Please make this plugin for Mandriva 10.2 (2005) for AMD64 processor. Many
pages in Firefox and Mozilla is not nice without plugins. Some of they do not
display definite.
Please make Flash plugin, becouse more and more people buying new computers
with 64 architectures. They sometimes use Linux in everyday work and have
problem, what system change 32 or 64 bit. 32 is OK but flash installer checks
architecture of prcessor and doesn't want install plugins. This is not
comfortable. It dejectedly webmasters to create page with Flash movies, unless
they must. In 64 bit systems plugins don't wont install at the same cause
(architecture) and newest webviewer don't accept 32-bit plugins.
Please correct this marketing mistake :)
Thank you :)

?????.
??? 64?? ???? ???? ???? ????.
?? 64??? ????? ??? ??? ????.
?? ??? x86_64? ???xp x64?? 64?? ????? ???? ????,
? x86_64???? ????? ?????.

Quite right. Actually rather amazing one hasn't been made already - 64bit has
been around a while.
If only the flashplayer code were opensource we'd have a 64 bit version
already, but I guess Macromedia protects its interests in the flashplayer
(arguably to the detriment of the user community given this omission).
Someone did mention 64bit being supported for version 8 but I've not seen it
confirmed anywhere (or indeed when such a thing might happen)
Ah well, the more users can't see flashmovies the less websites will require
flash ....

Currenly if you install flash from the prompt from firefox in the newest
version it works in 64 bit, however firefox isnt a 64bit browser, I assume if
you have the 32 bit ie you could install flash there also. Please make a 64
bit version for windows 64 soon!

Dear Macromedia Directors,

Still waiting for an AMD64 flash plugin for Firefox in Linux AMD64

Dear Macromedia,

Frankly, I think that if you cannot keep up with the current, you should stop
marketing flash and simply let it die a natural death. At least, you should
release specs for a proper OSS implementation.

I would also take the opportunity to ask macromedia to do us a favor and
educate its customers. Please let them know that nice flashy sites should have
html counterparts so that poor AMD64 users can access their content with a
standard, good, old, no-frills web-browser. You are degrading the Internet
with your "technology", or lack thereof.

Yours.

Just a note, here is a TechNote that talks about this:
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=6b3af6c9

This is something Macromedia currently knows is an issue.

---
Regards,

Jason Wylie
Senior Support Engineer
Macromedia Technical Support
Flash Player, Flash, Central

-- Please limit replies to newsgroup only, for the benefit of the community --

Me too , I need Flash Player for 64-bits , Windows or Linux.

I am a Flash Developer , and some many clients tell me that your Windows XP
64-bit don't have Flash player , and he have to use 32-bit of Internet Explorer
and Linux clients says that he can't view my webpages in her Linux 64-bit
system because there is no 64-bit plug-in , and they don't know how to install
32-bit version ....

I think for Maceromedia , and for me too , if there is Flash plug-in for all
OS and for all architectures is the best way to use Flash around the web.

Unfortunately I cannot comment about future plans more than what is said in the
TechNote which I realize is not much.

---
Regards,

Jason Wylie
Senior Support Engineer
Macromedia Technical Support
Flash Player, Flash, Central

-- Please limit replies to newsgroup only, for the benefit of the community --

This is not an online petition, but if we can put a little pressure on people
deciding in macromedia crying there, why not... so this is my complaint : I
would like to have a real flashplayer for my 64 bit little Mozilla (or
firefox... as you want)...

Be careful, Macromedia people... you're loosing potential clients (Flash was
an option for our website... now, it is really far away)..

We need a 64bit flash player, everyone buying high performance computers are
buying 64bit and within a few month all computer will be 64bit. Whats the hold
up? Everyone please keep posting your request for the 64bit flash player. The
people at Macromedia do not realize how many of us there are. :Q

bonjour,
j'utilise firefox sous linux -ubuntu et gentoo- sur mon amd64.... pourriez
vous ecrire un plugin flash pour les utulisateur de linux sur amd64 s'il vous
pla?t?
je vous en serait tr?s reconnaissant

merci

Actually , in each 5 clients of mine , that buy a new computer , 2 of them buys AMD64.

:brokenheart;
well, still no 64bit-browser support for flash, this shows what happens with
proprietary software.

i hope that some day someone will come up with some totally new (maybe SVG
based), free, open standard tool which replaces "mmmmm(*scratch*head*)-flash"
....

at least there is a workaround possible for Ubuntu Users :D checkout
ubuntuforums.org there are some threads covering this problem with some helpful
information how you can get around it running a 32bit firefox on your 64bit
system :|

Dear Macromeadia,
I'm running a total 64bit installation on my machine. So it would be a pitty
to run a single application in 32bit mode. This causes much performace issues
cause 32bit habe to be simulated.
If you don't have the time or don't have the courage to make a new plugin that
is suitable with the 64bit architecture, then simply release the source of your
plugin under the GPL oder something like that.
There would be much people giving up their free time to make a stable plugin
that works just fine with 64bit processors.

I think that if you do not do anything to solve the problems people have with
their new cpu's there will be a simillar project, that can realise the same
things as you can with your suite. But the difference would be that this
project will defenetly be under the GPL because this is really a thing that
goes on the nerves of the open source community.
And in future the amount of 64bit processors will rais.

So please develop a new plugin for this architecture or simply give the code
to the open source community.

Mr, Macromedia

Mr. Macromedia

Por favor faca o flashplugin p/ arquitetura AMD64.

Micsoda egy szarhalom ez a flash. Igaz?b?l nekem bazira elegem van bel?le,
rem?lem cs?dbe megy ez a szars?g, mint annak idej?n az animgif. Sok seggfej,
aki ezt a szemetet haszn?lja az oldal?n... Szerencs?re ritk?n kell ilyen szar
oldalakat n?zegetnem.

