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

[larryb123456]

@larryb123456 -

I can assure you that you have nothing to worry about in giving this patch a try. I have worked with RLoew before on a couple of projects, and his knowledge and expertise are invaluable.

Follow the backup instructions dencorso gave you and give it a shot.

Hello, LoneCrusader:

Thanks for your input.

Before I respond to dencorso and RLoew, I thought I'd make this short post here. I just noticed that your location is "The Heart of Appalachia" -- the *same* as mine. (Evidently, as they say, it is, indeed, "a small world".)

So, from one "Hillbilly" to another: Howdy and Yee-Haa ! !

larryb123456

[larryb123456]

Many thanks, dencorso, for the very clear step-by-step instructions. I already had the computer skills you describe -- but they say, "Pride goeth before a fall." -- so I'm *very glad* you included these steps, just to leave nothing to chance. I guess these instructions could be included as a text file in the .zip file for the Patcher -- that is, if you all are going to publicize and release this "universally".

SYSTEM.INI is a *TEXT* FILE.

Yesterday, I right-clicked on the file to get Properties, but it didn't say it was a text file, and the icon shown was not the same as for a plain-old text file (it had the text file icon but with a little "gear" on top). I had never seen -- or had needed to see -- this type of icon before, and I just assumed it was a complex file. I guess the little gear signifies "a text file that makes things work on its own".

Now highlight Copy of SYSTEM.INI, right-click on it and select Rename

Rename it to SYSTEM.ORI

---

Now you have a copy of SYSTEM.INI, which is named SYSTEM.ORI and is identical to your present SYSTEM.INI

---

Do I have to change the extension ? Normally, I would rename it to System_ORIGINAL.ini (which -- to me -- would be more "self-explanatory" and, in addition, I wouldn't have to remember what the extension was). Is this OK to do, or does still having another .ini file in the C:\Windows folder cause problems ?

[*RECOVERY PROCEDURE*] So that, if anything ever goes wrong you can just:

1) Create a copy of SYSTEM.ORI

2) Delete SYSTEM.INI

3) Rename Copy of SYSTEM.ORI to SYSTEM.INI

Result: whatever went wrong has been removed and your SYSTEM.INI is pristine once again.

I don't understand the need to create a copy of SYSTEM.ORI, since we already have SYSTEM.ORI. Couldn't the [*RECOVERY PROCEDURE*] just be:

1) Delete SYSTEM.INI

2) Rename SYSTEM.ORI to SYSTEM.INI

Please let me know on this, since if I did not have your instructions, I would have done it in the two steps above.

Now this question is important to my understanding (RLoew might have answered it, but I haven't read his message, in detail, yet):

In the five seconds or so between your steps 2) and 3) above -- or between my two steps above -- the computer will not have *any* SYSTEM.INI in the C:\WINDOWS folder.

Can this cause a problem ?

(I would think not, since I think SYSTEM.INI is used *only* at startup -- if I understand correctly.)

At this point you'll have acquired all the skills needed to edit system.ini

So that you can decide just how hard it is.

It doesn't seem hard at all. I think even Forrest Gump could do it.

I phoned my nephew -- who is very proficient in computers -- and described all that I'm planning to do with the installation of the VXD file and the System.ini editing. He knew right away what I was talking about and said he had done stuff like that before. (I called him because I would need his help in getting my computer to boot up again if something went horribly wrong.)

I told him I would e-mail him the link to page 2 in the morning (and cite the pertinent messages) to get his final opinion. I'm 99 % sure he will say, "Go for it", so I will then test out the Patcher tomorrow if he consents.

Many thanks, dencorso

larryb123456

[dencorso]

Of course you can rename the "Copy of SYSTEM.INI" to:

"This_is_that_back-up_copy_of_System.InI_we_disscussed_about.MY_BACK-UP.txt"

if you so wish. And you can as well even let it remain named "Copy of SYSTEM.INI", for what's it worth. But I'm a DOS minded user, who prefers to have a plain, all-caps, DOS compatible, easy to find under either DOS or Windows, 8.3 file-name, when at all possible, especially for my backups. So, no matter how much effort I may do to think like you would (in my opinion), I'll always end-up getting caught thinking like myself. It's unavoidable.

Of course you can simply delete SYSTEM.INI and rename the backup to SYSTEM.INI. But then you stop having a backup, whereas if you copy the backup and rename the copy, you still have a backup.

