If there is not enough 32-bit memory available, and memory needs to be paged, then an application may seriously slow down.
In this case a 64-bit version will improve the performance, if there is enough unused space available above the 32-bit line.
Can you file a feature request at https://bugbase.adobe.com/ with as much information as possible?
I'm very disturbed by the replies to this post. I also need the 64-bit standalone version of the Flash player.
Why? No one should have to answer that question. While Flash can operate within a host environment there is no reason why it has to and, if the user wishes to run a Flash module without a host environment for any reason, they should be able to. If the Flash module run uses functions that can not operate without error outside of a host environment, then the approprieate error messages will inform the user of that. The standalone form should always be available for EVERY version of the Flash player without excuse.
The why is incredibly obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway.
- Mostly, we want to run a Flash module without the overhead required to run the host, usually a browser. This makes the Flash module run faster and better, and bypasses any bugs or difficulties that might exist with a specific host environment. Yes, we are well aware that you developers and policy makers at Adobe have the latest technology available to you on which to run your products so you either never see these problems or can easily re-configure your system around them. However, most do not have those advantages and need access to the complete functionality of a Flash player (like running without a host environment) to deal with these issues.
- We want the more advanced controls of the view size (especially full screen) and play/restart you get when you run standalone.
- We do not want to have to write a web page just to run the blessed thing, and get stuck with the view and control restrictions that come along with it. When we present the Flash module to the public, writing a web page is fine but, when we have direct access to the Flash module, we should be able to run it standalone if we want.
- We want the same platform advantages in the standalone form that are available in the browser form (ie: 64-bit).
The most salient point to this is that the policy of not providing the complete set of functionality simply because you can not think of a reason why YOU would want it is childish thinking. You always provide the complete set of functionality (in this case, the ability to run a Flash module with or without a host environment) and let the users come up with their reasons to do so. We know our business far better than you. A perfect example is ECMAScript: It is coupled even closer to a host environment than Flash but you can still always get a standalone implementation that provides a minimal host environment. You might even find the uses we come up with can give you ideas on improvements to your product or even new products you've never dreamed of.
So please, just provide the standalone form of Flash player with every version realeased, provide it at the same time the browser form is released, provide it for every platform supported by the browser form (ie: 32-bit / 64-bit), and provide it on EVERY download page on which the browser form is provided (so we can actually find it).
... and, PLEASE, provide us with the 64-bit standalone form of the current Flash player (11.1 and the Beta 11.2) immediately!
(It would be helpful if you provided a link to this form in a reply on this thread until you can make it available on the download pages)
P.S. Just a personal note. Whoever thought that changing the standardized name of "standalone" to "projector" needs to be beaten until they agree never to make such thoughts public again. Please change the name given to the standalone form to "standalone" so that people know what the heck you are talking about.