[frogman]

Is there any way to install Adobe Flash player version 10 to Windows 98 Firefox 2.0.0.20

I ask as this is what is needed to enable street view in Google.

I have tried the Firefox useragent but it didn't work.

[lightning slinger]

frogman, on 22 June 2010 - 08:56 PM, said:

Is there any way to install Adobe Flash player version 10 to Windows 98 Firefox 2.0.0.20

Flash Player 10.0.45.2 works with KernelEx 4.5 Beta on FF 2.0.0.20 see this thread http://www.msfn.org/...elex-45-beta-2/

It functions better than Flash 9 does without KernelEx.

[frogman]

lightning slinger, on 23 June 2010 - 01:16 AM, said:

frogman, on 22 June 2010 - 08:56 PM, said:

Is there any way to install Adobe Flash player version 10 to Windows 98 Firefox 2.0.0.20

Flash Player 10.0.45.2 works with KernelEx 4.5 Beta on FF 2.0.0.20 see this thread http://www.msfn.org/...elex-45-beta-2/

It functions better than Flash 9 does without KernelEx.

I tried KernelEx beta, but I had to remove it as it was stopping my ZoneAlarm from running in the system tray.

I am back with FF 2.0.0.20, but for some reason I am unable to get my ABP Ad Block Plus back, any ideas?

[frogman]

When I try and install adblockplus I receive the following error, Signing could not be verified 260.

What do I need to do?

I need to install this to FF 2.0.0.20 as I can't get Kernelex to work as it stops my firewall from loading.

[lightning slinger]

frogman, on 23 June 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

I am back with FF 2.0.0.20, but for some reason I am unable to get my ABP Ad Block Plus back, any ideas?

According to Add-ons for Firefox page, Adblock Plus 1.2 works with FF 3.0.12 - 3.7a6pre only but Ad blocker 0.6.7 works with FF 1.5 - 3.6

Quote

I tried KernelEx beta, but I had to remove it as it was stopping my ZoneAlarm from running in the system tray.

Did you try the Compatibility setting in KernelEX set to 98SE for Zone Alarm? You should have posted your problem in the KernelEx thread, I am sure someone would have given you the remedy.

[lightning slinger]

See Minimal requirements on this page http://adblockplus.org/en/installation

[frogman]

lightning slinger, on 23 June 2010 - 07:54 AM, said:

frogman, on 23 June 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

I am back with FF 2.0.0.20, but for some reason I am unable to get my ABP Ad Block Plus back, any ideas?

According to Add-ons for Firefox page, Adblock Plus 1.2 works with FF 3.0.12 - 3.7a6pre only but Ad blocker 0.6.7 works with FF 1.5 - 3.6

Quote

I tried KernelEx beta, but I had to remove it as it was stopping my ZoneAlarm from running in the system tray.

Did you try the Compatibility setting in KernelEX set to 98SE for Zone Alarm? You should have posted your problem in the KernelEx thread, I am sure someone would have given you the remedy.

I was not sure how to do this, the only think I did do was change the number for the operating system to either XP or Vista. I was unsure if I needed to do anything else.

By the way I managed to get adblockplus 0.7.5 installed and working.

This post has been edited by frogman: 23 June 2010 - 09:59 AM

[patclash]

frogman, on 23 June 2010 - 07:32 AM, said:

When I try and install adblockplus I receive the following error, Signing could not be verified 260.

What do I need to do?

I need to install this to FF 2.0.0.20 as I can't get Kernelex to work as it stops my firewall from loading.

Hi,
the last version of Adblockplus that work with Firefox 2.0.0.20 is 1.0.2

Quote

Minimal requirements: Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0, SeaMonkey 1.1, Flock 1.0, K-Meleon 1.1

https://addons.mozil...1#version-1.0.2

[frogman]

patclash, on 23 June 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

frogman, on 23 June 2010 - 07:32 AM, said:

When I try and install adblockplus I receive the following error, Signing could not be verified 260.

What do I need to do?

I need to install this to FF 2.0.0.20 as I can't get Kernelex to work as it stops my firewall from loading.

Hi,
the last version of Adblockplus that work with Firefox 2.0.0.20 is 1.0.2

Quote

Minimal requirements: Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0, SeaMonkey 1.1, Flock 1.0, K-Meleon 1.1

https://addons.mozil...1#version-1.0.2

thanks for that, although I already found this to be the case and have already installed it.

Funny thing is I was able to manually install it over the older 0.7.5 version, but when I tried the normal FF method of updating it said there were no updates, wonder why that is.

[diskless]

lightning slinger, on 23 June 2010 - 01:16 AM, said:

frogman, on 22 June 2010 - 08:56 PM, said:

Is there any way to install Adobe Flash player version 10 to Windows 98 Firefox 2.0.0.20

Flash Player 10.0.45.2 works with KernelEx 4.5 Beta on FF 2.0.0.20 see this thread http://www.msfn.org/...elex-45-beta-2/

It functions better than Flash 9 does without KernelEx.

Where did you download Flash Player 10.0.45.2 for FF 2.0.0.20?
Any special instructions about installing it?

[rainyd]

diskless, on 23 June 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

Where did you download Flash Player 10.0.45.2 for FF 2.0.0.20?
Any special instructions about installing it?

There's no special version for Firefox 2.0.0.20 or any other version of Firefox.
You've one for alternative browsers and second (AcitveX) for IE.

I think, it's best to check KernelEx thread.

