Occupy Flash wants people to uninstall Flash Player on PCs

Adobe's Flash Player software is still used by the vast majority of PC desktops and laptops. Now, in the wake of Flash creator Adobe announcing they would discontinue development of Flash for the Android and Blackberry Playbook platforms comes a new Internet movement designed to get PC owners to uninstall Flash from their machines.

In a nod to the Occupy Wall Street movement, this new Internet campaign is called Occupy Flash. In the web site's own words:

Flash Player is dead. Its time has passed. It's buggy. It crashes a lot. It requires constant security updates. It doesn't work on most mobile devices. It's a fossil, left over from the era of closed standards and unilateral corporate control of web technology.

The web site has posted up links for people to uninstall Flash on their PC, Mac, Linux or Google Chrome browsers. It also urges people to email Flash based web sites and ask them to use more open standards from now on such as HTML5.

The site's creators have so far remained anonymous, but a statement on the site insists that Occupy Flash "has no corporate backing, and is not a lobbying effort of any sort." They claim they have nothing against either Adobe or the Flash software, recognizing its use in making mobile applications. However the site's organizers claim that they simply want Adobe to move to HTML5 for future web-based applications rather than continue to develop Flash for the PC market.

We have sent an email to the Occupy Flash group, so hopefully we can gather some more info about their cause. Do you support Occupy Flash? Let us know in the comments.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Black Friday 2011: PC hardware and software deals

Next Story

Microsoft, can you help us fight the bloatware battle?

176 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think that whatever this is there's a typical west coast crackhead behind it. Maybe the Flash plug in is a heavy piece of garbage, I wont argue that. But the software itself is a really good development / design application, that offer a great interface and easy to use tools. Maybe HTML5 has the potential, but developing animations with notepad is retarded, it means going back 20 years. I think we need to give Adobe some time to figure out how to allow Flash to publish in HTML5. This is what they needed to do since the beginning, instead of doing the iphone packager, which is indeed pretty bad.

Dumb...

If they want to stop Flash, get the developers of popular software and sites to stop using it, users don't have the 'choice' in this.

Look at things like Farmville alone that have hundreds of millions of players, they can't uninstall Flash, no matter how much they hate Flash itself.

"Flash is slow...", "Flash crashes all the time"... etc.
WTF are people still using 486´s? Flash flies on my laptop, and it's only a amd athlon II 2.20 Ghz dual-core cpu powering it (with a crappy Radeon HD 4270) . I'd guess 50% of the people browsing the neowin forums are running far more powerful machines than mine.

Confusing, to say the least. My guess is that some people just think it's cool to hate flash because Mr. Jobs told you so. If you really believe in Jobs you seriously need a brainscan... 4vck off and go play some serious HD online video and come back here to prove webm is better than h.264 in any single way! Yea webm is open standard but who gives a **** when h.264 is superiour?

You're all mislead by a d1ckhe*d who copied everything other people had already done years ago... If you think I'm an idiot to malign a dead person I don't care, you're welcome to pee on my grave when I'm dead. The biased image of HTML5 have gone to far. Yes it IS the future but Flash is so superior still in almost every way when dealing with video, online games and many many other things...

If you kill of flash, then you will be whining about horribly annoying HTML5 adds using up your CPU and screaming at you "Hey Click Here! Winner! Free Smilies!"

Aerah.Eleganta said,
If you kill of flash, then you will be whining about horribly annoying HTML5 adds using up your CPU and screaming at you "Hey Click Here! Winner! Free Smilies!"

So true!

Aerah.Eleganta said,
If you kill of flash, then you will be whining about horribly annoying HTML5 adds using up your CPU and screaming at you "Hey Click Here! Winner! Free Smilies!"

So true!

Its time has passed. It's buggy. It crashes a lot. It requires constant security updates. It doesn't work on most mobile devices.

Um, interesting logic, applies to pretty much everything, starting with Windows... If you don't like Flash don't use it. End of story.

Occupy Bjoswald says get the hell over it and leave Flash alone. It's buggy at times, it's crashy at times, but why cripple the web by removing it? We all know that HTML5 is the future, but while we're still here today, we need Flash to see the web the way it was designed. The whole ad container argument is all but crap at this point, since decent ad blockers have been out for ages. Get yourself a decent PC, a decent browser and a decent ad-blocker and relax. It's not worth making a ****ing movement over. It's a plugin for crying out loud.

Until streaming sites like YouTube and others stop using Flash, you're just shooting yourself by uninstalling it.

I'm watching the Ferrer vs Murray match on my computer right now...how do they suggest doing so without Flash?
...answer: you can't.

Ummm I don't think so... Occupy movements are financed by Soros, the globalist mobster. OWS = NWO. Flash player is not buggy, I've never had a crash with it. My system isn't all that modern either and yet it runs just fine.

Plus all my favorite websites are in flash, including my own. A lot of us spent a while learning action script which happens to be a complete programming language (lightyears ahead of HTML5) which doesn't really do anything special except save your batteries.

That you think HTML5 is a programming language is kinda worrying. Javascript is a programming language and is as much a programming language as Actionscript.

iKenndac said,
That you think HTML5 is a programming language is kinda worrying. Javascript is a programming language and is as much a programming language as Actionscript.
The folks behind HTML5 are calling it a breakthrough in "programming" language. That says enough for me.

Izlude said,
The folks behind HTML5 are calling it a breakthrough in "programming" language. That says enough for me.

I'm sorry... I'm just... depressed... maybe I'll consider it... I just gotta convert my swf's to flv which can play on html5 players... but....... waaahhhh T^T

Can we keep to the world banking scam with this occupy stuff? We don't want to lose credibility now. I'll use freaking flash if I want to use flash.

Already done. Well, kind of. I uninstalled it in Safari for every day use and use Chrome when I absolutely have to look at a Flash element.

neufuse said,
hey, can we Occupy the Occupy?

George Soros runs all the Occupy movements. Occupy him and you've got'em all!

