Monroe Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I see today there is a new version of flash player again ... Flash Player 14.0.0.125. I would just like to hear from others what version of flash player they are currently using with their XP setup. Have you been updating with these newer versions or have you elected to stay with an older version, say from the 10x or 11x series? I have XP with IE8 installed and my last flash player version is 13.0.0.214 which seems to be the last version of the 13x series with today's new 14x release. I have a Pentium M - 1.6 but Adobe says the system requirements are: * 2.33GHz or faster x86-compatible processor, or Intel® Atom™ 1.6GHz or faster processor for netbooks ... the whole requirement block. Microsoft® Windows® * 2.33GHz or faster x86-compatible processor, or Intel® Atom™ 1.6GHz or faster processor for netbooks * Microsoft® Windows® XP (32 bit), Windows Server 2008 (32 bit), Windows Vista® (32 bit), Windows 7 (32 bit and 64 bit), Windows 8 (32 bit and 64 bit), or Windows Server 2012 (64 bit) * Internet Explorer 8.0 or later, Mozilla Firefox 17 or later, Google Chrome, or Opera 11 * 512MB of RAM (1GB of RAM recommended for netbooks); 128MB of graphics memory Flash Player 13.0.0.214 seems to work OK on my setup but I am not sure how to tell if it is the best version for me to be using ... or going back to an "older" version. thanks ... Edited June 10, 2014 by monroe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 if it works ok, don't revert to olderespecially since older have quite some bugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) In my earlier post I may have been wrong that FP v13.0.0.214 was the last 13x version with the 14x version being released today. I just came across a list showing the versions that were released today (June 10th) ... # (Released 6/10/2014) Flash Player 14.0.0.125 (159 MB)# (Released 6/10/2014) Flash Player 13.0.0.223 (149 MB)# (Released 6/10/2014) Flash Player 11.2.202.378 (32.03 MB)# (Released 5/13/2014) Flash Player 13.0.0.214 (149.10 MB) I admit that I am now thoroughly confused ... there is a version 13.0.0.223 that was also released today. I thought FP v14.0.0.125 was the next "new" version but I don't know why version 13.0.0.223 was also released today. Flash Player Archives http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html Extra: I just found this minutes after I posted ... I guess FP v13.0.0.223 must be ... Extended Support Release - Flash Player 13.0.0.223 Edited June 10, 2014 by monroe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponch Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The experts at Adobe will probably say that the last version is the best choice.Unless you have specific issue, it is difficult to say something else.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 if 9 supported youtube HD i'd stay on itsomehow 10 and above became bloat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostaglic98 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 if 9 supported youtube HD i'd stay on itsomehow 10 and above became bloat Flash IS bloat. Waste of CPU cycles and INCREDIBLY inefficient. Its part of the reason why processors are getting more powerful - since no-one is bothering to write software that isn't glitchy and inefficient (i.e. Windows, Photoshop) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 When you 1st posted your question, monroe, I had no answer for it, because I hadn't, then, yet tested the newer Flash version.But, now, I've already tested it (and actually remain using it), so I can tell you confidently I see no reason at all to avoid updating to Flash Player 14.0.0.125.You're quite right, Flash Player 13.0.0.223, the Extended Support Release, also exists and it *is* an altenative, to be used were there any reason not to upgrade... but it's not actually needed at this time, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Thanks dencorso for the information concerning the new 14x version. Until you posted I had made the decision to stop with the last 13x version ... 13.0.0.214 ... everything seems to be working OK but I will put the new 14x version on my setup ... I have read for years that some people were staying with older versions because of the CPU cycles and such ... I have the last versions of 10x and 11x stored away to use with XP if I decide to go back one day. The 13x versions seemed to be working but with any newer versions ... I wasn't sure if they would still be OK with XP. I am saving the last 13x version to return to, should it become necessary one day. You and others know how to measure some of these programs with CPU usage and other criteria ... I pretty much just search around to see if others are complaining about a certain version and going back to an older version. thanks again ... Edited June 13, 2014 by monroe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) if 9 supported youtube HD i'd stay on itsomehow 10 and above became bloat Flash IS bloat. Waste of CPU cycles and INCREDIBLY inefficient. Its part of the reason why processors are getting more powerful - since no-one is bothering to write software that isn't glitchy and inefficient (i.e. Windows, Photoshop) you can say that case with any non compiled appanything made in scripts (flash, java) or stupid MS .net is waste of cpu cycles and unoptimized crap but who will listen ? Edited June 13, 2014 by vinifera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Vinifera ... you bring up a good point with .NET Framework ... I only have .NET 2.0 on my setup, decided to stop there. Every so often I find a program that I would like to have on my XP setup but it requires .NET Framework, most of the time I am lucky that .NET 2 will be enough. Perhaps that could be a "problem" someday that I might need all the newer versions of .NET installed but I have no plans to ever go beyond .NET 2. I am not sure about flash player ... I don't see .NET listed as a requirement for flash player: Flash Player Requirements Microsoft® Windows * 2.33GHz or faster x86-compatible processor, or Intel® Atom™ 1.6GHz or faster processor for netbooks * Microsoft® Windows® XP (32 bit), Windows Server 2008 (32 bit), Windows Vista® (32 bit), Windows 7 (32 bit and 64 bit), Windows 8 (32 bit and 64 bit), or Windows Server 2012 (64 bit) * Internet Explorer 8.0 or later, Mozilla Firefox 17 or later, Google Chrome, or Opera 11 * 512MB of RAM (1GB of RAM recommended for netbooks); 128MB of graphics memory Edited June 13, 2014 by monroe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) flash was only example regarding Action Scripting, which also eats cpu cycles regarding .net, i'm on win 7 and also have only barebones which is .net 2 (SP2)and I never plan to install any higher in fact the only thing good comming our way is QTframeworkwhich unlike piece of shit .net framework, runs fast exactly because it is COMPILED via c++and not some shit a** JIT Edited June 16, 2014 by vinifera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now