Why do some versions of Flash Player 9 work on YouTube while other ver

[larryb123456]

Hello, everyone:

I have Windows 98 and my "Netscape"-type browsers (i.e., non-IE) are Firefox 2.0.0.20, Netscape 9.0.0.6, and Opera 9.64. I don't have KernelEx, etc. installed (and I don't want to have it installed, since I am a complete novice, I'd be way in over my head, and I don't want to run the risk of totally messing up my computer -- which, with my luck, that's what would happen).

By the way, this is my first real message post here, and I'm totally impressed with the level of skill and breadth of knowledge that forum members display.

I recently spent about a month on the Adobe Flash Player forum in many discussions trying to get Flash Player 9 to work on YouTube with my "Netscape"-type browsers.

During this time, I did much reading on my own and finally found some info on the Firefox forum which basically said:

# 1) Flash Player version 9.0.47.0 (and all earlier versions) will work on YouTube and on other Flash sites; and

# 2) the next newer version of Flash Player, version 9.0.115.0 (and all versions newer than this) will not work on YouTube at all, and this version will exhibit unpredictable behavior on other websites with Flash content (i.e., it will work great on some sites while, on other sites, the browser will crash or a computer hang or crash will result).

I tried this and, indeed, I also found that Flash Player 9.0.47.0 was the "cut-off" version for successful results.

Also, each and every time the browser crashed when I used Flash Player 9.0.115.0 -- and newer versions -- I got the identical dialog-box message for all three of my "Netscape"-type browsers:

"This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down." Under "Details" it said, "The browser executed an invalid instruction in module NPSWF32.dll." This module, of course, is the Flash plugin.

Also, in my reading, I found some info where someone said, basically, to copy NPSWF32.dll from C:\Windows\System32\Macromed\Flash to C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\plugins and Flash Player 9 would work. Many others on the web page tried this and found that this was also the solution for them.

For my Windows 98 system, the Flash Player installation folder for Firefox is C:\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash not System 32. When I suggested trying the "copy and paste" of the NPSWF32.dll from the Flash folder to the plugins folder, the person helping me on the Adobe Flash forum advised me against it, saying it might make matters worse. I never tried it, since I respected this person's expertise.

But, I couldn't understand what could be the risk.

It seemed to me that if Flash Player 9 didn't work -- after the copy and paste -- all you needed to do to restore things back to the way they were was to delete the NPSWF32.dll from the plugins folder. I never got an answer to this question.

Does anyone here know if you could create big problems with such a copy and paste ?

I have been doing quite a bit of reading on this site, and interestingly enough, I found a message at

post # 16 by diskless says:

I now have Flash Player 9.0.262.0 installed successfully.

I manually copied NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt from

the installation folder (\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash) to

the Firefox plugins folder (\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\plugins)

then FF recognized the plugin the next time it was started.

In my case, even though NPSWF32.dll was not in the Firefox plugins folder (it was in the Macromed\Flash folder), Firefox still recognized it as shown by typing "about:plugins" in the Firefox address bar.

Diskless' approach, of course, is similar to the above-discussed copy and paste of only the NPSWF32.dll file.

I do not mean to question Diskless' expertise, but is it safe to copy and paste NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt to the plugins folder and then try Firefox with Flash Player 9 ?

It won't mess up my registry or anything will it ?

It seems to me that if it doesn't work for me, all I need to do to restore everything back to normal is just to delete these two files from the plugins folder. As you can tell, I am a novice at all this. I would greatly appreciate any help and answers to my questions.

The person helping me at the Adobe Flash forum was fantastic, but I couldn't get all my questions answered there. That is why I decided to come to this forum.

To summarize:

# 1) Why is Flash Player 9.0.47.0 the "cut-off" version for success on YouTube ?

# 2) What do I need to do to get the latest version of Flash Player 9 -- version 9.0.280.0 -- to work on YouTube ? (Again, I don't want to go the KernelEx, etc. route to achieve this.)

# 3) Is it safe to copy and paste NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt -- or just NPSWF32.dll -- from the Flash folder to the plugins folder and then try Firefox with Flash Player 9 ?

