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

[rloew]

@ rloew post # 56 and

@ dencorso post # 57

Hello:

I posted # 58 before I saw your two posts.

My ! You all are indeed fast responders.

My post # 55 represents many long hours of intense concentration. In a word, there are

*no mistakes* in it to mislead you if you analize the results. I can guarantee you on that.

Rloew, you say the *Patcher* cannot do more. From that, I guess it would be a waste of time to analize post # 55 except to try to identify *other* factors that might enter in.

I have a Pentium ll 450 MHz processor if that info helps in regard to the "timing problems" and "erratic behavior". Also 384 MB RAM.

I just looked back at my post # 55, where -- in Task # 1-- with FP 9.0.280.0 -- for Bjork "All is Full of Love" -- the OPERA browser played the video three times with *no crashes* at all. These three successes were not in a row. I had played other videos -- with mixed results -- in between.

I should have kept running Bjork to see how many times she would play.

I think I will reinstall 9.0.280.0 tomorrow and see.

Even if it crashes I will keep running it over and over -- just for the Bjork video -- and post back the results. I vaguely remember you talking about copying the Flash files if a video played successfully, say, 50 or so times in a row. We can try that if you want -- nothing to lose, right ? But, that's for later.

The Opera Flash files are in a plugins folder so they will be easy to get to. That might be worth a try.

But first, I want to see how many times Opera can play Bjork. So far, it's on a winning streak.

But, first I have to get some rest. I have been up for 2 days straight. I can hardly see straight. You can see where I am coming from here, so *please* overlook any sloppy mistakes I made in the details here. (I was ultra sharp though when I made post # 55.)

Dencorso, I'll talk with you later. I've got to get some sleep now.

larryb 123456

I'll post back the results.

The Patcher is totally dormant until an "Illegal Instruction" occurs so it would have no effect whatsoever normally.

Copying the Patched files would only help if the Videos did not play properly the first time or maybe the second time but worked after that.

Do these videos play with a Pentium III?

[larryb123456]

Do these videos play with a Pentium III?

Hello, rloew,

I just saw your Post # 61.

As for the Pentium lll issue, I thought I'd summarize all the discussion about it -- in *this* thread -- to give you an overall view of the thoughts mentioned here.

Halohalo, in Post # 2 said, "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE."

As I pointed out in my Post # 3, "The first CPU to support SSE (is) the Pentium lll ...." So, halohalo's statement is equivalent to stating that "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires Pentium lll (at a minimum)."

Then halohalo (in Post # 4) and dencorso (in Post # 5) gave links to "prove" that Pentium ll is the *whole* and *complete* reason that FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 will not work. It was kind of like: "That's it. Case closed."

This frustrated me, because I knew that FP 9.0.115.0 (and all other higher versions that I had tried) worked great on many websites (but not on *all* websites). I sincerely felt that Pentium ll was not the whole problem.

Finally, you came forward -- I don't recall the post number, but I'm sure you remember it -- to say that the sites where FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 worked had *simpler* Flash "instructions" that my Pentium ll could understand. (BTW, many thanks for that.)

You ask, "Do these videos play with a Pentium III?"

If one wanted to just *isolate* the effect of the *Pentium lll* in a comparison to *my* video results, *all other* factors should be kept -- as much as possible -- the same as mine. I run Windows 98 with a Pentium ll 450 MHz processor -- and I have 384 MB RAM, in case that makes any difference.

Do they make a Pentium lll 450 MHz processor that works on Windows 98 ? Or does anyone else on the forum have this setup ? It seems that setup would isolate *just* the effect of the Pentium lll in getting the *same* videos to work.

I hope this info is helpful to you in kind of putting these issues into a "nutshell" -- at least as discussed in *this* thread.

Thanks.

P.S., I had mentioned in an earlier post, "I have a Pentium ll 450 MHz processor if that info helps in regard to the "timing problems" and "erratic behavior". Also 384 MB RAM.", but I don't believe you addressed this statement directly.