Definitivamente necesitamos el plug-in. Por ac? todos estamos migrando a 64bits
y sin el plug-in no nos queda otra que desarrollar todos nuestros sitios sin
flash... perdemos nosotros, pero tambi?n Macromedia...

Macromedia will release a 64bits version of flash. There is no doubt about it
since all new pcs are 64bits enabled.
The question is as "when" this will be done.
Please, push this to asap since it's a pain not to be able to see flash sites
in our windows xp pro x64 edition.

You can actually install the 32bits version on the internet explorer 32bits
edition (comes with the xp pro x64). But it will crash IE from time to time for
unknown reasons.

Macromedia will pay more attention as soon as they see a huge percentage of
users moving towards 64 bits. So far, it hasn't reach a number that they
consider important.

Macromedia, just keep ahead of the curve, 64 bits is here to stay!

Actually, if you think this through... What would it mean for Macromedia to
produce a 64bit client before M$ is even ready with a 64bit operating system?
It is not in Macromedia's best interest to put a black eye on M$'s sorely late
release of a 64bit OS. I'm sure M$ has FULLY explained to Macromedia (directly
or indirectly) about what is best for Macromedia in technology desisions. I
would not anticipate a release of anything 64bit from Macromedia until it's M$
counterpart has been available for a period of time. Business is business.
And it's all about market share...

That being said, sure, I'll put my vote in. Please post the x86_64 version as
soooooon as you release M$ 64 bit version!!

Actually I don't think there is great effort in producing the 64-bit flash
plugin for both Linux and Windows. Technically speaking, it should be quite
straight-forward (just consider the 64-bit firefox browser and other related
plugins)

However, the delay in the release of the 64-bit flash plugin just makes users
disappointed and seriously affect the image of the Macromedia.

I also want a 64 bit Shockwave player.

:frown;

Thank You.

Here's another fine suggestion. Boycott Macromedia. They have dragged their
feet for far too long. I personally will no longer be using their products. I
will also be giving negative reviews for any sites that use flash when there
are far better alternatives out there.

There is only one way to make a company notice something. Hit them in their
wallet. I for one am boycotting all Macromedia products from this point on.

How about open sourcing the Flash Player code so that we can compile the player
on the Linux x86_64 platform?
I agree, this is crazy that Macromedia has ignored the 64-bit platform
altogether. Basically Flash is the only thing that is not working on my Fedora
Core 4 - AMD Athlon 64 box.

Ok. This is getting ridiculous.

Why is it so hard to recompile the macromedia flash players for 64 bit? All
platforms should have been done already. There is no reasonable reason for it
not to be!

Is anyone from macromedia actually reading these? Maybe we need to voice our
complaints elsewear?

I tried to compile gpflash on Ubuntu 5.10 AMD64 but I give up because a lot of dependencies.

Unfortunately such things as flash will not die. Far too many people who dev
web pages are either uneducated, lazy or just plain stupid generally speaking.
They tend to be the slackers who couldn't hack it in the real world of software
dev. As such they'll never realize that just about everything that people
normally use Flash for can be quite easily accomplished with XHTML, CSS and a
few JavaScripts. No need for special proprietary plugins.

In any case, far too many developers of proprietary software don't think
farther than the $$$. Thanks to Intel's anti-competitive marketing most OEMs
don't offer AMD64 so the market is small, Linux in its own right represents a
rather small consumer market made up of modest to no income twenty somethings
and kids. Their target markets are mostly older people with $$$, who are
generally computer illiterate, and can barely find the power button let alone
run software that isn't stupid friendly. Add the two together and you have a
pretty sure bet that 64bit Linux isn't at the top of their list of priorities.

The only thing that might change that is if we concern them sufficiently with
an open source alternative that plays Flash; as the next step would logically
be one that "creates" Flash. Greedy businesses tend to get concerned when you
dry up their cash cows with free alternatives.


--Neth

You guys need to consider giving up on flash. Ask yourself: 32-bit to 64-bit
isn't a difficult transition to make, so why isn't there a Flash product which
supports 64 bit?

SVG, an open standard, will provide the ability for the world to share dynamic
content. As an open standard, it will be widely supported, and won't break
because you're using a proprietary plug-in with limited support.

I'm guessing that Macromedia are putting their effort into product which
support SVG, which is why you're not seeing any support for Flash.

Visit the Mozilla projet to find out more on SVG support.

There are three companies which whilst not crucial to forward momentum in
64-bit OS development do have some impact; Sun, Adobe & Macromedia. Not
crucial, no - but with a very high "piss-off" factor (sorry - that may be a bit
too aussie for an international audience).
Sun have not released a java plugin to support 64-bit browsers.
Adobe have not released a 64-bit driver for the PDF printer.
Macromedia have not released flash/shockwave plugins to support 64-bit
browsers.
And in all cases the companies flat out refuse to discuss development
timelines, citing with basic disrespect to the developers and consumers who use
their products "we're aware of the issues, at this time we cannot comment on
future plans but do not expect development to be in the immediate future as
64-bit OS's represent a minor market segment."
Two things I note from that; first a shock - macromedia and adobe taking the
exact same position on something! and secondly - that although yes 64-bit OS's
do represent a minority that minority is a reflection of primarily one group:
developers! Every single developer, be they multimedia, web, software or other
that I talk to is either already operating in as close to a 64-bit environment
as they can or is migrating to it as quickly as they can. And with one voice
they have all had enough of these companies refusing to come to the party on
64-bit. And I may be shy of the mark here, but don't these three companies
derive a fair chunk of their revenue from us developers? Oh yes they do. I've
already abandoned Adobe Acrobat (licence cancelled and refunded - bye-bye). Is
Macromedia next?