No, it's harmless. As you've guessed correctly, SYSTEM.INI is used *only* at startup. Provided there is one there before you reboot, restart or shut down, there is no problem at all.

Please understand that, to install RLoew's file you'll have to:

1) copy the P3CPU.VXD to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM

2) create a backup of SYSTEM.INI

3) edit SYSTEM.INI to add the line

DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

anywhere at the section [386Enh]

4) reboot.

[*New info*] But to disable P3CPU.VXD, it's enough to

1) edit SYSTEM.INI to add a semicolon before the line

DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

at the section [386Enh], so that it becomes

;DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

2) reboot.

And to re-enable it you:

1) edit SYSTEM.INI to remove the semicolon from before the line

;DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

at the section [386Enh], so that it becomes

DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

2) reboot.

Of course you can delete the line instead of just putting a semicolon before it, but that's just in case you want to remove it for good. Just to disable the VxD before, say, updating flash to a higher version, the semicolon will do great.

Whatever is between a semicolon and the end-of-the-line in SYSTEM.INI is understood by Windows to be a comment, and is not acted upon.

[larryb123456]

Hello, dencorso and RLeow:

This is how I will operate the Patcher:

(Doing it this way is a little more comfortable to me. I think I can keep my "ducks in a row" a little better.)

After dropping the VXD file into the C:\Windows\System folder, I will just leave it there and not bother it again -- no renaming or anything. As I understand it, the "controller" on the Patcher is the System.ini file. The original System.ini file will not *activate* the Patcher, and the VXD file in the System folder will not cause any problems in this case (it will more or less be like a jpeg file that I made, myself, and dropped in -- of no actual consequence.)

On the C drive, I'll put a folder titled "RLOEW PATCHER" with two folders inside: "Original" and "Patcher". The first thing I will do is copy the original System.ini to the first folder and the edited System.ini to the second. Next, I will make a copy of each file in their respective folders. That is, the "Original" folder will have System.ini and Copy of System.ini. The "Patcher" folder will also have System.ini and Copy of System.ini, but here, of course, "System.ini" refers to the edited version.

That completes the setup -- accomplished in no time at all.

In the "Original" and "Patcher" folders, I will *keep* the respective "Copy of System.ini".

So, if I want the Patcher *turned on*, I will delete System.ini (the original one) from the C:\Windows folder, make Copy 2 of System.ini in the Patcher folder, and then rename it to System.ini. I will then drop this System.ini into the C:\Windows folder and reboot.

Because I have kept the two Copy of System.ini files, I can generate an infinite number of both the original and edited System.ini.

To delete System.ini (either the original or edited version), I'II do a "Start>Find>Files or Folders" for System.ini and delete it from the dialog box. This is very quick, and there is less chance of making a mistake that way. (In the C:\Windows folder there is a "forest" of files and it would be very easy to delete the wrong "tree" -- at least, for me.)

If I happen to forget whether or not I have the Patcher turned on, I can simply open the System.ini file in C:\Windows and look for the line of edit.

Dencorso and RLeow, the above is just the way I like to work, because I easily make mistakes and the above approach makes it simpler for *me*. (It makes it so I don't have to concentrate as much.)

Do either of you see anything wrong with this approach ?

I am doing it this way just in case some of my graphics programs or media players, etc. don't work well with the patcher. Then I could *simply* and quickly turn the Patcher off while using these programs and turn it back on when I wanted to browse the web and play YouTube videos.

Many thanks.

larryb123456

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

P.S., RLeow:

I got your P3cpu.vxd file from the zip. Thanks.

You said:

Add the line:

Device=P3CPU.VXD

under the [386Enh] Header in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.INI

My question (just to make sure there are no errors):

Does the line go *immediately under* the [386Enh] Header -- that is, on the next line below the Header ?

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

I just noticed in dencorso's latest message that he said you could put it anywhere

under the Header. I think I'll put it right below the Header, since I can more

easily find the line if I forget whether the Patcher is on or off.

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

The latest FP 9 is 9.0.280.0 -- released July 29, 2010.

I will try your Patcher with that version -- and really put it to the test !

I am still working on that message post I told you about. I should get it to you shortly.

larryb123456

P.P.S., Is it safe to defrag the disk with the Patcher on ? I would guess not. In any event, just to play it safe, I will make sure the Patcher is turned off before defragging.

