Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Actions & Plugins support Workflow Guidelines FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2010 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ???

MSC Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #1 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? Sheesh, this is a drag. What you do you guys use instead of IE? Feb 03, 2010 at 02:56 AM

DmitriM Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #2 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? There's a 32bit version on your computer too. Use it instead.. That or switch to FF. Feb 03, 2010 at 03:07 AM

Peano2 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? MSC wrote: Sheesh, this is a drag. What you do you guys use instead of IE? Firefox. I wouldn't touch IE with a stick. Feb 03, 2010 at 03:13 AM

MSC Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #4 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? Downloading FF now...thanks, I thought you might say that. Was also wondering about Google Chrome...any good? Feb 03, 2010 at 03:29 AM

MSC Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #5 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? Using FF now...it actually has a cleaner display...is that possible or just happy talk with the new software? Feb 03, 2010 at 03:39 AM

EB-1 Online Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? IE should be fine on 64-bit systems. Is that a specific experience? EBH Feb 03, 2010 at 03:54 AM

MSC Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #7 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? I don't know. I have a new laptop that would not run or download Flash Player on a 64 bit machine (according the MS site that it refers one too when the error pops up). So posted here to get more info or maybe something basic I was missing. Running Windows 7 on that machine, which is new to me too. Many sites use Flash so it is a signifcant problem...IMHO and limited understanding of web and its related technologies...high level user type here.There is a Microsoft paper on it and it is all over Google so assume this is not a unique situation. You can get to a 32 bit version of IE like Dmitri says, but it is several extra steps and I see no need to do it when just using Firefox works well. The FF display is better for photos at any rate, so I'm happy. Feb 03, 2010 at 04:44 AM

parsons Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #8 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? adobe flash 10 does not work in 64bit windows Feb 03, 2010 at 02:23 PM

Ian.Dobinson Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #9 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? MSC wrote: Downloading FF now...thanks, I thought you might say that. Was also wondering about Google Chrome...any good? Why not try it? its free. Likeing Chrome a fair bit. use FF as well but most of my surfing is via Chrome Feb 03, 2010 at 02:52 PM

jhom Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #10 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? Yep, no flash on 64 bit IE or FF. I keep the 32 bit version around when it need flash. I wish Adobe get off its backside and finally publish a 64 bit version. They have been promising one for eternity now. Jim Feb 05, 2010 at 01:00 AM

WAYCOOL Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #11 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? I'm not opening >4gig files with my web browser so why would I care if I have to use the 32 bit version? Flash 10 plays just fine with 32bit browser in a x64 environment. I just don't understand why anybody would insist on using a 64 bit browser. Feb 05, 2010 at 02:31 AM

haijak Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #12 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? 64bit browsers are quite a bit quicker than 32bit. Feb 07, 2010 at 03:08 PM

mudsill Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #13 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? I think there is resistance to flash and the flavor may die out. Feb 07, 2010 at 05:24 PM

Lance Couture Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #14 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? MSC wrote: Using FF now...it actually has a cleaner display...is that possible or just happy talk with the new software? FF is also colour-managed, which gives you another reason to ditch IE! haijak wrote: 64bit browsers are quite a bit quicker than 32bit. No, they really arent. Unless you can detect a < 10% increase... WAYCOOL wrote: I'm not opening >4gig files with my web browser so why would I care if I have to use the 32 bit version? That pretty much sums it up. Feb 08, 2010 at 06:32 AM

Russ Isabella Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #15 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? Shane: What Lance said. One nice thing about FF is that it's color managed, which IE is not. I used to run both but recently found that IE was hogging my processor and getting hung up too often, so it's all FF now. Here's a link to information about the Firefox add-on for color management. I can't guarantee this is the most up-to-date info, but if not you probably can get there from here. Here's a second link in case the first one doesn't get you where you want to be. Feb 08, 2010 at 07:10 AM

matthewbmedia Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #16 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? On windows, I agree a 64 bit browser isn't much faster. On snow leopard with 64 bit safari it is a noticeable difference in both real world use and benchmarks. Particulary javascript heavy sites. And actually, there are a few other reasons regarding overall system performance, memory handling, and code security that make it worth running a 64 bit browser on a 64 bit chip. It's not just so you can access more than 4gb of ram... Feb 08, 2010 at 07:55 AM

Lance Couture Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #17 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? matthewbmedia wrote: On windows, I agree a 64 bit browser isn't much faster. On snow leopard with 64 bit safari it is a noticeable difference in both real world use and benchmarks. Particulary javascript heavy sites. Google Chrome javascript rendering, ftw. And actually, there are a few other reasons regarding overall system performance, memory handling, and code security that make it worth running a 64 bit browser on a 64 bit chip. It's not just so you can access more than 4gb of ram... Naturally what I agreed to above is an over-simplification. However, from where I sit, there is no 100%, iron-clad reason to use a 64-bit browser. Feb 08, 2010 at 09:09 AM

matthewbmedia Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #18 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? Lance Couture wrote: However, from where I sit, there is no 100%, iron-clad reason to use a 64-bit browser. This is because you are sitting at a windows 7 box. Feb 08, 2010 at 04:06 PM

