[Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [

Let’s establish what we need here to clean this up:

The development community:
The flash development community undoubtedly needs to continue to report their T/E (test and evaluation) to MM via bug reports, and the FK, WH, and MM forums. These are currently the main stages of the community- I propose we use them to our advantage- as a way to deliver insightful, constructive information on the current issues at hand.


Mike Chambers (Macromedia):
I'm sure that the lot of us identify with you and indeed sympathize with the perpetual migraine you have most likely have been living for the last month. I'll again go out on a limb and say that most of us greatly appreciate your efforts thus far. We are both highly-impressed and pleased with the features integrated into the MX release. The fact remains though that the MX player (v.21, .23, .25, .29) was/is quite simply not ready for deployment as a replacement for the flash5 player. The painfully apparent truth here is that effective MX implementation is still impossible. I ask you to please keep from being discouraged, and take these criticisms as constructive information. We need from you a feasible solution to the problems that we now face with the .29 MX player. An all-encompassing fix, a cumulative patch, a concrete documentation, a one click solution simplified to the end-user level is in order. I’m sure you’ve identified that the installation process must be simplified before any of us will be able to conduct business at the level that we’ve pledged to our clients. Unflinching, I’ll speak for the community which chooses to develop web content with Macromedia software, and state that as developers we value your products, we prefer them, however we cannot in good faith use your software as a means to develop that which we intend to distribute to our clients. This will remain true, and the future of MX and the technologies that it may bring will remain unrecognized until a resolution to the aforementioned issues has been delivered.

I've started threads at the FK, WH, and MM forums under the subject "An outcry to Macromedia and the development community".

I'd like to see these threads used for deposition of suggestions, and constructive comments, ultimately to aide the goal common to both MM and the proactive development community: the effective implementation of the MX client.

http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=306911

This is soo silly, I must have rebooted 5 times now..> Could some one email me their new .29 plugin or put it up somewhere with a descent server...

edit> oh the email is [email protected]
[Edited by atomizer on 05-03-2002 at 12:21 PM]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by atomizer
This is soo silly, I must have rebooted 5 times now..> Could some one email me their new .29 plugin or put it up somewhere with a descent server...

edit> oh the email is [email protected]
[Edited by atomizer on 05-03-2002 at 12:21 PM]

---

you can go to this page and download it

not at 0.8 byts/s and the connection breaking at around 90k

I recently installed the 6.0.29.0 version in IE6/WinXP and it works perfect. I did have to reboot though.

Can the people experiencing problems post the browsers and OS they are using? I think this will help both us and the people at Macromedia to troubleshoot these problems.

By the way, if you need to uninstall it manually, go to your C:\Windows\Downloaded Program Files and delete the Shockwave Flash control.

OK, as I said before I did EVERYTHING suggested + a few things that weren’t, still have the .23

I'm running w2k pro and IE6,

Are you logged in as admin for your system or as a user?

a user with all the admin privileges... c'mon someone just send me the file please... I need to run some video tests to make sure I can implement that feature into my next projects… I’m anxious...

Maybe you should try logging in as admin and doing the update from MM's site. That might help.

Also wanted to say that installation on Opera 6 is quick and painless. This one didn't require a reboot. Long live Opera!

Quote:

---

Exactly what issues remain after this latest build of the player? I thought this latest build took care of the remaining show-stopper bugs... ???

-s

---

Quote:

---

I haven't loaded it, but check out http://www.were-here.com/forums/sho...threadid=135712

---

The above listed thread shows the degree of difficulty computer-minded Developers are having with installation of the new plugin. Users who have sucessfully gotten the player to install correctly have been few and far between in their reports. A greater number report success after several unsucceessfull attempts. Some are so desparate that they post requests to peers for the updated player for direct download. Regardless of whether the flash plugin can be installed on all systems, (which remains to be established), it is certain that the player is not easily updated as it stands, and the process is surely more than we can expect of the end users we target.

As it stands- the player has been re-engineered to accomodate the following issues:

Quote:

---

1. Interrupting of loading media into player does not halt, rather queues and loads entire file.
2. LoadSound continues to download even though the object is stopped, unloaded, or deleted
3. When an event sound is playing and the sound object gets deleted, the sound still plays even though there are no more references to the sound object.
4. Large Media (video, MP3) causes Flash Player to lock up.

