I already have 10.0.45.2 installed on my computer. I enabled the internal flash and was prompted to accept the license agreement. According to the about:plugins, 10.0.45 is still enabled. Do I have to disable this myself or do nothing? Which plugin is being used to play flash, 10.1 or 10.0.45?
Personaly I think it was a horrible idea. I hope you will handle all the security holes around Acrobat Reader and Flash. Please make sure it is convenient to disable and also easy replace with a different FP version. (for example Flash Player Debugger version)
Any plans to integrate a flash blocker into Chrome?
Hm, why is the Bug "Issue 39104: REGRESSION: Native dialogs got extended - fixed on trunk." not fixed? I thougt it is fixed on the trunk?
I dont want this poison!
Please, this is a *horrible* idea. The last thing we want is this big chunk of buggy proprietary code with known security flaws as part of Chrome.Flash is dying, why make this move now?What happened to lightweight fast browser?
You can check the location of the Shockwave Flash plugin on the about:plugins page to see if the integrated version is being used or not.Integrated plugin:Shockwave Flash - Version: 10,1,51,95Description: Shockwave Flash 10.1 d51Location: C:\Users\-\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application\5.0.360.4\gcswf32.dllStandard plugin:Shockwave Flash - Version: 10,1,51,95Description: Shockwave Flash 10.1 d51Location: C:\Windows\system32\Macromed\Flash\NPSWF32.dll
I agree with Paul!!!!! ;x
This is great news. Flash has always been lacking decent integration into the browser. Once a Flash object has focus, all native browser functions like text search, right-clicking, page back & forward etc become inactive. We need to bring this native browser functionality back. Ideally Flash (and any plug-in object) should be transparent to the user, so unless you dive into the web page source code, you wouldn’t know it’s Flash. And as well, I’d hope we can move past using the ugly object HTML tags and have better ways of integrating Flash content into our pages.
There is no bundled Adobe Flash Player plug-in for 64-bit Linux.NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Just for the record, I realize you're just including the existing Adobe software in your binary bundle, and that there's no significant change for folks, other than hopefully flash gets updated regularly.What I object to is (a) including a big blob of horrid code in the bundle and (b) further promotion of flash to end users.If you told me you were including an open source limited flash interpreter that was peer reviewed and not a total pig, I wouldn't have these objections.
Does it also work with Linux 64 bits ?
in layman's terms, how does one enable flash?
Adobe has a 64 bit flash player for linux... its v10.0, not 10.1, but it would be nice to know where to drop the .so file so we can pretend to go along with teh 32bit users until Adobe gets off their fat ass and releases a 10.1 64 bit build!!#@#@^@#%^$#$!^$#
For amalkin11's benefit. I assume your on Windows. If you don't already have a Chrome desktop icon make one then right click, hit properties and add a space and --enable-internal-flash to the end of the Target box before hitting apply. From here you can delete your old icon and drag to your quick-launch/taskbar if you like.
Gmail site www.gmail.com is showing VERY small fonts. Other sites are working fine. Any ideas ?
How do you enable flash (add command line) on a mac?
After enabling internal flash; when I load any YouTube video, I get an error "The following plug-in has crashed: Shockwave Flash"
I can't give an as sharp "yes" or "omg no!" reply as most here as for Flash, because I *do* use Flash although I don't like it. And for everyone who use Flash and don't have an agenda against it, this IS a good move. There are both performance and security benefits, if you were going to use Flash anyway. It's however obviously a bad move if you don't prefer to have Flash installed. I think these users are in minority though. So it perhaps becomes a question of whether Google should include an option to disable built-in Flash for this vocal minority.
My allegiance becomes ever more divided. I hope Firefox 4.0 finally delivers on their repeated promises of a zippy GUI on non-Windows platforms and a Chrome-like renovated UI.
Thanks again, Google Team! :)
At Keith, thanks for the directions. Google should have been a bit more clear about how to do that.