[larryb123456]

...I'll always end-up getting caught thinking like myself. It's unavoidable.

Invariably, thinking like *myself* generally leads to problems. (Plus, too much thinking always gives me a headache. LOL !)

[*New info*] But to disable P3CPU.VXD, it's enough to

1) edit SYSTEM.INI to add a semicolon before the line

DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

at the section [386Enh], so that it becomes

;DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

2) reboot.

And to re-enable it you:

1) edit SYSTEM.INI to remove the semicolon from before the line

;DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

at the section [386Enh], so that it becomes

DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

2) reboot.

Of course you can delete the line instead of just putting a semicolon before it, but that's just in case you want to remove it for good. Just to disable the VxD before, say, updating flash to a higher version, the semicolon will do great.

Whatever is between a semicolon and the end-of-the-line in SYSTEM.INI is understood by Windows to be a comment, and is not acted upon.

That is interesting, dencorso and so simple -- much moreso than the "renaming". And the VxD file just stays left alone and forgotten about in the C:\Windows\System folder. I am sure that I'll end up using this approach when I'm testing the Patcher. So interesting: the semi-colon turns the line into a comment and not an action.

As they say in Hillbilly country, there are many ways to "skin a cat".

With the above, you are not trying to turn me into a code writer are you ? (LOL !) If you spent a million years on it, I might just reach first base.

Seriously, though, can you check out *my* suggested approach of the "Original" and "Patcher" folders and let me know if that would work too. (I'm sure it would.)

Many thanks for the great info, dencorso.

larryb123456

[larryb123456]

Hello, rleow -- and thanks for your patience.

I have a few more questions, and you can answer as before if you want -- that is, Question Letter followed by a short answer.

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

In earlier posts:

You said, "The Patcher can affect the File Cache, so do not copy or move the Flash files while the Patcher is running. Disable the Patcher and reboot first."

Then I said, "# 7 a) Can you explain what *you* mean by File Cache, in relation to your Patcher ?"

And you answered, "#7a. Windows 98 caches Program Files in RAM. The Code is supposed to be "Read Only" so Windows assumes that it represents the File Data. My Patcher runs in Kernel Mode so it can change the Code. If another Program reads the affected File, it will see the modified data and not the actual data on Hard Disk."

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

Question A : What would happen if I moved the Flash files around while the Patcher was running ?

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

Question B : I know that there are browser cache and computer cache. In all your discussions about *cache* you are only talking about *computer cache* and *never*, *never* about browser cache -- correct ?

Question C: So, I can empty browser cache while your Patcher is running -- correct ?

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

Question D : With "Kernel Mode", are you saying that you are basically installing KernelEx (GULP ! -- LOL !) on my system to turn my Pentium II into a Pentium III ?

It is clear that my computer would have to *behave* as a Pentium III for *all* FP 9 to work on *all* web sites with Flash content.

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

You say, "If another Program reads the affected File, it will see the modified data and not the actual data on Hard Disk."

Question E : Your Patcher enters into play *only* when there are "invalid instructions" (or other kinds of problems) that pop up -- correct ?

Question F : None of my (most used) installed programs give "invalid instructions" (or other problems), so your Patcher would leave them alone and these programs would operate *exactly* as they would with your Patcher turned off -- correct ?

Take Photoshop, for example. I want it to see the *actual data* on the hard disk when it opens a bitmap -- and *not* some Patcher modification of this data.

Question G : Your Patcher will *never*, *never* modify the bitmap data on the hard disk when Photoshop opens a bitmap file - correct ?

Question H : Suppose there were a problem -- like some kind of invalid instruction -- when Photoshop tried to open a bitmap file. With its actions, your Patcher would not *permanently* alter the data in this bitmap file on the hard disk -- correct ?

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

Thanks in advance for your answers, rleow. I think these are all the questions I'II have, unless, of course, my nephew comes up with some.

As to your earlier question as to why some Videos work with the newer Versions. The websites don't determine what instructions are executed on your Computer, but different Videos use different features of the Flash Software. Some portions of the Flash software use the problem instructions while others don't. So some websites might work but others like YouTube use the Flash features that cause the errors.

Just as I thought -- Pentium II is not the *whole* problem with FP > 9.0.47.0.