I'm (we're?) tired of hearing "sorry". Are we developers to be hobbled by
this, or are there small startup software companies just waiting to jump up and
grab this opportunity?

[quoted text, click to view]

My friend, you are SO right.

But, haven't we developers failed our user community by developing using
technologies which haven't got global reach. The web isn't a community any
more. It's the WHOLE of humanity.

The open, web technologies pioneered by w3c are widely implemented. Not just
on PCs: PDAs, mobile phones etc. Many device used by the population of this
planet.

The closed technology, SWF is implemented on very few devices, and not on the
PC I'm using at the moment.

I've just noticed (now that I don't have SWF player in my browser) that the
portals which are visited by the whole of society (e.g. Google, bbc.co.uk)
don't seem to make use of SWF. I guess they're trying to achieve a global
reach. And closed technologies aren't going to help them provide a service to
the WHOLE of humanity.

I want a 64 bit Shockwave player, too

I'm really tiered to wait for a Official amd64 Flash Plugin. Today I'm using
swfdec https://www.schleef.org/swfdec/.

It's not 100%, is actually far from it, but I avoid going to the 32bit Firefox
every single flash site visited.

Originally posted by: Mandabu
But, haven't we developers failed our user community by developing using
technologies which haven't got global reach. The web isn't a community any
more. It's the WHOLE of humanity.
...
The closed technology, SWF is implemented on very few devices, and not on the
PC I'm using at the moment.


Very good point about development of communications via the internet. And I
agree wholeheartedly :)
Developers have also simply become lazy - what has happened to non-flash pages
being served up as alternatives? They're certainly becoming more rare - too
many "cookie cutter" production line sites being produces without any thought.

Of course with respect to SWF having limited "reach" for some environments,
such as closed intranets, it's no real hurdle. It's just becoming so much
harder to explain to people the mix of 32-bit and 64-bit
software/drivers/plugins/encoders etc etc that they need to access everything.

I suppose, casting a more distant observers eye over the situation that we are
really screwed here though. I'll simply say this: merger.
With the Adobe-Macromedia thing in the works I'm guessing development or at
least planning (and the associated support planning) has ground to a halt in
both camps. But dang, surely some disgruntled employees feel like leaking the
64-bit alpha or beta versions they've got floating around in house? *evil grin*

:disgust;

ERROR: Your architecture, \'x86_64\', is not supported by the
Macromedia Flash Player installer.

And I was so glad with my new pc.. please make me happy again and provide me
with a flash player for firefox on FC4 running on a x86-64 architecture. thank
you

Just thought I'd keep this forum going.. Does anyone at macromedia read this?
(show it to your supervisors)

Here's an interesting quote from your flash 8 professional page.
Unleash applications to the web, Windows, Macintosh, Unix, PDAs, and even cell
phones. Reach the widest possible audience via the Flash Player, installed on
98% of desktops globally. The scalable, vector based display and consistent
runtime engine in Flash Player deliver content with high fidelity irrespective
of operating system and client hardware specifications.

That number is probably going down by the day.

You don't seem to care that much about reaching the "widest possible
audience", and I imagine you're upsetting a large amount of people using
certain "hardware specifications" including potential buyers of your products.

I use Ubuntu AMD64

32 bit operating systems dominate, now. They will be replaced by 64 bit. We
all know this. There's no reason not migrate eventually.
Why create anything specifially for Windows XP, Windows 98 already exists.
No one needs to switch, right??
Nobody waits for the next version of an OS to "dominate" it's sector before
releasing compatible versions. Before XP came out everyone was ready w/ XP
versions. No flavor of Linux dominates, but there's a 32 bit flash available.
Your excuse does not make sense. It's coming, why not have it ready now. I
take that back; it's here. 64 bit OSs are out there.
This is an awfully long list of ppl here demanding a product, and you're
refusing? Doesn't make sense.

Please, make a Linux Amd 64bits player!!!!!!

It's so dificult, freeze code and request help from Linux user/developers.

hello Jason.
That answer reported on that webpage is not reasonable.
The first part is well known but at same time ridicolous. We already know that
it can be run on a 32 bit browser running on 64 bit system.
Perhaps your company doesn't care too much about linux user, but it seems that
linux is not the only OS running on AMD64... any news about windows or other OS?
I can't understand where the problem is to compile a small software for 64 bit!
I just tell that Sun Java Runtime environment for 64 bit exist from about 1
year.
Hearing that, and hearing that your company cannot confirm that newer versions
will run in 64 bit ias very upsetting.

Cheers
Massimiliano

hello Jason.
That answer reported on that webpage is not reasonable.
The first part is well known but at same time ridicolous. We already know that
it can be run on a 32 bit browser running on 64 bit system.
Perhaps your company doesn't care too much about linux user, but it seems that
linux is not the only OS running on AMD64... any news about windows or other OS?
I can't understand where the problem is to compile a small software for 64 bit!
I just tell that Sun Java Runtime environment for 64 bit exist from about 1
year.
Hearing that, and hearing that your company cannot confirm that newer versions
will run in 64 bit ias very upsetting.

Cheers
Massimiliano

hello Jason.
That answer reported on that webpage is not reasonable.
The first part is well known but at same time ridicolous. We already know that
it can be run on a 32 bit browser running on 64 bit system.
Perhaps your company doesn't care too much about linux user, but it seems that
linux is not the only OS running on AMD64... any news about windows or other OS?
I can't understand where the problem is to compile a small software for 64 bit!
I just tell that Sun Java Runtime environment for 64 bit exist from about 1
year.
Hearing that, and hearing that your company cannot confirm that newer versions
will run in 64 bit ias very upsetting.