This is a really bad idea. 1) Integrating flash into Chrome dramatically extends the attack area on the browser, and automatically becomes security issue number 1.2) Flash is notoriously buggy and prone to crashes. I fail to see how integrating it into the browser will improve stability3) Chrome is open source. Flash is not. Flash has no place in the project.I feel like there are two reasons for this integration: Symbolically spiting Apple's iPad and testing integration for Chrome OS.1) Integrating Flash invalidates anything Google might say about HTML 5. Doing it to spite Apple is a bad move.2) This is a browser, not an operating system. Do this yourself on beta builds of the OS, not on browsers released for other operating systems.
To all the people complaining about security problems with Flash:This change conveys two security benefits.First, Chrome's update technology, which we can use to address security holes, can now be used to update Flash much more quickly and easily, dramatically reducing the vulnerability window _and_ the amount of user effort required.Second, this will eventually enable Flash to be protected by Chrome's sandbox. Today, someone with a Flash exploit can compromise you, and the only course of action is to disable Flash -- _if_ the exploit is known. By contrast, holes in WebKit don't automatically compromise you because attackers still need to escape the sandbox. This model is far safer for users.
I agree with the posters before - including Flash is a horrible idea. If I want Flash, I can still download it. But it is mostly obsolete with HTML5. And it is primarily a source of security flaws and unwanted ads, so I typically disable it.It is a large step backwards. HTML5 is tomorrow, including video and audio, and Flash was yesterday.
Great idea - like the sandbox integration. The only thing that is stopping me from doing this is the lack of clarity of how we would run the Flash Player Debug version. Perhaps another command line argument?
MatthewVarley:Chrome is not open source. Chromium is open source, and I'm pretty sure Flash will not be bundled with Chromium. Chrome already uses chunks of proprietary code.
This version of chrome crashes everytime I open 'Call Settings' in Google Voice. Fix It.
yea shamrock, but flash is still widely used today. its not like flash is going disappear right this second.
Flash is proprietary crap and it sucks and I wish it would die.
Few ideas for the aero integration in Win 71) In the previews, add a slide for new tab. At the moment, (while the window is minimized)to open a tab, one needs 3 clicks -1) on the chrome icon, 2) any of the tabs, and 3) new tab switch. A new tab slide will reduce these steps and improve usability2) Add a double click action which will restore the window on the desktop. Now, this takes two clicks. - 1) On the chrome icon, 2) the desired tab. Most of the time I just need to restore to the last tab I was working on before minimizing the window.Note: I don’t know if this is the right place to post this. If not, do overlook this
I thought that Google have enough money to order the open source version of Flash for Chromium/NaCl. :(
its amazing that after reading all the comments, no one has come to the conclusion that I think explains why Google is doing this......THEY ARE TURNING BROWSER PLUGINS INTO EXTENSIONS.Your going to more than likely see an extensions-type site for browser plugins further down the road, where anyone, Adobe will be first, can offer plugins to the browser that add functionality. NaCl will more than likely be one of these types of apps, possibly Java as well.If anything, Google is not giving Flash an added boost, they are actually putting it in the back seat where browser plugins should live, not as part of the operating system. As a linux user, I enjoy the fact that a single command can update every piece of software on my system. I've come to enjoy this as well with Firefox addons, and now Chrome extensions. I think putting browser plugins in the same category was only the next logical step and Team Mozilla will most likely follow suite.
Does anyone knows how to add the command line parameter in Mac?This will be interesting, since Flash in OS X runs like crap... laggy, choppy ... and there is no way to solve it, maybe this formula could work.Thank you!
It's not so bad, but I am afraid that it can be bad for the HTML5 future. Afaik, the Chrome extensions are open source, but Chrome plugins, like most of the Firefox extensions - not open source. Also each proprietary component is a legal problem.
The installer has grown more than 2 MiB. What next? Silverlight/Moonlight? O_o
A really bad choice and basically Chrome is off my computer.The security risks, cpu overhead especially on mac, and further bloat are steps in the wrong direction.
How does one enable this on Mac?
