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

"I'm hoping that the player will autoupdate itself, assuming that the fix is pretty small. ...."

On a PC running IE, as long as the version number in the codebase of the object and embed tags is larger than what the user has installed, the player will automatically update.

there are problems here, though. Let's say the user has 2 browser windows open with flash content playing. Well, in that case, the user will STILL have to restart, even though the player updated automatically.

I think that's right...

Do we have any kind of estimated time line for this?

Putting a higher number in the codebase unfortunately isn't an option. Say I have a site that is coded in Flash 4, my user has the dodgy plugin. I only want to put codebase 4 in to my html since I want to allow people with the Flash 4 plugin to use my site. If I put codebase 6.0.25 or whatever in then it will force them to upgrade, however if I don't they will be using the dodgy player and my site will display wrongly.

This is a problem that affects all sites, not just new ones. Old sites shouldn't have to be updated to stay compatible.

I'm not sure about the restart issue, however I'd settle for a single restart, if it fixes the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by C4_Tom
Putting a higher number in the codebase unfortunately isn't an option. Say I have a site that is coded in Flash 4, my user has the dodgy plugin. I only want to put codebase 4 in to my html since I want to allow people with the Flash 4 plugin to use my site. If I put codebase 6.0.25 or whatever in then it will force them to upgrade, however if I don't they will be using the dodgy player and my site will display wrongly.

---

I agree with you, but I don't believe there is any function in the Flash player itself to automatically check for updates. And they can't go back and include it in previous versions people have installed.

So the only option is to hope the 6 player hasn't spread too far. The problem is, unless Macromedia patches the authoring environment, most people will still output Flash HTML files with the 6,0,0,0 tag -- and faulty players going to those sites won't know to update.

I guess that's the price everyone's got to pay. Let's just hope it becomes a minority quickly.

I don't have MX at the moment, but doesn't it have the version string? ($version)

This has been implemented since version 4 of the player (not the original version, but later updates). You could insert a new swf file at the beginning of your Flash content that checks if the right version is installed. If it is then load the next swf into level0 etc...

MM have not pulled the v6 Player from their site btw

We have held of exporting to 6 as it had so many new features that I really wanted to wait until it had been tested properly. Looks like that has been a good decision in light of this current situation but I'm sure MM will release an updated new version soon although I still would export to 5 for a while yet.

_greg

http://www.glinted.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrarob
I don't have MX at the moment, but doesn't it have the version string? ($version)

This has been implemented since version 4 of the player (not the original version, but later updates). You could insert a new swf file at the beginning of your Flash content that checks if the right version is installed. If it is then load the next swf into level0 etc...

MM have not pulled the v6 Player from their site btw

---

You are quite right. This can be implemented into new projects. But what about the millions of flash sites that are out there already? It is a far too cumbersome task to go back and add a version checker for all our previous work. We just have to wait for the bug-free version of version 6 and inform clients and users to update their flash player.
[Edited by flipsideguy on 04-04-2002 at 08:46 PM]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hookmeister

Quote:

---

Originally posted by C4_Tom
I'm hoping that the player will autoupdate itself, assuming that the fix is pretty small. ....

---

Ditto - that would be ideal. probly should make it a formal request.

---

Fyi : Currently the player does not have this capability.

make sure that you send the request for it to [email protected]

mike chambers

[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by heyotwell
There have been a number of developers (and others) who have been encouraging of and excited about MM's recent Flash MX strategy of "replacing" HTML as a content-delivery standard.

(That's *some* developers. Maybe not *you*).

MM's non-response on this issue is typical of them--I've seen this kind of thing since starting with Director back in '95.

---

you might want to check out this article:

http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/jd_forum/jd005.html

the whole macromedia wants flash to replace MX started with a mis-quote in an article (i don't have the URL handy). we definately do not want to replace HTML (we couldn't if we wanted to). There are definately some things that HTML does much better than flash (displaying large documents, text, information).

however, having said that, there are some things that flash does better than HTML (i.e. web apps, round tripping, etc...).

anyways, john's article above has some good info on this.

mike chambers

[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeChambers
the whole macromedia wants flash to replace MX started with a mis-quote in an article (i don't have the URL handy).

---

What? This sentence didn't make sense.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

yes it did, you're just being picky to highlight his grammer slippage

meow!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cakkafracle
yes it did, you're just being picky to highlight his grammer slippage

meow!

---

Oh, I get it now. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I just didn't understand it at first.

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

Thanks for the link to that article, Mike. That clears up a ton of confussion that's been roaming in the Flash world.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/
[Edited by nocrapchurch on 04-05-2002 at 01:34 AM]

[QUOTE]

What? This sentence didn't make sense.