Let me restate my statement as a question:

What are the *minimum* system requirements to avoid the "erratic behavior" and "timing problems" that are displayed in my Post # 55 (where I tested all the songs) ?

Thanks, rloew.

larryb123456

[larryb123456]

The Patcher is totally dormant until an "Illegal Instruction" occurs so it would have no effect whatsoever normally.

Copying the Patched files would only help if the Videos did not play properly the first time or maybe the second time but worked after that.

Do these videos play with a Pentium III?

Hello, rloew:

I am still thinking this situation through, so I don't want to go into too many details now -- it might mess up my own train of thought. I am thinking of an experiment I want to try. Details later.

But first, I need some info from you.

Suppose you had a file that had been "educated" by your Patcher so that the Patcher would no longer be needed.

# 1) If you reboot, does this "educated" file go back to being a "lame brain" -- that is, the way it was before it was "educated" by the Patcher ? I know these aren't the proper terms, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

# 2) Now suppose you had educated_file.xx. What would happen if you made a *copy* of educated_file.xx *while* the patcher was running ? It would seem to me that educated_file.xx

would not be changed. (Or, maybe it would -- you can tell me.) Now, I don't know what would happen -- with the patcher running -- in the process of creating Copy of educated_file.xx. Would Copy of educated_file.xx be "corrupted" because the patcher was running ? Or would the Copy of educated_file.xx have its "education" *permanently saved* in its makeup -- so that if you did reboot, Copy of educated_file.xx would not be affected. Can you fill me in on these details ?

If at all possible, could you answer back soon.

There are going to be severe thunderstorms coming through here before too long, and the power *always* goes off and crashes my computer -- so I have to reboot to get going again. Basically, I am making *this* request because I don't know the answer to # 1).

I'll probably be wasting my time with my little experiment, but as they say, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." And as The Rolling Stones have said, "Time, time, time is on my side -- yes it is".

Thanks

larryb123456

Edited August 22, 2010 by larryb123456

[rloew]

Do these videos play with a Pentium III?

Hello, rloew,

I just saw your Post # 61.

As for the Pentium lll issue, I thought I'd summarize all the discussion about it -- in *this* thread -- to give you an overall view of the thoughts mentioned here.

Halohalo, in Post # 2 said, "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE."

As I pointed out in my Post # 3, "The first CPU to support SSE (is) the Pentium lll ...." So, halohalo's statement is equivalent to stating that "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires Pentium lll (at a minimum)."

Then halohalo (in Post # 4) and dencorso (in Post # 5) gave links to "prove" that Pentium ll is the *whole* and *complete* reason that FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 will not work. It was kind of like: "That's it. Case closed."

I went through all of the threads listed by Halohalo and Dencorso. Only one post implied a complete fix and he was running XP and using FP 10.

The others only said it no longer crashes, which we have achieved.

This frustrated me, because I knew that FP 9.0.115.0 (and all other higher versions that I had tried) worked great on many websites (but not on *all* websites). I sincerely felt that Pentium ll was not the whole problem.

Finally, you came forward -- I don't recall the post number, but I'm sure you remember it -- to say that the sites where FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 worked had *simpler* Flash "instructions" that my Pentium ll could understand. (BTW, many thanks for that.)

Not necessarily simpler, but ones that do not use the problematic sections of code. Some posters in the listed threads mentioned Image size being a factor.

You ask, "Do these videos play with a Pentium III?"

If one wanted to just *isolate* the effect of the *Pentium lll* in a comparison to *my* video results, *all other* factors should be kept -- as much as possible -- the same as mine. I run Windows 98 with a Pentium ll 450 MHz processor -- and I have 384 MB RAM, in case that makes any difference.

The closer the better.

Do they make a Pentium lll 450 MHz processor that works on Windows 98 ? Or does anyone else on the forum have this setup ? It seems that setup would isolate *just* the effect of the Pentium lll in getting the *same* videos to work.

I'm not sure of the range of speeds available, but there is no reason to assume it would not work with Windows 98.