As I see it, this can only weaken a strong,safe browser.Adobe can't plug their own holes so now you're going to include some of their code?Horrible.What's wrong with your own player?
to enable this on Mac, paste the following line of text into a Terminal window and hit enter:open /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app --args --enable-internal-flashthis assumes you have placed the Dev channel build in your Applications folder.you will know it worked when Chrome asks you to confirm the use of the built-in plugin.
Please don't overreact to this, people. (1) Install FlashBlock (2) Realize that it's sandboxed, anyway.
I decided to un-install the Flash Player from Windows Vista 32 and just rely on the Google Flash Plug-in extension - knowing that it will automatically be updated when a new release is available.If you hate Flash, then by all means block it - but so many sites are using it - why not just use it until HTML5 is a good replacement or get use to empty flash windows on your web pages when blocking it.
thank you danbedford! Worked like a charm!
I honestly dont understand why people are freaking out so much. Everyones acting like this will change chrome forever. simply go to about:plugins and disable flash. simply as that, its just like they never integrated it. whats the problem?
Please, Google, leave Adobe's crap out of your awesome browser! Focus all your resources on HTML5 and VP8 instead (you know what I'm talking about), and let buggy Flash die a quick & ugly death already!
The flash integration is going to come down to two things:1. does it make Flash run faster, stabler, smoother?2. Does it (hopefully) not affect Chrome's performance at all.All I can say right now is that this (Mac 360.4) build sucks. Its driving me back to the beta. I can't scroll down a page until long long moments after a page as loaded. The same with closing a tab, sitting here hitting cmd-w like an asshole and the tab just sits there, laughing at me...Some websites go direct to the sad folder. Help me out here. I want to like Chrome. And don't judge it on the performance of Dev builds, but the beta has its issues also. Instead of driving the development of Chrome over the cutting edge with innovations like integrating Flash into the browser, please please please make sure the browser works, works well, works fast, and works solid.Thanks. (also: bring back pinned tabs)
Apparently I had 7 different Quicktime plugins enabled. My god.Interesting move with bundling Flash. It doesn't seem very "Google". Should it be up to the user to decide if they want Flash installed or not?
Good idea. Finally browser for not specialized end user with typical extensions built in.I don't get people, who say that flash is dying. What's your alternative for RIA????
To make a permanent shortcut to Google Chrome+internal flash mode,type or copy-and-paste this in a terminal window:sudo mv /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google.real &&sudo printf '#!/bin/bash\ncd "/Applications/Google Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS"\n"/Applications/Google Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google.real" --enable-internal-flash "$@"\n' > /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome &&sudo chmod u+x /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome;It'll ask for your root password so you need to have administrative access to your account.
A move that causes controversy, love it! Put my vote in the 'for' column, I may be biased as a Flash developer, but anyone thinking that Flash is a dying technology has clearly not developed any large scale rich, interactive web applications. HTML5 is nowhere near the level that Flash can provide and wont be for many years, there IS a great need for better Flash support and I'm glad Google are the only company with the sense to see that.
Yeah, it's pre beta, huh? Crashing most of my Flash applications and widgets on MAC and cannot use mousewheel or drag n drop any more. CRAP!!
Regardless of which is "better", Flash is still used by millions of people and many may not keep it up to date. Google is ensuring no Chrome users will have that problem, good for them!
Benj: There have been more than a few security exploits in Flash made all the more scary by their cross-browser nature. Hence why this is so important for Google to help users keep up-to-date on security patches.Saying Flash is "more powerful" is like saying a salmon is "more powerful" than a person because people (generally) can't swim upstream. It's a meaningless comparison because they have different strengths and weaknesses.HTML5 video right now is a lot faster than Flash video since Flash works entirely in software, while no such restriction is placed on HTML5 video allowing for speed (depends on how the browser implements it of course). Thankfully Adobe is FINALLY implementing hardware acceleration though they are years late imo. Flash can be used to make games and such, though you can use JS and Canvas too Flash has the advantage of being cross-browser compatible (for the time being) and it's easier to do some stuff such as play sounds and music. I don't know much about Flash coding though so I can't make a prediction about which method will come out on top.