As a Windows Phone 7.5 user I don't miss Flash TBH. Mobile versions of Flash have always had poor performance compared to desktop versions anyway.

Therefore, Flash on my phone, No way. Flash on my desktop and laptop, definately.

Don't have it installed on my system at home or phone for the longest now. Hopefully everything can get pushed forward when we don't have things like flash "holding" us back.

Flash has it's place for sure, but not in my browser!

SHoTTa35 said,
Don't have it installed on my system at home or phone for the longest now. Hopefully everything can get pushed forward when we don't have things like flash "holding" us back.

Flash has it's place for sure, but not in my browser!

At the moment, HTML5 implementation & performance & capabilities & lack of standards are holding off HTML5 as a competitor to flash's so far unchallenged (aside from being challenged by ignorance) throne.

What HTML5 does so far has been unimpressive, dull, and in no way as powerful as Adobe Flash:
1. Adobe Flash supports multiple video formats. Firefox is closed of to a few "elite" video formats - it doesn't support as many formats as Adobe Flash.
2. Adobe Flash supports MP3. Firefox refuses to do so.
3. Adobe Flash provides fast, very compressed and powerful vector animations and vector based games.
4. Adobe Flash h264 video playback capabilities are superior to IE9's h264 via HTML5 playback capabilities.
5. Adobe Flash has fullscreen support for as long as I can remember.
6. Adobe Flash offers hardware accelerating renderer and decoding and better overall performance than IE9's HTML5 h264 implementation (IE9 wins in terms of HTML5 support in terms of performance and support for h264).

Thanks for the detailed listing. I know HTML5 isn't complete and or as good as flash. My point was to say that if Flash wasn't around (either never existed or depricated) then something else would have to spring up in it's place. So i'm not saying that Flash isn't good, i'm just saying we need something better!

Sigh. I'm going to put my Web developer hat on, now, and say how ridiculous this is.

Yes, the Open Web Platform, will be able to do EVERYTHING that the Flash platform can do, but not yet. Mozilla and the W3C are working on some great Web APIs for controlling accelerometers and whatnot in devices, but they're not widely implemented yet. Also, Microsoft are refusing to support WebGL, which isn't helping.

And let's not forget about how we're going to play some of the brilliant Flash animations and games made in this century if we don't have Flash Player.

It will die one day, but today is not the right time.

Meph said,
Sigh. I'm going to put my Web developer hat on, now, and say how ridiculous this is.

Yes, the Open Web Platform, will be able to do EVERYTHING that the Flash platform can do, but not yet. Mozilla and the W3C are working on some great Web APIs for controlling accelerometers and whatnot in devices, but they're not widely implemented yet. Also, Microsoft are refusing to support WebGL, which isn't helping.

And let's not forget about how we're going to play some of the brilliant Flash animations and games made in this century if we don't have Flash Player.

It will die one day, but today is not the right time.

The performance and security of WebGL is appalling.
WebGL is a big step backward to the dark edges of "look a 3D rotating cube and it rotates SMOOTHLY - watch in awe!" vs "Look one million polygons and realtime smooth lightning and reflections and refractions and it is SMOOTH - watch in awe!"

Aerah.Eleganta said,
Look one million polygons and realtime smooth lightning and reflections and refractions and it is SMOOTH - watch in awe!"

Yes, performance and security will definitely need to be sorted out, but don't think that WebGL can't do millions of polygons. It can already do that. The point is that it's similar to OpenGL and has pretty much the same capabilities. It's very low-level.

If your copy of adobe flash is misbehaving I suggest you stop using Firefox.
Many issues come from Firefox's sensationally bad Out of Process model and renderer.

Additionally, you should realize that there is no video standard for HTML5. WebM is horrible in terms of quality/compression ratio. Google wants WebM across the internet to make profits. Linux fans think that they are entitled to free video playback on an Operating System that they haven't payed money for. Firefox and Opera do not understand the concept of system-wide codecs and how using them avoid any and all legal issues. And pretty much no one understand that h264 now offer 10-bit high profile encoding which is vastly superior to 8-bit high profile option - that is h264 has improved because x264 improved recently. To further drive the point home, mentally handicapped groups like Mozilla refuse to even support MP3.

Also the most impressive HTML5 things (e.g. "look flying thing on screen - watch in awe how it flies and resizes in real time") does not compare in any way to Adobe Flash's "look hundreds of vectors on screen and smooth gradients in real time on a cheap ass PC with MP3 audio and a very small file size!".

While I appreciate what they are trying to achieve, seriously, removing flash from systems without a viable alternative to allow people to see the content requiring flash is frankly idiotic, stupid asshats the lot of them. Speaking from a support engineers point of view, what the F am i meant to tell end users when site x,y or z doesnt work without seeing the flash content, morons every single one of them. 99% of web users really dont give a flying monkeys scroat about if its out of date or not, they want to see the content on the pages....simple as.....Come back when either HTML5 is commonplace or you have an alternative, until then STFU you morons!

Mando said,
While I appreciate what they are trying to achieve, seriously, removing flash from systems without a viable alternative to allow people to see the content requiring flash is frankly idiotic, stupid asshats the lot of them. Speaking from a support engineers point of view, what the F am i meant to tell end users when site x,y or z doesnt work without seeing the flash content, morons every single one of them. 99% of web users really dont give a flying monkeys scroat about if its out of date or not, they want to see the content on the pages....simple as.....Come back when either HTML5 is commonplace or you have an alternative, until then STFU you morons!

Exactly!

waiting for the next movements Occupy C++ our requests, get rid of pointers! make C++ easier to understand! C++ for all not just 1% of devs that understand it completely!

neufuse said,
waiting for the next movements Occupy C++ our requests, get rid of pointers! make C++ easier to understand! C++ for all not just 1% of devs that understand it completely!

Hell no! People that don't understand pointers should just stay away from C++ - or better: stay away from programming at all!!!

M_Lyons10 said,
Just more proof that the Occupy Movement has absolutely no idea what they're for OR against...