P.S., I had mentioned in an earlier post, "I have a Pentium ll 450 MHz processor if that info helps in regard to the "timing problems" and "erratic behavior". Also 384 MB RAM.", but I don't believe you addressed this statement directly.

Let me restate my statement as a question:

What are the *minimum* system requirements to avoid the "erratic behavior" and "timing problems" that are displayed in my Post # 55 (where I tested all the songs) ?

I already knew your system details. I have no information on minimum requirements, so there was no point in addressing your specific numbers.

[dencorso]

The closer the better.

Well... it can be quite close, really, now that you mention it...

If one admits the Wikipedia's List of Pentium IIs to be accurate, there is only *one* type of Pentium II 450 MHz:

the Deschutes core Pentium II 450 MHz (512 KiB L2; 100 MHz FSB; Slot 1; 2.0V) from Aug 24, 1998

and if, by the same token, one admits the Wikipedia's List of Pentium IIIs to be accurate, too:

the Katmai core Pentium III 450 MHz (512 KiB L2; 100 MHz FSB; Slot 1; 2.0V) from Feb 26, 1999

should be pin-to-pin compatible and, in every aspect, a drop-in replacement for larryb123456's Pentium II...

Now, if larryb123456 would be willing to actually embark into an actual processor exchange adventure, it would not only enable definitively his machine to understand and execute SSE, but would also provide the test results RLoew needs.

And there happens to be one on sale right now on e-Bay for about US$4!!!

@larryb123456 (answers to your questions on post #63):

#1) Yes.

#2) Under ideal conditions, its "education" would become *permanently saved* on the copy and, provided you "educated" it thoroughly enough, the dynamic patcher would not be needed anymore. But you'd need a criterion to decide how much is enough.

[rloew]

Suppose you had a file that had been "educated" by your Patcher so that the Patcher would no longer be needed.

The file is not "educated", only the cached copy of it in RAM and/or Swap.

# 1) If you reboot, does this "educated" file go back to being a "lame brain" -- that is, the way it was before it was "educated" by the Patcher ? I know these aren't the proper terms, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

It will be a "lame brain" as it was never modified and the cache will have been cleared.

# 2) Now suppose you had educated_file.xx. What would happen if you made a *copy* of educated_file.xx *while* the patcher was running ? It would seem to me that educated_file.xx

would not be changed. (Or, maybe it would -- you can tell me.) Now, I don't know what would happen -- with the patcher running -- in the process of creating Copy of educated_file.xx. Would Copy of educated_file.xx be "corrupted" because the patcher was running ? Or would the Copy of educated_file.xx have its "education" *permanently saved* in its makeup -- so that if you did reboot, Copy of educated_file.xx would not be affected. Can you fill me in on these details ?

Since the copy is made from cache whenever possible, it would contain some or all of the Patches made.

There are no guarantees as parts of the file may be in swap or no longer cached if space was needed for something else.

I'm not sure this is going to help if the Patches are not a complete solution.

Edited August 22, 2010 by rloew

[larryb123456]

I EDITED THIS POST TO ADD THE P.S. SHOWN ON THE NEXT POST, BUT INSTEAD OF "SAVING CHANGES" IT ADDED A WHOLE NEW POST. I PROBABLY MESSED UP AND HIT THE WRONG BUTTON, I DON'T KNOW. *IF* THE NEXT POST IS THE SAME AS THIS ONE -- EXCEPT FOR THE P.S. -- PLEASE DELETE THIS POST. THANKS.

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

Edited September 2, 2010 by dencorso
Duplicate content removed but post preserved so as not to disturb the post numbers

[larryb123456]

Now, if larryb123456 would be willing to actually embark into an actual processor exchange adventure, it would not only enable definitively his machine to understand and execute SSE, but would also provide the test results RLoew needs.

And there happens to be one on sale right now on e-Bay for about US$4!!!

Excellent detective work, dencorso. I can't believe how closely the processors match up -- can't beat "identical" can you ?