@The MAZZTer: HTML will bring some nice (and long due) improvements in respect to HTML4 but those won't be close to what Flash already offers.Flash already makes use of hardware acceleration but some browsers made accessing the hardware API problematic. With the upcoming 10.1 release this seems to become a thing of the past.I see a bright future for both Flash AND for HTML5. I see no reason why one technology should kill the other.
lol @ people complaining about proprietary software in Chrome.
HEAVY COMMENTS LOL !!! Never seen a upheaval like this in Chrome before LOL awesome!!
I trongly support flash integration. For the vast majority of users who already had the flash plugin installed it will save them the hassle of having to update it, and reduce the risk of them being the target of an security attack. I have already uninstalled the flash plugin, as Chrome is my main browser.The small minority who doesn't want to use flash (which I can perfectly understand in some cicumstances) just has to disable the extension (or rather not enable it for now, but I assume it will soon be enable by default).
Google Chrome 5.x seems buggier for me than previous builds. It's locked up just 6 times today alone while administering my site, nothing heavy. Hopefully it gets worked out soon.
What a drag. Do we have a choice to not install the Flash portion on our machines at all? Or do we end up downloading every useless update while the plugin is disabled?
My only hope (and google's too, I believe) is that by integrating flash into chrome it will suck less. As I suspected and now confirmed (with the task manager) , flash is by far the worst browsing villan. I love it's power and flexibility but it sucks up resources and freezes all over the place. Hope you guys can fix it, you are my last hope.
thanks for keeping things mediocre re: 64 bits! seriously, you guys have the resources to set up 1gbps internet but not to do this?
This announcement mark the point where I stop using Chrome and start using Chromium. That's all !
stop crying over flash and html5... flash got auto-update feature, so what? i would be concerned more about browser security than plugin security... + if you stop visitin porn sites, you will be more secure :D :Pand to all flash haters... there is FLEX which is OPEN SOURCE and which can do much more then bloody hmtl! If you think flash is only for video, it's like saying you got car in garage just to make your neighbour envy.. does your hmtl5 got GPU accelleration? multitouch? same rendering on all platforms???!!? how quick you can make RIA in hmtl and how quick in flash??? so please wake up... and if you really think flash will die, go to http://www.openscreenproject.org/partners/ and ask yourself.. are those companies behind flash goin to die??? cisco? intel? disney? :DDD i think not...
flash keeps crashing and crashing. WinXPSP3 32bits :(
What's with all the Flash hate? First of all, what Google is doing is bigger than Flash. What they're doing is making a sandbox and a set of APIs that plugins can use so that they can better integrate with Chrome. Flash is simply the first plugin that they're trying it with. So you hate Flash, great. But what if a new plugin comes out tomorrow that takes the world by storm? What Google is setting up now will still benefit any other plugins, both present and future.As far as the security problems, why throw something away when millions of people already have the technology on their computer? Like other users have said, this would place Flash into a sandbox that would add extra protection around it. There is also the added update functionality. But then imagine if Flash were to use the Native Client features so that it could have amazing performance on a browser.I think the most important thing to keep in mind with all of this is that it takes vision. Vision to image what does not exist yet but could. I don't think Google and Adobe are just thinking about integrating the current version of Flash and call it a done deal. If they have vision, and I think they do, they will take this to a whole new level that we haven't seen, or most likely even imaged yet. Everyone is yelling about bugs and security whole, but nobody is saying that Flash isn't capable (or at least doesn't have potential) to awesome things (especially if they take advantage of Native Client). So lets support Google for what they do best, doing things nobody else does in ways nobody else does them. I mean come on, it's Google! And if you use Google's services like Gmail and Docs (and I'm guessing you do) then you trust them already. So lets not burn down the bridge before it's built. If you think Google needs to provide better information to our community then that's fine. I'd like questions answered too. But I'm personally excited to see where this can go. Go Google!
Hi! thanks for sharing.Its very nice,You need a application software visit on immediately application software
Thanks for integrating Flash guys!There are so many misconceptions regarding Flash out there, i'm having really a hard time reading all these comments here.Guys, don't you like Hulu and the like? Flash is DE FACTO the only way for highly performing motion content, be it interatice or just video. HTML5 won't be able to catch up in years.So I Hope Chrome will help Flash overcome some problems with it's sandbox and help improve performance with a better plugin API (Flash performance on Chrome on Mac is still horrible!).
