Has anyone got 64-bit browser + flash?

[zCypher]

I believe the only flash player compatible with 64-bit browser is for Linux (could still be in Alpha stage though?)

anyone here tried it?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I believe the only flash player compatible with 64-bit browser is for Linux (could still be in Alpha stage though?)

anyone here tried it?

Adobe no longer has a 64-bit version of Flash for linux ( text ). I can say with first-hand experience that the 32-bit version does work with 64-bit browsers.

 

[Nothinman]

It was beta and it worked just as well as the 32-bit build IME. But they stopped releasing them right before the huge security fix with 10.1. So while it's possible if you can find a copy of the old plugin it's not recommended.

 

[zCypher]

Adobe no longer has a 64-bit version of Flash for linux ( text ). I can say with first-hand experience that the 32-bit version does work with 64-bit browsers.

How do you set up a 32-bit flash player in a 64-bit browser?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

How do you set up a 32-bit flash player in a 64-bit browser?

You'll need nspluginwrapper, though it can cause issues of it's own. Instructions are here, but the plugin was in a different directory on my system (Mandriva 2010.1), so change the command accordingly.

EDIT>> Cancel that. I just checked and had uninstalled nspluginwrapper. Flash just works.

 

[zCypher]

You'll need nspluginwrapper, though it can cause issues of it's own. Instructions are here, but the plugin was in a different directory on my system (Mandriva 2010.1), so change the command accordingly.

EDIT>> Cancel that. I just checked and had uninstalled nspluginwrapper. Flash just works.

Interesting. You're sure it's not a 32-bit browser? I wasn't able to get Flash working in 64-bit FF in Windows, so I wasn't getting my hopes up about being able to get it working in Linux.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Yeah, the browsers are definitely 64bit. I just noticed that I apparently had nspluginwrapper-i386 installed, though I don't remember installing it (nspluginwrapper-x86_64 had been removed already). I uninstalled nspluginwrapper-i386 and restarted Opera and Firefox to see if flash still worked, and it does.

Opera: opera-10.60-6386.x86_64

Firefox: firefox-3.6.8-69.1mib2010.1.x86_64

Flash: flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386

 

[zCypher]

Yeah, the browsers are definitely 64bit. I just noticed that I apparently had nspluginwrapper-i386 installed, though I don't remember installing it (nspluginwrapper-x86_64 had been removed already). I uninstalled nspluginwrapper-i386 and restarted Opera and Firefox to see if flash still worked, and it does.

Opera: opera-10.60-6386.x86_64

Firefox: firefox-3.6.8-69.1mib2010.1.x86_64

Flash: flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386

Thanks to you, I will now be spending some time installing a Linux distro. Thanks for all the info

I will report back with results.

I am having a hard time choosing between Xubuntu/Lubuntu/Ubuntu/Mint/whatever though.

 

[Nothinman]

Yeah, the browsers are definitely 64bit. I just noticed that I apparently had nspluginwrapper-i386 installed, though I don't remember installing it (nspluginwrapper-x86_64 had been removed already). I uninstalled nspluginwrapper-i386 and restarted Opera and Firefox to see if flash still worked, and it does.

Opera: opera-10.60-6386.x86_64

Firefox: firefox-3.6.8-69.1mib2010.1.x86_64

Flash: flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386

A 64-bit binary can't just dlopen a 32-bit library without the hackery that something like ndispluginwrapper does so you have to have a 64-bit version of Flash lying around somewhere for that to work.

I am having a hard time choosing between Xubuntu/Lubuntu/Ubuntu/Mint/whatever though.

But they're all the same thing, just with different default settings. Mint may be the exception because I'm not sure how they package their theme, but if you install Ubuntu you can just as easily install XFCE or KDE and choose whichever you like from the display manager that appears at bootup.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

A 64-bit binary can't just dlopen a 32-bit library without the hackery that something like ndispluginwrapper does so you have to have a 64-bit version of Flash lying around somewhere for that to work.

I don't have any version of nspluginwrapper installed at the moment, and the only Flash player installed is 10.1.53.64 (i386), yet it still works. I do have an empty /usr/lib/nspluginwrapper directory, however.