I will contact my nephew and I'm sure he will say it's no big problem to do, and I think he'd enjoy installing it for me. He has been building his own computers since he was 15 or so. (He's now 30.) I will go ahead and get the Pentium lll. I don't want to rush into it though until I can better understand the reasons behind the mixed results I'm getting in Post # 55. I would just like to experiment a little more -- using *my* logic -- to try to *separate out* factors that might explain the mixed results in Post # 55. But if what you and halohalo say about Pentium lll being *necessary* for FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 to play Flash videos *everywhere* -- and I'm sure you two are right -- then rloew's Patcher will never be activated because it won't be needed in this case. It will be kind of like using the Patcher with my Pentium ll system playing FP 9.0.47.0. Since there are no "invalid instructions" (I can't remember rloew's *exact* term)

that will pop up in this case, there will be nothing for the Patcher to clean up. But, to make sure of the Patcher's compatibility, etc. with Pentium lll 450 MHz, you can't beat testing it. Best to be thorough and leave no stone unturned, right ?

@larryb123456 (answers to your questions on post #63):

#1) Yes.

#2) Under ideal conditions, its "education" would become *permanently saved* on the copy and, provided you "educated" it thoroughly enough, the dynamic patcher would not be needed anymore. But you'd need a criterion to decide how much is enough.

Many thanks on your rapid response, dencorso. The thunderstorms came and it was thundering and lightening like crazy but the power didn't go off this time.

As for the criterion to decide how much is enough, how about "infinity" -- I do have a lot of patience. LOL !

Again, many thanks.

larryb123456

P.S., It just dawned on me that *I* don't have a *big* sense of urgency in installing the Pentium lll, but I have *no idea* of what rloew's sense of urgency is. If there were a super-duper need to test it right away, I guess I could install the Pentium lll and do rloew's test runs and then reinstall my Pentium ll to fiddle around with my half-baked logic.

But, really, we already *pretty much* know that the Pentium lll will successfully play the videos I tested with the Patcher off and then with it on. But I guess another factor in this test involves Windows 98.

BTW, is it OK to use Pentium lll in my Windows 98 system ? I would guess it is, since my processor and the Pentium lll in question are both 450 MHz. I would guess the MHz is the important thing here.

Edited August 22, 2010 by larryb123456

[dencorso]

My point in suggesting the Pentium III is answering RLoew's question: Do these videos play with a Pentium III?

If they do so correctly and without issues (without the patcher, of course), we'll know there is more that the patcher must know to work right, even if that more are not "invalid instructions". Now, if they don't we may infer that the patch achieved simulating a Pentium III out of a Pentium II well enough, but that even a Pentium III is not enough to actually have those videos play correctly. We already do know that the minimum system requirements listed by Adobe for Flash 9 are true only up to 9.0.47.0... for all other versions they are not the true minimum requirements, and it's possible not even a Pentium III may be enough. That's why I said your machine will learn what to do with SSE instructions, on processor upgrade, but I did not risk saying it would learn how to use the newer versions of Flash.

[larryb123456]

My point in suggesting the Pentium III is answering RLoew's question: Do these videos play with a Pentium III?

If they do so correctly and without issues (without the patcher, of course), we'll know there is more that the patcher must know to work right, even if that more are not "invallid instructions". Now, if they don't we may infer that the patch achieved simulating a Pentium III out of a Pentium II well enough, but that even a Pentium III is not enough to actually have those videos play correctly. We already do know that the minimum system requirements listed by Adobe for Flash 9 are true only up to 9.0.47.0... for all other versions they are not the true minimum requirements, and it's possible not even a Pentium III may be enough. That's why I said your machine will learn what to do with SSE instructions, on processor upgrade, but I did not risk saying it would learn how to use the newer versions of Flash.

Thanks for the clear explanation.

You say "it's possible not even a Pentium III may be enough (to play FP > FP 9.0.47.0 -- I added what's in parentheses). In *all* my comments about FP 9 and Pentium lll, I had *accepted* your and halohalo's assertions that Pentium lll *was* necessary and sufficient. And , *now*, you are backing off from this -- a little -- (now that's not very nice -- LOL!). First I discovered that Adobe lied to me, and I now discover that you might have "stretched the truth" a little. LOL ! Best not to play mind games with the feeble-minded -- right ? LOL !