-Mike Chambers

---

The currently most pressing issue is the fact that the player can not be easily updated by the bulk of end users.


http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=306911

Oh, please, make this stop. Of course there are going to be more posts about unsuccesful installation than succesful installation. People generally don't post unless they have a problem.

There are more than a hundred thousand posts in the Flash 5 actionscript board, but that doesn't mean Actionscript is outrageously complicated. It means some people are experiencing difficulties. You rarely see a thread with 'Everything's working fine, no need to reply' as a subject.

I'd say the installation issue is minor at worst. There's no need for an outcry or non-stop whining. While Macromedia should provide a bullet-proof installation procedure, for the time being let's concentrate on finding out the source of people's problems and try to solve them OURSELVES. Oftentimes, the best tech support you can get is from one of more than a hundred thousand board members.

Quote:

---

Oh, please, make this stop..... There's no need for...whining.

---

I think you're right.

Quote:

---

I'd say the installation issue is minor at worst. There's no need for an outcry or non-stop whining. While
Macromedia should provide a bullet-proof installation procedure..

---

I'd say we agree on this-

New streaming issues
I realize this post is 23 pages long now, but if you get a chance- read up on it. There's really some good stuff in there that will give you a better grasp of the big picture. You'll see that I've disavowed about whining- but tried to offer suggestions as to how we may separate the info from the *****ing. It might also help you to realize that there's a problem with your next suggestion:

Quote:

---

for the time being let's concentrate on finding out the source of people's problems and try to solve them OURSELVES. Oftentimes, the best tech support you can get is from one of more than a hundred thousand board members.

---

I think you've got a great idea for getting the flash player installed. The only problem is that if we go that route, we cannot use flash for clients anymore- that's a big problem. I don't doubt that you would willingly help out your buddies on the flashkit forums, but you're missing the point here:

Macromedia distributed millions of bugged MX players.
By their quotation there are hundreds of millions- while this is doubtful, there is a significant existence of 6.23/6.21 players out there. After the month long wait, they've released a player that fixes the programatic issues, but is not easily updated.

Now by your suggestion, we are to walk each user through the updating of their flash client. I realize your good intentions, but this is not feasable.

MM reports that approx 100,000,000 flash 6 players have been installed. Now, the registered number of flashkit users is 322860 (and growing!). So lets say that between flashkit and we're here, we have about 600,000 total techies versed in how to update the player. We would then need only to contact 167 people a piece and spend 5 mins going through it with them, hey- that means that we could have all of this resolved in about 14 hours!

sorry but I'm not willing to do this, you can take my 167. Please make sure to call my clients first, I'll send you an email list.

pmineault
I would love to hear any further suggestions you may have, but please don't put this post down- there are issues that still need to be addressed. If you would simply like to mince words- Please don't post here, email me.

pmineault-

I'm really not trying to be a smart-ass, but your suggestion is absurd, and I'd really like to get something constructive going here-

If you would like to complain about me, or anything else for that matter, I've started this post for you and the like: WHINE
http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=296955
-enjoy!

With that said, please let the constructive suggestions begin.

look, i'm sure this is effecting you and me. yes, we would like to deliver MX content, yes, we would like to take advantage of the new features, yes, we want it to work, and yes, WE WANT IT FIXED.

but! you cant lead a horse to water while its taking a ****. let MM do their business, they want this resolved too. they have investors, competetors, and our cash. trust me, they want this resolved. i'm not sure what every one knows about product development, product cycles, and deployment...there's a lot more happening than what the consumer knows.

pretend you're MM for a second when one of your clients ***** and whine about MX and its availablity, bugs, or what not. what do you do?

how many clients does any one-man operation have in here? tens-maybe in the hundreds. compare that to MM's client base and imagine the *****ing they're getting from us, all the popular forums, and their partners and investors. then ask yourself, are they making us wait for fun? do they enjoy us *****ing? did they become the most popular interactive internet media company by making their consumers unhappy?

i don't event see why this thread is still going. its been moving to different topics wasting thousands of ppl's time, just to debug a couple of lines of code. the updated player is there, its worked for me on 11 machines in my office, for Win 98, 2K, & XP with IE 5.0, 5.5, & 6.0. If anyone is still having difficulties, i can assure you that MM is not at fault.