Many thanks in advance for whatever assistance I can get.

larryb123456

Edited August 14, 2010 by larryb123456

[halohalo]

What kind of CPU do you use?

Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE.

[larryb123456]

What kind of CPU do you use?

Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE.

Thanks very much,halohalo, for taking time to respond.

I run Windows 98 on a Dell Dimension XPS R450 computer with a Pentium II processor, 450 MHz. I have 384 MB RAM -- the most my machine can have.

I had never heard of SSE -- or the SSE restriction you mention -- in all the many hours and hours of reading about Flash Player, both on Adobe sites and on other sites.

So, I Googled "SSE" and found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_SIMD_Extensions

in the first paragraph it said, "In computing, Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE) is ...designed by Intel and introduced in 1999 in their Pentium III series processors...."

Later in the article, it says, "The first CPU to support SSE, the Pentium III ...."

So, obviously, my computer will not support SSE since it is a Pentium II.

But I do not think this is related in any way to why Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and all later versions) will not work at all on YouTube and only somewhat haphazardly on other sites with Flash content (as I discussed in my post # 1).

Please, halohalo, if you can provide me with some links to support your assertion of SSE being the "culprit" here, I would be very, very happy to read them. For I am trying to learn about this Flash Player 9.0.47.0 "cut-off" for successful operation -- and your help would be greatly appreciated. But, I need further information from you.

The rest of this post gives some reasons why I am skeptical of the SSE reason:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# 1) The system requirements for Flash Player 9 are given -- from an Adobe site -- at

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/productinfo/systemreqs/flashplayer9/

As you can see here, I satisfy the minimum hardware configurations -- namely, Pentium II 450 MHz processor (which is what I have) and 128MB of RAM (I have 384MB).

The page further says "Flash Player 9 is supported on the following minimum operating systems and browsers: Microsoft Windows 98 -- Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later, Firefox 1.x, Mozilla 1.x, Netscape 7.x or later, Opera 7.11 or later."

I have Windows 98, with browsers Internet Explorer 6.0, Firefox 2.0.0.20, Netscape 9.0.0.6, and Opera 9.64.

So, I meet all of Adobe's minimum requirements -- for hardware, OS, and browsers -- for Flash Player 9.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# 2) Just for some more additional information, the system requirements for Flash Player 10.1 are given at

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/

which shows that the minimum CPU requirement is Pentium II 450MHz processor -- the same as it is for Flash Player 9 ! Since SSE is not supported by Pentium II, this proves that even Flash Player 10 does not require SSE ! I could run Flash Player 10 on all my browsers if I only had Windows 2000, at a minimum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# 3) You say, "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE."

But my experience proves this statement to be false.

As I mentioned in my post # 1, Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and all later versions) works perfectly well on many sites with Flash content. If Flash Player 9.0.115.0 required SSE -- as you say -- it would not work at all on these sites.

But, on YouTube, Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and all later versions) always gives a browser crash -- with the NPSWF32.dll (i.e, Flash plugin) error -- or a computer hang or crash.

This is the real mystery that I'd like to solve. What is it about YouTube and these Flash Player versions that always leads to problems ?

Is it possible that copying the NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt files from the Firefox Flash folder to the plugins folder might get Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and later versions) working on YouTube -- as discussed in my post # 1 ? Also, will doing this not cause any harm to my browsers, computer, registry, etc. ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I could continue on in this vein about my feeling that SSE is not responsible for the imperfect behavior of Flash Player 9.0.115.0. But, I'll stop here.

Halohalo, please provide some supporting evidence for your claim that "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE." I truly want to learn here.

Many thanks, I'll be waiting on your reply (or the replies of others).

larryb123456

Edited August 14, 2010 by larryb123456

[halohalo]

http://groups.google.com/group/macromedia.players.flash/browse_thread/thread/074792ac4cca9154

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/flash-player-and-pentium-2-cpus-dont-play-nice-together/2181

http://my.opera.com/burnout426/blog/show.dml/1898430

http://forums.adobe.com/message/1019008?tstart=0

Besides, some users claim Adobe fixed the problem in Flash Player 10.