BTW, FP 9 is as high as I can go with my Windows 98, either with or without the Pentium lll -- but, I'm sure you know this.

What is rloew's sense of urgency in testing the Pentium lll ?

Like I said, my part will depend ***totally*** on my nephew's schedule. He is very busy with work and he is now trying to get everything set up for the birth of his twins (his first children) -- so his spare time is very limited. I'll touch base with him to get some sense of where he is at on this issue.

larryb123456

[dencorso]

I'm not backing off, now, really... the point is I didn't question a Pentium III was enough (to play FP > FP 9.0.47.0), from what I read, until RLoew posed his question. I mean, Flash 9.0.115.0 is from Nov 21, 2007... I already had an Athlon XP by that date... So I cannot really (first-hand) know it. But, by inspecting the code of the Flash 9.0.115.0 plugin, one finds the SSE instructions are there, so that makes a Pentium III the bare minimum requirement. And this squares with all I read around in those links halohalo and I gave you, so I never questioned it until RLoew's question taken together with your results helped it dawn on me that it just may not be enough. But we cannot know for sure, unless you move over to a Pentium III. I bet it *is* enough, and the patcher needs to address some other issue we're not yet able to pinpoint, to enable a Pentium II to behave as desired. But I cannot dismiss the possibility that a Pentium II plus the patcher do emulate perfectly enough the Pentium III, and that even it would not be enough to play those test videos you selected as our test suite.

@RLoew: Have you read this and especially this?

[rloew]

My point in suggesting the Pentium III is answering RLoew's question: Do these videos play with a Pentium III?

If they do so correctly and without issues (without the patcher, of course), we'll know there is more that the patcher must know to work right, even if that more are not "invallid instructions". Now, if they don't we may infer that the patch achieved simulating a Pentium III out of a Pentium II well enough, but that even a Pentium III is not enough to actually have those videos play correctly. We already do know that the minimum system requirements listed by Adobe for Flash 9 are true only up to 9.0.47.0... for all other versions they are not the true minimum requirements, and it's possible not even a Pentium III may be enough. That's why I said your machine will learn what to do with SSE instructions, on processor upgrade, but I did not risk saying it would learn how to use the newer versions of Flash.

Thanks for the clear explanation.

You say "it's possible not even a Pentium III may be enough (to play FP > FP 9.0.47.0 -- I added what's in parentheses). In *all* my comments about FP 9 and Pentium lll, I had *accepted* your and halohalo's assertions that Pentium lll *was* necessary and sufficient. And , *now*, you are backing off from this -- a little -- (now that's not very nice -- LOL!). First I discovered that Adobe lied to me, and I now discover that you might have "stretched the truth" a little. LOL ! Best not to play mind games with the feeble-minded -- right ? LOL !

You are being rather unfair. Neither Halohalo nor Dencorso said that a Pentium III was sufficient, only that it was necessary.

You assumed, and I hoped, that it was sufficient.

What is rloew's sense of urgency in testing the Pentium lll ?

It is not very urgent, but an answer would be helpful.

If the Pentium III doesn't work, then you are probably out of luck.

If it does, then further research may be of value (see below).

@RLoew: Have you read this and especially this?

Although mostly about the Crusoe Transmeta, there were some references to Pentium IIs.

It mentions the possibility that some SSE instructions may execute incorrectly without causing an "Illegal Instruction" fault.

My Patcher cannot fix these, but it might be possible to find and Patch them manually or with a Program.

[larryb123456]

@dencorso

@rloew

Hello:

I purchased the Pentium lll 450 MHz processor and they say it should be here in 3 - 10 days.

I copied dencorso's message post and e-mailed it to my nephew. I told him that if he had any questions, I'd post them on the site to get the answers. He is more than happy to install it in my computer (as his schedule permits).