Tweekmonster-

I think you speak for the popular opinion among many flash developers, and your analysis is real. However this is not an issue that relates only to flash 6 content. Many sites were launched with the release of flash 5 and worked beautifully until the first faulty flash 6 player was released. Patience was my plan with the release of v. 6.21/6.23 and 6.25. No matter how you try to rationalize the situation, the sad fact here is that the majority of users who have installed the flash 6 player do not know it is defective yet every single 6.23 player needs to be replaced. While we can't hope for 100% replacement, a smooth transition between versions is an absolute necessity. If an end user comes to a content-rich, streamed-site with player 6.23 we can prompt them to download player 6.29. However- under ideal conditions the user must install the update, and reboot before they can view the site. It's been reported that if the user happens to leave the window open during install, their player will not update successfully. As we are in the onset of the other problems, the remaing variables that go into the installation which cause unsuccesful installation have not been identified yet.
Remember this: the flash player needs to be distributed to the masses. While you can claim that MM has produced a player that can be updated it falls short of being a solid player that is easily updated. I have every faith that you can personally install a flash player plug-in, however it would be very unintelligent to expect the same of the people that pay me to simply accept this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shane_Verstegen
However- under ideal conditions the user must install the update, and reboot before they can view the site.

---

just a quick correction. this is not true. in the vast majority of cases, users will not have to reboot.

also, as i have stated a couple of times this is not a flash player issue, but is an issue with how ActiveX controls works. The has been the case for quite some time.

this is all covered in the following technote:

http://www.macromedia.com/support/fl.../ie_reboot.htm

this technote was created on September 11, 2000.

mike chambers

[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shane_Verstegen
I have every faith that you can personally install a flash player plug-in, however it would be very unintelligent to expect the same of the people that pay me to simply accept this problem.

---

I installed the player as anyone with IE on Windows would. when i pressed "Install Now" on MM's site, it redirected me to a page that was asking for the r29 flash player, i recieved a prompt, and i clicked yes. this method should be a similar experience to those without technical expertise, assuming that your content requires r29 on a Win32 platform running IE.

i am completly compassionate for your rant about content designed for previous versions of the flash player. but, what can you do besides cry to MM about it? sure, it might be a catylst for better business practice in the future, but it might not repair the issues at hand. it would only be an experience to learn from. these things will work themselves out, stopping someone to listen to you for a second makes them one second later to their destination. multiply that second with a couple thousand and that person would probably be dead before they ever got to where they were going.

It's fairly obvious that Macromedia let us all down, and screwed up bigtime with this buggy MX s/w + player release.

I Still have yet to hear from Mike Chambers as to when fixes to the MX development software will be made via a patch.

I am very disappointed in Macromedia for letting us all down this way, charging hundreds of dollars for a program that is heavily flawed and does not meet our needs, nor the needs of our clients.

In fact, this program has caused more problems than it has fixed, both from a "wasted time trying to figure out this buggy software" from the screwed-up player snafu to all the other colossal blunders macromedia and company have made in this release.

It would be nice to find out when a patch/upgrade to the MX software will be made that will fix all of the dozens of problems and user concerns that have been voiced on this and the other threads.

Macromedia, you blew it. And you screwed us. Now fix it.

How do others feel? Are you all thrilled with macromedia for this player bug/MX problems?

Or, do we want some answers?

What's the consensus? This is not whining, by the way - it's a serious user who felt he deserved a WORKING program for my hundreds of dollars, not this piece of s---.

disappointed.

Alohaha,
I've read countless posts by you proclaiming the exact same thing you've posted above.
I've also replied, asking you for a bug list.
I'm going to humour you once more, and ask what the matter with the authoring software is.
Here goes...
What is the matter with the authoring software?
Can you actually answer this?

I've been using nothing else since the release, and have had absolutely no problems. No crashes, no glitches, nothing.
Ive authored a rather large .exe with video for CD-ROM,
and had no problems whatsoever, the finished file compiled to 30MB.
It all went fine. It took a while but there was a fair bit of video to crunch, media cleaner pro would have taken it's time too.