The original occupy movement had a point, but it has proceeded to spread to the point where it's a worthless movement because it's become so diluted with copycats. Like this one!

ok these occupy stuff is getting stupid, not that it was all that intelligent to start with (no real demands, no clue what they where demanding, no true goals) but software? comon..... whats next occupy neowin? where we just post HEY HEY NO NO NEOBONDS GOTA GO! for ever post? (I'm just kidding neobond) or 1 2 3 4 Callaham write no more! (j/k again)

neufuse said,
ok these occupy stuff is getting stupid, not that it was all that intelligent to start with (no real demands, no clue what they where demanding, no true goals) but software? comon..... whats next occupy neowin? where we just post HEY HEY NO NO NEOBONDS GOTA GO! for ever post? (I'm just kidding neobond) or 1 2 3 4 Callaham write no more! (j/k again)

Now that's not completely true. There was the one wingnut holding a sign that said "eradicate males"... It's certainly no crazier than the rest of their bullet points...

I don't support anything marked "Occupy...", which is nothing but a bunch of malcontents of dubious mental faculties and a socialist or communist agenda. However, I also believe Flash should have been put in the grave years ago and haven't had it on my computers for quite some time, now.

ScubaDog said,
I don't support anything marked "Occupy...", which is nothing but a bunch of malcontents of dubious mental faculties and a socialist or communist agenda. However, I also believe Flash should have been put in the grave years ago and haven't had it on my computers for quite some time, now.

+1 to all of that...

Wow what a worthwhile cause </sarc>

As a web developer i can't wait for the day that Flash comes to an end, however is this the right way of going about it? No.

Good luck with this not working I guess. I think when people think flash vs HTML5 they only think videos, but they forget about, oh I don't know... all of the thousands and thousands of flash games and media at sites like Kongregate and Newgrounds. As far as I know, those can't all be simply converted over to HTML5. It's gonna have to be a push by those hosting the content to switch over (like youtube/google), not really a push by the users.

Average Joe or Jane doesn't care how he or she plays his or her games and videos as long as they work and they will download whatever their browser tells them to to get it working.

I've never once missed Flash on my iPod or iPad, so I am not one who would summarily judge all iPad/iPod/iPhone devices as 'iFail' devices for that once single reason.

However, if you want people to not use Flash... just make it obsolete. (Think RealMedia.)

HELL NAW! While I agree that HTML5 is awesome, I still need Flash for a lot of stuff. (&, well, to play those c***y Flash games I used to make... *cough cough*)

&, seriously, "Occupy Flash?" what is there, an occupy everything now?

Why.....it still works fine for me.

It's definitely a apple fanboi having a QQ over the fact he can't see flash items on his iFail device.

Baked said,
Why.....it still works fine for me.

It's definitely a apple fanboi having a QQ over the fact he can't see flash items on his iFail device.

Future mobile platforms will end up with the same issue. I see where he's coming from. I think Flash is a dying format (not in terms of users ... just in terms of it's future). Even Adobe have started developing apps to work on HTML 5 etc. I think the idea of a plugin is a bad one anyway. Having to add something to your system to see something else sucks. That said ... as I said before, I'll be keeping Flash for the time being.

I doubt trading buggy constantly crashing plugin for codecs is going to make much difference. Flash has equal ability to succeed and continue development as a good single and formal codec which is used consistently and universally with HTML5.

Disable flash, Gmail chat video calling won't work. Solution? We need *working* alternatives if Flash is to die off quickly.

To be honest the Flash on OS X is pretty crappy when compared to the Windows version. So as a Mac user sure I'd like to see Flash go. But for now I don't think HTML5 has all the capabilities that Flash has to offer, so it will be a step backwards if Flash was to go now. So it's better if Adobe improved their efforts to make a OSX version that works like the Windows part...

Marius F said,
To be honest the Flash on OS X is pretty crappy when compared to the Windows version. So as a Mac user sure I'd like to see Flash go. But for now I don't think HTML5 has all the capabilities that Flash has to offer, so it will be a step backwards if Flash was to go now. So it's better if Adobe improved their efforts to make a OSX version that works like the Windows part...

Nobody cares about OSX. They have about 5% share.

Wtf is wrong with people... I've never had any problems with flash ... I'm using ad-block to get rid off online flash advertisements...
Flash is cool, especially now with hw acceleration and the built in h.264i blows the new html5 video out of the water.. Sorry I don't remember the name of the codec...

ow7iee said,
Wtf is wrong with people... I've never had any problems with flash ... I'm using ad-block to get rid off online flash advertisements...
Flash is cool, especially now with hw acceleration and the built in h.264i blows the new html5 video out of the water.. Sorry I don't remember the name of the codec...

Exactly, HTML5 video never works perfectly for me.

ow7iee said,
Wtf is wrong with people... I've never had any problems with flash ... I'm using ad-block to get rid off online flash advertisements...
Flash is cool, especially now with hw acceleration and the built in h.264i blows the new html5 video out of the water.. Sorry I don't remember the name of the codec...

People are still licking Steve Jobs balls, he didn't like flash, so all the "cool" kids jumped on the bandwagon, even when it's been proved many times how Flash is much better than the alternatives.

I wish at least Silverlight or Flash would stay alive on the desktop side as a web plugin - as good as HTML 5 is, if I want to make a complex, interactive and dynamic web app I'd much rather do it with a proper OO programming language then end up being stuck with javascript - which would pprobably end up being a lot more complex and confusing than just writing it in C# and Flash. Don't care if you replace video streaming with HTML 5, go ahead - but I still think these plugins do have some place.

Enron said,
Flash is already on its way out. They should focus on killing Java.

Java will never die! Java is in the same position as COBOL: Highly used in (legacy) business applications. This is where it is and will stay for decades to come. One can only try to imagine how future developers will react when they first come in touch with the pile of code bloat and boilerplate that every Java-programs is based on…

Enron said,
Flash is already on its way out. They should focus on killing Java.