Also, I have been meaning to try Ubuntu again (audio issues drove me away), so I downloaded Xubuntu 10.04 x86_64 and installed it in a VM. Upon booting after the install I installed Flash from the repo and nothing else. Youtube works, and checking the installed Flash version I get "You have version 10,1,53,64 installed" from the Adobe site. I checked the installed packages and nspluginwrapper is already installed, so at least with Ubuntu-based distros you won't have any extra work to do.

 

[zCypher]

Well I got Ubuntu 10.04 with Minefield 64-bit and flash working with my plugins. However it seems quite a bit slower than the same program in Win 7, and a lot of the vids don't work properly.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Well I guess I never knew that Firefox did not have a 64-bit build.

Have you tried any other browsers? Opera has a 64-bit build, as does Google's Chromium (install from package manager). See if those perform any better.

From what I can tell from running Xubuntu in a VM, Flash appears to work fine (when the vm itself isn't hanging) with Firefox as well as Opera and Chromium (both 64-bit).

 

[zCypher]

I realize there are various 64 bit browsers available already, but my main concern was specifically with the availability of a flash plugin for said browsers, since I couldn't find any for Windows.

I'm quite happy with Minefield so far, but I might check out Opera and Chromium to see how they feel in Linux.

Takes some getting used to this Ubuntu interface. I wonder what I can do to make it a bit snappier... Seems a bit sluggish for my hardware

E5200 on MSI board
4GB corsair ddr2-800
TB WD black
7600GT

nothing special but it seems to run 7 quite a bit faster than Ubuntu. Could it just be less optimized for my hardware? I did try a specific NVidia driver that it was suggesting, but didn't notice a difference. As far as I can tell, it has the SATA stuff set up, but I'm pretty much a Linux noob all around.

The main thing I noticed so far is when scrolling in Minefield, sometimes it jitters if it's loading another tab, where the same task is seemless in 7. While flash videos being buggy I can understand cause it's 64-bit flash, not really a final release - ok. but Minefield in 7 was smooth for scrolling and browsing pages.

So I'm not sure if there are some hd/ram/video optimizations that I'm oblivious to... hopefully!

 

[Nothinman]

Well I guess I never knew that Firefox did not have a 64-bit build.

Some Linux distributions build and provide them, but AFAIK Mozilla hasn't had officially supported 64-bit builds on any platform so far. I've been using 64-bit builds of FF, Galeon and Chrome for years now and they've worked fine.

I'm quite happy with Minefield so far, but I might check out Opera and Chromium to see how they feel in Linux.

You really shouldn't be running nightly builds of software if you're trying to get an accurate representation of it and a new OS at the same time. And Flash is consistently slower on non-Windows OSes, that's the way it's always been and Adobe doesn't seem to know how to fix it. Maybe the push for Flash on Android made them hire some better devs.

So I'm not sure if there are some hd/ram/video optimizations that I'm oblivious to... hopefully!

Maybe, I can probably think of a few minor ones, but I'd bet that the difference will be minimal. Linux isn't Windows and in general doesn't require as much tinkering to get it running well. If you've got the non-free nVidia drivers installed and Xorg is using them then that's probably the best you can do, I'm running an 8500 GT at home with E17 instead of Gnome and it runs fine for me. But I've been running Linux on my desktop at home for almost a decade now so I'm sure it's just a matter of me being accustomed to how X works and feels. Like the difference between Xorg's font antialiasing and TrueType on Windows, I like the former much better because it's what I'm used to seeing.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

While flash videos being buggy I can understand cause it's 64-bit flash, not really a final release - ok. but Minefield in 7 was smooth for scrolling and browsing pages.

It's not 64-bit flash unless you installed the horribly insecure 64-bit alpha that Adobe has removed from their site.

nothing special but it seems to run 7 quite a bit faster than Ubuntu. Could it just be less optimized for my hardware? I did try a specific NVidia driver that it was suggesting, but didn't notice a difference. As far as I can tell, it has the SATA stuff set up, but I'm pretty much a Linux noob all around.

