YouTube's Video Pick Spells Doom For Adobe Flash

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Let's all bid a fond farewell to Adobe Flash. This has been a long time coming but we can't say we are sad to see you go. :D

"We're now defaulting to the HTML5 player on the Web," said YouTube engineering manager Richard Leider in a blog post Tuesday. It took four years for Google to make the HTML5 change, which is a major victory for Web standards fans who've strived to eject proprietary plug-ins from the Web.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Kind of wondering what took so long. There's still tons of Flash out there though. It will take a number of years before it's mostly gone from the desktop world.
 

SystemCrash

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
118
I stoped using flash on youtube for months now. For some reason, when I flash video, it stutter for 1 second randomly -.-;
 

provoko

Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
656
html5 doesn't look HD even when set to 1080, it also looks kind of blurry, this is in Chrome too
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
Kind of wondering what took so long.

They had to wait until this happened in August 2014. It's the addition of an API to HTML5 which allows video to be wrapped in any form of DRM. The other reasons were details, the lack of DRM support in HTML5 was the big showstopper and that just got fixed.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
They had to wait until this happened in August 2014. It's the addition of an API to HTML5 which allows video to be wrapped in any form of DRM. The other reasons were details, the lack of DRM support in HTML5 was the big showstopper and that just got fixed.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about this being addressed.
 

FLECOM

Modder(ator) & [H]ardest Folder Evar
Staff member
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Messages
15,740
can't wait for flash to die
 

Cryptic1911

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
226
Now all they need to do is make the experience the same across all browsers. Firefox doesn't have the same resolution options as Chrome on many videos
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Great, now let me disable DASH...

Been asking for that for a long time. I doubt it'll happen. It's especially annoying if you're connected over WiFi that isn't super fast. You'll catch up. I liked before where I could pause and let it preload.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
6,121
now they need to make the html player behave like the flash player.

I prefer the flash player because it does instant quality changes. You don't have to watch the first 15 seconds of the video in low quality until it finally switches over (or anytime you do a quality switch)---like you do with the html player.

I think the general video quality issues are more an issue with recent encoding changes made by youtube. Not the html video codec itself. Sometime around April last year, they made changes so that video with a lot of motion is lower quality than it used to be. Lots of pixel crawl and smearing.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,471
Now all they need to do is make the experience the same across all browsers. Firefox doesn't have the same resolution options as Chrome on many videos

I think thats Firefox issue, not youtubes. Same reason as why 60fps does not work. Firefox only has some features (media source extensions or something) partially supported and they are disabled by default. You can turn them on at about:config but results can be glitchy.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
now they need to make the html player behave like the flash player.

I prefer the flash player because it does instant quality changes. You don't have to watch the first 15 seconds of the video in low quality until it finally switches over (or anytime you do a quality switch)---like you do with the html player.

I think the general video quality issues are more an issue with recent encoding changes made by youtube. Not the html video codec itself. Sometime around April last year, they made changes so that video with a lot of motion is lower quality than it used to be. Lots of pixel crawl and smearing.

I just change the resolution manually then click on the video slider...instantly changes. What I miss is being able to simply add "&hd=1" to the video to get 720p. On my computer, that's good enough.

To the person who said HTML5 isn't as good as flash, I'm not sure it matters. I suspect it's the same video file bundled into the HTML file, but I'm not an HTML expert. I've never noticed a difference in quality, and I've D/L a few HTML 5 videos.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
19,355
I had to Refresh IE 11 by going to the Gear on the Right side internet options then Rest to get the volume control back on YouTube.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
624
Good, at least it won't freeze my Firefox on my Surface Pro now when I try to pause or move the scan in a video.
 

Sum~Guy

n00b
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
15
I run windows 98 se with KernelEx. Firefox 2.0.0.20 is my default browser. I have the ability to set the user-agent to any one of several hundred different strings, but for right now it's set to default. I have flash version 10.3.183.86 installed. I'm using that browser (and, I guess, flash) right now to watch videos on youtube.