+1

Java, completely, desktop and web, needs to die.

yowan said,
HTML5 isn't even comparable to Flash, the Youtube HTML5 video is a clear example.

Not comparable? Both versions of the website work the same, the difference being the HTML one never lags or have a plugin crash...

Leonick said,

Not comparable? Both versions of the website work the same, the difference being the HTML one never lags or have a plugin crash...

Flash never crashed on me. HTML5 on the other hand has nasty bugs…

Leonick said,

Not comparable? Both versions of the website work the same, the difference being the HTML one never lags or have a plugin crash...

Unless your CPU is weak, then Adobe Flash provides a CLEAR advantage because it offers hardware accelerated video playback.

HTML5 only offers hardware accelerated video playback on IE9 and with WORSE performance than Adobe Flash.

Additionally, HTML5 is only _now_ getting fullscreen. It is a joke! How long has adobe flash had fullscreen?!

Leonick said,

Not comparable? Both versions of the website work the same, the difference being the HTML one never lags or have a plugin crash...

The HTML5 video has to be reloaded whenever the video is rewinded/forwarded. This isn't an issue with Flash.

yowan said,

The HTML5 video has to be reloaded whenever the video is rewinded/forwarded. This isn't an issue with Flash.

Yep that's the next thing that's annoying about HTML5-video…

Some people still confusingly think that Flash is only meant to play streaming videos while video streaming is actually only one of dozens of features not yet available or as dynamic as HTML5 can provide.

vacs said,
Some people still confusingly think that Flash is only meant to play streaming videos while video streaming is actually only one of dozens of features not yet available or as dynamic as HTML5 can provide.

I don't think there is much confusion, it's just that video is what flash is mostly used for...

Mike Allen said,
Uninstalling Flash would break most websites.

99% of websites. I am not apart of the 1% that has disabled flash for this cause

Mike Allen said,
Uninstalling Flash would break most websites.

No it wouldn't. You can browse most sites just fine with an iPad for example. Flash is basically good for browser games and video content. Whole sites done in Flash are rarely sites with anything truly worth it.

I would love to see all Flash videos replaced by the HTML5 video tag. Of course, ancient IEs don't support it but they should be put to rest anyway.

LaXu said,

Of course, ancient IEs don't support it but they should be put to rest anyway.

And the reason you say "ancient IEs" instead of "ancient browser" is? It's not like an ancient Firefox will play HTML5 videos.

Furthermore as I already posted the last time this topic came up: As long as they don't include a codec into the recommendation HTML5-video is kinda useless as you still can't ensure that every browser will play back your video. Switching from one widespread plugin to a myriad of different possible codecs is not a smart idea…
The only thing that's actually stupider than that is when browser manufacturers start to integrate these codecs into their programs instead of delegating that work to the underlying OS as this leads to multiply implementations of the same codec on the system!

MFH said,

And the reason you say "ancient IEs" instead of "ancient browser" is? It's not like an ancient Firefox will play HTML5 videos.

Furthermore as I already posted the last time this topic came up: As long as they don't include a codec into the recommendation HTML5-video is kinda useless as you still can't ensure that every browser will play back your video. Switching from one widespread plugin to a myriad of different possible codecs is not a smart idea…
The only thing that's actually stupider than that is when browser manufacturers start to integrate these codecs into their programs instead of delegating that work to the underlying OS as this leads to multiply implementations of the same codec on the system!


like how both Windows and Apple users have the H.264 codec intergrated and as such, over 90% of the world can use this codec as the standard one.

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, we have to argue about wether to pick WebM or H.264, even tho its perfectly clear that WebM performs horribly compared to H.264 and no way more then 90% of the internet users have/will have the WebM codec, which wont even run native on anything except a Chromebook.

Mike Allen said,
Uninstalling Flash would break most websites.

You're an idiot. 90%+ of a web site isnt based on flash you moron its HTML/PHP/Javascript code. Its no wonder there are so many people thinking eliminating flash from the web will kill it with people like this shooting off their mouth.

Flash = Video/Animations/Games/VERY few full websites, get this through your head people.

zeroomegazx said,

You're an idiot. 90%+ of a web site isnt based on flash you moron its HTML/PHP/Javascript code. Its no wonder there are so many people thinking eliminating flash from the web will kill it with people like this shooting off their mouth.

Flash = Video/Animations/Games/VERY few full websites, get this through your head people.

LOL

While I think it's a worthwhile effort. I agree with the fact that too many sites and browsers don't fully support HTML5. Flash works, and it works fine. I'll stick with it until they make HTML5 the new standard.

Lazerous Faewolfe said,
While I think it's a worthwhile effort. I agree with the fact that too many sites and browsers don't fully support HTML5. Flash works, and it works fine. I'll stick with it until they make HTML5 the new standard.

They probably won't make html5 the new standard if everybody is using Crash.. I mean Flash

Temuulen Battumur said,
If youtube starts providing us with html5 videos, then most people wouldn't miss them.

They do. join youtube's html5

alexalex said,

They do. join youtube's html5


WebM is not an HTML5 standard yet, why does everyone keep thinking so?
Besides WebM SUCKS SO MUCH MORE THEN FLASH.
watching youtube in flash, maybe 1-3% CPU usage. watching the same stuff in WebM over 40% CPU usage..... yea, so much better. Both my workstation as laptop have similar issues with WebM on IE9, Chrome and FF. Havent had such issues with H.264, not at all.

Youtube is getting annoying "TRY CHROME BROWSER" "TRY WEBM PLUGIN" all around, f*ck off i'm a happy IE9 user.

Shadowzz said,

WebM is not an HTML5 standard yet, why does everyone keep thinking so?
Besides WebM SUCKS SO MUCH MORE THEN FLASH.
watching youtube in flash, maybe 1-3% CPU usage. watching the same stuff in WebM over 40% CPU usage..... yea, so much better. Both my workstation as laptop have similar issues with WebM on IE9, Chrome and FF. Havent had such issues with H.264, not at all.

