Thread: "Flash 10 ActiveX"

its flash... you know by adobe

http://www.mp3car.com/road-runner/12...sh-10-now.html

i never seen thier installer not install...

Sorry, I didn't know "Flash 10 ActiveX" and "Flash Player" were interchangable terms.

The installer you linked to is also 2.98 MB, not 733KB. That might be why the one I downloaded didn't work.

Thanks

That installer you downloaded, is an installer, stupid I know.... I HATE programs / companies that do that crap. When you run that 700k file, it contacts Adobe, and downloads the actual information. You need to look for a link to download for offline installation.

i dont hate programs like that, it allows for dynamic installing
ie only the componets you need (helps on huge programs, and allows a better way to update code)

btw, get used to it, welcome to the world of the "CLOUD"

Installers that connect to the internet and run the actual installer online don't allow for anything more dynamic than an offline installer that gives you options during the install. Besides, not every computer is online.

I really hope the cloud will just turn to snow and fall from the sky and we can be done with this stupid trend.

hehe, it truely is dynamic... while flash player is small
other web installers, allow say only for your OS files to come down
and the mfg only has to build one installer

its here to stay... i dont trust the cloud, but its going to be a part of our lives

JohnWPB say: "The more clouds one have, the better the chance for nasty storm"!

.net is a perfect example of a lame cloud installer. I have a install / rescue set of files for building PC's. I like to have the REAL .net install files and not the cloud ones., (especially since there is .net 3, .net 3.01, .net 3.000003, .net 3b Hahaha) When building a PC it is far faster to run local files than have to install(AKA download) 10 different .net variances.

Originally Posted by sebberry

Sorry, I didn't know "Flash 10 ActiveX" and "Flash Player" were interchangable terms.

Since no one went in depth on this, the explanation is:

There are two common browser plugin formats:
"Netscape Plugins" or "Gecko Plugins" - used by Netscape, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc, etc.
"ActiveX Controls" - used by Internet Explorer and browsers derived from internet explorer

A critical point about ActiveX controls that should be noted is that they may be embedded in any windows application, not just IE.

So really "Flash Player" is a technology, and Flash 10 ActiveX is a particular implementation of it.

Originally Posted by JohnWPB

.net is a perfect example of a lame cloud installer.

I'd hardly call these guys "cloud installers" haha, they existed long before "cloud" was a buzzword.

But I hate seeing people in an industry focused on technology remain stagnant and set in their ways about how "technology" should remain the old way. The cloud trend exists because everyone wants to access the same things on their desktop/netbook/tablet/phone and hence isn't going anywhere. C'mon, do you really want to go back to syncing your PDA? But there is a time and a place for everything and things that don't belong in the cloud, shouldn't be put there. This is no reason to fear it in general.

Originally Posted by JohnWPB

for building PC's

Note the plural. You describe the exact case for why redistributable installers exist.

Originally Posted by JohnWPB

When building a PC it is far faster to run local files than have to install(AKA download) 10 different .net variances.

Definitely not true when you add in download time. If installing on only one machine, the online installer will definitely be faster and easier on the infrastructure. When installing on multiple machines, you are "redistributing" per say, and thus should use the redistributable version. The redistributable installer needs to download much, much more data than the online installer. The redistributable bundles updates and installers for every platform the .Net framwork runs on which is definitely an unnecessary waste of bandwidth and cpu time in decompressing.

THANK YOU paulF

all the stuff we are talking about have redistributable packages
just adobe, is a pita cause of licensing, thats why even my link in the post to a direct file is not what they want
they want you on their site seeing thier stuff
http://www.adobe.com/licensing/