I used Ubuntu for a while, but I felt it was sluggish as well, specifically hard drive performance was noticeably slow. I went back to Mandriva and it flies in comparison. My onboard audio didn't work at all on Ubuntu since 8.04, but works in every other non-Ubuntu distro.

Some Linux distributions build and provide them, but AFAIK Mozilla hasn't had officially supported 64-bit builds on any platform so far. I've been using 64-bit builds of FF, Galeon and Chrome for years now and they've worked fine.

How can one tell if the version they are using is actually 64-bit, and not just a 32-bit binary packaged for a 64-bit OS? I would like to think the version I am using (firefox-3.6.8-69.1mib2010.1.x86_64) is, but learning that Mozilla doesn't support 64-bit officially suddenly has me doubting.

 

[Nothinman]

It's not 64-bit flash unless you installed the horribly insecure 64-bit alpha that Adobe has removed from their site.

True, but since there's less exploits for Linux it's safer to run it there than on Windows. It's not very smart, but it should work fine if you really need it.

How can one tell if the version they are using is actually 64-bit, and not just a 32-bit binary packaged for a 64-bit OS? I would like to think the version I am using (firefox-3.6.8-69.1mib2010.1.x86_64) is, but learning that Mozilla doesn't support 64-bit officially suddenly has me doubting.

Run file on the binary. After following the symlink trail here I finally found the binary for my FireFox/Iceweasel package and got this:

$ file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/xulrunner-stub
/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/xulrunner-stub: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, stripped

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Run file on the binary. After following the symlink trail here I finally found the binary for my FireFox/Iceweasel package and got this:

$ file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/xulrunner-stub
/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/xulrunner-stub: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, stripped

Ok, it's definitely 64-bit then:

$ file /usr/lib64/firefox-3.6.8/firefox
/usr/lib64/firefox-3.6.8/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped

 

[Nothinman]

Well I would hope they didn't pull a MS and start putting 32-bit stuff under /usr/lib64. =)

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Well I would hope they didn't pull a MS and start putting 32-bit stuff under /usr/lib64. =)

You never know!

 

[Nothinman]

You never know!

Well if we were talking about Debian I think that would be a release critical bug, but other distributions might not be so strict.

 

[zCypher]

I realize that about new OS + nightly, lol. Not the best representation.
Anyhow like I said overall I am pleased, but now that you mention specifically "hard disk sluggishness", it did seem that way too.

I originally installed 9.10 by accident, and downloaded the 10.04 update. When it finished downloading and was applying the update, it said it was going to take 50 minutes. It only took around 20 mins to install the OS from the CD! lol at that point I just rebooted to Windows, burned the correct ISO and installed 10.04 that way. Took less time!

After I got 10.04 installed, it took an abnormally long time to install the flash plugin. Using Minefield and whatever that default instant messenger program is; both seem to respond quickly to opening/closing and general use (other than the browser scrolling/flash playing)

I wonder if Mint Linux is snappier?

It's kinda funny how some of us can rag on Windows, since it does do a pretty good job hehe

I am having fun with this though, and the best part is that it's all open source; I love it.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I wonder if Mint Linux is snappier?

I don't see how it would be, to be honest.

Linux Mint is a computer operating system based on the Ubuntu Linux distribution, which in turn is based on Debian.

Text

Also, I haven't properly tested Ubuntu 10.04 or it's variants, so I don't know if performance has improved or not over 9.04.

 

[zCypher]

I don't see how it would be, to be honest.



Text

Also, I haven't properly tested Ubuntu 10.04 or it's variants, so I don't know if performance has improved or not over 9.04.

dammit!

 

[Kirby]

i'll be so glad when Flash finally dies.

:crossesfingers:

 

[Nothinman]

dammit!

I never really understood the point of Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Mint, etc as they're just Ubuntu with different defaults and maybe a few extra packages installed. The same software is available in all of them, it's just what and how they come with by default. And Mint makes even less sense to me because it's just Gnome with a certain theme and a few codecs and such that are legally grey to distribute.