Cheers
Massimiliano

:frown;
I agree totally with Massimiliano. It is unbelievable that Macromedia can not
support 64-bit.
btw, I work for one of the largest Information Technology companies in the
world. This makes Macromedia look like a bad direction for any big company to
go in.

Macromedia:

Seriously guys, take a look at this forum. A couple months, and it's scrolling
down to the floor. Half the people (Including me) signed up for an account with
you guys JUST to ask for a 64 bit plugin. And I bet you're getting ten emails
for every post on this silly little forum. The demand is there, the technology
is there, and you are losing marketshare while you twiddle your thumbs. I
seriously cannot think of a good reason, even after reading this forum, that
you guys are stalling.

Releasing the source for the player wouldn't be a horrible idea at all,
either. Your dev costs for the thing will dramatically drop, since the
community can take care of the basic stuff for you. (Such as porting it to
64bits) All you have to do it sit back and sell your products, and keep us
informed on any changes to the specification.

Seriously, you guys need to think about your game plan. You're throwing away a
ton of money here, in a ton of ways.

-Jeffrey

P.S. To the person that expressed suprise that Macromedia and Adobe were
agreeing: Don't be surpised. They're the same company now. Adobe ate them.
Which basically means that Adobe ate their only serious competitor. (Quark's a
competitor too, but they're dying a slow, painful death. It's really kind of
pathetic.) I really don't understand how Adobe is avoiding an anti-trust suit.

I joined the list of people who boycott Macromedia products. Plus I wrote to
all website administrators I encounter to reconsider using Flash animation in
their webpage due to lack of support for all platforms.

Won't do much - but still.

Please make this plugin for Gentoo for AMD64 processor!

Originally posted by: Dirkson
P.S. To the person that expressed suprise that Macromedia and Adobe were
agreeing: Don't be surpised. They're the same company now. Adobe ate them.

That would be me - sorry I guess my sarcasm didn't come across in my message :)
For years healthy competition bred between the two companies - now I'd be
surprised if development of anything groundbreaking will be forthcoming in the
near OR distant future. The fact that this behemoth of a company can't/wont
release important 64-bit compiled versions of some of their simplest tools
(macromedia flash player, adobe pdf printer) on what is arguably becoming an
increasingly popular developers platform (Windows x64 & Linux 64-bit) is
testament to the fact that the larger a company gets the less focus on
customers there is and more on pure revenue $$$'s!

I think Microsoft should just buy all of them out to fix this issue,
personally I'd let them get away with that particular anti-competitive
behaviour to support my new platform of choice :)

I've just created a account here to express my disappointment. After strungling
for a few weeks I'm finally getting around working with the FC4 linux
distribution.. but then I found out there is no support for the 64bit
architecture!?? I could have expected this from a small company.. but
Macromedia.. common, how is this possible?

No one Macromedia developers or any person of the official stuff of Macromedia Reply or Answer our questions.

I think macromedia/adobe, have only a few developers that can not spend time in
a free player. And this player has a lot of problems to port to any other
architecture. A lot of linux program have only to change a few lines and then
compile to amd64. It's "easy". But it is easy if source code are fine, and well
documented.

Surely macromedia don't have now same developers as when write linux-32 player
and it's not documented. So it is easier to wirte a full new player than
convert 32 player to 64bits, and a full new player need more developers-time
that adobe can pay.

For a linux user, this have a simple solution. Free code, and in less than a
week, we have a player. But we will see how (bad) they work!!!!

Please make a AMD64 flash plugin for Linux AMD64
thanks

I think it is clear enough that this another example of what happens when we
rely on propietary formats.

I wonder if the peolple who payed the real money to have Flash on their
websites know that there's a growing number of people that aren't being able to
access their content? How many products/services are they not selling?

Those of us that work in software development should learn the lesson and
strongly support public standards as SVG. I, for one, will not use, nor
recommend the use of Flash to my clients ever. As long as we use their products
for development, we are slaves to their plugin and whatever they decide to do
with it.

:Q i am shocked that i can not get the flash player for my brand new windows xp
64 bit! i have tried and tried, to no avail! my son thought he was doing me a
favor by getting me the top of the line OS for my new computer, but i am having
so much trouble getting updated drivers, etc..and now this! i have a very fancy
graphics card, and top of the line gaming equipment, but cant use a flash
player to utilize it all! how sad...i hope to be able to download a working
flash player soon. i sure hope someone from macromedia checks out these topics
once and a while.

Isn't there any special "award" out there for companies/products like this one?
Linux and a lot of BSD variants are running stable on amd64 for several years
now.
Even microsoft ported their whole OS to amd64 and a part of it to powerpc
(xbox 360).
And macromedia still "evaluates requests..."????
No, dear macromedia people, nobody uses amd64 and 64bit browsers. All the
other companies and organizations compiling their stuff for amd64 just dont
know what to do with their spare time.
Just keep "evaluating requests" while all the angry amd64 people stop
evaluating flash technology because macromedia is UNWILLING to spend half an
hour compiling their plugin for amd64.
P.S. Sorry, if that sounds a bit harsh! it simply does not fit into my mind
how you can simply ignore the broad acceptance and usage of flash across the
web leaving thousands of people angry before their browser showing nearly empty
pages telling them to download a flash plugin which does not exist for their
platform. Only to save a few compiling minutes.

