Flash Player v24 Firefox

[Guest]

Firefox 50.1 and flash v24 was slow but usable.  However since Microsoft Microsoft MS16-154: Security update for Adobe Flash Player on us it is now unusable.

Firefox freezes when ever you go to a page that has needs flash player.

Firefox 50.1 and Flash Player v23 however does work well with MS16-154: Security update for Adobe Flash Player.

[American2020]

Get an offline installer from here

Installation problems | Flash Player | Windows 7 and earlier

Bottom of the page

[Guest]

American2020,

I Installed from the location you suggested.  Seems to be doing better. 

What's the difference? 

Tim

[Guest]

Well as the day went on the worse the performance gets, Hangs, page freezes, and popups that "a script running on this page is not responding" .  I'm back to V23 so at least I can get something done. 

V24 is terrible.

[jeromiec83223024]

There's no difference in the binary deployed from our online or offline installers.  They're the same.  It's just the installation technology that varies.

Are you using 32 or 64-bit Firefox?  (Task manager will show Firefox (32-bit) if you have the 32-bit variant).  The 64-bit version of Firefox will generally perform better, although there are a couple bugs with the native Firefox sandbox that are still being worked out.  It's a huge improvement in general though, and I'd recommend the switch. 

I'm not aware of any widespread performance regressions.  If you have a consistently reproducible one with a discrete set of reproduction steps, that would be very helpful.  A set of generalized symptoms is going to be much harder to do anything about.

The Windows update you're referring to is just the standard monthly update (we're continuously and proactively hardening Flash Player, so they're all technically security updates), and only applied to IE and Edge.  Flash Player for Firefox is distinct, and updated through our update mechanism or via manual installation...

First things though, if you haven't rebooted since you started experiencing the symptoms, that's probably a great place to start.

[Guest]

Are you using 32 or 64-bit Firefox?

I am running 32 bit Firefox, but had been running 64 bit Firefox since the 64 bit Beta. 

In November I needed a plugin that was only supported by 32 bit Firefox so I moved to the 32 bit version at that time.  I've had problems with Flash Player since then.

Is there a difference between the Flash Player for 32 bit Firefox and 64 bit Firefox?

[jeromiec83223024]

Yeah, back around 2009, Mozilla declined to implement a security sandbox for plug-ins, so we implemented one ourselves for Flash.  Because we effectively bolted it on to the wrong side of the plug-in interface, it's architecturally inefficient and generates a multiple of the number of IPC messages that would otherwise be required.  It's enough that the operating system is not always able to deliver them reliably and in order, which is at the heart of the stability issues with Flash on Firefox.

When Mozilla prioritized the 64-bit version of Firefox and wanted to start shipping it as an official release, they decided to implement a native 64-bit NPAPI sandbox.  It's pretty close to the same thing that we did, but because it's a native sandbox implementation, it requires about half the amount of IPC traffic (which reduces CPU overhead), and it effectively solved the long-standing problem with Flash hanging randomly.  Most of the time Flash isn't actually crashing, it's that communication between Flash and Firefox gets stuck, with one side or the other waiting for a response that never comes.  The hang detection logic in Firefox then kills the plug-in, which results in a crashed plug-in icon) is largely solved.

There are a couple things that aren't brokered correctly in the 64-bit sandbox at the moment, but it's unlikely that you'd even notice, and performance and stability are much better, and we're actively working with the Mozilla folks to get those lingering issues resolved.

[Guest]

Well up until now I had been accepting the default for the Flash Player which displays as:

Windows 64-bit , English , Firefox

Instead I selected For another version and choose:

FP 24 for Firefox - NPAPI

I chose that option and so far it seems to be working much smoother, and am not experiencing the hangs and freezes I had before.  May just a fluke.  Will have to wait and see.

[jeromiec83223024]

To be clear, we're not talking about the bitness of Flash Player -- we're talking about Firefox.

If you're on a 64-bit system, we'll automatically install a plug-in for both 32 and 64-bit browsers, but the 64-bit Flash Player is only going to get used if you're launching it from a 64-bit browser.  If you just go to the main Firefox download page, you'll get the 32-bit browser.  You have to actually go to the "other platforms" page and specifically pull down the 64-bit version if you want to use it.

[Guest]

I understand that but my questions is this.

What is the difference between these two downloads.

Windows 64-bit , English , Firefox

FP 24 for Firefox - NPAPI

[jeromiec83223024]

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.  Where are you finding these download options?

The Other Downloads page offers similar options, but they're not quite what you're describing:

Adobe Flash Player Install for all versions

There's only one current binary for use on Firefox on Windows.  We have two installer packaging technologies (online vs. offline installers), but the actual plug-ins (32 and 64-bit) that ultimately get deployed are identical regardless of the installer that gets used.

[Guest]

"I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.  Where are you finding these download options?"

From this url when I browse to it.  The page I take it detects your browser and OS then give you an option.

Adobe Flash Player Install for all versions

Your system:

Windows 64-bit , English , Firefox

Or you can also select

Need Flash Player for a different computer?

Which lets you choose your version.

FP 24 for Firefox - NPAPI

So from what your saying both selections deliver the same package.  Which is what my question was.

[jeromiec83223024]

Okay, that makes sense. It's the same payload.