I'm going to have to take it a little easy on the site for a couple of days or so. I have a tremendous amount of personal business to take care of.

Thank you.

larryb123456

[frogman]

As this is to do with Flash Player 9 I thought to ask this question.

I have Adobe Flash version 9.280 which is the very latest 9 series, I seem to be unable to view the flash on this link below, and yet when I click on the ok to upgrade it says the solution is to install version 9. 280, but I have this already.

Can someone confirm that using windows 98 and the latest flash 9 player they can view the flash video embedded in the link page below.

My link

[larryb123456]

@dencorso

@rloew

Hello.

Note: The info in between the first two lines below is just for informational purposes. The real crux of this post starts just below the second line.

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

The Pentium lll 450 MHz processor has not arrived yet. As they said, it should arrive in 3 to 10 days (this being the supposed upper limit) after being purchased. So, at the very latest, it "should" be here by Sept. 1.

In the meantime, I have been doing some more Test Runs of the videos to try to better understand the "apparently indecipherable" results in my post # 55 (where I tested all the different video/browser combinations).

I have been using a more *systematic* approach in these new Test Runs -- that is, I change *only one* variable at a time to see the effect of *that variable*.

These new results have allowed me to "separate out" the factors involved in playing a YouTube video. In general -- at least up to this point in my new Test Runs -- I have obtained a much clearer understanding. And, hopefully, when you two read my report, you also will have a much clearer understanding. Also, the results (and conclusions) in my report should provide some "guidance" when the Pentium lll is tested. I do not want to discuss these results -- at the present time -- because this discussion might "derail my train of thought".

.

.

.

However, there is one result I will mention:

I have *proved* -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that rloew's Patcher can *absolutely* resolve browser "illegal operation" and "invalid instruction" errors associated with the NPSWF32.dll Shockwave Flash plugin.

.

.

.

When the time is right, I'll submit my report for you both to read. I don't think it will be too much longer -- a couple of days or so.

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

The real crux of this post follows:

The link in dencorso's post # 5 takes you to http://forums.adobe.com/thread/259636

At this URL, I am interested in ShadowBurn426's post to get the thread started titled: Flash 9.0.115.0 - Crash with Pentium ll.

He says:

"On my Pentium II, ... Flash 9.0.115.0 crashes as soon as I click the video to play it. It crashes everytime in IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera. It's definitely the plugin itself crashing and taking the browser with it."

Note: This is what happens to me each and every time I use FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 (with rloew's Patcher turned off, of course) to try to play *any* YouTube video.

ShadowBurn426 says:

"I can avoid the crash by making sure the embed element that loads the video has a width that's less than 411. Something about the width being greater than 410 causes the plugin itself to crash."

Note: I know how to access -- and copy and save -- the embed info for any YouTube video. The size (width and height) are clearly stated in this embed info. I also know that the size can change from video to video.

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

Question 1: What does the size (width and height) actually refer to -- and how is this size information actually used ?

I don't think size would refer to the "size of the video" being played in YouTube's player, since *all* videos "appear to be" the same size when viewed in the player -- even though the width and height might be different for different videos.

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

The *real* crux of this post:

ShadowBurn426 says:

"Now, if I load the URL to the swf file that loads the video directly in the address field, the plugin doesn't crash. It's just when it's embedded in the page via markup."

I'm not sure if I understand this sentence. (It confuses me.)

I definitely do not know what "via markup" is. (And, for good measure, you might briefly explain the "mechanics" behind embedding; that is, if you don't mind. This way, I can be sure that there are no "misinformed gaps" in my understanding.)

Certainly, by this statement, ShadowBurn426 can't be talking about *simply* copying the "regular" *video* URL directly into the browser address line to get the video to play -- since "clicking the video to play it" (as he mentions in the first sentence of his post) accomplishes the same thing (it also puts the video URL into the browser address line).

The following represents my own effort to try to *apply* his approach -- vaguely understood by me, at this point:

Let's consider the specific case of the Bjork "All is Full of Love" YouTube video.