Another voice to request an AMD64 flash plugin... I'm sure AMD would even
offer development space on a box if someone needed to verify what might
be involved. While the market share is small at present for 64-bit OS's, that
will change quickly, so why not get a leg up on the process, and make some
folks happy and be viewed as an enabler of progress rather than an inhibitor?

Oh, and the last ten high-end workstations we purchased were *all* AMD64.
In 2001, Gartner predicted 143% annual growth for 64-bit platforms, expected
to reach 18% market share by 2005. I don't know how close their predictions
were, but in a 2004 Q2 statement it was noted that:

"...64-bit X86 machines using new Xeon processors from Intel or Opteron
processors from Advanced Micro Devices gained traction, with sales up
2,183 percent."

IDC also reported that "it was the Opteron that exploded, with sales up
81.1 percent sequentially compared with the first quarter of 2004."

(http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh083004-story03.html)

While a significant portion of this was undoubtedly in the server arena,
low-cost 64-bit workstations started making waves too. I have not seen
numbers for 2005, but one has to believe that the trend that began going
into 2004 has only continued. It's time for 64-bit, Macromedia!!! Do
yourselves a favor and be a leader in this marketspace!!!!

It is absurd that Macromedia has still not produced a 64-bit release of the
Flash player. The number of users needing this is surely going to increase and
yet it has been months since most companies as visible as Macromedia started
providing 64-bit builds, at least as beta versions. Macromedia has no aversion
to providing beta versions (one was provided for Flash player eight), so I see
no reason why a 64-bit build cannot be produced very quickly -- unless there
are serious architectural flaws in the code base.

Please, please make this one of your top priorities.

Regards

Andrew

(just created an account so i could respond as well)

I'm going to suggest to my company that we remove the flash components from
our site (and since i'm the web admin, i think i might have some sway), since i
can no longer view my own company's website with my shiny new Dell computer
with Red Hat EL4 Workstation. Sad to see a copmany like this take such a dive,
but hey, it has happened before, and will happen again. "simply run a 32-bit
browser", how about, "simply recompile the code"! (i'm a programmer, and know
it can be done, if they cared about their user base)

On with the boycott!

Hey, I'm in a 3rd third world country and even I have had an AMD64bit for
months. And no, running a 32bit version of my browser. Why dont you run your
business as you should and you let us run ours as we should. That is, trying to
do at the best we possibly can.
But anyway, we have a choice. From now on, given the lack of support from
Macromedia for newer computers I will start telling every webadmin and web tech
support not to use Macromedia, since it is no longer cutting edge (ie no 64bit
support) and it ain't worth the licensing cost just for LEGACY technology.

They are working on it .. it is a BIG task and is being done as part of new
Flash Player 8.5 (that is in alpha now).

BTW: Just how 'huge' is the popularity of this platform? I do not think
Linux user-base as a whole is nowhere near huge, let alone one particular
platform .. not when you compare it to Windows and Mac :) Also note that MM
get no revenue from the player itself .. its free . .so I don't see what
risk they are taking if it is not supported on a given, relatively obscure,
platform.
--
jeckyl

I'm posting from 64-bit Windows Vista. Before this, I had 64-bit windows XP.
It's not just linux users with amd64... I really don't see the problems with a
target change, it should take you one compile to get a beta working unless
there's some really horrible code in there, and if there is you should fix it
anyway.

Anyway, Just wanted to post that it's not just linux/bsd that suffers from no
64bit plugin.

Its not just a recompile .. read the post about the porting issues .. to get
decent performance, you need to do more than simply recompile (note: SOME of
the problems are probably due to old code written with assumptions about
data type sizes, but that is certainly not the only issue)

If it was simply a matter of recompiling .. don't you think Macromedia would
have simply release the 64-bit version at the same time? Obviously there is
more to it than that .. and the continual winging about it is not really
going to make that much difference.
--
Jeckyl

Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
Also note that MM get no revenue from the player itself .. its free . .so I
don't see what
risk they are taking if it is not supported on a given, relatively obscure,
platform.
First off, its not relatively obscure. Not any more. Every new virus, every
new blunder by microcrap sends a whole bunch more over to linux.

As for it being free and generating no revenue? LMAO, thats funny. They've got
this program called "Flash Pro 8", which sells for $700.00 --- SEVEN HUNDRED US
DOLLARS. If nobody can VIEW flash, then nobody will BUY that extremely
expensive program. And know this... most developers prefer to use some *nix, so
if THEY get pissed off, THEY won't use flash, and MM gets no revenue.

Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
Its not just a recompile .. read the post about the porting issues .. to get
decent performance, you need to do more than simply recompile (note: SOME of
the problems are probably due to old code written with assumptions about
data type sizes, but that is certainly not the only issue)

If it was simply a matter of recompiling .. don't you think Macromedia would
have simply release the 64-bit version at the same time? Obviously there is
more to it than that .. and the continual winging about it is not really
going to make that much difference.
--
Jeckyl




Well, if they wrote it poorly they wrote it poorly. There isn't much that can
be done about that. But Jecky, you are failing to note that also all 64 bit
Windows users also can't use the Flash Player. There is a huge number of
people bothered by this. Each day this is increasing. I first wrote on this
board about 3 or 4 months ago and there still is no 64 bit flash player, can it
really be *THAT* difficult to do?

I think it's well past the time where adobe/macromedia should be creating
their 64 bit players.

[quoted text, click to view]

Its partly that .. and partly due to the low-level optimisations that are
used to get good performance from the player. These need to all be reworked
for differnet processors and compilers.

[quoted text, click to view]

Indeed .. hopefully that is part of what is being redone in FP 8.5 as part
of doing the porting .. so it won't be so difficult to keep Linux and 64-bit
OS in sync with the rst of the world

[quoted text, click to view]

But its a tiny number cpmpared with the HUMUNGOUS number of users that have
good old Windows XP etc. The number of 64-bit users really isn't that big
in the grand scheme of things.

