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

[rloew]

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.

I have written the Dynamic Patcher. It Patches test code, but I don't have a suitable Flash setup to fully test it.

There are no Klingon girls in my area. No Romulans either.

[larryb123456]

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

Note to dencorso: I know you talked about overly long posts, but please forgive me on this one. I'll never have another one this long. It's kind of like Forrest Gump talking computers, so it will be easy to zip through, without the reader having to concentrate at all. There aren't many questions at all. This documents my Forrest Gump effort to prove that you were right about Pentium III. LOL !

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

Hello, rilef:

I read dencorso's post # 15, before I did all the work described here. I'm sure when dencorso reads this message he will shake his head in disbelief and say, "When will larryb123456 learn to take the advice of an expert ?" LOL !

But you suggested the copy and paste of all Flash files, and I'm sure you are interested in the results.

To be honest, I was very interested and curious also, because I had read before that it had helped others -- and I had never tried it before. They say, "curiousity killed the cat", but dencorso said I had nothing to worry about with the copy and paste. So, all I had to lose by doing it was a little time and energy.

So, this curious cat proceeded onward. MEOW !

I recommend you copy all plugins, including Flash, to the Firefox plugin folder.

I did so.

The plugins folder already had npnul32.dlI in it, and I copied all the files from the

Macromed\Flash folder: flashplayer.xpt, install.log, NPSWF32.dll, NPSWF32_FlashUtil.exe, and uninstall_plugin.exe.

(There were no IE Flash files in the Macromed\Flash folder, since I had uninstalled 9.0.47.0 -- which removed all FP, including IE -- and I did not reinstall the IE Flash Player.)

The complete details of what I did are in the appendix at the bottom of this message.

I only considered Firefox 2.0.0.20, and not Netscape and Opera. Also, I only considered FP 9.0.115.0, since I figured that newer versions -- up to the latest version, 9.0.280.0 -- might have additional complexities or restrictions. Also, I only considered

http://www.youtube.com/

since this has been my primary focus all along.

In a nutshell, none of the file moving I tried worked to get a video to play on YouTube with FP 9.0.115.0. I was very systematic in my approach, I and tried different

file combinations. If you want, rilef, check over what I did, and see if you find any errors or if you want me to try something a little different (say like a different combination of files). Let me know.

But, it certainly looks like dencorso was right in post # 15 when he said "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."

It will take me a few hours (or maybe tomorrow) to respond to dencorso's post, since I want to do a little more reading first, so I can ask more intelligent questions.

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.

Are you saying that by increasing Firefox performance, FP 9.0.115.0 might be more able to play a video on YouTube ? This increase in performance just applies to browser startup (i.e., speed of opening) -- correct ? Once the FP plugin is installed, Firefox doesn't have to do anymore searching as long as it's open -- correct ? When you click on a Flash video to play, Firefox doesn't have to start searching all over again, does it ? (If it did have to start searching all over again, I could see that a big increase in speed might allow a video to play on YouTube by not having the connection "time out" and crash.)

It seems your rationale for the copy and paste was just to get Firefox to open quicker and not -- necessarily -- to get a video to play on YouTube with FP 9.0.115.0. Am I correct here ?

If you're uncomfortable changing the Firefox config file, with or without a profile backup, skip this config file modification.

I'm basically a computer novice, and the thought of doing something like this makes me very nervous. But, thanks for taking the additional time to provide the info.

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.

An older version of Netscape I used (I think it was Netscape 7) indeed installed to a Netscape plugins folder. But Netscape 9.0.0.6 -- which I use now -- only scans the hard drive, and does not install to a plugins folder (see dencorso's post # 15). You are correct about Opera.

Sorry for the long winded message, rilef, but it's kind of simple-minded, so you should be able to zip right through it.

The details of the copy and paste are given in the appendix below, if you care to read them.

Thanks, rilef

larryb123456

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

Appendix: copying Firefox Flash files from Macromed\Flash to the FF plugins folder in trying to get FP 9.0.115.0 to work on YouTube

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

I wanted to do all this just to prove to myself that the file copying either would or would not work. Recall, I'd read that it had helped others -- so this provided the motivation. And I had never tried it before. In no way was it done to question dencorso's expertise or to prove him wrong.