You just don't know what your answer means to me. (I was seriously beginning to doubt my reasoning ability, logical mindset, and powers of observation -- LOL !)

The reason I said that a *website* could also be a part of the problem were my *numerous* experiences of just going on a site with Flash content -- and doing *absolutely nothing* (no attempted video playing at all, etc.) -- and having my browser crash or getting a computer hang or crash (either immediately or after 15 to 30 seconds or so).

What could be the explanation behind this ?

An answer to this question would greatly fill a big gap in my understanding.

Thanks, rleow.

larryb123456

[rloew]

Many of the things you are worrying about would have been listed in my Warnings if they could occur.

Since this is a test, not a release version, I don't expect you to keep the Patcher running for any extended time so Programs such as Photoshop should not even be run. There may be more

A: Although the files themselves are not modified, copies made from them may incorporate some or all of the Patches made if the File is or has been Executed.

After the tests are complete, you may be able to take advantage of this to make the changes permanent so you will no longer need the Patcher running.

B: Correct

C: Correct

D: No. KernelEx is a package of modified API's between Applications and the Kernel. It is not even Kernel code. My Patcher is incorporated into the Kernel itself and has only handles the 3 known Pentium III Instructions in the Flash code.

E: Only 3 types of "invalid instructions". No other kinds of problems.

F: Correct.

G: Only Executables can be affected, never Bitmaps.

H: If it did, my Patcher would Patch Photoshop itself, not the Bitmap File. You would also have to copy the affected Photoshop Executable or DLL to see the change.

[larryb123456]

Hello rleow (and dencorso, also):

I think I'll edit System.ini to put the following in section [386Enh]:

;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

That way, the edit line -- or "Patcher Controller" -- will "pop out" when I open System.ini, and I won't have to remember the section number. Of course, this would really become "valuable" only if I kept your Patcher on my system and needed to turn it on and off frequently.

Does the above editing look OK to do ? (I'm sure it does.)

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

My nephew got back to me and he had no additional questions.

He said, "I don't see any harm in it. Go for it."

So, I will.

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

Rleow, I hope you are not tired of answering my (seemingly endless) questions.

Like I said, I don't have any more questions at *this* point.

This is the way I learn something new -- by a series of simple-minded questions. (Plus, trying to find answers on the internet -- but on the internet, it's easy to get lost in a forest of verbiage and misinformation.)

I really appreciate your patience and clear answers.

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

You say, in answering Question A:

A: Although the files themselves are not modified, copies made from them may incorporate some or all of the Patches made if the File is or has been Executed.

After the tests are complete, you may be able to take advantage of this to make the changes permanent so you will no longer need the Patcher running.

What a *fantastic* answer.

This is *exactly* what I have been looking for -- individual versions of FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 that I can make work *everywhere* -- especially on YouTube. Basically, you are "patching" FP 9 -- something that Adobe should have done a long time ago.

That way, I will not need your Patcher (that is, I can turn it off), and I can run all my other installed programs exactly as I have been doing -- without any trepidations.

But, I will save your Patcher and use it again to patch FP > 9.0.280.0, as these versions are released.

Please, rleow, if you make updates to your Patcher in the future, please e-mail me (the best way) or PM me.

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

So, first, I will try FP 9.0.280.0 and report back whether or not it worked on YouTube.

If it doesn't work, I'll turn your Patcher off, reboot, and then I'll uninstall FP 9.0.280.0

and go back to 9.0.47.0 and await your next instructions -- and your next Patcher version.

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

YouTube has always been the "hard nut to crack", so if your Patcher works here, I'm sure it will work everywhere. But, if you want me to try it on other *known* problem sites, just let me know, and I will.

If your Patcher works, I will get the details from you on what FP 9.0.280.0 files to copy to make the changes permanent -- that is I'll list the files in my two installation folders (one for Firefox, the other for Opera -- Netscape does a scan) and you can tell me *exactly* what files to copy. (Less chance for error that way.)

I have the *whole* FP 9 archive backed up, so if we ruin this test FP 9.0.280.0, I'll be able to get the original copy -- "licketty split".

It will be an hour or two before I can test your Patcher. I've got a few errands to run.

Thanks, rleow.

larryb123456

[rloew]

Don't be too quick to uninstall the newer Flash if it doesn't work. I may be able to add more Patches quickly.