Lance Couture Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #19 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? matthewbmedia wrote: Lance Couture wrote: However, from where I sit, there is no 100%, iron-clad reason to use a 64-bit browser. This is because you are sitting at a windows 7 box. Actually, I am sitting at an an Intel iMac running 10.5.8 with a Windows XP SP3 VM in Fusion, an Ubuntu 9.10 x64 box, a Windows XP SP3 box, a Vista Enterprise x64 SP2 box, and a Windows 7 Enterprise x64 box concurrently. Fwiw, I use FF and Chrome (dev version) on all platforms, again, concurrently - even on my Mac. The only thing I have found which gives Safari an edge is Ajax-based sites. We can sit here and geek-out, but honestly, I dont have the time nor the inclination. All I am saying is that for the majority of the people on this board, they will get solid and fast performance out of any 32-bit browser which isnt IE or 64-bit, and just b/c they are on a Mac does *not* mean they will get astonishingly wonderful amazingly superior performance by using Safari over FF or Chrome. Feb 08, 2010 at 06:21 PM

matthewbmedia Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #20 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? ...And again, my point is there are multiple benefits besides speed of the browser itself. Users here would probably be interested in that, since most people like to "multitask". Since you seem only interested in speed of the browser, and not how the browser affects the overall stability and performance of the OS as a whole - here's something interesting - Javascript performance is measurably 2x faster on 64 bit safari in snow leopard than it is on 10.5.8 in 32 bit mode. This is on top of an already very fast javascript engine which is quite a bit faster than Chrome's engine. For anyone who uses facebook or google docs, the difference is noticeable in the real world. Feb 08, 2010 at 08:07 PM

Lance Couture Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #21 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? matthewbmedia wrote: ...And again, my point is there are multiple benefits besides speed of the browser itself. Users here would probably be interested in that, since most people like to "multitask". Since you seem only interested in speed of the browser, and not how the browser affects the overall stability and performance of the OS as a whole - here's something interesting - Javascript performance is measurably 2x faster on 64 bit safari in snow leopard than it is on 10.5.8 in 32 bit mode. This is on top of an already very fast javascript engine which is quite a bit faster than Chrome's engine. For anyone who uses facebook or google docs, the difference is noticeable in the real world. Which is what you're primarily addressing as well... Overall system stability and performance? I have not noticed any system instability or overall system performance degredation across multiple platforms from either FF or Chrome, short of FF not being shut down gracefully and leaving a lock file behind on Linux. Besides, the Op was asking about Windows, so the fact that 64 bit Safari will have an increase in speed on Facebook/GDocs is a completely nonsensical argument. Edited on Feb 08, 2010 at 09:15 PM · View previous versions Feb 08, 2010 at 08:59 PM

matthewbmedia Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #22 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? Maybe something is getting lost in translation. My point was and has always been that there are many benefits to running a 64 bit browser besides speed. Your comments lean towards stating that there is no performance benefit so it is not worth running a 64 bit browser. You seem only interested in speed of the browser itself which is why I pointed out some benchmarks for you (32 bit vs 64 bit performance). It's an impressive benchmark because the 32 bit perfromance is already "no slouch". Bottom line is that there is an overhead in running a 32 bit process on a 64 bit system. It's impossible to argue that there isn't. If you wanted to take it to extremes, one could even show CPU load linked to power consumption, ultimately linked to saving a few dollars off the power bill each month. Feb 08, 2010 at 09:09 PM

Lance Couture Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #23 · IE = no Flash Player on 64 bit machines ??? matthewbmedia wrote: Maybe something is getting lost in translation. My point was and has always been that there are many benefits to running a 64 bit browser besides speed. Your comments lean towards stating that there is no performance benefit so it is not worth running a 64 bit browser. You seem only interested in speed of the browser itself which is why I pointed out some benchmarks for you (32 bit vs 64 bit performance). It's an impressive benchmark because the 32 bit perfromance is already "no slouch". Bottom line is that there is an overhead in running a 32 bit process on a 64 bit system. It's impossible to argue that there isn't. If you wanted to take it to extremes, one could even show CPU load linked to power consumption, ultimately linked to saving a few dollars off the power bill each month. No, I dont think anything is getting lost in translation. I'm saying that the difference in speed on the majority of systems out there in cyberspace would not notice and/or truly realise any benfits from running a 64-bit web browser; benefits including rendering speed, system performance and/or influence on system stability would simply not be noticed to the average user. I agree that there is a cost to running a 32-bit app, but I hardly think it would save "dollars/month" running a 64-bit app over a 32-bit. Maybe if you're looking at something like an application which runs 24/7, but not from a web browser. System impact would be negligible, as the system is idle 99% of the time when browsing. Feb 08, 2010 at 09:37 PM

	FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?