug 610526 is now confirmed and indicates that the problem occurs on some older macs that have been upgraded to Mac OS X 10.6. I've edited the Firefox 4 section for Mac to mention that.
Bug 610526 is now confirmed and indicates that the problem occurs on some older macs that have been upgraded to Mac OS X 10.6. I've edited the Firefox 4 section for Mac to mention that.
P.S. I edited my last revision to [[Managing the Flash plugin]] to add that Flash 10.1 or above is needed for Flash to work in Firefox 4 on Mac OS 10.6.
EDIT 02-14-2011: The notification bar works for Silverlight but not for Flash. See
bug 628651 comments 87-90.
I wanted to add that the "fix" for Firefox 4 is likely going to be:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628651 <br>
Bug 628651 - [OSX] show notification bar offering to restart in 32-bit mode when content tries to use a 32-bit plugin using carbon based NPAPI
EDIT 02-14-2011: The notification bar works for Silverlight but not for Flash. See
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628651#c87 bug 628651 comments 87-90].
Michael, do you have any suggestions on how to make revision 9348 more succinct? Seems kinda wordy to me.
Michael, do you have any suggestions on how to make [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Managing%20the%20Flash%20plugin/revision/9348 revision 9348] more succinct? Seems kinda wordy to me.
Is the revision an improvement to the current version of Flash Plugin - Keep it up to date and troubleshoot problems ? If so, I think it would make sense to approve it now. Otherwise, it can slip through the cracks waiting for someone else to review the revision and possibly do another edit (that will also need review?) to make it less "wordy".
Is the revision an improvement to the current version of [[Managing the Flash plugin]] ? If so, I think it would make sense to approve it now. Otherwise, it can slip through the cracks waiting for someone else to review the revision and possibly do another edit (that will also need review?) to make it less "wordy".
If so, I think it would make sense to approve it now. Otherwise, it can slip through the cracks waiting for someone else to review the revision and possibly do another edit (that will also need review?) to make it less "wordy".
For some reason, unless there is data that needs updating, readability improvements are never made.
<blockquote>Is the revision an improvement to the current version of [[Managing the Flash plugin]] ?</blockquote>
IMO, no.
<blockquote> If so, I think it would make sense to approve it now. Otherwise, it can slip through the cracks waiting for someone else to review the revision and possibly do another edit (that will also need review?) to make it less "wordy".</blockquote>
For some reason, unless there is data that needs updating, readability improvements are never made.
