Results 1 to 10 of 16
For those needing a 64-bit Flash player, here's a preview release that Adobe has just been made available:
Adobe Labs - Adobe Flash Player 10.1
Quick Edit: I hardly ever ...
- 09-15-2010 #1forum.guy
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- arch linux
- Posts
- 18,081
64-bit Adobe Flash Player
For those needing a 64-bit Flash player, here's a preview release that Adobe has just been made available:
Adobe Labs - Adobe Flash Player 10.1
Quick Edit: I hardly ever install or use Flash players myself, but I installed this just to see if it works and it seems to work fine on the 4 or 5 videos that I tried it on.Last edited by oz; 09-15-2010 at 10:44 PM.
oz
→ new members/users: read this first | new member faq
→ no private messages requesting computer support - post them on the forums!
→ please use the "report post" button to alert our forum admins to problematic posts rather than responding to them yourself.
- 09-16-2010 #2
This is great news for 64 bit Flash users, but damnit man, I just went back to 32 bit Gentoo!

If I ever get more than 4GB RAM, I might go back to 64 but other than that.....SPPPLLLLTTTTTT *blowing raspberry* is all I got to say about that!I do not respond to private messages asking for Linux help, Please keep it on the forums only.
All new users please read this.** Forum FAQS. ** Adopt an unanswered post.
- 09-16-2010 #3
Well, you know they were just waiting in the wings saying, "We're not going to release this preview until after MikeTbob swaps back to 32-bit. That'll vex him."
I'm convinced that's what Blizzard does with their games. Drop the price for the Diablo or Warcraft Battle Chests immediately after I give in and pay full price for them.
Registered Linux user #270181
TechieMoe's Tech Rants
- 09-16-2010 #4Banned
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Posts
- 19
Well, all i can say for now is this: MAJOR thumbs up to Adobe for finally coming through and delivering x64 Flash for all platforms.
Just tried it on Windows Vista x64 on INternet Explorer 8, Chrome and Firefox and it worked like a charm. But then again, Flash ALWAYS worked best in Windows.
Also got it running off Fedora 10 x64 in Chromium, IceCat and MineField. Works fine, as far as i can see.
Adobe, if you're reading this, you have my thanks. Although the fact that Windows and Linux users had to wait for almost 2 years for this kinds of still stings when you think about it.
- 09-16-2010 #5forum.guy
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- arch linux
- Posts
- 18,081
Ouch - bummer! 32-bit Linux works great if you don't have 4GB or more of RAM. I have one machine with 6GB and one with 8GB so 64-bit is important to me on those. Otherwise, I'm fine with 32-bit. I don't personally have much use for Flash on either of version, though, and keep hoping that a good replacement will turn up.
oz
→ new members/users: read this first | new member faq
→ no private messages requesting computer support - post them on the forums!
→ please use the "report post" button to alert our forum admins to problematic posts rather than responding to them yourself.
- 09-16-2010 #6
I stuck with 10.0.45 64bit for a long time because some applications didn't work with current 10.1 but after a while I switched to that version due to security reasons. I'm glad Adobe kept their word and continued supporting Linux 64bit.
Will see how long it takes until it's in Portage but maybe I'll write a custom ebuild for this if it takes too long.
I also use a machine with 8GB RAM running Gentoo 64bit on it. But also 32bit systems can use up to (theoretical) 64GB of RAM when highmem support ist enabled (called Physical Address Extensions, PAE). But per-process memory is of course still limited to 4GB anyway.I have one machine with 6GB and one with 8GB so 64-bit is important to me on those.
- 09-16-2010 #7forum.guy
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- arch linux
- Posts
- 18,081
As noted in an earlier post above, I don't generally install or use Flash Player much, but for those times when I do so, my own favorite way of installing it in Firefox is to simply extract the tarball downloaded from the Adobe site, then move the .so file to the plugins folder found within the hidden ~/.mozilla folder (creating the plugins folder if it doesn't already exist). Of course, a restart is required for Firefox.
This method has always worked for me, and it makes removal or upgrading really easy, plus I don't have to worry about the package being in my distro repositories.oz
→ new members/users: read this first | new member faq
→ no private messages requesting computer support - post them on the forums!
→ please use the "report post" button to alert our forum admins to problematic posts rather than responding to them yourself.
- 09-17-2010 #8Banned
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Posts
- 19
that also happens to be my preferred method. gives me total control of where i want the file to go.
Although you don't always have to make use of the hidden .mozilla folder. Sometimes, for convenience sake, i dump the plugin into /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins. this allows most web browsers to automatically detect the plugin.
- 09-17-2010 #9forum.guy
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- arch linux
- Posts
- 18,081
Judging from the various reports that I've been reading here and there, this newly released beta is working better overall than the nspluginwrapper plus lib32 libraries option. I've never tried the 32-bit version on 64-bit Linux so can't speak to that setup either way.
oz
→ new members/users: read this first | new member faq
→ no private messages requesting computer support - post them on the forums!
→ please use the "report post" button to alert our forum admins to problematic posts rather than responding to them yourself.
- 09-17-2010 #10
plugin still runs like crap compared to windows




