Skip navigation
gavinnosler
Currently Being Moderated

IE Plugin Activation - Latest MS Update Disables Work-arounds

Apr 26, 2006 3:19 PM

Two of our computers at work were set to automatically update (not anymore!) and last night an update was installed. This was the first time I've seen this new "feature" in effect, so naturally I immediately set out to get around it. I've tried the work-arounds posted on Microsoft.com, Macromedia.com, and about 6 smaller sites with work-arounds. I've tried the "comment" work-around, the "noscript" work-around, the simple JavaScript external file work-around, and many variations of these. In the IE browsers that were updated yesterday, none of these work-arounds have any effect. In the browsers that were not updated, these work-arounds work as intended.

Hopefully a new work-around will be figured out soon, since as we all know, this problem is a huge set back when we're all trying to make the Flash platform as integrated as possible.

Please let me know if you have any info on this!
 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2006 3:40 PM   in reply to gavinnosler
    Are you sure that your script debugging is set correctly:

    == From the MS Site ========================================
    Warning If you uncheck the Disable Script Debugging (Internet Explorer) option in the Advanced Tab of the Internet Options Control Panel, controls created using these techniques will still require activation.
    ========================================================

    Hope that helps

    Read my Active Content Blog:
    http://activecontent.blogspot.com/
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2006 3:53 PM   in reply to gavinnosler
    On my IE6 only [Disable Script Debugging (Internet Explorer)] is checked the other is unchecked, but that one shouldn't make a difference ???

    What OS/Browser are you using?

    Does the homepage of the macromedia site still show the 'click to active' border? If not, it maybe that you have an error in your usage of the workarounds.

    Read my Active Content Blog:
    http://activecontent.blogspot.com/
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 3:36 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    gavinnosler wrote:
    > Two of our computers at work were set to automatically update (not anymore!)
    > and last night an update was installed. This was the first time I've seen this
    > new "feature" in effect, so naturally I immediately set out to get around it.
    > I've tried the work-arounds posted on Microsoft.com, Macromedia.com, and about
    > 6 smaller sites with work-arounds. I've tried the "comment" work-around, the
    > "noscript" work-around, the simple JavaScript external file work-around, and
    > many variations of these. In the IE browsers that were updates yesterday, none
    > of these work-arounds have any effect. In the browsers that were not updated,
    > these work-arounds work as intended.

    I've got the same problem. I have implemented the Microsoft recommended
    solution, the Adobe solution, deconcept.com swfobject and my own custom
    solution. All four work on half the machines, but not on the other half
    (the same machines fail each time). The only commonality I could find is
    that the machines it always failed on had an OEM version of XP Pro from
    DELL installed on them.

    I have tried checking and unchecking the various 'script debugging'
    options in IE as suggested by Mark-Bennett but it doesn't seem to make
    the slightest bit of difference.

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 3:37 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    gavinnosler wrote:
    > Two of our computers at work were set to automatically update (not anymore!)
    > and last night an update was installed. This was the first time I've seen this
    > new "feature" in effect, so naturally I immediately set out to get around it.
    > I've tried the work-arounds posted on Microsoft.com, Macromedia.com, and about
    > 6 smaller sites with work-arounds. I've tried the "comment" work-around, the
    > "noscript" work-around, the simple JavaScript external file work-around, and
    > many variations of these. In the IE browsers that were updates yesterday, none
    > of these work-arounds have any effect. In the browsers that were not updated,
    > these work-arounds work as intended.

    I've got the same problem. I have implemented the Microsoft recommended
    solution, the Adobe solution, deconcept.com swfobject and my own custom
    solution. All four work on half the machines, but not on the other half
    (the same machines fail each time). The only commonality I could find is
    that the machines it always failed on had an OEM version of XP Pro from
    DELL installed on them.

    I have tried checking and unchecking the various 'script debugging'
    options in IE as suggested by Mark-Bennett but it doesn't seem to make
    the slightest bit of difference.