[QUOTE]

how about:

the whole "macromedia wants flash to replace MX" line started with a mis-quote in an article (i don't have the URL handy).

mike chambers

[email protected]
[Edited by MikeChambers on 04-05-2002 at 12:58 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeChambers
[QUOTE]

What? This sentence didn't make sense.

Quote:

---

how about:

the whole "macromedia wants flash to replace MX" line started with a mis-quote in an article (i don't have the URL handy).

mike chambers

[email protected]
[Edited by MikeChambers on 04-05-2002 at 12:58 AM]

---

Do you mean "macromedia was flash to replace HTML"?

I think you keep using "MX" where you mean "HTML".

-scott

Quote:

---

Do you mean "macromedia was flash to replace HTML"?

I think you keep using "MX" where you mean "HTML".

-scott [/B]

---

doh!

one more time:

the whole "macromedia wants flash to replace HTML" line started with a mis-quote in an article (i don't have the URL handy).

ok, i think i will get some sleep now.

mike chambers

[email protected]

heh, actually, that's pretty funny.

thanks for the clarification, Mike. :)

FYI... same stuff on Mac...IE 5.1& flash plug-in 6.0 r21, after some time IE crash, happends with the example link and on some other pages with expriments on mp3 stream.

Well it seems I'll have to repeat myself, but I seriously think this will be a non-issue in few weeks. There are only three kinds of people who have the new player right now:

1. Developpers
2. People who have just re-installed their OSes
3. People who have seen Flash 6 content

Well, the third group is practically non-existant. Very little Flash 6 content is available now outside of the developper community.

As for the second category, the only way these people would have been forced to download the new player is if they have an outdated version of the player included with their OS. That is, any version lower than 5. That rules out XP, and since the vast majority of people reinstalling their OS these days are going for XP, well, this category also barely exixts.

This leaves us with developpers, and I am sure any Flash developper out there is tech-savvy enough to install a new player.

Bottom-line: If Macromedia fixes this in the next week, it will be a non-issue in a month. They screwed up big, they're fixing what they broke, everybody's happy.

As a side note, I'd just like to remind everyone that worst things have happened in webland. If anyone here ever experienced IE5's broken CSS box model, you know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoomfreddy
FYI... same stuff on Mac...IE 5.1& flash plug-in 6.0 r21, after some time IE crash, ...

---

we´ve tested it with several (extremely big) streams, and measured networkactivity:
under os x /ie5.1 with player 6 r21 everything fine!

if somebody unsure i´ll illustrate this?!

but if MM fixes this bug next week (if really next week) we´ve forgotten all this in 3 weeks.
till then you can test your big streaming jobs on a mac ;-)

It seems that everyone agrees this is a problem for IE, and it seems to be a problem for some Mac users and some Netscape users

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pmineault
<snip>
3. People who have seen Flash 6 content

Well, the third group is practically non-existant. Very little Flash 6 content is available now outside of the developper community....
</snip>

---

point 3 isn't entirely true. I have already seen a fair amount of flash MX content on the web, considering it was just released....:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeChambers

Quote:

---

Do you mean "macromedia was flash to replace HTML"?

I think you keep using "MX" where you mean "HTML".

-scott

---

doh!

one more time:

the whole "macromedia wants flash to replace HTML" line started with a mis-quote in an article (i don't have the URL handy).

ok, i think i will get some sleep now.

mike chambers

[email protected] [/B]

---

This is good. That article clears up so much nonsense that has been floating around the technical world. I'm trying to help clear up the nonsense too.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

I read a post on a different board from one of the macromedia guys that says "we've got millions of these players in distribution already", it's far from just a select few that have downloaded it.

(http://webforums.macromedia.com/flash/messageview.cfm?catid=194&threadid=306570)

Corporate hype. There's no way in hell there's any more than a million of these players in distribution.

Macromedia should've made and designed FlashMX on slower computers and limited bandwidth so as to understand the needs of the Internet users. This way, Macromedia would be able to predict how their program works across the spectrum of connection speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlakDragn
Macromedia should've made and designed FlashMX on slower computers and limited bandwidth so as to understand the needs of the Internet users. This way, Macromedia would be able to predict how their program works across the spectrum of connection speeds.

---

yes, we did that. please remeber that there are tons of new features in Flash MX and the Flash player. At the same time the Flash player size remained relatively small.

we spent considerable resources on internal player testing, and then had a public beta testing. this issue jsut got through, and now we are working around the clock to fix it.

summary : we test more than most people realize. some issues get through. When they do, like in this case, we try to respond quickly to fix them.

mike chambers

[email protected]

It really has gotten big in a very short amount of time (the bug that is)

how obvious the bug may be(is it really that obvious?). Bugs still slip trough. I think i can say for every programmer in the world that debugging is a cumbersome job. however keep in mind that debugging someone elses code is even thougher.

however i don't think that you should judge the book by a hole made by a worm, rather judge it by the content. Flash mx (with or without bug) adds some elements that are really usefull and just missing in flash 5. The bug is just a minor setback but i don't think this bug will be rembered 2-3 weeks the fix has been released.

as for people having a hard time convincing corporates to use a single company platform.... just point your finger at microsoft.... windows is a great example and .net is a other great example...

to be honest if microsoft was even doing half the job as the people of macromedia i would be happy.

well anyway i'm going of to submit a new feature i want to see in flash 7 :) (midi support for those wanting to know :) perfect streaming media that still hasn't been used by flash mx)

as for Mike Chamber... I know the issues anyone has when a bug arrises and i must say you handled it pretty well.