First, I LOVE Chrome. So much faster than other browsers. Second, I HATE Flash. Why? 90% of time I do not want all the junk (video, ads, ...). So I use IE or Firefox the 10% I want the Flash content, Chrome the other 90%. So I NEVER want Flash to be on my Chrome. Plus HTML5 is the way to go.Firefox started out streamlined, simple and fast. Over time it got FAT and slower. Please don't do this to Chrome.As a side note, I would love to find a way to disable the "additional plugin is required" -- even a manual edit of an ".INI" file or such (as with Forefox) is fine for users as myself.Thanks again, Chrome Engineering, for a fine Browser. Pls don't fatten it up...Cheers
I like the idea of not having to install Flash Player again every time I install a browser and also keeping it up to date, however I want a debug version of the Flash Player. I understand it's stupid to implement it for everyone, but it would be nice if there is a kind of an option to use the integrated Flash Player Plugin, or the one that I've personally installed and am using on lets say Firefox.
This integration sounds great, thanks.And for all the Flash haters, here are a few points:1. The reason Flash eats up CPU and is perceived to have poor performance is because that 95% of the time the most ambitious, rich, animation-heavy content is delivered via Flash. Therefore it's likely to tax your system. Ambitious, animation-heavy HTML5 content will tax your system in exactly the same way. It isn't the runtime, it's the type of content. What's more, inefficiently coded HTML5 content will crash or slow up your browser the same as poorly programmed Flash content will.2. The reason clients ask for content to be built in Flash is because they need to deliver the most expressive content possible to their customers in the most efficient way possible. Their customers aren't sandle wearing Linux enthusiasts, they're ordinary people who simply enjoy rich experiences in their browser. HTML5 is years and years away from being able to deliver similarly rich content, for similar costs, if ever. Flash now has some very advanced features for expressivity and animation, nothing of the type exists for HTML5 at the moment, and from the look of some of the early HTML5 stuff it has an awful long way to go.3. The Flash development community is massive, creative, experienced and passionate. This is the 3million+ strong community of experienced guys sitting in jobs right now generating content for commercial clients across the world 24/7. This infrastructure and depth of experience simply doesn't exist at the moment for HTML5. Perhaps HTML5 will catch up, perhaps it won't, but in the mean time it's Google responsibility to support this content, the infrastructure and the end users as completely as possible.4. The best way for Google to protect users from security flaws in Flash is to more tightly integrate it with the browser and hopefully start work to bring it inside the Chrome sandbox. To not undertake work because of some kind of techno-snobbery is to put users at more risk in the long term.
I must say, even with this integration, I still have chrome crash totally from flash spazzing out and freezing chrome due to excessive memory usage. That is the only thing that has ever given me trouble with Chrome.
type in about:plugins and disable the chrome flash if you want to use the flash debug / debugger version
Nice Idea too bad I am unable to get Flash to work correctly. Even at youtube it will play the adds but when the vids start flash drops connection and says try again later.
WHich version of google chrome support Internet Download Manager's integration?My chrome crush when i'm integrate it to chrome.Im using idm version 5.19.thx
Still doesn't work right. Will load, to some extent, but then options within the player are unclickable. It would be nice to be able to reinstall it, in case there are errors, but since it's integrated, it becomes a whole ordeal of uninstalling and reinstalling Chrome with the vain hope that it will work probably once all of Chrome is reinstalled.
I have Flash Player 10.1.82 but a couple of sights say I need a plug-in. Do I need this Chrome stuff just to get a plug-in?
Last google include flash WIN 10,1,82,76 that is broken and doesn't support flash socket google should permit users to downgrade to a version 10,1,53,64
Integrated Flash has damaged Acrobat Distiller. Distiller printer now hangs until I kill all gcswf32 processes. I suspect my distiller version needs a down-level version of flash. I need to be able to control Chrome's use of it or not use Chrome :(
Post a Comment