flash player 8 not for nt or win 95 or old macs

[argonauta]

so, what do you guys think about this technote (http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=d9c2fe33&pss=rss_flashplayer_d9c2fe33).

The flash player v8 basically won't be available for Microsoft Windows 95, Microsoft Windows NT, or classic Macintosh.

[erixon]

I think that its not a surprise for people with old computers that some things doesn't work for them. XP/OSX have been available for quite many years now..

[Nemesis Enforcer]

Every now and then you get an upgrade that's basically says "eventually, you have to move on". It's been a fun ride, 95 :(

[ryanmetcalf]

I think that its not a surprise for people with old computers that some things doesn't work for them. XP/OSX have been available for quite many years now..
Yeah, XP has been out too long, Vista (god thats a crappy name) is way late.

Every now and then you get an upgrade that's basically says "eventually, you have to move on". It's been a fun ride, 95 :(
Nah, you can run that still next to your Dos 6.2 machine, just don't try to bring up flash 8..LOL ;)

[PAlexC]

10 years people, 10 frickin' years since 95 shipped. Time to let it go.

[cancerinform]

Read this

http://flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?t=642382

Probably development of Flash 8 sites is only for specialized purposes or users but not for general sites, may be in 2-3 years.

[Pugger]

98SE still going strong :hug:

[0vidiu]

Yep... still going strong but not for more...:(

[phacker]

So we should limit our audience. One of Flash's strengths in the beginning was that even folks with older lighter units could still see our designs. Now I guess it's a question of have you got the latest hardware. That's one of the things I hate about realtime, and one of the reasons it's not on my computer anymore.

[PAlexC]

phacker, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but you really seem irked by 8.

I've run it, in Firefox, under Win 2K on a P4 1.6 with 512 of RAM and on a Pentium M 1Ghz with 512. It's been fine, I haven't noticed any difference between 8 and 7, except 8 performs faster under Firefox. Even with tons of effects and alpha-channeled video. If you want to see poor performance on slower machines, go to any film website where the player bogs down because of poor swf construction methods. This happened when 5, 6 and 7 were out. It has little to do with the player and everything to do with the person building the swf.

I really don't see MM cutting off any users with this release of the player. As with any new release, it'll take awhile to saturate, so yes, for the most part it's good to publish backwards for awhile. This is how progress happens.

If 8 is giving you greif I'd like to know the environment it's running under.

Win95 and NT are no longer supported by Microsoft, I'm pretty sure 98 and ME are done too. If we all played it safe to appeal to the broadest possible audience at all times we have no Flash and code in HTML 3.0.

[Wok]

Unfortunate but to be expected... I know too well that sometimes you have to develop for NT and the like but yeah... definitely time to move on these machines don’t cut it anymore.

I do think however more current OS's will stand the test of time a little better. People simply don't want to, or better yet need to upgrade seemingly just for lens flairs when you open and close windows or equally as ridiculous "features". Typical work computers running 2k and later simply do what they need to.

I feel more at home on a 2k system, no stupid wizards or ****ty green buttons.

[jAQUAN]

I run XP now after sticking with 2k for as long as I could. I applied the classic appearance and a classic start menu and you can't tell the difference.

My main question is, if I use a bunch of blurs and stuff in Flash 8 (author or runtime), will it rasterize for me if I export to 7? If it takes 12 months average for the player to get widely installed, how can I get excited about the new features?