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 3:37 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    gavinnosler wrote:
    > Two of our computers at work were set to automatically update (not anymore!)
    > and last night an update was installed. This was the first time I've seen this
    > new "feature" in effect, so naturally I immediately set out to get around it.
    > I've tried the work-arounds posted on Microsoft.com, Macromedia.com, and about
    > 6 smaller sites with work-arounds. I've tried the "comment" work-around, the
    > "noscript" work-around, the simple JavaScript external file work-around, and
    > many variations of these. In the IE browsers that were updates yesterday, none
    > of these work-arounds have any effect. In the browsers that were not updated,
    > these work-arounds work as intended.

    I've got the same problem. I have implemented the Microsoft recommended
    solution, the Adobe solution, deconcept.com swfobject and my own custom
    solution. All four work on half the machines, but not on the other half
    (the same machines fail each time). The only commonality I could find is
    that the machines it always failed on had an OEM version of XP Pro from
    DELL installed on them.

    I have tried checking and unchecking the various 'script debugging'
    options in IE as suggested by Mark-Bennett but it doesn't seem to make
    the slightest bit of difference.

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 3:38 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    apologies for the multiple posts there - Thunderbird saying it failed to
    send message when it actually had sent it caused that one!


    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 2:10 PM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    I was currently working on finding a solution for the "click to activate" a message and more or less I found it but after reading this, there is no point on applying it since users that update their browsers will still get the message.

    Are you guys sure this is caused by a recent Microsoft's update?
    This means that everyone will have the "click to activate" message again soon?

    Thanks,
    Fernando
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 2:11 PM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    absolutely 100% sure - it has been very well reported and documented all over the web that this is
    the result of a long time Eolas patent lawsuit that MS fought and once won but recently lost in a
    2nd legal battle. Google search for "active content".

    ******************************************
    --> Adobe Certified Expert *ACE*
    --> www.mudbubble.com
    --> www.keyframer.com




    FernandoGM wrote:
    > I was currently working on finding a solution for the "click to activate" a
    > message and more or less I found it but after reading this, there is no point
    > on applying it since users that update their browsers will still get the
    > message.
    >
    > Are you guys sure this is caused by a recent Microsoft's update?
    > This means that everyone will have the "click to activate" message again soon?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Fernando
    >
    >
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 2:13 PM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    also - considering this active content issue only happens if and when you update windows OS and
    Internet Explorer - then it has to be assumed it is not a flash/Adobe issue - in fact it has to do
    with several kinds of media players wrapped inside object tags. the proof is there.







    FernandoGM wrote:
    > I was currently working on finding a solution for the "click to activate" a
    > message and more or less I found it but after reading this, there is no point
    > on applying it since users that update their browsers will still get the
    > message.
    >
    > Are you guys sure this is caused by a recent Microsoft's update?
    > This means that everyone will have the "click to activate" message again soon?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Fernando
    >
    >
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 2:14 PM   in reply to Newsgroup_User

    > This means that everyone will have the "click to activate" message again soon?
    not "soon" - it is happening now.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2006 2:47 PM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    oh - sorry - well, that makes little sense though - does that mean MS is updating their own update?

    ******************************************





    gavinnosler wrote:
    > Chris,
    >
    > This is a different issue. We're all well aware of the Eolas patent and how it
    > has affected Microsoft Internet Explorer. The problem is that now, after
    > installing the latest update by Microsoft, all the previous fixes for this
    > "plugin activation" problem won't work.
    >
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    18. ,
    May 2, 2006 3:03 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    OK, I've been in contact with someone at Macromedia about this issue and it seems that those machines which won't accept the workaround are all running version 5.6.0.8515 of jscript.dll. Those that work are running version 5.6.0.8820.
    So, it seem pretty clear to me it's actually Micro$oft's error in that their workaround does NOT function for all machines due to the difference in DLL versions. Hopefully Macromedia and all the other suppliers of ActiveX controls will get in touch with Micro$oft and make them aware of this problem.
    Interestingly, all the machines we have with that version of jscript.dll are recently-bought Dell boxes with OEM installs of XP pro. I always said Dell were a bit dodgy ;-)
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 3:46 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    So one just has to update the jscript.dll ?


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 4:04 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    Jeckyl wrote:
    > So one just has to update the jscript.dll ?
    >
    don't know what the knock-on effects of that might be, but it could be
    worth a try on a test kit!

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 6:15 AM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    Hi

    Can someone please shed some light on this issue, I've spent all morning trying to find the right solution to my dilemma.