Each time on YouTube, I did an artist search (for the same song) and then clicked on the little jpeg image link to start the video. Everything was fine until the black rectangle came up where the video was supposed to be; the little gray circle in the center would spin for 2 or 3 seconds and stop; and then I'd get a browser crash (with the NPSWF32.dll error), or a computer hang, or a computer hang or crash on reboot. (I rebooted between each step below.)

# 1) The plugins folder already had npnul32.dlI in it, and I copied all the files from the

Macromed\Flash folder: flashplayer.xpt, install.log, NPSWF32.dll, NPSWF32_FlashUtil.exe, and uninstall_plugin.exe. No luck with this.

# 2) I removed the .exe's to leave npnul32.dll, flashplayer.xpt, install.log, and NPSWF32.dll. No luck with this.

# 3) I removed install.log to leave npnul32.dll, flashplayer.xpt, and NPSWF32.dll. No luck with this.

# 4) I removed flashplayer.xpt to leave npnul32.dll and NPSWF32.dll. No luck with this.

It then dawned on me that I had not checked to see if hardware acceleration was enabled or not. To my disappointment, it was enabled. (I remembered that many people had said that turning hardware acceleration off finally allowed videos to play.)

So -- being the hardhead that I am (LOL !) -- I turned hardware acceleration off and repeated the above 4 steps with exactly the same results -- no luck at all.

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

The End

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

Edited August 16, 2010 by larryb123456

[larryb123456]

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

Hello, dencorso:

I just wanted to touch base here. I want to spend a day or two reading about the mechanics of swf, embedded videos, how browsers access videos, etc. -- stuff I've never read about before. I want to try to understand these mechanics better and to also read over your and halohalo's links in more detail.

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

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.

What a clear, concise explanation.

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.

Forrest Gump proved you correct in my last post.

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.

By being a computer novice, certain words send up red flags, shut my brain down, and make me want to run for the hills. Among these words are patch, registry, hexeditor, KernelEx, etc.

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!

Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame, of course. By no means am I a trekie (or trecker), but I recall (or have heard about) one of the most famous Star Trek episodes. It concerns the fact that Vulcan males succumb to an overwhelming desire to mate -- that is, they go into "heat" (LOL !) -- once every seven years. Supposedly, they must mate then or die. (Talk about pressure to perform !) Well, the Enterprise took Spock back to his home planet, but the Vulcan girl he was supposed to mate with rejected him and chose, instead, a full blooded Vulcan -- (Spock was half Earthling, half Vulcan) -- even though Spock tried all the Vulcan sweet talk he could think of. (Maybe he should have included Vulcan roses and Vulcan chocolates in the deal !) I don't know how Spock escaped death because he didn't mate, and, frankly, I don't care. Like I said, I am not a treker.

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.

This is kind of what my reading is centered on -- to learn more about such topics -- and related topics. That was a great analogy by the way. You are learning to speak Forrest-Gumpian (which I can more easily understand).

Many thanks, dencorso.

larryb123456

[rloew]

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.

By being a computer novice, certain words send up red flags, shut my brain down, and make me want to run for the hills. Among these words are patch, registry, hexeditor, KernelEx, etc.

My Patcher does all the work. All you have to do is drop one file into your SYSTEM folder, add one line to your SYSTEM.INI file and reboot.

Then you run the video. By the time you get back from the hills, the video should say "THE END".

[dencorso]

@larryb123456: With all due respect, stop chasing your tail and volunteer to test RLoew's patch, man!

He's just solved your problem!!! And did it lightning fast!!!

But you're the only one with the proper hardware and software configuration to test it right away.

So test it now, I bet it'll get you running 9.0.262.0 in all your browsers, and all you need to do is just install it.

Do an effort, restart your brain and get yourself round to do it *right away*!

You have the rest of your life to learn as much as you like about the problem in particular and about computer science in general!

[rilef]

larryb123456,

My previous post was a response only to disagree with this portion of what you said in post #1:

"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."

Note I copied three files from the Flash installation folder in "C:/Windows/System/Macromed\Flash" to each browser's plugin folder, not just the "NPSWF32.dll" file:

flashplayer.xpt

NPSWF32_FlashUtil.exe

NPSWF32.dll

For my Windows 98SE computer, I'm using Flash 9.0.277.0 for Opera 10.61 and using Flash 10.0.45.2(with kernelex) for the Firefox 3.5 and Prism browsers. There were/are no issues running either Flash version, including running Flash on YouTube. So, I don't understand (and have no suggestions) why you're unable to use a Flash version newer than Flash Player 9.0.47.0.