That said, of course, when Vista is released, and there are more mainstream
64-bit processor PC's out there (so most Joe Blogs at home will have a
64-bit machine that they can buy down at the local department store), that
will change .. and MM should well and truly have its FP8 (including Linux
and 64-bit support) out by then

[quoted text, click to view]

Indeed .. grown from miniscule to tiny :) But it is growing, and MM have
recognised that by including 64-bit and Linux support in the upcoming player
that is currently in Beta (I don't know if the 64-bit Linux version is in
beta though as yet)

[quoted text, click to view]

It is when the developers are busy on things like Flex and the new Flash
Player 8.5 (which WILL include Linux and 64-bit support from what has been
said).

[quoted text, click to view]

I think the time is just about right .. and that is why they are busy doing
it. When FP8.5 is ready it should have Linux and 64-bit support in it.
There is little point in them spending a lot of their resources making a
64-bit version of the soon-to-be-redundant FP8.

Jeckyl

Nobody can VIEW flash? LMAO, that's funny. If only a handful of LINUX nuts
cannot view flash content .. and the rest of the world can ... its not going
to make much of a difference to those designing web sites. They will design
for what their clients want and the majority of site visitors support. And
for animated vector graphics, that is Flash.

And .. as has been said over and over .. MM are getting a player for Linux
as part of the Flash 8.5 release. its is non-trivial to do .. and this
continual bitching and whining about it and what a terrible thing MM is
doing to themselves and the enormous 64-bit LINUX market is NOT going to
help anyone.
--
Jeckyl

@Jeckyl: You make some, arguably, valid points regarding the popularity of
64-bit OS/browser combinations and their lack of industry presence not being
great enough to force the hand of certain developers to port their work to
64-bit, in this case Adobe/Macromedia.

However I've argued against this relatively narrow minded position before, and
I'm more than willing to do so again now.

First point I need to make is that 64-bit OS users haven't been demanding a
fully supported final release product.
And at this point the essence of the argument that 64-bit OS is used by a
relatively small group works again the lagging developer: most 64-bit OS users
are ENTHUSIASTS, IT PROFESSIONALS, HIGHLY SKILLED and INTELLIGENT and as such
they know what a "beta" version is, and WOULD ACCEPT A BETA RELEASE without
support. Don't believe me? Run a poll - you'd get a 90% "would use a beta
version if available" "YES" response. Because we're enthusiasts, and
enthusiastic about new technology. It's that simple. I don't believe for a
second that a beta of the plugin doesn't exist - what I DO believe is that
Adobe/Macromedia are holding back until they release full retail products with
true 64-bit OS support so that they can simultaneously offer support on both.
IMHO that smacks of arrogance on behalf of the company and a disregard for the
principles behind some of their products (:universal browser media deliver).

So, point #1: if a beta version was made AVAILABLE to us we WOULD use it
without hesitation (and given it's beta we'd accept that it might be a bit
buggy)
n.b. I have yet to see signs of 64-bit browser compatability in the public
betas of FP 8.5 (as of 20th march now beta 2).

Yes, the user-base for 64-bit OS's is small, but lets examine WHY people are
using them. There's a small group of "tech-geeks" who are using illegal copies
of x64 or linux 64-bit just because they can, but for the most part the users
of 64-bit OS's are those who want the extended memory space and the few
optimisations offered by more modern (at least in the case of Windows x64 which
has improvements over regular XP Pro above and beyond memory addressing
capabilities). And who benefits from more memory space? Developers. A lot of
developers. A majority of the people I know who've switched to 64-bit OS are
graphic, DTP and web designers. And most of them are intelligent and have
principles. Which means they are being disenfranchised by Adobe/Macromedia and
switching to alternative products. You do know that you don't have to use Flash
don't you? Adobe/Macromedia seem to have missed that point. What's more is that
these developers don't necessarily NEED the 64-bit FP for themselves, they just
want to ensure that a compatabile solution is available for potential viewers.
It's a principle thing, again: we want to make sure our work is viewable by
EVERYONE, so we install a 64-bit browser and test our pages in that.
Fly-by-night and lazy developers wont do extensive browser compatability
checking, but dedicated ones will.
There is lost revenue here for the company though even if you ignore the moral
indignation of those customers fleeing the products: Adobe/Macromedia are
losing money. I have no idea what the count is on 64-bit OS users, but let me
make a wild statement: to bring up to scratch a beta plugin couldn't possibly
take that long and I'd bet that Adobe/Macromedia has lost more revenue from
fleeing customers than it would have cost them to compile out a 64-bit beta
plugin. Other companies HAVE done it .... it's not a cost or technical
limitation stopping Adobe/Macromedia, it's bureaucratic nonsense.

Point #2: Adobe/Macromedia ARE losing revenue for something which, in
comparison to any other technologies they might be developing, IS a small
thing. Even if neither you or I can quantify the lost revenue, it is lost.

Creating a 64-bit plugin should already be a work-in-progress as part of any
development project working towards compatability with Vista-64, in fact it
should have been a work in progress for some time now. Which is just more
reason a beta should be available. But more than that, if a third party can
produce a workable flash player plugin why can't Adobe/Macromedia? The argument
that it's "non-trivial" and requires "low-level optimisations" do not wash with
me either, firstly because Adobe/Macromedia have got the resources to make it
trivial and secondly because the hardware level instructions supported by the
AMD 64 and Intel 64 processors AREN'T THAT DIFFERENT to 32-bit cores. They may
be slightly more advanced, but it's not like shifting a compilation from a full
CPU instruction set to a RISC set or anything - they share the same
functionality + MORE. Also the "differences" are well documented and available
to developers, and professional developers (such as those working for
Adobe/Macromedia) with access to documentation should be able to quite easily
integrate for new cores. So pfft to the "non-trivial" argument - PLENTY of
other companies have done so called "non-trivial" 'ports' in the last 12
months. Again, it's bureaucracy, not a physical/intellectual limit.