Every post you make spouts off about how buggy it is without actually naming any bugs, let alone what steps to re-create them, copies of emails sent to macromedia and subsequent responses, nothing.
Just that it is buggy.

Whats your beef man?

first of all, i agree with the part of not whining here, but i don't think people who are having problems upgrading their players should be waved off like that.

personally i have tried to install the new player on 4 different machines. only on one machine, after numerous attempts of repeated deleting and reinstalling, have i managed to get ONE installed with the new player.

i have followed the instructions on how to uninstall and tried various methods that the kind people on the boards have suggested. and despite this, only after numerous attempts did i managed to succeed and i am still trying to get the other 3 updated. there must be a reason why the MM site kept sending me the r23 version instead of the r29. even after removing any version of the player, the same download problem still occurs.

true, people who managed to download successful don't usually post their success. but first of all, how many of the clients out there actually realise that there is a NEED to download the new player? and how do we explain to them when they keep gettin the r23 version instead of the r29? do we ask them to stop whining?

these are all my own opinion and honestly, i have been very impressed with mm all this while, but when it comes to this player issue, the faith is just not as strong. the player may not be full proof, it has bug .. fine. they managed to correct it after a while but now there is a problem downloading the new version??
[Edited by thenerdyguy on 05-03-2002 at 08:05 PM]

I finally resolved the issue, it was something to do with my ISP, I use Telewest-blueyounder cable service here in London, I cant remember exactly, but from what I do remember it works by the servers having their own cache where all the popular files are stored, its so that the user wont have to download all the way from other countries and can get the popular files much faster... anyway using my servers public internet-cache the I was always promoted to install the .23 version because for one reason or another the servers cache didn’t update the install file it as should by checking date number ect. I managed to get around this by switching on my poxy server settings and specifying a different cash/server to use that was not used my the majority, (I think it was their BK server)... I got the .29 version, to make sure that this wasn’t a fluke I switched it back to default which in turn installed the .23 version…

Hope this will help some of you who are stuck...

I installed the new r29 version of the Flash 6 player from MM site on the first try, but I did have to reboot my machine which I did not like. I guess I should add it to the rest of the time I have wasted following this issue. Maybe all of us developers should bill MM for all of the time we have had to spend on this issue! Wouldn't that be nice! Ha Ha

as soon as my website returns the new r29 codebase for the new player, and it installs on my client's machines, it will be just the same as installing a flash player 7....

love it or hate it, thats what's gonna happen anyway so why not now

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gadawg
I installed the new r29 version of the Flash 6 player from MM site on the first try, but I did have to reboot my machine which I did not like.

---

http://radio.weblogs.com/0106797/2002/05/03.html#a44

mike chambers

[email protected]

I know .29 was supposed to solve this problem, but when loading swf's dynamically in a 'for loop', if the user wants to break off the stream early (i.e. switch to a different category), he/she won't be able to. This is not a problem in netscape or ie flash player 5. As I'm loading up to a 100 swf's per category about 3kb's each), this is a major problem. Any ideas on how to stop the stream would be greatly appreciated:

function loadin () {
var p;
for (p=0; p<_root.clips.length; p++) {
loadMovie ("swfs/"+_root.clips[p].id, _root.locss[p]);
}
}

as far as I know that would have been a problem in earlier version too, when you create dynamically you also have to un-create dynamically:

Code:

---

function unLoadin () {
    var p;
    for (p=0; p<_root.clips.length; p++) {
          unloadMovie(_root.locss[p]);
    }
}

---

Ok I've been doing flash for a while professionally, and finally I've hit a brick wall!

On the new sound object in flash MX. the book says and I quote

'Streaming sounds play while they are downloading. Playback begins when sufficient data has been received to start the decompressor. As with event sounds, streaming sounds exist only in virtual memory, ****they are not downloaded to the hard drive***.'

every Mp3 I've loaded into my player (6,0,29,0) , the mp3 file get downloaded to my tempory internet folder - so it is getting downloaded to the harddirve - surley??

second problem

If I start streaming an Mp3 and I stop it using sound.stop() I cant start it again using sound.start() - which makes the whole thing pretty useless if your making a proper mp3 player!!