Youtube is getting annoying "TRY CHROME BROWSER" "TRY WEBM PLUGIN" all around, f*ck off i'm a happy IE9 user.

Happy IE9 Flash user eh? i'd love to see how infected your PC with crap.

zeroomegazx said,

Happy IE9 Flash user eh? i'd love to see how infected your PC with crap.

probably much less infected than the average firefox user, as IE has a sandbox since IE7/vista... as opposite to firefox/opera who still don't in 2011.

have you ever seen ANY website able to infect an IE9 user through a 0day flaw?
No? then shut up.

btw, flash is also sandboxed on IE... reducing the severity of flash flaws on IE compared to other browsers like firefox...

link8506 said,

probably much less infected than the average firefox user, as IE has a sandbox since IE7/vista... as opposite to firefox/opera who still don't in 2011.

have you ever seen ANY website able to infect an IE9 user through a 0day flaw?
No? then shut up.

btw, flash is also sandboxed on IE... reducing the severity of flash flaws on IE compared to other browsers like firefox...

Yes I have gotten infect with IE9 at the office with a zero day flaw thank you very much, 2 weeks ago while looking up some cisco references.

IE9 is epic fail without ad or script blocking, my Chrome and Firefox cant be touched with notscript and ad block plus.

zeroomegazx said,

Yes I have gotten infect with IE9 at the office with a zero day flaw thank you very much, 2 weeks ago while looking up some cisco references.

there is currently no 0day exploit concerning IE9 in the wild.

You simply got infected through another way. For example, the Java plugin is not sandboxed on any browser, so it's very likely that you got infected through it (or any other unsandboxed plugin).

Or, maybe you think you have been infected just because your antivirus told you a page you were visiting contained an exploit (against unpatched ie7, firefox, or java, ...), which doesn't mean you would have been infected without your antivirus since that was not an exploit targeting IE9!

if you are so sure you have been infected through an IE9 flaw, please post the link to the malicious page here, or just stop saying bullsh*t.


IE9 is epic fail without ad or script blocking, my Chrome and Firefox cant be touched with notscript and ad block plus.

IE9 is the only browser which has a native ad blocker (tracking protection list, using adblockplus blocking list).

And noscript is basically useless, since you will probably whitelist a site as soon as it will ask you to enable javascript to see its content, otherwise you would be unable to browse many websites.

A sandbox is way more usefull than a script blocker, because it protects you all the time, and it doesn't break websites.

And yes, there are ways to block javascript on IE9, but it is useless, since the default security is better than most browsers.

link8506 said,

there is currently no 0day exploit concerning IE9 in the wild.

You simply got infected through another way. For example, the Java plugin is not sandboxed on any browser, so it's very likely that you got infected through it (or any other unsandboxed plugin).

Or, maybe you think you have been infected just because your antivirus told you a page you were visiting contained an exploit (against unpatched ie7, firefox, or java, ...), which doesn't mean you would have been infected without your antivirus since that was not an exploit targeting IE9!

if you are so sure you have been infected through an IE9 flaw, please post the link to the malicious page here, or just stop saying bullsh*t.

IE9 is the only browser which has a native ad blocker (tracking protection list, using adblockplus blocking list).

And noscript is basically useless, since you will probably whitelist a site as soon as it will ask you to enable javascript to see its content, otherwise you would be unable to browse many websites.

A sandbox is way more usefull than a script blocker, because it protects you all the time, and it doesn't break websites.

And yes, there are ways to block javascript on IE9, but it is useless, since the default security is better than most browsers.

No, my antivirus didn't tell me I was infected however a fake AV did which prompted me to end the task but it didnt matter. The virus dropped a trojan in my MBR I was able to clean with a boot disc thank god.

IE9 does NOT adblock other that popups are you insane? Are you seriously insane? Open a page in Chrome with Adblock enabled then IE9. There are ads EVERYWHERE in IE9. IE9 has no blocking what so ever.

I do not white script anything unless absolutely necessary with notscript. Are you on some kind of high? People using not script are looking to BLOCK not allow scripts to be run because of their issues.

I will give you that no, Java does not run in the *protected* IE environment but what gave me the virus was a flash Ad, I can send you the URL if you want ';..;' I have it bookmarked for experimental purposes.

zeroomegazx said,

No, my antivirus didn't tell me I was infected however a fake AV did which prompted me to end the task but it didnt matter. The virus dropped a trojan in my MBR I was able to clean with a boot disc thank god.

a fake AV (basically just an html page telling you that you're infected, event though it is not true) caused you to decide to clean your MBR with a repair disk?

If your MBR was really infected, its infection is not related to some fake AV ads that have been displayed in a browser window.

Even if your IE was exploited through a flaw or java flaw that ran code outside the sandbox, the could would run as a limited user (unless you are stupid enough to have disabled UAC, in which case IE's sandbox is disabled too).
Running as limited user, a malware CANNOT write over the MBR.


IE9 does NOT adblock other that popups are you insane? Are you seriously insane? Open a page in Chrome with Adblock enabled then IE9. There are ads EVERYWHERE in IE9. IE9 has no blocking what so ever.

Just add the Easilist TPL (based on the adblockplus blocking list) available on the official IE gallery website, and IE9 will block natively most ads, without relying on a 3rd party extension:
http://www.iegallery.com/us/tr...rotectionlists/default.aspx


I do not white script anything unless absolutely necessary with notscript. Are you on some kind of high? People using not script are looking to BLOCK not allow scripts to be run because of their issues.

if you visit a site which asks you to have javascript enabled to view the content (a flash video, or ajax content), you will enable scripting on the page, even though you don't know if the site is serving malwares (which can happens on any legitimate website, especially wordpress based blogs which are often hacked)


I will give you that no, Java does not run in the *protected* IE environment but what gave me the virus was a flash Ad, I can send you the URL if you want ';..;' I have it bookmarked for experimental purposes.

so, you were running an outdated version of flash and you think you got infected though a flash ad?

that's very different than what you were claiming before when you said you were infected because of IE9! visiting the same site with firefox would have caused you to be infected, if what you're saying is true.

thealexweb said,
The BBC News has just rolled out HTML5 video support alongside Flash, progress
The thing is, BBC is a biased piece of crap, and so is Sky news and ITN. Period.

zikalify said,
The thing is, BBC is a biased piece of crap.
Err, really? I find the BBC News to be one of the better sources for unbias news. I can't say the same thing for Sky News or ITN though.

zikalify said,
The thing is, BBC is a biased piece of crap, and so is Sky news and ITN. Period.