Edited August 14, 2010 by halohalo

[dencorso]

Halohalo, please provide some supporting evidence for your claim that "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE."

I truly want to learn here.

Will this do? Flash 9.0.115.0 - Crash with Pentium II

[larryb123456]

Many thanks, halohalo and dencorso for your rapid responses:

I never uncovered these websites in all the Googling I did. I guess the key was to associate Flash Player 9.0.115.0 with Pentium II. As I said in my last post, I believed the Adobe website when they said that all versions of Flash Player 9 would work with Pentium II, and I never even thought that the Pentium II might be the problem.

I skimmed over the volumes and volumes of info in your links. To be honest with you, much of it was way, way over my head. As I mentioned, I am pretty much of a novice and I do not have the expertise that you two have. I am a computer novice, but I'm not stupid. If I can get things explained to me in somewhat layman's terms, I can rapidly understand.

But, I am going to go over each and every post in the links and try to understand the best I can. Then, I'll report back and try to restate what I've learned in layman's terms, so you two can see if I've misunderstood anything. I will try to make this very organized and easy to follow. This will probably take a few days. I want to learn and I will put super-human effort into it to learn.

This is the important part of this message:

If I make numbered list of questions that can be answered with a "yes" or "no" or with a sentence or two, will you two take the time to answer ?

To be honest with you, I am a little frustrated and disappointed in that my simple questions from my last two posts have gone unanswered (like the dangers, etc. of the copy and paste of the NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt files, etc.).

It will make me feel a little better if you two could take a little more time answering me, because I am not a computer expert. If you don't want to take the time -- well, that's OK too.

Please let me know on this.

Many thanks,

larryb123456

[dencorso]

Well, larryb123456, sure we'll try our best to dispel your doubts.

And welcome to MSFN, BTW!

But bear in mind that a succession of short posts with just a few questions per post has much more chance of yielding the answers you're looking for than overlong posts with questions galore.

Provided you post each and wait for people to answer you before proceeding to the next few questions.

Some of us, if striving to answer minutely those long posts, can bury you in so many references that it will be a long time before you can digest all of them. So, in cases like this it's not at all uncommon that one focuses on one specific subject and answers just that in a post. After all, the OP can always re-ask other still unanswered parts of the initial post along the way, as the thread progresses. Easy does it.

For my Windows 98 system, the Flash Player installation folder for Firefox is C:\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash not System 32. When I suggested trying the "copy and paste" of the NPSWF32.dll from the Flash folder to the plugins folder, the person helping me on the Adobe Flash forum advised me against it, saying it might make matters worse. I never tried it, since I respected this person's expertise.

But, I couldn't understand what could be the risk.

There is no real risk in doing it.

And if it doesn't help, of course all you have to do is delete the copy. And no big problem at all.

[larryb123456]

Well, larryb123456, sure we'll try our best to dispel your doubts.

And welcome to MSFN, BTW!

But bear in mind that a succession of short posts with just a few questions per post has much more chance of yielding the answers you're looking for than overlong posts with questions galore.

Provided you post each and wait for people to answer you before proceeding to the next few questions.

Some of us, if striving to answer minutely those long posts, can bury you in so many references that it will be a long time before you can digest all of them. So, in cases like this it's not at all uncommon that one focuses on one specific subject and answers just that in a post. After all, the OP can always re-ask other still unanswered parts of the initial post along the way, as the thread progresses. Easy does it.

For my Windows 98 system, the Flash Player installation folder for Firefox is C:\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash not System 32. When I suggested trying the "copy and paste" of the NPSWF32.dll from the Flash folder to the plugins folder, the person helping me on the Adobe Flash forum advised me against it, saying it might make matters worse. I never tried it, since I respected this person's expertise.

But, I couldn't understand what could be the risk.

There is no real risk in doing it.

And if it doesn't help, of course all you have to do is delete the copy. And no big problem at all.

Hello dencorso,

What a wonderful message. I feel so much better now (being new here, I didn't know what the tone of the forum would be -- brusk or helpful).