[dencorso]

@rilef: He cannot use Flash > 9.0.47.0 because the higher versions need instructions his processor doesn't know.

It's that simple. halohalo pointed it out in post # 2. And RLoew developed a program (I imagine it's a VxD) that traps the "unknown instruction" faults and then intelligently substitutes or jumps over those instructions, according to which instruction caused the fault, thus enabling the system to overcome the processor limitations in such a way that it becomes able to run the higher versions of Flash 9 (as well as whatever other program that uses those selfsame missing instructions).

[larryb123456]

By being a computer novice, certain words send up red flags, shut my brain down, and make me want to run for the hills. Among these words are patch, registry, hexeditor, KernelEx, etc.

My Patcher does all the work. All you have to do is drop one file into your SYSTEM folder, add one line to your SYSTEM.INI file and reboot.

Then you run the video. By the time you get back from the hills, the video should say "THE END".

In the C:\Windows\System folder -- correct ? What is the name of this drop-in file (so I can check out the extension, etc.) ? I have two System.ini files: in C:\Windows and in C:\Backup. By adding one line to the System.ini file, you just mean "rename" it -- right ? We'll just rename the .ini in C:\Windows and leave the one in C:\Backup alone -- right ?

If you sense I might be a little overly cautious here, it's because this is my only computer and if it gets messed up, I will not be able to get another one.

I know that the System.ini has to do with startup, etc. and specifies what programs are loaded at startup -- that is, if I understand Google correctly. I certainly don't understand the totality of the file or -- if the truth be known -- anything at all about it.

Have you modified System.ini just so that it affects the browsers and Flash Player only -- (or I guess just for Flash Player since it's to fix a bug in it) ? I have many important programs that I can't afford to lose (like Photoshop, Corel Draw, Adobe Illustrator, and others, etc). All of my installation CD's and manuals, etc. were destroyed (in a sad, sad story that I won't go into here) -- so if the programs are uninstalled or corrupted, or if they just disappear, I'll be totally out of luck.

I also need to be reassured that if the patch doesn't work -- (or if my other programs don't work as before) -- that Windows will open as usual so I can navigate thru my folders to undo the patch.

To summarize, can you explain -- that is, if you don't mind -- in somewhat simplified terms -- how the patch works, and how it interacts with my Windows 98 system and other installed programs, like Photoshop, for example ?

By the time I get back from the hills, I sure hope it's the video saying "THE END", and not my computer saying "THE END". LOL !

... volunteer to test RLoew's patch, man! ...

He's just solved your problem!!! ...

But you're the only one with the proper hardware and software configuration to test it right away.

So test it now, I bet it'll get you running 9.0.262.0 in all your browsers, and all you need to do is just install it.

Do an effort, restart your brain and get yourself round to do it *right away*!

When I feel just a little bit more comfortable knowing the details of the patch and how it works, I will certainly volunteer. I don't like the word "test", because it causes me to wonder about the ramifications if the "test" fails. I don't think it will be much longer before I get the explanations and reassurances I need for me to test it.

Dencorso, did you kind of double-check the code (if that's the right word) of the patch ?

But right now, the patch is kind of like a "pig in a poke". In the newspaper not too long ago, I read a story about a guy who installed a "pig in a poke" into his computer. In no time at all, the pig grew to be ten feet tall and ate his computer. Then it ate his house and his car. Finally, for good measure, it ate his wife.

Thanks for your efforts.

BTW, all this is very interesting to me.

larryb123456

[dencorso]

I have not actually seen the patch. RLoew has my complete trust in his ability and expertise. He's one of our most expert coders. I do use various programs written by him. You'd know that, by now, if you had read around more.

However, any just developed program, no matter how well tested by the developer, may have an unforeseen behaviour when deployed in a different machine. That's why they are called beta software. If you want 0% risk, you'd better stick to my first advice, keep using 9.0.47.0 and just forget about this matter. I'm sure others will come forward to test this new patch by RLoew. The decision is yours alone.