I first copied *all* the embed info and pasted it into this post, but the post preview showed that the "actual video" would then be embedded into *this post* -- something I did not want. When I "extracted" just the size and "embed URL" from the embed info, the post preview again showed that the video would be embedded in this post. So, really, we do not need to see the actual "embed URL" -- the important thing here is to note that this URL is present in the embed info.

The size is: object width="640" height="385"

On looking at the embed info, we see that only one URL is given (but it is repeated twice):

(Note: this URL is somewhat similar to -- but not *identical* to -- the "regular" video URL.)

Now, if we enter the "embed" URL into the browser address line and click enter, we do not go to the usual YouTube site with its usual player. Instead, we get a totally different *full-screen* player with a right-pointing "arrow head" in the middle, which needs to be clicked to get the video to play.

I am sure that this is what ShadowBurn426 meant when he said:

"Now, if I load the URL to the swf file that loads the video directly in the address field, the plugin doesn't crash. It's just when it's embedded in the page via markup."

Here is one thing I have never *fully* understood -- and it involves the *step sequence* in a browser trying to get a YouTube video to play. (That is, I am trying to understand the behind-the-scenes "mechanics" involved.)

I will list these steps as I now understand them -- and if you could further elaborate or provide a *corrected* step-sequence, that would increase my understanding *greatly*.

Step 1: I have the URL for a video that I want to play.

Step 2: I enter this URL into the browser address line and click "enter".

Step 3: The browser then "goes" to this URL address and "attempts" to play the desired video.

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

Question 2: *All* the browser has to "work with" once it "reaches" the video URL is the video embed information provided at that URL ? Correct ?

That's *all* -- and *nothing more* -- Correct ?

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

Step 4: The browser then "looks inside" the embed "black box" to find the "other" video URL and then it uses *that* URL to "try to" get the video to play -- with whatever FP version that happens to be installed in the browser. Correct ?

Step 5: If the browser can access and *apply* this URL info all-right -- again, with the *specific* FP version installed -- then the video plays OK. Correct ?

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

Question 3:

In the above discussion I have used the "URL method" to get the video to play (that is, I enter the video URL into the browser address line and click "enter"). There is another method to get the video to play. I can do an artist search and then click on one of the little jpeg-image *links* that "pop up" after the search. This gets the video playing automatically. To me, it seems that these two methods would be identical, since both methods accomplish the same thing -- the video URL is placed into the browser address line.

These two methods are *identical* (in *all* of their "mechanics"). Correct ?

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

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

In a "nutshell", what I am asking from you in your response (the *more detail* the better) is:

If you could provide a COMPLETE step sequence in getting a YouTube video to play -- especially including *all* the possible points at which SSE instructions might enter into the "situation" -- it would *greatly* increase my understanding.

(As dencorso had mentioned earlier, he examined the "code" in one of the versions of FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 and found SSE "instructions".)

Can you explain what would happen (i.e., the steps involved) if my browser (with FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 installed with the Patcher turned off, of course) -- while trying to apply the YouTube embed info -- ran into the SSE instructions (which are not understood by my Pentium ll).

Would the browser -- in doing "the best it could" in this situation with my Penium ll -- *attempt* an illegal operation in the NPSWF32.dll module, which would result in a browser shut-down ?

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

Many thanks, in advance, for a *detailed* response (the more info the better, IMO) -- that is if you want to take the time to give such a response.

A detailed response should allow me to "understand even better" the new Test Runs I have made. Also, a detailed response might suggest some other Trial Runs as I try to separate out the effects of *individual* variables.

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

larryb123456

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

P.S., A minor point of clarification:

I think the *real* reason I was getting the YouTube video player included in my message post (as discussed above) was because I first had the "regular" video URL copied into the message. Since I had *never* seen the player before, I just naturally assumed it was due to my copying the embed code onto the page. So, to double check, I just made a test post that contained *only* the "regular" video URL, previewed it, and then saw the YouTube player as before. Then, I cancelled the message. This is definitely something new on the site.

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

Edited August 28, 2010 by larryb123456