However to make one suggestion. Instead of using a public beta woulnd't it be better to open a beta on developer-forums like these, with content you can test it with? This is only my opinion but, i don't think the average user would notice such a problem (they would probably just write it of as microsofts bugs :)) and even if they notice it, i hardly think they are going to write a email to report the bug.

However if you used a "semi"-closed beta for the users and developers on boards like these you would get alot more response. As these people have alot at stake and can find and will report bugs alot quicker then the average user.

I know you must be completely the wrong person to talk about beta testing regulations but maybe you could pass it on as suggestion...

just my 2 cents

P.S.
keep up the good work. since flash 4 flash really has grown to immens proportions, it's really quite an achievement
[Edited by justice strike on 04-05-2002 at 07:26 PM]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by justice strike

However to make one suggestion. Instead of using a public beta woulnd't it be better to open a beta on developer-forums like these, with content you can test it with? This is only my opinion but, i don't think the average user would notice such a problem (they would probably just write it of as microsofts bugs :)) and even if they notice it, i hardly think they are going to write a email to report the bug.

However if you used a "semi"-closed beta for the users and developers on boards like these you would get alot more response. As these people have alot at stake and can find and will report bugs alot quicker then the average user.

I know you must be completely the wrong person to talk about beta testing regulations but maybe you could pass it on as suggestion...

---

hey, thats a good suggestions. I have forwarded it to the appropriate people for consideration for future betas.

also, make sure to send the midi request to:

[email protected]

thanks....

mike chambers

[email protected]

maybe not the right place for this, but my wish for the wish@MM and bug@MM is:
it should both be a FORUM and NOT a MAIL account.

there where several MIDI wish mails i know, but nobody knows the answers (from MM).
so why send another wish mail?

or this streaming bug ... same thing (for some time).
ok, i´ll send this to [email protected], sure ;-)

great suggestion from justice strike!

I just watched the launch video for Flash MX. The Chairman and CEO of Macromedia says that an average of 2.3 million people download the Flash Player everyday. The video was done on March 4th, and he said they predicted that 100 million people would download the player within the next 30 days.

If his calculations are right, there are at least 100 million of these buggy Flash Players out there and the numbers are growing.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

i just noticed this thread about webcam update problems.just checking to see if this may have some relation to this thread about the streaming.
http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=291975


also does anyone know if there is any difference in players between the one that MX installs and the one you download from MM.perhaps there is an issue there.
[Edited by sintech on 04-06-2002 at 04:00 PM]

Quote:

---

also does anyone know if there is any difference in players between the one that MX installs and the one you download from MM.perhaps there is an issue there.
[Edited by sintech on 04-06-2002 at 04:00 PM] [/B]

---

s

the one from mm.com is a newer version (.23 vs .21).

mike chambers

[email protected]

mike--
any word on an eta for the patched player?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary022576
mike--
any word on an eta for the patched player?

---

we have isolated and fixed the bug and are now doing intensive QA testing (even over this weekend (i am in the office right now)). We want to make sure that:

1. the fixes didn't create any new issues.

2. that we completly fixed the issues.

so, having said that, i can't give you an exact date and time it will be avaliable, but i can say, it will be avaliable soon.

btw, thanks for reminding me. i meant to post an update on friday afternoon, but got sidetracked.

mike chambers

[email protected]

Excellent!!

thanks for the update. I am sure I speak for A LOT of developers when I say we are anxiously awaiting it :D

Would it be worth making it available to us, however not officially release it to the public yet. That way you'll get a lot of people testing the issues that concern them and if there are any bugs, we'll probably find them.

posting only to subscribe to this thread to find out about the update

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeChambers

Quote:

---

Originally posted by C4_Tom

Macromedia have now got big problems.
Say my small flash site loads in a 50MB swf, goodbye bandwidth! Hello very frustrated user.

---

umm, don't write a flash movies that loads a 50mb SWF file?

mike chambers

[email protected]

---

umm, your fired I hear?

slimpixi

Sorry, I didn't realize the length of the thread. Glad to see a solution in the works!
[Edited by LuminaryMedia on 04-07-2002 at 11:30 AM]