[rloew]

By being a computer novice, certain words send up red flags, shut my brain down, and make me want to run for the hills. Among these words are patch, registry, hexeditor, KernelEx, etc.

My Patcher does all the work. All you have to do is drop one file into your SYSTEM folder, add one line to your SYSTEM.INI file and reboot.

Then you run the video. By the time you get back from the hills, the video should say "THE END".

In the C:\Windows\System folder -- correct ? What is the name of this drop-in file (so I can check out the extension, etc.) ? I have two System.ini files: in C:\Windows and in C:\Backup. By adding one line to the System.ini file, you just mean "rename" it -- right ? We'll just rename the .ini in C:\Windows and leave the one in C:\Backup alone -- right ?

If you sense I might be a little overly cautious here, it's because this is my only computer and if it gets messed up, I will not be able to get another one.

I know that the System.ini has to do with startup, etc. and specifies what programs are loaded at startup -- that is, if I understand Google correctly. I certainly don't understand the totality of the file or -- if the truth be known -- anything at all about it.

Have you modified System.ini just so that it affects the browsers and Flash Player only -- (or I guess just for Flash Player since it's to fix a bug in it) ? I have many important programs that I can't afford to lose (like Photoshop, Corel Draw, Adobe Illustrator, and others, etc). All of my installation CD's and manuals, etc. were destroyed (in a sad, sad story that I won't go into here) -- so if the programs are uninstalled or corrupted, or if they just disappear, I'll be totally out of luck.

I also need to be reassured that if the patch doesn't work -- (or if my other programs don't work as before) -- that Windows will open as usual so I can navigate thru my folders to undo the patch.

To summarize, can you explain -- that is, if you don't mind -- in somewhat simplified terms -- how the patch works, and how it interacts with my Windows 98 system and other installed programs, like Photoshop, for example ?

By the time I get back from the hills, I sure hope it's the video saying "THE END", and not my computer saying "THE END". LOL !

... volunteer to test RLoew's patch, man! ...

He's just solved your problem!!! ...

But you're the only one with the proper hardware and software configuration to test it right away.

So test it now, I bet it'll get you running 9.0.262.0 in all your browsers, and all you need to do is just install it.

Do an effort, restart your brain and get yourself round to do it *right away*!

When I feel just a little bit more comfortable knowing the details of the patch and how it works, I will certainly volunteer. I don't like the word "test", because it causes me to wonder about the ramifications if the "test" fails. I don't think it will be much longer before I get the explanations and reassurances I need for me to test it.

Dencorso, did you kind of double-check the code (if that's the right word) of the patch ?

But right now, the patch is kind of like a "pig in a poke". In the newspaper not too long ago, I read a story about a guy who installed a "pig in a poke" into his computer. In no time at all, the pig grew to be ten feet tall and ate his computer. Then it ate his house and his car. Finally, for good measure, it ate his wife.

Thanks for your efforts.

BTW, all this is very interesting to me.

larryb123456

It is not a Patch.

As Dencorso surmised, it is a VXD that intercepts "Illegal Instructions" when they occur and Patches the code in RAM. It does not modify any files.

The added line in SYSTEM.INI simply invokes the VXD at startup. There is no effect on any Program that is not already causing "Illegal Instruction" errors.

You can always backup SYSTEM.INI by creating a differently named copy before editing it. The Patcher can be disabled by restoring the original SYSTEM.INI file.

The VXD File can then be removed and the system rebooted.

If the Patcher fails, your Flash software will crash as it did before.

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.

[larryb123456]

Hello dencorso and RLoew (and others):

@rilef: He cannot use Flash > 9.0.47.0 because the higher versions need instructions his processor doesn't know.

For FP 9, system requirements are at:

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

Under "Hardware" -- right at the top of the page -- why doesn't Adobe just state that a Pentium III is required to run FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 ? Their failure to do so has caused a lot of confusion and misery. But, they state here that all you need to run FP 9 is a Pentium II 450MHz processor.

Alternatively -- and even better -- why don't they make (i.e., fix or patch) all FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 so that they do what they claim: *always* run with a Pentium II ? To me, anything short of that is irresponsible.