But I did know that I needed this forum with my Windows 98 system. I would really have nowhere else to turn for specific Win 98 questions. With my 98 system, I kind of feel like a Neanderthal surrounded by Homo Sapiens (with their more advanced systems).

Many thanks for the welcome. That means a lot.

Great pointers, by the way, in how to make effective posts -- short and sweet, little bit by little bit.

Many thanks for answering the "copy and paste" question. Your answer was in tune with what I instinctively thought.

I sent a PM to diskless, who had a post in this forum, where he said he copied and pasted both the NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt files and got Flash Player 9.0.262.0 installed successfully. I want to get all the details from him.

Of course, now I know to ask him if he had a Pentium II or a Pentium III. LOL !

Thanks, dencorso

larryb123456

[dencorso]

You're welcome!

Now, while it clearly *is* possible to make 9.0.262.0 work with a Pentium II, from that link I gave you it's clear it requires a HUGE amount of careful patching with a hexeditor. It's not a simple task. So, for the time being, I'd say you'd better off if you keep using 9.0.47.0...

[diskless]

I sent a PM to diskless, who had a post in this forum, where he said he copied and pasted both the NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt files and got Flash Player 9.0.262.0 installed successfully. I want to get all the details from him.

Of course, now I know to ask him if he had a Pentium II or a Pentium III. LOL !

larryb123456

Hello larryb123456, my PC is a Pentium III 800Mhz, so the trouble I had (now solved as I described here) is not the same as yours.

[rloew]

You're welcome!

Now, while it clearly *is* possible to make 9.0.262.0 work with a Pentium II, from that link I gave you it's clear it requires a HUGE amount of careful patching with a hexeditor. It's not a simple task. So, for the time being, I'd say you'd better off if you keep using 9.0.47.0...

Another option, that I might be able to write for Windows 9x, is an Interrupt hook that can intercept these instructions and replace them dynamically.

I wrote one to run GOMPLAYER on an AMD-K6. It ran but was too slow as it could not replace the CMOV Instructions just interpret them.

I eventually added a logger and used that to do patches.

[rilef]

larryb123456,

I recommend you copy all plugins, including Flash, to the Firefox plugin folder. On startup, Firefox first looks for plugins in its plugin folder. If a plugin is not found there, Firefox will then scan your hard drive attempting to find the plugin elsewhere. So at the very least, unnecessary scans are avoided, and performance thus is increased, by putting copies of Flash and other common plugins in the Firefox plugin folder. (Note this recommendation is for older versions of Windows run on older computers only).

Even after copying all installed plugins to Firefox's plugin folder, Firefox will scan your hard drive for other plugins that were not installed. To avoid these scans, open the Firefox config file (type "about:config" in the Firefox browser's web address field). Search for the config "plugin.scan.plid.dll" and change its boolean value to false. You can also disable other plugins in Firefox 2, such as "plugin.scan.Acrobat", by changing its string value in about:config to "99" and not copying the plugin to the Firefox plugin folder. (Note, you may want to backup your Firefox profile before changing the config file. If you're uncomfortable changing the Firefox config file, with or without a profile backup, skip this config file modification).

It's been a while since I've used Netscape. But it too should benefit from copying Flash to the Netscape plugin folder. Opera routinely uses the plugins from the Firefox plugins folder, so making another copy in the Opera plugins folder should not be necessary.

Note also, by copying each plugin to each browser's plugin folder, you can use different versions of the plugin for different browsers. For example, you can use a different version of the Flash plugin in Firefox than the version of Flash you use in Netscape.

[dencorso]

Another option, that I might be able to write for Windows 9x, is an Interrupt hook that can intercept these instructions and replace them dynamically.

That would be really nice!

If you find time to do it, RLoew, I'm sure it'll be a huge help for our users who run 9x/ME on older hardware.

From the thread I pointed to in post #5, I guess the dynamical patcher would have to cater for 3 different problems, by patching: PSHUFW to MOVQ NOP; MOVNTQ to MOVQ and all PREFETCH* to NOPs (or simply jump them by advancing the IP). In any case, as no instruction has to be interpreted here, it may prove to be quite fast.