If you still get "Illegal Instruction" Errors, open the details, write down the 16 Byte Code Trace at the bottom and post them.

[larryb123456]

Hello, rleow:

Your Patcher is *almost* working.

I'II bet you will get it *completely* working in no time at all.

I am not done -- by any means -- in my reporting to you about all the possible "glitches"

that I might find on YouTube.

The *great* news is that I never suffered *any kind* of crash *at all* in my limited testing

on YouTube. (I'm going to do some some more testing later on tonight -- the good thing is

that this will let me relax a little and listen to some music.)

First, I tried just a few videos at random -- in a *very* haphazard way -- and, *in all

cases", the audio played *great*.

I only tested your Patcher with Firefox 2.0.0.20 and FP 9.0.280.0.

I have a long list of my favorite song URL's and I knew *exactly* how each song *should

play* on YouTube, since I had seen them play successfully with FP 9.0.47.0. So, this

gives a very firm basis of comparison.

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

As an example of a problem, let me cite:

Bjork "All is Full of Love" (live)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvoEZXop4zM&NR=1

The song was 3:49 long. At 2:37 (+ or - a second or two) the video froze up on screen and

*stayed* that way until the audio was *completely* finished. (The audio played *great*

throughout -- no skipping or freeze-up, etc.) *As soon as* the audio was completed, the video

started back up from where it had frozen up at 2:37 and completed playing as it should have

(but there was no audio playing during this time -- the audio was already finished). Strange

to observe, indeed.

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

I will spend the next few hours documenting, in detail -- as above -- the behavior of some

more YouTube videos -- and you will have these results in the morning (my time). By

collecting this data we can see if there is a *uniform* problem with your Patcher on

YouTube. This might allow you to more easily fix it.

larryb123456

P.S., rleow:

I just saw your post # 39. I will leave FP 9.0.280.0 installed. "Will do" about the details

of any "Illegal Instruction" Errors. Thanks.

Edited September 17, 2010 by dencorso
Added "code" tags to suppress the embedded players.

[rloew]

As an example of a problem, let me cite:

Bjork "All is Full of Love" (live)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvoEZXop4zM&NR=1

The song was 3:49 long. At 2:37 (+ or - a second or two) the video froze up on screen and

*stayed* that way until the audio was *completely* finished. (The audio played *great*

throughout -- no skipping or freeze-up, etc.) *As soon as* the audio was completed, the video

started back up from where it had frozen up at 2:37 and completed playing as it should have

(but there was no audio playing during this time -- the audio was already finished). Strange

to observe, indeed.

Is this problem repeatable?

Try playing this Video without my Patcher running. What happens at 2:37, assuming it gets that far?

[dencorso]

A: Although the files themselves are not modified, copies made from them may incorporate some or all of the Patches made if the File is or has been Executed.

After the tests are complete, you may be able to take advantage of this to make the changes permanent so you will no longer need the Patcher running.

You mean that after Win9x/ME caches a file, due to executing it, it'll never go back to the file (until reboot), so that if one uses flash intensively enough, so that all missing instructions get patched, and then copies the file, the resulting copy will be made from the cached copy, not from the actual stored file. It makes perfect sense, but I hadn't realized it'd work like this until you mentioned it. However if the machine is used intensively enough, with many other programs, without ever going back to flash, the cached file may end up flushed to make room for others, may it not? So the surest way to obtain a patched file would be to use flash intensively enough, and then copy the flash files right away, just to be on the safe side, right?

@larryb123456: I'm glad to see you are now testing the patcher. And that the initial results are promising. Welcome to the world of patched executables and related tricks! This is the only way open for us 9x/ME users to keep up to date enough, at this point of time.

[rloew]

A: Although the files themselves are not modified, copies made from them may incorporate some or all of the Patches made if the File is or has been Executed.

After the tests are complete, you may be able to take advantage of this to make the changes permanent so you will no longer need the Patcher running.

You mean that after Win9x/ME caches a file, due to executing it, it'll never go back to the file (until reboot), so that if one uses flash intensively enough, so that all missing instructions get patched, and then copies the file, the resulting copy will be made from the cached copy, not from the actual stored file. It makes perfect sense, but I hadn't realized it'd work like this until you mentioned it. However if the machine is used intensively enough, with many other programs, without ever going back to flash, the cached file may end up flushed to make room for others, may it not? So the surest way to obtain a patched file would be to use flash intensively enough, and then copy the flash files right away, just to be on the safe side, right?