I am sure that they are aware of the problem with all the literature on it. Why don't they address it ? They continue to release new versions of FP 9 every couple of months -- the latest is 9.0.280.0. Evidently, these versions can confidently be used only for Win 98 users with a Pentium III.

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

Here is a question that is still unanswered in my mind, and I'd greatly appreciate an answer.

If FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 *requires* a Pentium III to work -- as you say -- why does FP 9.0.280.0 work great on many websites with Flash content with my Pentium II ?

It's just that it always crashes on YouTube, and since its behavior is "unpredictable" on other sites with Flash content, I can't use FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 to browse the web.

By "unpredictable" here, I mean that I might get a browser crash or a computer hang or crash *as soon as* a page opens. Or, if the page opens OK, I might run into problems when I try to play a video. Since I never know if a link is going to open a problem page or not, I can't use FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 to browse the web.

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

It seems to me that Pentium II is not the *whole* problem. It is apparent that the nature of the webpage itself, as well as the nature of the videos on the web page, must also be considered. For, as I said, FP 9.0.280.0 works great on many websites with Flash content with my Pentium II.

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

In light of what I've written here, dencorso, it seems that -- equivalently -- you are saying in your statement above that certain webpages and videos are written in a code (i.e., instructions) that only a Pentium III can understand -- which crashes FP 9 < 9.0.115.0 -- while on the sites that FP 9.0.280.0 plays great on, the webpage and video instructions are written in a code that a Pentium II can understand, so FP 9.0.280.0 plays great.

So, to have success on *all* websites and videos, you need a Pentium III, which understands all the website and video instructions for all FP 9.

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

An answer to the above question would fill a big gap in my knowledge -- a gap that has bugged me for awhile.

I just saw that RLoew responded. I glanced over the message and the procedure doesn't look too bad. I certainly have the aptitude to do it. I want to study his post first and get back to him to clarify *exactly* the procedure and to ask him a couple of questions.

Thanks,

larryb123456

Edited August 17, 2010 by larryb123456

[larryb123456]

My Patcher does all the work. All you have to do is drop one file into your SYSTEM folder, add one line to your SYSTEM.INI file and reboot.

Then you run the video. ...

Please answer these questions, rLoew, so I can better understand the *exact* details:

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

# 1) Drop the file in the C:\Windows\System folder -- correct ?

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

I have *two* System.ini files: one in C:\Windows and one in C:\Backup.

# 2 a) By "adding one line to the System.ini file", you mean "edit it" -- right ?

# 2 b ) We'll just edit the System.ini in *C:\Windows* and leave the one in C:\Backup alone -- right ?

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

# 3) If the patch doesn't work -- and say I suffer a hard computer crash -- Windows will re-open *as usual* so I can navigate thru my folders to undo the patch -- right ?

I do not, under any circumstances, want to have to open in DOS mode, etc. (if there is such a thing) or some other computer hocus-pocus that I am not familiar with and that I am incapable of executing.

It is not a Patch.

As Dencorso surmised, it is a VXD that intercepts "Illegal Instructions" when they occur and Patches the code in RAM. It does not modify any files.

Questions:

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

# 4 a) I have 384 MB RAM. Is that enough ?

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

# 4 b ) Patching the code in RAM does not add any entries to the registry or modify the RAM (or RAM settings or behavior) in any way -- correct ?

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

# 4 c) How will I get the VXD file from you ?

e-mail seems the simplest way, unless the file is bigger than 20 MB.

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

# 4 d) How many MB is the VDX file ?

The added line in SYSTEM.INI simply invokes the VXD at startup. There is no effect on any Program that is not already causing "Illegal Instruction" errors.

You can always backup SYSTEM.INI by creating a differently named copy before editing it. The Patcher can be disabled by restoring the original SYSTEM.INI file.

The VXD File can then be removed and the system rebooted.

I can definitely see now that "adding a line in System.ini" and "editing it" means more than simply renaming it. Somehow you need to open the file and modify the code (if that's the right word).

Questions:

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

# 5 a) I have never edited a System.ini file. If it is relatively simple, you can post the instructions on the forum -- right ?

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

# 5 b ) If the editing is difficult -- or involves something I'm uncomfortable doing -- I can e-mail a copy of my System.ini file to you to do it -- right ?

That way, we can be sure that some mistake I made did not cause your Patcher to fail. This might be the best way to do it. It would probably take you no time at all.