    I have updated player/flash 8 updates etc as stated in the adobe workaround and downloaded and installed the extension "FlashActiveContent_en".

    I have created a test swf, published as stated and uploaded the "AC_RunActiveContent.js" created. This is working fine and I don't get the grey box wanting activation........yipeee. I can now go around all my clients flash sites to update.

    My dilemma is that I also have a php content management system that has flash header and footer. The cms uses themes for the site and usually I just embed the flash content with the html template by giving it's full location of the flash file (ie www.mysite/flash/flashmovie.swf).

    I tried implimenting the same coding and js file as my test.swf file but the flash doesnt load at all.
    How do I get the grey activation boxes to disappear? Do I need the full url of the flash file, the full url of the .js file.

    Do I need to re-publish the flash header and footer?

    Can someone please point me in the right direction.

    Thank in advance

    Voddie
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 6:23 AM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    Voddie wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > Can someone please shed some light on this issue, I've spent all morning
    > trying to find the right solution to my dilemma.
    >
    > I have updated player/flash 8 updates etc as stated in the adobe workaround
    > and downloaded and installed the extension "FlashActiveContent_en".
    >
    > I have created a test swf, published as stated and uploaded the
    > "AC_RunActiveContent.js" created. This is working fine and I don't get the grey
    > box wanting activation........yipeee. I can now go around all my clients flash
    > sites to update.
    >
    > My dilemma is that I also have a php content management system that has flash
    > header and footer. The cms uses themes for the site and usually I just embed
    > the flash content with the html template by giving it's full location of the
    > flash file (ie www.mysite/flash/flashmovie.swf).
    >
    > I tried implimenting the same coding and js file as my test.swf file but the
    > flash doesnt load at all.
    > How do I get the grey activation boxes to disappear? Do I need the full url of
    > the flash file, the full url of the .js file.
    >
    > Do I need to re-publish the flash header and footer?
    >
    > Can someone please point me in the right direction.

    if the flash file exists on the same domain you never need to give a
    fully-qualified path (as above), only a relative path - site-root
    relative is probably best if header/footer stuff is involved as that way
    the path is the same no matter what page you're on (e.g.
    /flash/flashmovie.swf).
    You would need to do the same for the .js file.

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 7:21 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 7:31 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    FYI:
    If any of you are waiting for Microsoft to release a fix or an update on this issue quickly, think again! I have been in contact with Microsoft and asked them if they plan on fixing this issue with the way Active X is controlled and I have been informed that they are not currently working on anything. Below is the exact transmission I received from a Microsoft employee.

    Microsoft:
    Thanks for your feedback. From your reply I understand that you would like to confirm if Microsoft will have a permanent update which will handle Active X automatically without the web developer changing their web site. Please accept my sincere apologies for not answering this question earlier.

    Customers may have some suggestions or feedbacks for the new feature in IE changed by the Active X update. We are collecting these feedbacks from the customer regarding this update. According to these feedbacks we will make further plans. I appreciate your feedback and will forward your concerns to
    our appropriate department. If the related patch is released or the other related information are released as well, we will notify you as soon as possible. Also, I suggest checking back periodically with the information released on the Microsoft web site.

    PLEASE SEND FEEDBACK TO MICROSOFT!!!!!!!! If enough of us contact them maybe they will fix this issue!

    Obviously I have not had any luck with the workarounds either. I even tried the fix that Macromedia released for Flash 8 and no luck!

    If anyone has received any further information in regards to updates from Macromedia or Microsoft please make sure to post!
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 7:34 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    t2webworx wrote:
    > Try the solution at http://www.microsoft-activex-solutions.co.uk
    still won't work for those users with the old version (5.6.0.8515) of
    jscript.dll. So far it would appear that no solution works for those
    machines.

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 7:41 AM   in reply to gavinnosler
    indigo007 wrote:
    > FYI:
    > If any of you are waiting for Microsoft to release a fix or an update on this
    > issue quickly, think again! I have been in contact with Microsoft and asked
    > them if they plan on fixing this issue with the way Active X is controlled and
    > I have been informed that they are not currently working on anything. Below is
    > the exact transmission I received from a Microsoft employee.
    > Customers may have some suggestions or feedbacks for the new feature in IE
    > changed by the Active X update. We are collecting these feedbacks from the
    > customer regarding this update. According to these feedbacks we will make
    > further plans. I appreciate your feedback and will forward your concerns to
    > our appropriate department. If the related patch is released or the other
    > related information are released as well, we will notify you as soon as
    > possible. Also, I suggest checking back periodically with the information
    > released on the Microsoft web site.
    >

    a fairly typical response from Microsoft then. Stupid thing is that this
    problem affects them just as much as anyone else as Windoze Media Player
    will also be affected.