[larryb123456]

Hello, everyone:

Thanks for the rapid replies.

I have summarized my brief responses below.

At the end of this message, I have a question based on rilef's post # 12 that anyone can answer. The more answers (i.e., information) the better, IMO.

Thanks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dencorso post # 9

dencorso, thanks:

I haven't yet gone over, in detail, your and halohalo's links.

I will try to find those posts relating to the 9.0.262.0 hexeditor patching. (And I want to read all the other posts, too, like I said, just to broaden my knowledge.) Without a doubt,

this patching is certainly over my head -- and will not be tried. You are probably right about just sticking with 9.0.47.0. The helper on the Flash Player forum said I should consider myself fortunate in that I have at least one version of FP 9 working with all my non-IE browsers. I'll try the copy and paste of the Flash files with 9.0.280.0 -- the latest version -- and let you know the results.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

diskless post # 10

Thanks for responding so quickly from the PM, diskless:

Just as I suspected -- you have a Pentium III. When I read dencorso's link, I'll better understand your problem. Glad you got it solved, BTW.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rloew post # 11

Thanks, rloew:

I'll be curious to hear what you come up with. But with me being a computer novice, it will probably be way over my head. But I'm sure other more advanced members could apply it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rilef post # 12

Many thanks, rilef,

for taking the time to write a detailed, easy to understand message about the copy and paste of the Flash files. At the end of this message, I'm going to ask a question (which I've wondered about for about a month -- since I got FP 9.0.47.0 working) about the handling of the Flash files by my non-IE browsers. After I get some answers back, I'm going to try the copy and paste (with all the Flash files, as you suggest) with the latest Flash Player version -- 9.0.280.0. I'll post back the results and will probably have a question or two.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dencorso post # 13

I really appreciate the attention you have given to this message.

I'll be very happy to learn that my piddly, trivial message would lead to side benefits for others on the forum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my question -- but first, a little background:

With FP 9.0.47.0 -- which runs successfully on all three of my non-IE browsers -- "Find>Files or Folders" shows NPSWF32.dll only twice:

for Firefox in C:\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash; and

for Opera in C:\Program Files\Opera\program\plugins.

There is no mention at all of Netscape, but about:plugins and the Flash Player version tester show that 9.0.47.0 is installed OK.

The Netscape plugins folder at C:\Program Files\Netscape\Navigator 9\plugins has only npnul32.dll -- the Mozilla default plugin (which has nothing to do with Flash).

So, finally, my question(s):

In light of the above, how is Netscape 9.0.0.6 able to install the NPSWF32.dll Flash plugin and run FP 9.0.47.0 ? Is it a scan of the hard-drive (as rilef discusses for Firefox) ? If it is, what is the advantage of the scan over just putting the Flash files into the plugins folder (or another installation folder) like Firefox and Opera do ?

Many thanks everyone.

larryb123456

Edited August 15, 2010 by larryb123456

[dencorso]

Netscape scans the disk. The advantage of the scan is not needing to have multiple identical copies of the same file(s) in different places. When disks were small, that was really important. Now it's not anymore. The advantage of having multiple identical copies of the same file(s) in different places is not having to search, so loading is faster.

Copying the files of 9.0.262.0 around will not solve the fact it uses instructions your processor don't have. It's hopeless to experiment with any unpatched version of flash above 9.0.47.0. It won't get you anywhere.

If RLoew comes up with a dynamical patcher, it sure won't be above your head: it'll be just another program to install and forget. But after installing it, you'll be able to run all versions of flash above 9.0.47.0, which, at the moment, you cannot use, try as you might.

It's like trying to sweet-talk a Klingon girl (now, whoever'd want to do that?): unless she speaks English (unlikely) or you Klingon (also unlikely), no matter how sweet your talking, you won't get anywhere!

Flash above 9.0.47.0 talks some things in English, but others in Klingon... Now, a dynamical patcher works like an instantanous machine translator (but is way better), so that communication becomes possible.