ROFL. Sky and ITN I'll give you, but the BBC are renowned for being one of the LEAST biased news sources there is.

thealexweb said,
The BBC News has just rolled out HTML5 video support alongside Flash, progress

We're off topic but whilst we are there - the biggest issue with the BBC is that now ratings are such a concern they have started making news that sells (makes ratings) - which does lead to biased articles... however they just lean the way to sell the most, rather than having any particular continued bias to any one thing. One day it is for, the next day it is against.

lt8480 said,

We're off topic but whilst we are there - the biggest issue with the BBC is that now ratings are such a concern they have started making news that sells (makes ratings) - which does lead to biased articles... however they just lean the way to sell the most, rather than having any particular continued bias to any one thing. One day it is for, the next day it is against.


what are you babbling, they do not need to sell anything. They do not have to do anything for ratings. Its a UK goverrnment supported tv-network.

zikalify said,
The thing is, BBC is a biased piece of crap, and so is Sky news and ITN. Period.

Umadbro? The BBC is non-for-profit and doesn't have an agenda

The thing is, BBC is a biased piece of crap, and so is Sky news and ITN. Period.

I WON'T UNINSTALL FLASH BECAUSE THE BBC IS BIASED!!1!!

I don't even...

Least biased if you don't know the whole story. BBC is the other CNN,Empire's tool. It is better then CNN though.

Majesticmerc said,

ROFL. Sky and ITN I'll give you, but the BBC are renowned for being one of the LEAST biased news sources there is.

Intrinsica said,
Err, really? I find the BBC News to be one of the better sources for unbias news. I can't say the same thing for Sky News or ITN though.
Really? Yet on 9/11, the BBC was broadcasting that World Trade Center Building 7 has fallen down, yet the live camera next to her was showing the building was still standing. Yeah, thats really unbiased. Go look at the YouTube video.

First of all, it's a blog post, so don't read into it being anything more than a writer's opinion. Upon reading the post, it is just his opinion on the BBC being pro-Europe, and while that may perhaps be true, I watch a lot of BBC news simply because, while they might be biased to an extent (News, by it's very nature is biased, since what might be news to one person, may not be news to another), they don't push an agenda like most of the rest of the news outlets.

And let us not forget that this is a blog post from, unsurprisingly, a journalist working for a competing news company. All in all he sounds like he's pre-butthurt about the fact that when it comes down to it, any lets-leave-the-eu referendum will fail. In his blog he even admits that the BBC have apologised for any misinformation it may have created because of sloppy news reporting, and frankly, he named all of three examples of BBC (claimed) bias, in over 35 years. Newscorp are guilty of that amount of bias in an hour.

TechieXP said,
Really? Yet on 9/11, the BBC was broadcasting that World Trade Center Building 7 has fallen down, yet the live camera next to her was showing the building was still standing. Yeah, thats really unbiased. Go look at the YouTube video.

Bias - Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

What you mention is not bias, it is a reporting error, and given the chaos surrounding the area at the time, all the news teams there at the time were making mistakes.

TechieXP said,
Really? Yet on 9/11, the BBC was broadcasting that World Trade Center Building 7 has fallen down, yet the live camera next to her was showing the building was still standing. Yeah, thats really unbiased. Go look at the YouTube video.

That has nothing to do with being bias. That is what we like to call a mistake. As Majesticmerc said, everyone was doing it at that time, it was mayhem.

Matt Sharpe said,
Not a chance. Waaaay too many sites that I enjoy visiting regularly require Flash.

Exactly. which is why we are basically FORCED into using it.

ThaCrip said,

Exactly. which is why we are basically FORCED into using it.

Wrong. No one is forcing you to use Flash. If you don't liek Flash, don't visit sites that use it. Simple.

TechieXP said,

Wrong. No one is forcing you to use Flash. If you don't liek Flash, don't visit sites that use it. Simple.

your obviously missing the point. if you uninstall Flash a lot of websites become crippled.

hence, your being forced to use it weather you like it or not.

alexalex said,

youtube is not "experimenting"

Why don't you read the page you linked to. It clearly states that it's a trial, i.e. they are experimenting with it.

Martin5000 said,

Why don't you read the page you linked to. It clearly states that it's a trial, i.e. they are experimenting with it.


Their experimenting with it, sure, but I've been using it for months and it's way better than the flash version...

alexalex said,

youtube is not "experimenting" but moving all flash videos to html5. you can join now at http://www.youtube.com/html5.

When HTML 5 video on YouTube plays all the way through instead of 50-60% then crapping out, I'll consider it.

Until then Flash is staying on my PC.

neo158 said,

When HTML 5 video on YouTube plays all the way through instead of 50-60% then crapping out, I'll consider it.

Until then Flash is staying on my PC.


So I'm not the only one with that problem Anyone else experiencing this bug? In full screen view you select a new video => old video begins to play (sound+video) + sound of new video -> extremely annoying!

Don't forget basic problems:
- YT HTML5 reloads your videos when seeking. Adobe Flash does not.
- YT HTML5 uses non-DXVA compatible formats which lagg anything but good PCs.
- YT HTML5 uses video formats that are inferior to 8-bit high profile h264 and vastly inferior to high profile 10-bit h264 in terms of quality/compression ratio.
- YT HTML5 interface is not smooth, Adobe Flash interface is.
- Adobe Flash provides super smooth video playback, except on browsers which want it dead (Mozilla Firefox) which intentionally mains its plugin performance.