    Macromedia now seem to be aware of the exact issue (kits with an old
    version - 5.6.0.8515 - of jscript.dll do not implement the workaround
    properly) so hopefully they will have more clout in kicking Microsoft
    into gear than we do.

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2006 9:28 AM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    MOLOKO wrote

    "if the flash file exists on the same domain you never need to give a
    fully-qualified path (as above), only a relative path - site-root
    relative is probably best if header/footer stuff is involved as that way
    the path is the same no matter what page you're on (e.g.
    /flash/flashmovie.swf).
    You would need to do the same for the .js file."

    Im not sure where im going wrong, and i am not sure where abouts in the site i am when the cms loads, thats why i always put the full path.

    Going back to my previous, one html page with one swf. I can only get this to work in test if the js file is in the same directory as the html file.
    ie html/swf/js
    If i move the swf to flash/swf it doesnt work, likewise if i move js to scripts/js this doesnt work.
    I dont seem able to call either the swf or the js files away from the html residing directory.

    Do I need to change any settings in the js file generated by flash8?
    Do I need to change any settings in the js code called before the object<noscript> tag?

    Thanks inadvance

    Voddie

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2006 2:03 AM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    Voddie wrote:
    > MOLOKO wrote
    > Im not sure where im going wrong, and i am not sure where abouts in
    the site i
    > am when the cms loads, thats why i always put the full path.
    that's exactly what a site-root relative path is for - it doesn't matter
    where you are within the site, the path will always, always be the same.
    You only need a fully-qualified path when trying to reach content on a
    different server. Putting a fully-qualified name is a bad idea at other
    times as it would then prevent you from shifting your content to another
    domain name if you ever needed to.
    >
    > Going back to my previous, one html page with one swf. I can only get this to
    > work in test if the js file is in the same directory as the html file.
    > ie html/swf/js
    > If i move the swf to flash/swf it doesnt work, likewise if i move js to
    > scripts/js this doesnt work.
    > I dont seem able to call either the swf or the js files away from the html
    > residing directory.

    yes, I see what you mean - that Macromedia file is (surprise, surprise)
    not particularly usuable!
    I have worked out what you need to change and it is both the path to the
    JavaScript file and the value of a variable 'movie'. There's also a
    variable 'src' which looks like it needs to be changed too - but
    changing it has no effect that I can see.

    Quite frankly it's all pointlessly complicated, so I have posted a copy
    on my webserver for you to have a look. see links below.
    I have also done a version that utilises deconcept.com's excellent
    swfobject and I think this is much better and clearer.
    Macromedia version: http://www.moloko.f2s.com/flashtest/mm_index.html
    (see lines 6, 126 & 140)
    My version: http://www.moloko.f2s.com/flashtest/moloko_index.html

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2006 7:05 AM   in reply to Voddie
    Hi MOLOKO
    Both versions work great, especially your version, its much more understandable to me.
    In your version the writeFlashWithDetection.js and writeFlash.js are they available as Im not really a js man? are they both required?
    I take the first detects if flash is present, and which version. Does the writeFlash.js a) allows the flash to play (without the grey border) and b)check to see if js is enabled?
    Sorry if appearing a little dim, I am a liitle new to detection of flash player, using js and now this microsoft update has totally messed up most of my sites.