Point #3: in the grand scheme of things it IS trivial to port JUST the plugin.

Point #1 + Point #2 + Point #3: We (the users of 64-bit OS's) are intelligent
people who are enthusiastic about using bleeding edge technology and are
benefitted by using 64-bit technology. We are developers (influencing end
products and paying for full version developers tools unlike those using just
the free tools) and understand how development works and can't comprehend why
Adobe/Macromedia would delay, can't comprehend that beta versions aren't
available and who would accept a beta plugin with no support and less
than-perfect performance if it were released.

I am SO sick of people apologising for developers who wont acknowledge their
development status on 64-bit code, who wont release 64-bit executables even at
a beta or alpha level. I am tired of the trite and thin excuses given by these
apologists of "it's not a small thing to port to 64-bit"; boo-hoo, plenty of
companies with much smaller development resources than Adobe/Macromedia have
done it, including low-level optimisations. Or the "have a cry - you're such a
small user group anyway" - percentage wise yes, it's a minority user group, but
being primarily power users and developers we're initiating trickle-down
effects where when we drop one product for an alternative we impact our
customers, clients and end-users: it's a slippery slope that of revenue loss,
and I would have thought that a company as large as the jugernaught
Adobe/Macromedia would be trying to improve their image as cutting edge rather
than let it slide.

Here's your 64bit java 1.4 with mozilla/firefox plugin;

I am using Ubuntu 5.10 on an AMD64 bit processor. I found the "libflash"
libraries as well as "libflash-mozplugin" (GPL flash (SWF) libraries) to do the
trick. Ok I am not able to play all the flash content but I can see 8 out of
10. They work so try them out :)

Originally posted by: girionis
I am using Ubuntu 5.10 on an AMD64 bit processor. I found the "libflash"
libraries as well as "libflash-mozplugin" (GPL flash (SWF) libraries) to do the
trick. Ok I am not able to play all the flash content but I can see 8 out of
10. They work so try them out :) They are also available under Synaptic
Manager.Ubuntu 5.10 on AMD 64 user here. I tried the above and I had a much
lower rate of success. Maybe 1/10. Many flash animations would start but just
freeze 3 seconds or so into it.

I guess I just have to wait until the next version of Flash is released. It
doesn't make sense for Macromedia to take this long to support 64 bit
processors though...

Following is my new Computer User Manifesto.

I am tired of:
Vendors who rape us
Being stiffed by and bound to greedy vendors (i.e. Microsoft,
Adobe/MacroMedia, Symantec, etc.)
Being hung-up by proprietary software
Being delayed by failed releases
Losing work and time to buggy software
Being endangered by insecure software
Poor or non-existent customer service
Inadequate or no products or support for my AMD64 and 64-bit Linux
Waiting for MacroMedia Flash and Shockwave, Adobe Reader, Sun Java Runtime,
and other missing releases for Linux-64 and my AMD64I have decided that:
It is time to switch to W3C-approved, standards-compliant, open source
alternatives!
I will evangelize for my new Computer User Manifesto.

[quoted text, click to view]

That's a bit harsh .. I don't remember anyone raping me recently. Its
always been consensual.

[quoted text, click to view]

Greedy? .. they are not charities .. they are companies who have employees
who have to be paid. How do you expect developers etc to earn a liviing if
noone pays a fair price for the software?

[quoted text, click to view]

And you get all this with open source software? .. no bugs, great customer
service (who pays for that?) etc. In what fanatasy world does that happen/

[quoted text, click to view]

Aha .. so the problem is that YOU choose to use a platform that has limited
software and supprt available for it .. and then complain about it. Like
someone (using an old analogy) going out and getting a Beta video player and
finding you cannot get any video tapes for it. It is (I assume) your choice
to run Linux .. as part of that choice you should have considered whether
the software you want to run is available for that platform. If not.. then
don't use Linux.

[quoted text, click to view]

I suggest instead you switch to Windows or Mac where there is plenty of
software and support. Of course, if there ARE W3C-approved,
standards-compliant, open source alternatives that do the same job .. great.
Please tell us all about them and where we can get them.

[quoted text, click to view]

Whatever .. it sounds like you're already in your own little world. Good
luck.
-
Jeckyl

Two comments:
Jeckyl:
You seem very prejudiced against linux for some reason, but that is dodging
the assertion most of these people are making, which is a more general request
for 64 bit support in any operating system. The lack of this support is fairly
egregious and you simply can't state with a straight face that Macromedia is
gaining sales for this complete lack of support. Granted they don't have an
obligation to be charitable but they also don't have one to be chowderheaded.
Really, before you turn this in to a windows versus the world argument,
remember that some of these complaints are from Windows users as well. The
linux bashing is more than a little off topic, in my humble opinion and serves
no purpose other than to get a rise out of people and distract from the real
issue, which is lack of support from Macromedia for an entire hardware
platform, a platform which represents the next generation of hardware. It is of
course in the interest of Macromedia, the developers and the END USER to
provide at least an unsupported beta so that developers can prepare compatible
options for end users, even and especially if Macromedia considers the hardware
to be less than mainstream yet. Why stall technology more than it already is?
If Macromedia wants to offer a well accepted standardized content delivery
system they do themselves no favors by ignoring any of their potential audience
and do an even greater disservice to their paying customers who may not realize
that their content (which they spend lots of money developing, money macromedia
benefits directly from) is being rendered inaccessible.
Macromedia:
This is really, really silly. Release a plug in or release a standard.