Side question: What's the difference between flash, flash player, and shockwave?
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
I run windows 98 se with KernelEx. Firefox 2.0.0.20 is my default browser. I have the ability to set the user-agent to any one of several hundred different strings, but for right now it's set to default. I have flash version 10.3.183.86 installed. I'm using that browser (and, I guess, flash) right now to watch videos on youtube.

Side question: What's the difference between flash, flash player, and shockwave?

:eek: Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?
 

Sum~Guy

n00b
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
15
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.
 

TechLarry

RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,483
I know playback has really sucked on YouTube lately. Whatever they need to do to fix it, especially if that means ditching flash.

How can you force it to use HTML5 ?
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
adobe flash is bullshit nowadays anyway, either it never works because of required updates or it is updating all the time
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.

I really hope you don't run an IT shop anywhere where sensitive data is stored.
 

Parja

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
12,671
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.

I bet your tinfoil hat is glorious.
 
D

Deleted member 126051

Guest
I had to Refresh IE 11 by going to the Gear on the Right side internet options then Rest to get the volume control back on YouTube.

I've been having a lot of problems lately with YouTube crashing my sound services.

It's so common at this point I have a batch file to restart sound services.

Code:
net stop audiosrv
net stop AudioEndpointBuilder
net start audiosrv
net start AudioEndpointBuilder

Depending on install, the last one (start AudioEndpointBuilder) may or may not be necessary as the start Audiosrv (for me at least) kicks the endpoint builder off as well.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
11,257
Flash never bugged me until Adobe started using their automatic updater to trick end users into installing extra junk. So for all my customers I had to either disable flash updates and deal with that security headache or constantly deal with all the junk that they would let flash install. I personally wish they would have gone with Silverlight instead of HTML5.
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
Side question: What's the difference between flash, flash player, and shockwave?

Flash is the platform on which all manner of Flash objects run. Flash Player plays Flash videos, which are just some of the possible flash objects. Shockwave can use more of those flash objects and be more interactive, and thus is more used for game development.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
> Windows 98SE? Even with a modded kernel, why?

Because unlike most people, I saw through the "Emperor's New Clothes" when Macro$haft foisted the NT-based line of Windoze on the general computer user/owner back in 2002, and watched as XP became the most efficient trojan-hosting platform the world has ever known. I watched as I updated my hardware from P2 to P3 to P4 and better video cards, more ram, bigger hard drives, and I kept using Win-98. My systems right now are socket-775 intel Core CPU's running 2 or 3 ghz. I'm running 2 gb ram (which my win-98 systems can see and use all of it). I'm running 1.5 and 2 tb sata drives (formatted as FAT32, running in native SATA mode, and win-98 can see and use the entire drive). I run no anti-malware/anti-virus software (not for at least 6 or 7 years) because all web-based exploits (and even most email-delivered malware) fails to run on a 9x system.

Win9x was (either by design or dumb luck) inherently more secure from remote exploit and control than NT-based OS's were. Not just today, but even during the years 2000 through 2004 (when 9x systems were still in heavy use).

I have much more control over my OS and the file system vs anyone running an NT-based system. The few times I've needed to set up an XP system, I'd done so by formatting the drive as FAT32 and have made a dual-boot DOS7.1/XP system.

Okay, interesting. Thanks for the reply. *backs away slowly* :eek:
 

mi7chy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
3,985
Flash has always worked for me and optimized for older systems but historically it's had so many security holes that it's probably better laid to rest.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
6,121
I just change the resolution manually then click on the video slider...instantly changes. What I miss is being able to simply add "&hd=1" to the video to get 720p. On my computer, that's good enough.

To the person who said HTML5 isn't as good as flash, I'm not sure it matters. I suspect it's the same video file bundled into the HTML file, but I'm not an HTML expert. I've never noticed a difference in quality, and I've D/L a few HTML 5 videos.

yes, it will typically change the quality of the video AFTER the point at which you clicked. But usually it will already have buffered a chunk from the beginning of the video. Running the slider back to the beginning of the video does not ovewrite the pre-buffered, low quality video. When using the HTML viewer. In Flash, it does overwrite, so you can watch the entire video in HD, without much fuss.
 
Top