    Thanks in advance

    Voddie
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 4, 2006 2:08 AM   in reply to Voddie
    Voddie wrote:
    > Hi MOLOKO
    > Both versions work great, especially your version, its much more
    > understandable to me.
    thanks, no problem
    > In your version the writeFlashWithDetection.js and writeFlash.js are they
    > available as Im not really a js man?
    yes they are, please feel free to use. The writeFlashWithDetection.js
    includes code (unmodified) from deconcept.com. Many thanks to Geoff
    Stearns for writing such great flash detection code and making it
    available to us all.
    are they both required?
    No, only one is required. In the example I sent the writeFlash.js is
    actually commented out so it's not in fact being used in that page. I
    just left it there so that it's easy to swap over for demo purposes.
    > I take the first detects if flash is present, and which version. Does the
    > writeFlash.js a) allows the flash to play (without the grey border) and b)check
    > to see if js is enabled?
    Not quite - they actually both have the ability to write out the flash
    object, but writeFlashWithDetection.js will also detect if the user has
    too low a version of flash and write out an appropriate warning instead.
    It needs a lot of extra code to do that though, so I also created the
    writeFlash.js as a 'lightweight' alternative if you don't need flash
    player version detection, or if you require a smaller file size.
    No matter which version you use though, they both get called in the same
    way:
    writeFlash(swffilename,width,height,playerversion,colour,flashvars)
    so you can just swap the .js files over without having to change any
    other code.
    Neither file checks to see if js is enabled, If js is disabled, the
    content in the <NOSCRIPT> tags will be displayed instead automatically.
    This is a feature of HTML,
    > Sorry if appearing a little dim, I am a liitle new to detection of flash
    > player, using js and now this microsoft update has totally messed up most of my
    > sites.
    no problem, hope this helps out.


    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 4, 2006 4:29 AM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    Moloko

    Thank you for the reply and explaination, I understand a lot more now.

    One quick question, in your own version where the variables are "('_swf/testmovie.swf',400,200,'6.0.65.0','#FFFFFF',flashvars)" the player version i.e 6.0.65.0 obviously refers to flash player 6, how do I find the exact version? Are all flash 6 this 6.0.65.0? what about flash player 7 & 8, how do I find the exact numbers required?

    Thanks in advance

    Voddie
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 4, 2006 4:57 AM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    Voddie wrote:
    > Moloko
    >
    > Thank you for the reply and explaination, I understand a lot more now.
    >
    > One quick question, in your own version where the variables are
    > "('_swf/testmovie.swf',400,200,'6.0.65.0','#FFFFFF',flashvars)" the player
    > version i.e 6.0.65.0 obviously refers to flash player 6, how do I find the
    > exact version? Are all flash 6 this 6.0.65.0? what about flash player 7 & 8,
    > how do I find the exact numbers required?

    you can find out the exact flash player version *you* have installed by
    going here:
    http://www.adobe.com/go/tn_15507

    In terms of what you would put in the writeFlash command, that defines
    the minimum version you require the user to have and that depends on
    what content you have in your movie. Flash generally only allows you to
    publish for a major version (e.g. 6, 7, 8) but there are some exceptions:
    If publishing for 6 you also have the option of 'optimising for 6.0.65.0
    as this player release had some speed improvements you could take
    advantage of - but swfs optimized for that version couldn't be played in
    lower versions (e.g. 6.0.47.0).
    Similarly there are occasionally features that require specific versions
    again, for example the Delegate class only works in flash player
    6.0.79.0 or higher.

    On the whole, just use the lowest major flash version, e.g. if
    publishing for 6 - 6.0.47.0, if 7 - 7.0.19.0 and if 8 - 8.0.24.0

    --
    MOLOKO
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX 2004 Developer
    Macromedia Certified Flash MX Developer
    ------------------------------------------------
    ::remove _underwear_ to reply::
    'There ain't no devil - it's just God when he's drunk' Tom Waits
    ------------------------------------------------
    GCM/CS/IT/MC d-- S++:- a- C++ U--- P+ L++ !E W+++$ N++ O? K+ w+++$ !O M+
    VMS? PS+++ PE- Y PGP+ t+ 5-- X-- R* tv++ b++++ DI++++ D+ G e h-- r+ y++
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 4, 2006 5:25 AM   in reply to Newsgroup_User
    Hi Moloko

    Thank you very much for explaining this in details, you have been very helpful and patient.

    As usual I can always find somebody willing to help in this forum, helps us poor newbies so much.

    I can now stop worrying so much about my sites until the next stage of updates from Microsoft.

    Ironic really, the link ( http://www.adobe.com/go/tn_15507) you sent me to check the version of my player, the swf in the page is suffering the same dreaded grey outline as we are trying to combat!

    Once again thank you for your time.

    Voddie
     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points