Adobe finally announces Flash 9 player final for Linux

FormerDittoHead

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-17-07 09:44 AM
Original message

Adobe finally announces Flash 9 player final for Linux

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash

Refresh | 0 Recommendations

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

RoyGBiv

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-17-07 11:26 PM
Response to Original message

1. Praise the gods ...

I really hate Flash. I really, really do. But it's like a drug. I *need* my YouTube fix. And I know it worked fine with version 7, but a lot of sites were going to content that required version 9, and it was irritating.

I've been using an early beta, which worked fine most of the time, but it's nice that it's official now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tandalayo_Scheisskopf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-18-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. This is...

Something of a big deal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Syrinx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Mar-11-07 02:20 AM
Response to Original message

3. I noticed that the hardware requirements...

Are significantly higher for the Linux version than the Windows version. I wonder if this is because the Linux version is actually the Windows version with WINE embedded?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

RoyGBiv

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Mar-11-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. X probably ...

Probably more overhead with X.

It's not wrapped up with wine, however.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Syrinx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-12-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. I didn't think of that

512mb v. 128mb of memory seems pretty extreme to be a matter of X. But maybe that's it. Thanks for info.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

RoyGBiv

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-12-07 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. I don't know for sure ...

I just know that running an X session can be memory intensive when you start adding the kind of tasks that Flash does.

That said, I've never *noticed* a problem running previous versions of Flash on systems with 256MB of system memory. Flash 9 for Linux is quite a bit bigger than previous versions, though, and I've not actually tried it on a system with that little memory. I suspect that some of the newer features, many of which aren't actually utilized by a lot of Flash implementations, may be part of the reason for this.

Again, though, I'm mostly guessing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Syrinx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-12-07 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. your guesses are usually correct

No reason to suspect you aren't right on this too! :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 04:30 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.