[quoted text, click to view]

No .. I like Linux. But it is (regardless of how much you like it) still a
very small share of the market. Also, being open source, it is less
attractive for commerical companies to develop for .. people using Linux
have an expectiation of free or inexpensive open source software.. Its
nothing to do with prejudice, its just an observation of the way things
currently are.

[quoted text, click to view]

Again.. its a matter of porting. The player source has optimised assembly
code in it taking advantage of MMX etc, and with assumptions about word
sizes etc. To be able to support 64-bit processors (whether linux or vista)
is still a non-trivial port. When combined with the additional
complications of Linux (which, by its nature, has lots of alternative ways
of implementing things), it does take some time.

Macromedia/Adobe have not abandoned Linux/64-bit support. They are working
on it. Its a matter of timing and allocation of development resources for
them. They have taken the fairly sensible decision of starting work on the
new Flash Player 9 (ne 8.5) that is required for them to launch Flex 2. As
part of that work they have said they will also port that code to 64-bit and
Linux platforms etc. Otherwise they would have to delay FP9 to port FP8,
and then immediately start on FP9 and do another port to 64bit/Linux for
that, resulting in delays for Flex2 and for FP9 for everyone else,.

[quoted text, click to view]

Who said they were gaining sales? But it does mean that they can get Flex2
out sooner, which means more sales sooner. Not having the free player
(which does not generate any direct revenue) for a small proportion of
platforms is not going to have as big and effect on sales as much as delays
in major new commercial products.

[quoted text, click to view]

It has nothing to do with charity. And I don't think it is Adobe who are
being chowderheaded ..... mmmm .. chowder :)

[quoted text, click to view]

Its not .. and I'm not .. it is those Linux users who regard their
importance as somehow much larger than their market share indicates that
thinkg Adobe should drop all development of commercial products, and the
porting of Flash Player 9, so they can port the free Flash Player 8.

[quoted text, click to view]

Yes .. and the 64-bit windows users are in a similar boat (although in their
case, it is an operating system that is likely to have a much larger market
share then Linux very soon, and for which commercial software will be
expected.

[quoted text, click to view]

I've not bashed Linux. I've merely pointed out that it is not a major
market share and not as viable a market for commercial companies. And yes,
the same is true of 64-bit Windows re market share. But you'll note ..Adobe
is still (it claims) actively working on the porting of the new player to
these platforms ... yet, like petulant kids in the back of the car yelling
"are we there yet" some Linux users (in particular) still keep crying about
how they are being ignored and how hard done by they are because commercial
programs do not support the platform they have chosen to use.

[quoted text, click to view]

Exactly. So lets wait for a Linux and 64/bit beta. Its still early days
for the player, and it is sensible for Adobe/MM to get issues with the
initial mainstream versions irons out first. If not, and Mm ports the
current FP8, then the new tecnhology ofr Flex 2 and flash Player 9 will
stalled even further for everybody.

[quoted text, click to view]

But they are NOT ignoring them. They are prioritising their development.

[quoted text, click to view]

That is not really a Macroemdia/Adobe problem .. its a problem due to web
designers (or customers) who want to use the latest technology in web sites,
despite that restricting access. Nothing is forcsing web developers to
publish for Flash Player 8 .. other than then wnating to use some of the new
features. People were making very sophisticated, 'flashy' and well designed
web sites with Flash MX and MX2004.

[quoted text, click to view]

They cannot release a plug in until it is ready for release.

And a company cannot release a standard ... they have, however, made the SWF
file format open, and one can (if you meet their requirements) license the
Flash Player source code so one can port a player to other platforms.

Assuming Adobe is telling us the truth about what they are doing, then their
current approach seems the most sensible. As they say, you can't please all
the people all the time .. and at the present time its the 64bit/Linux users
who cannot be pleased.
--
Jeckyl

You are only talking to other flash player users here .. not a direct line
to the gods of adobe. Porting is already on there list, if you'd bothered
reading the threads here and other web pages, so basically you're just being
annoying to those who are not in a position to do anything to change
development priorities in Adobe. Have you tried contacting Adobe directly?

I'd just like to bump this. I'm another 64-bit Linux user being underserved.
Adobe, please pay attention to your linux userbase. Porting the Flash player
to 64-bit Linux, while not a trivial task, should not be all that difficult.
Please make this a priority.

"its a matter of porting. The player source has optimised assembly
code in it taking advantage of MMX etc, and with assumptions about word
sizes etc. To be able to support 64-bit processors (whether linux or
vista)
is still a non-trivial port. When combined with the additional
complications of Linux (which, by its nature, has lots of alternative
ways
of implementing things), it does take some time. "

Why don't the Macromedia developers learn about programming from gnash
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash). These gnash guys have
successfully created an fast, cross-platform (arm, hppa, i386, mips,
mipsel, sparc), cross-distro Flash equivalent that is fully compliant
with flash 7. It also plays flash 8 movies. The Debian source package
can be found at http://packages.debian.org/experimental/utils/gnash.
Better yet, maybe Macromedia can help these guys make gnash fully flash
8/9 compliant.

-Joe

[q][i]Originally posted by: [b][b]optikshell[/b][/b][/i]
Please make a AMD64 flash plugin for Firefox in Linux AMD64 (Ubuntu
specifically)!!!!!! Thanks :smile;[/q]

And same for me too :)

Please support amd64 / mozilla Firefox plugin for us 64bit Ubuntu users