If anyone has had the same problems and knows how to get around them dam, tell me cause its buggin the hell outta me!!

TAZ

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gutter_taz
every Mp3 I've loaded into my player (6,0,29,0) , the mp3 file get downloaded to my tempory internet folder - so it is getting downloaded to the harddirve - surley??

---

it may be downloading to your virtual page file....

which is a part of your hard drive space allocated to expand the capacity of your RAM...

maybe, just maybe

I scripted an mp3 player for the site my designer's working on - he didn't trust me that it would keep playing forever so he left it on all night. In the morning our server had sent 672 mb of the same 5 files to his computer. So they can't very well be loading into memory, even if they do get saved to the temporary internet folder.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sonwah
as far as I know that would have been a problem in earlier version too, when you create dynamically you also have to un-create dynamically:

Code:

---

function unLoadin () {
    var p;
    for (p=0; p<_root.clips.length; p++) {
          unloadMovie(_root.locss[p]);
    }
}

---

---

thanks sonwah, but it seems that once the loadin loop executes there's no way to stop it. Even if I unload as you suggest, the movies don't arrive physically, but their bytes keep coming, clogging up the pipe. Player 5 cut it off immediately on request, so I don't know what the difference is in .29.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeChambers
i am not sure if the standalone will be avaliable the same day as the player, but it will be updated.

mike chambers

[email protected]

---

It has been easy to get distracted from this issue with all the wonderful treats from MM lately (CFMX, etc.), but I will be needing a bug-free Flash6 STANDALONE player relatively soon (2months) for distribution of an app on CDROM that pulls bandwidth intensive (relatively) files down from an online server. You had mentioned that the player would be updated, can you confirm this at this time, and give a projected release date?

Thanks for your help.

yes, as i said earlier (and as you quoted), it will be updated.

i do not have an eta for you.

mike chambers

[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gutter_taz
If I start streaming an Mp3 and I stop it using sound.stop() I cant start it again using sound.start() - which makes the whole thing pretty useless if your making a proper mp3 player!!

---

Does anyone know whether there is a solution to this? Or is that just how it is? Thanks.

Dear Macromedia, dear MikeChambers, dear Readers of this thread.

After doing intense tests i have to say that the streaming bug explained before (none-termination of swfs containing streamed sounds)

is NOT FIXED for Internet Explorer 5.1.x on MAC

The condition of the test:
- a swf containing a 32kbit streamed sound was loaded into an empty movieclip.
- the test swfs were created with flash5.
- i used the latest flash-plugin 6.0.47.0 on Mac OS9.2.2 with Internet Explorer 5.1.4. and a 56k modem connection.
- i traced the connection with IPNetMonitor to see what happened.

the result:
- the stream continued after loading another movie into the clip, replacing the swf with the streamed sound.
- even a movieClip.unloadMovie(); didn't help
- the only way to terminate the stream was:
1. to change to another website (in the same window), though the stream continued for about 20sec and then terminated
2. to close the browser window containing the flash movie
- with Netscape 6.x the stream is terminated as expected
- with netscape 4.7 the stream is terminated after about 10sec

Can somebody please explain/confirm the situation?
Are there any Mac users having the same problems?

thanks

BTW, there's another BUG (?) on Mac Internet Explorer using unloadMovie();
please read "sl0thman's" problem here:
http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=360780
[Edited by me2222 on 08-29-2002 at 12:31 PM]

to be honest i don't believe mike is still following us

Just to clarify...

If I publish a swf with Flash MX but view the swf online through Flash Player 5 on WinXP, will the streaming bug raise its ugly head ? Or will it behave normally and stop and play the audio like it should do ?

If it's the latter, I guess the solution there is to say the req. for viewing my upcoming site is 'Designed for Flash 5 (not 6!!!)' and hope my users will get the message. But that's a pain in the gluteus maximus.

evilguile is not happy about this :(

OMG! this thread is still haunting my inbox! please, everyone, let this thread die. start a new one without so many subscribers. if anyone else wants to complain, go here: http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=296955 :D

you can't play a flash mx swf in the flash 5 player

and yes.. let the thread die.. i will go now and unsubscribe from it

yeah but i just gotta have the last word....


i gotta