Even if you did the editing, I'd still like to see the instructions -- and file contents -- posted so I could get some idea of what was involved. I've never seen anything like this before, so it should prove to be very interesting.

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

# 5 c) I can also disable your Patcher by renaming your xx.vxd to NOT_xx.vxd and the *edited*System.ini to NOT_*edited*System.ini -- right ?

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

You say, "The added line in SYSTEM.INI simply invokes the VXD at startup."

# 5 d) The System.ini -- or your *edited*System.ini -- is only active at computer startup, and is not necessary at all while the computer is running thereafter -- right ?

# 5 e) That way, if we disabled your *edited*System.ini before enabling the original System.ini again -- for a few seconds -- we would be without *any* functioning System.ini. This would not lead to any computer problems -- would it ?

If the Patcher fails, your Flash software will crash as it did before.

Questions:

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

# 6 a) And nothing worse than this will happen -- right ?

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

# 6 b ) What is *absolutely* the worst thing that could happen if something unforseen occurs or if you have overlooked something in your programming ?

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.

Questions:

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

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

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

# 7 b ) What do you mean by "copying" or "moving" the Flash Files ?

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

# 7 c) Is this "copying" and "moving" just like the copy and paste of the NPSWF32.dll, etc., for example, that I've been doing recently ?

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

# 7 d) When is the Patcher running ? As long as the computer is turned on and your files are in place ?

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

# 7 e) So, before we uninstall or install a different version of FP (this moves Flash files around big time) we need to disable your Patcher, enable the original System.ini and reboot -- correct ?

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

I really need all these answers, rLoew, before I feel comfortable in proceeding. All you have to do is list the question numbers and provide a "yes" or "no" answer, or a short one or two sentence answer. That's all.

I might think of another quick question or two, also.

Please try and think of any additional commentary that might be helpful, rLoew. Your discussion above was very helpful and instructive, BTW.

Many thanks.

larryb123456

Edited August 17, 2010 by larryb123456

[dencorso]

SYSTEM.INI is a *TEXT* FILE.

The one in C:\WINDOWS is the one that matters.

To be on the safe side, one creates a backup, in this way:

----

Go to C:\WINDOWS using WINDOWS EXPLORER.

Highlight SYSTEM.INI

Click on Copy.

Click on Paste.

Result: A new file will be created, named Copy of SYSTEM.INI

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

---

[*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.

===

Now do the following exercise:

Open NOTEPAD.

Select the File menu, then the Open menu.

Drop the "Files of Type" box and select "All Files"

Navigate to C:\WINDOWS and select SYSTEM.INI and click Open.

Result: SYSTEM.INI will be opened and you'll be able to convince yourself it's just a text.

Now Select the File menu, then the Exit menu.

Result: Notepad will close without any modification being done.

===

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.

[LoneCrusader]

@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.

[rloew]

#1 Yes.

#2a Yes.

#2b Yes as long as both are now identical. Otherwise copy SYSTEM.INI to another name.

#3. Yes.

Real DOS Mode can be run by holding down a SHIFT key during boot. Then just replace the SYSTEM.INI file with the backup.

#4a. Yes.

#4b. Yes. Only the Flash Code in RAM is affected.

#4c. E-Mail. The file is tiny.

#4d. Less than 1MB.

#5a. It is a text file. You open it with a text editor such as EDIT or NOTEPAD. Then insert the line, save and exit.

#5b. Yes. I would add the following line to the [386Enh] Section:

DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD

#5c. Either will disable it. You will need to replace the SYSTEM.INI, not just rename it. If you only change the VXD file, you will get warnings during reboot.

#5d. Yes.

#5e. Yes.

#6a. Yes.

#6b. A Hard Crash will lead to a Bad Shutdown.

#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.

#7b. Copying or Moving the File or Files that are currently triggering the "Illegal Instruction" errors.

#7c. Yes. Don't do it while the Patcher is running, especially if you have opened a browser since the last reboot.

#7d. It is running after the Computer is Booted with the File and SYSTEM.INI Line present. It is no longer running when disabled (see #5c) and the Computer is rebooted.

#7e. Yes.

At a later date it may be advantageous to take advantage of the File Cache to make the Patches permanent but this is for later.

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.