MFH said,

So I'm not the only one with that problem Anyone else experiencing this bug? In full screen view you select a new video => old video begins to play (sound+video) + sound of new video -> extremely annoying!

That's the other bug I've experienced as well.

FISKER_Q said,
HTML5 and Flash is not just about video content.

Yes, it's also stupid productivity wasting click-happy games
and oh so annying adverts from companies I already boycott for using flash.

dotf said,

Yes, it's also stupid productivity wasting click-happy games

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'll stop enjoying myself.

Aerah.Eleganta said,
Don't forget basic problems:
- YT HTML5 reloads your videos when seeking. Adobe Flash does not.
- YT HTML5 uses non-DXVA compatible formats which lagg anything but good PCs.
- YT HTML5 uses video formats that are inferior to 8-bit high profile h264 and vastly inferior to high profile 10-bit h264 in terms of quality/compression ratio.
- YT HTML5 interface is not smooth, Adobe Flash interface is.
- Adobe Flash provides super smooth video playback, except on browsers which want it dead (Mozilla Firefox) which intentionally mains its plugin performance.

1 - False, it does not reload here.
2 - Seems to run reasonably here.
3 - I'd rather have a properly open format
4 - What does 'smooth' mean? But sure, there's work to be done here - we are in fairly early days
5 - Proof? What actively anti Flash development do you think exists at Mozilla?

Kirkburn said,

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'll stop enjoying myself.


1 - False, it does not reload here.
2 - Seems to run reasonably here.
3 - I'd rather have a properly open format
4 - What does 'smooth' mean? But sure, there's work to be done here - we are in fairly early days
5 - Proof? What actively anti Flash development do you think exists at Mozilla?

1. Lucky for you. Additionally you might not notice this happening in a high bandwidth environment. Make sure the video is loaded in IE9, play video and make sure the video is finished, then seek back to 0:0

2. Exactly. This is a step backward to CPU computing. While we are at it lets get rid of this whole CUDA silliness and this moronic idea of scaling and vector processing and Direct2D!

3. FUD. Communism is great and Stalin is God type FUD. Again this is like shooting yourself in both feet. Open means absolutely nothing to the anything aside from big corporations - someone will benefit and someone will not. Does open mean better compression? Not in this case. Does open mean faster? Not in this case. Does it mean any integrity for future? Not in this case.
This is the whole Linux vs. Windows argument. The winner is clear.

4. Animated and non-laggy. Pretty, well designed.

5. You exist, people like you exist - Linux users for the "open" fallacy and Mac users for the "performance" fallacy. Mozilla is refusing to support h264 (a system provided codec) and MP3 (a system provided codec) - is that by itself not sufficient to show their bias?

Krome said,
Awesome! Steve Jobs would love this movement. He'd join and spearheaded the movement itself.

Maybe he is not dead yet, he is running this movement from his secret base where he is hiding

Krome said,
Awesome! Steve Jobs would love this movement. He'd join and spearheaded the movement itself.

He could have just made a system that properly supports flash instead of crying a river of tears.

Zeet said,

He could have just made a system that properly supports flash instead of crying a river of tears.

Except that it is up to Adobe to implement Flash properly for mobile, which they now admit was not possible and will never occur.

Rosyna said,

Except that it is up to Adobe to implement Flash properly for mobile, which they now admit was not possible and will never occur.


Don't you think he was more likely speaking about OSX? It's undeniable that Flash performs way worse on OSX compared to Windows…

MFH said,

Don't you think he was more likely speaking about OSX? It's undeniable that Flash performs way worse on OSX compared to Windows…

Yes, they said that most of the crashes in applications on the OS X desktop was down to Adobe's Flash, and they didn't want that happening on the iphone.

The primary use for flash IS video content, youtube for example is what most people will be using flash for. The iphone has a dedicated youtube player to overcome that and its not missed.

When it comes to sites such as youtube not pushing more for html5 video, its mainly down to advertisers putting videos before the clip. if you've enabled html5 video on youtube then you're still going to have to use flash to watch videos that have opt-in to the pre-advert. This is only supported in flash at the moment and unitl google find away to add an advert before the html5 videos it looks like we're stuck with using flash.

sagum said,

Yes, they said that most of the crashes in applications on the OS X desktop was down to Adobe's Flash,

Has anyone ever tried to discover the reason for the crashes? It's not like the OSX ActionScript-interpreter/vm will largely differ from the Windows version - at least it shouldn't! So it's mainly a question of how they bind the vm to the OS…

Rosyna said,

Except that it is up to Adobe to implement Flash properly for mobile, which they now admit was not possible and will never occur.

Yes and no. Yes it is up to Adobe to implement Flash properly on another platform. However, if the owner of that platform doesn't give what is needed, then how can Adobe do a good job?

Apple refused to give Adobe the proper API to support HA with Flash. Thus it sucks on macs and doesnt under Windows.

Yes Flash is buggy and insecure. Much like Windows, OSX, iOS,Android and every platform you can name.

What a complete bunch of morons.

Newsflash, desktops are not going to drop flash until desktop browsers properly support HTML5, and there are NONE which fully support it yet.

FloatingFatMan said,
What a complete bunch of morons.

Newsflash, desktops are not going to drop flash until desktop browsers properly support HTML5, and there are NONE which fully support it yet.


I could uninstall Flash from my comp! It'd be awesome. Especially since I'd still be using it in Chrome.

FloatingFatMan said,
What a complete bunch of morons.

Newsflash, desktops are not going to drop flash until desktop browsers properly support HTML5, and there are NONE which fully support it yet.


Indeed, isn't the HTML 5 standard still in Draft?

TCLN Ryster said,

Indeed, isn't the HTML 5 standard still in Draft?

2014 is the target date for completion of the spec, but given that all browser engines now support most of the features of HTML5, it's pretty much guaranteed that there won't be any more breaking changes to the HTML5 standard.