It will go back to the File if the cached copy is discarded to make room for other stuff. Depending on usage and File Cache size, some or all of the Patches may or may not be there when the files are copied. It may even be necessary to copy the files while the Flash Video is running. It may also be necessary to repeat the process multiple times, and probably with multiple Videos to get all of the Patches saved.

Of course there may be other problems that will not be fixed. The first problem larryb123456 found may not even be related to Pentium II issues.

[larryb123456]

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

Rleow, I just saw your message # 41.

For *all* FP > 9.0.47.0 -- without your Patcher -- the video would crash (i.e., a browser crash or a computer hang or crash) *immediately* on loading. It would *never* get anywhere close to 2:37.

Take my word on it -- I have wasted an *inordinate* amount of time trying (without *any* success *at all*) to get FP > 9.0.47.0 to work on *YouTube*. In fact, I probably hold the world's record for the number of *computer* crashes in this pursuit -- LOL !

Rleow, you have made *great* strides with your Patcher.

You have broken through the "9.0.47.0 barrier" ! You are like Chuck Yeager breaking through the sound barrier ! !

That's one small step for (a) man, a giant leap for mankind !

As for repeating the Bjork behavior, *this time* the screen was totally black (i.e.,no video at all) while the audio played great all the way through. When the audio ended, that was the end of it. In this regard, Bjork's video is the same as the two MGMT videos discussed below.

From reading my discussions below, it seems that what your Patcher needs to do is to *activate* both the audio and video at the *same time* -- at the *beginning* of the song -- and try to get them to play together in synch thereafter. Is it hard to modify your code to do this ?

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

Hello, rleow:

I thought I'd send you these results now, because there is a definite pattern emerging. If I

had to describe, now, the *overall behavior* of your Patcher on Youtube in one *simple* thought,

I'd say: The audio plays all the way through first, without video, and when the audio stops,

the video plays all the way through without audio.

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

My internet service was down for a couple of hours, so that is why I could not get this to

you quicker.

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

Here are some additional Youtube results (with Firefox 2.0.20.0 and FP 9.0.280.0).

I'll continue doing this (I might uncover some other types of glitches) until I hear from you.

Anyway, I'm enjoying listening to the music.

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

Kate Bush "Army Dreamers" video at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdHOm256N4&feature=related

Similar behavior to Bjork video discussed in my last post, except that the video froze up

*immediately* on starting -- and stayed frozen -- while the audio played *great* all the way

through. *As soon as* the audio was finished, the video started playing -- without audio --

all the way through. The video played *great* all the way through -- without any freeze

ups like in the Bjork video.

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

House of Pain "Jump Around" video at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwQbPgouUYo

Results identical to Kate Bush video above.

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

MGMT "Time to Pretend" video at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=canpQNO6Wgs

Black screen while the audio played great all the way through. Then, that was it. No

audio shown at all. Since this behavior was different from the behavior of all the previously

discussed cases, I thought I'd try another MGMT video.

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

MGMT "Electric Feel" video at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmZexg8sxyk 

The video opened with a 10 -15 second Google ad -- in the player -- which played great all

the way through (audio and video in sync).

When the MGMT video started, the results were *identical* to those discussed above for

MGMT.

All the videos, I've tried are "somewhat" recent, so I thought I'd try an "oldie but goodie".

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

The Teddy Bears "To Know Him is to Love Him" video (live) at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCnUsInBQws

Black screen while the audio played great all the way through. Then, as soon as the

audio was finished, the video played great all the way through without any audio.

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

Hope this helps.

larryb123456

Edited September 17, 2010 by dencorso
Added "code" tags to suppress the embedded players.

[dencorso]

OK, larryb123456! Now let's stop using Firefox. Try Opera, Netscape and it would be great if you also tried IE6SP1, because it uses a different flash executable. Try the exact same videos, and lets see what happens.

If the problem persists, then do it all over again with 9.0.115.0... Let's get to the bottom of it!

Now, BTW, while RLoew's patcher allows flash to run, it (at least in principle) shouldn't be affecting the video/audio sync. There sure is more to this problem, but I doubt it's related to the patcher...