flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

DonVla · 2008-04-10 12:02:30

hello all,

has anyone else noticed that the recent flashplugins (r115 and r124 - last installed today) are total crap? (ok, i know there are people that do not like flash at all and would now reply that flash itself is crap.)
but i mean, when using r48 in fullscreen i get a cpu load about 70% at 1GHz freq and runs ok. when i use fullscreen with the last two releases i get a cpu load of 100% at 1.8GHz on a 3100+ sempron. and then it's still studdering! that isn't reasonable! who needs gtk-integration etc... for a browser plugin???
wtf! will this change back someday? hmm, i guess no...
i like flash, but as it is now it's bearly useable. and don't want to buy a faster pc only to watch some clips on youtube!
there is also a BIG difference between the win and linux flashplugin, but that's another question...
really, really annonying. i think i have to switch back to r48.

vlad

oliwer · 2008-04-10 12:40:16

+1

I remember that an old release of the flash plugin (the one which was not using gtk yet) had a resonable cpu load. Unfortunately I don't have it anymore.

DonVla · 2008-04-10 15:15:45

hi oliwer,
it was 9.0.r48 - last release without gtk.

oliwer · 2008-04-10 18:51:12

Cool ! I found an old archive on http://macromedia.mplug.org/rpmsource/f … .0.tar.bz2

I'm going to install it right now to see if it's not to buggy, but I'm quiet confident.

HyperBaton · 2008-04-10 18:54:46

Let me know how it goes, YouTube full screen does not work very good for me.

ise · 2008-04-10 19:07:55

You guys know that the r48 release has several security issues? It isn't recommended to use the old versions (even r115 has 7!!! security issues, which was fixed in r124).

finferflu · 2008-04-10 19:50:19

Interestingly, Flash has usually been working quite badly for me, but on my new laptop it works relatively well. I haven't noticed any difference between the latest and the previous version. Fullscreen seems to work well, too. I haven't checked CPU consumption, but I haven't noticed any lag. I almost can't believe it's real

carlocci · 2008-04-10 20:29:28

youtube clip: 50% cpu, 80% fullscreen

xdeusx · 2008-04-10 20:30:47

I love the new version already,
on my 2GHz AMD 64 Laptop, I couldn't watch the South Park Episodes on www.southparkstudios.com in fullscreen without studdering.
The new version solved this problem for me.

jb · 2008-04-11 02:10:26

Another +1 on flashplayer crappyness. It seems that it slows considerably when compiz is enabled. A full screen with them running together has a noticeable frame drop. And my system is a:

2.66 core2
2GB DDR2
nV 8500

Last edited by jb (2008-04-11 02:10:46)

dolby · 2008-04-11 05:02:39

use the open source alternative

Misbah · 2008-04-11 05:33:25

deleted

Last edited by Misbah (2012-02-14 05:12:39)

ise · 2008-04-11 05:35:42

Misbah wrote:

What would that be? My flash blows. It destroys firefox and my cpu in one stroke of crapness. this is the the 124 as well.

Have a look at gnash or swfdec. Both works not so bad and can handle most of the flash stuff (including youtube & co.).

dolby · 2008-04-11 06:13:39

Misbah wrote:

dolby wrote:
use the open source alternative
What would that be? My flash blows. It destroys firefox and my cpu in one stroke of crapness. this is the the 124 as well.

http://archlinux.org/packages/search/?q=flash

iphitus · 2008-04-11 08:38:23

Flash has always been crap.

Does gnash do youtube? That's one of the very few things I use flash for.

Last edited by iphitus (2008-04-11 08:38:33)

Ramses de Norre · 2008-04-11 09:33:44

I tried gnash yesterday, but youtube wouldn't show... Firefox did detect gnash as it's flashplayer.

ise · 2008-04-11 10:53:57

iphitus wrote:

Does gnash do youtube? That's one of the very few things I use flash for.

gnash and swfdec runs youtube on my x86_64...

HyperBaton · 2008-04-11 12:43:01

Damn, this latest release makes fullscreen YouTube even worse. I get like 3 frames per second or something.

Pierre · 2008-04-11 12:48:28

gnash is even slower than the original flash. I cannot play any video on my Celeron-M with 1,3GHz.

skottish · 2008-04-11 13:00:52

swfdec is about a resource hungry as Flash and it only runs on some browsers. It's the more functional between itself and Gnash.

sjmorgan · 2008-04-20 15:23:02

Even normal sized YouTube videos stutter for around a second while I'm playing them (this is on a AMD 64 X2 4200+). What's even more annoying is how the plugin constantly freezes Firefox. So yeah, the official Flash plugin is an extremely crappy bit of code.

venox · 2008-04-20 15:54:03

I have a C2D E6300, nV 6800 and notice some framedropping with some high resolution youtube videos on fullscreen.
Never tried swfdec or gnash.

sjmorgan · 2008-04-21 20:48:09

They all suck in their own special, infuriating way. I only hope the HTML5 media support takes off and Flash gets ditched for such things.

synthead · 2008-04-21 21:50:44

IMO, this situation with Adobe has always angered me. It's rediculous - they took WAY too long to release v9 for linux, and it really isn't even any good anymore. And no 64-bit version? Why not?? Take an hour to change a few things in your code using regular expressions, recompile it, and make several hundred thousand if not more users of YOUR products happy.

I have never thought that the idea of closed-source code was good one besides projects that are like an artform, like games.

sjmorgan · 2008-04-26 02:27:46

Disabling Adblock seems to have stopped my browser freezing, or at least not as much. That is, it seems to be an Adblock + Flash thing rather just Flash.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-10 12:02:30

flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#2 2008-04-10 12:40:16

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#3 2008-04-10 15:15:45

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#4 2008-04-10 18:51:12

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#5 2008-04-10 18:54:46

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#6 2008-04-10 19:07:55

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#7 2008-04-10 19:50:19

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#8 2008-04-10 20:29:28

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#9 2008-04-10 20:30:47

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#10 2008-04-11 02:10:26

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#11 2008-04-11 05:02:39

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#12 2008-04-11 05:33:25

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#13 2008-04-11 05:35:42

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#14 2008-04-11 06:13:39

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#15 2008-04-11 08:38:23

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#16 2008-04-11 09:33:44

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#17 2008-04-11 10:53:57

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#18 2008-04-11 12:43:01

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#19 2008-04-11 12:48:28

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#20 2008-04-11 13:00:52

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#21 2008-04-20 15:23:02

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#22 2008-04-20 15:54:03

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#23 2008-04-21 20:48:09

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#24 2008-04-21 21:50:44

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

#25 2008-04-26 02:27:46

Re: flashplugin is getting crappier and crappier!!!

Board footer