FloatingFatMan said,
What a complete bunch of morons.

Newsflash, desktops are not going to drop flash until desktop browsers properly support HTML5, and there are NONE which fully support it yet.


Not near as moronic as the dummies on wall street...

Majesticmerc said,

2014 is the target date for completion of the spec, but given that all browser engines now support most of the features of HTML5, it's pretty much guaranteed that there won't be any more breaking changes to the HTML5 standard.

absolutely wrong:

even 2 webkit-based browsers (safari and chrome) have huge implementation differences :
http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

It took 1 day for this guy to implement something related to html5/video on chrome, and 3 more days to make it work on safari!
HTML5 is not ready yet. And it won't be for a long time.

and as you can see on the W3C's test cases ( http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/ ), there is a still a lot a bugs to fix in the different browsers' implementation of html5.

Not to mention that most browser's implementation performance of html5 still stuck when compared to flash player.

Even on mobile phones, flash player mobile was way faster than native html5 when running similar rendering:
http://www.craftymind.com/guimark3/

flash on a nexus one : 36fps
html5 on a nexus one: 16fps
html5 on an iphone 4: 14fps

the facts are way different than behind steve's reality distorsion field...

FloatingFatMan said,
What a complete bunch of morons.

Newsflash, desktops are not going to drop flash until desktop browsers properly support HTML5, and there are NONE which fully support it yet.

Gee, I don't seem to have any trouble accessing HTML5 websites with IE9 OR 10 (I'm running the Windows Developer Preview). And, guess what, I don't have Flash installed on EITHER of my desktops....not missing it a bit....you moron.

link8506 said,
...

HTML5 is not a single technology. 'HTML5' itself is a bit of a misnomer. Many different technologies are coming along that will perform subsets of Flash-like abilities. Not all are complete, but that doesn't mean some parts aren't ready.

Muhammad Farrukh said,
I sense Apple behind this

Well since there isn't a lawsuit yet, this means someone else is behind this

FransB said,

I also sense Linux Fanboys

Who else are running piece of junk PC's that handle a browser plugin, only Linux and Apple users crying cause their platforms and systems cant handle it.

Beyond Godlike said,

Who else are running piece of junk PC's that handle a browser plugin, only Linux and Apple users crying cause their platforms and systems cant handle it.


Most ignorant comment of the thread thus far...

Beyond Godlike said,

Who else are running piece of junk PC's that handle a browser plugin, only Linux and Apple users crying cause their platforms and systems cant handle it.

You really are ignorant eh? So is the person who +1 your comment. Because I know that Linux and Mac can run Flash. I use it every single day on all 3 systems. I do not have a iPhone. You shouldn't make ignorant comments, unless you have proof to back up your claims.

.Neo said,

Apple already won.

Apple doesn't use it anymore on their devices, yes, but that doesn't mean it completely dissappeared from the world already because else this website wouldn't exist.

KomaWeiss said,

You really are ignorant eh? So is the person who +1 your comment. Because I know that Linux and Mac can run Flash. I use it every single day on all 3 systems. I do not have a iPhone. You shouldn't make ignorant comments, unless you have proof to back up your claims.

Really cause so do i, and ive never once had a prob with it. So why the sudden warfare against it.

KomaWeiss said,

You really are ignorant eh? So is the person who +1 your comment. Because I know that Linux and Mac can run Flash. I use it every single day on all 3 systems. I do not have a iPhone. You shouldn't make ignorant comments, unless you have proof to back up your claims.

Actually, he is right. And if you read what he said, and not what you think he said; you shouldn't have an issue with it.

He didn't say Mac's or Linux can't run Flash at all, he said they don't handle Flash well. and that is 100% true.

Since I don't use Linux, I won't comment on it, but I am full aware of the issues with Flash on Safari/OSX.

The issue is simple. When you load a flash movie or page in OSX, the CPU race up to 99% usage. Why? Because for years, Apple failed to give Adobe the needed API's to support Hardware Acceleration on Macs. Apple did in 2007 offer SOME API's for this issue. Hwoever, Adobe states that Apple didn't give the full API. The CPU's still rush up to 99%.

This doesn't happen under Windows XP, Vista or 7 as long as you have a GPU that supports at least DirectX9.

Windows Vista and 7 support full HA through the browser, which the Flash plugin can use to render pages. What the HA API is suppose to do, is off-load some of the rendering, especially for graphics from the CPU and render the processing using the GPU. Which si why even when I load a full flash website, my CPU rarely exceed 40% usage.

Mac's and Linux don't support Flashproperly. Apple has pretty much dropped Flash.

I do agree that Flash is buggy and has some security issue. Ok, now lets look at facts, who's software doesn't have those issues?

The best thing about Flash, as long as the platform has the player, Flash works cross-platform and requires no extra progarmming to make it work on multiple browsers. With HTML5 the biggest downside is webmaster have to format the code to support multiple browsers, which is a nightmare.

But you wouldn't know this because you don't program using HTML. But i do.
Even something as simple as web templates for CSS are a PITA to make because I have to write several lines of code just so one browser would render the page as I want it.

For example:

If I code a generic template in CSS/HMTL5, FireFox, Opera,Safari,IE and all the rest have their own way of handling the lines of code. No 2 browsers ever display the info exactly the way I want anyways. However, the extra code is needed so they render the page properly. Eveb after that, it sucks. With Flash I dont need that extra work. And these same companies complain about the cost to code for multiple browsers. Flash eliminatest thsi need.

So until you work from a dev aspect and not some hater, you might now be so quick to say goodbye to Flash. Unlike HTML, Flash can adapt to any platform with ease. HTML can not, and that si fact.

.Neo said,

Apple already won.

Apple supports Flash on their desktops, and yes, it sucks in there. But yet again, iTunes and QuickTime sucks in windows. In don't know if they do this on purpose but seems like you can't do a proper software that works great on both systems.