[wsxedcrfv]

I downloaded and installed what I think is the latest Flash version 9, which is 9.0.277.0. After installing it, I searched the registry for "9.0.277.0" and found it in two places:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\Adobe Flash Player Plugin
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\MozillaPlugins\@adobe.com/FlashPlayer

Listed under the key-names "DisplayVersion" and "Version".

I changed those two key values from 9.0.277.0 to 10.0.45.2 (the most current version 10).

After restarting my win-98 machine and visiting Adobe's version-checker web page and Google Street view, both still claimed that I had flash version 9. So that didn't work. In fact, upon the re-start, I got the adobe update screen telling me that a new version of flash was available (version 10.something). I didn't take adobe up on it's offer initially, but I did later and what-ever it downloaded, it didn't like my OS.

I then loaded NPSWF32.dll into a hex editor and searched for "9.0.277.0". It exists in many places, but it must be changed in two specific places. Once I changed it to 10.0.45.2 and re-opened firefox 2.0.0.20, Adobe said I was running 10.0.45.2, and google Street-view operated completely normally. I checked other websites (you-tube for one) and verified that flash content was rendered correctly (all video's played just fine).

I don't know if I'm allowed to offer this modded version of NPSWF32.dll here, or post a download link to it, so I'll wait for a green light from someone here in authority before I do.

[dencorso]

Way to go, wsxedcrfv!

wsxedcrfv, on 23 June 2010 - 06:49 PM, said:

I don't know if I'm allowed to offer this modded version of NPSWF32.dll here, or post a download link to it, so I'll wait for a green light from someone here in authority before I do.

Redistributing files by Adobe isn't allowed, be they modded or not (Rule #1b).
But you can create a patch pattern and redistribute the patch pattern, like I've done in this analogous case...
All you need is patch.exe, from KanastaCorp, for which is there is a link in the post I've just pointed to.
Patch.exe can be used both to apply a patch pattern and to create it.

[wsxedcrfv]

dencorso, on 23 June 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

Redistributing files by Adobe isn't allowed, be they modded or not. But you can create a patch pattern and redistribute the patch pattern,

Ok, fine. This is always confusing, because it seems that various microsoft files are made available and linked to from these msfn forums and not necessarily with links pointing back to microsoft. I guess I'll never understand exactly what is allowed and what isin't in this regard.

[dencorso]

Patch patterns are always allowed, since they cannot be construed, in any way, to be part of the proprietary files they're used to patch.

[lightning slinger]

wsxedcrfv, on 23 June 2010 - 06:49 PM, said:

I changed those two key values from 9.0.277.0 to 10.0.45.2 (the most current version 10)

The most current version of Flash is 10.1.53.64, can you try it with that version?

[frogman]

lightning slinger, on 24 June 2010 - 02:27 AM, said:

wsxedcrfv, on 23 June 2010 - 06:49 PM, said:

I changed those two key values from 9.0.277.0 to 10.0.45.2 (the most current version 10)

The most current version of Flash is 10.1.53.64, can you try it with that version?

I haven't tried that version, but I wondered now that I am reported as having 10.0.45.2 after amending the driver is it then possible to try and update 10.0.45.2 to the most recent version of flash being 10.1.53.64, or would that just mess things up and perhaps I should just be happy that I have flash 10.

[dencorso]

lightning slinger, on 24 June 2010 - 02:27 AM, said:

wsxedcrfv, on 23 June 2010 - 06:49 PM, said:

I changed those two key values from 9.0.277.0 to 10.0.45.2 (the most current version 10)

The most current version of Flash is 10.1.53.64, can you try it with that version?

I believe it won't work, because "10.1.53.64" has 10 charachters, while both "9.0.277.0" and "10.0.45.2" have 9. This means one can substitute "10.0.45.2" for "9.0.277.0" without occupying any space not intended for that string (i.e.: it's an isometric patch), but cannot do the same with "10.1.53.64", because the latter is one byte too long. I found out, not so long ago, that such a non-isometric patch breaks Flash 7, so I'm quite confident it'd similarly break Flash 10. And, even if I didn't know about the patching of Adobe 7, generally speaking, non-isometric patches are expected to break programs, and usually really do so.

[frogman]

dencorso, on 24 June 2010 - 11:55 AM, said:

lightning slinger, on 24 June 2010 - 02:27 AM, said:

wsxedcrfv, on 23 June 2010 - 06:49 PM, said:

I changed those two key values from 9.0.277.0 to 10.0.45.2 (the most current version 10)

The most current version of Flash is 10.1.53.64, can you try it with that version?

I believe it won't work, because "10.1.53.64" has 10 charachters, while both "9.0.277.0" and "10.0.45.2" have 9. This means one can substitute "10.0.45.2" for "9.0.277.0" without occupying any space not intended for that string (i.e.: it's an isometric patch), but cannot do the same with "10.1.53.64", because the latter is one byte too long. I found out, not so long ago, that such a non-isometric patch breaks Flash 7, so I'm quite confident it'd similarly break Flash 10. And, even if I didn't know about the patching of Adobe 7, generally speaking, non-isometric patches are expected to break programs, and usually really do so.

Thanks for that info, I am quite happy that my browser reports flash version "10.0.45.2" as being installed, when of course we know it really isn't, as I actually have "9.0.277.0" installed, have I got this part right in that now that the driver has been amended so that my system is fooled to think that version 10 is installed, is it the browser that is being fooled or is it my system?

I would think the latter being that the amended driver sits in the windows system, have I got this right?

[Svenne]

Why use FF 2 when 3.6 runs on KernelEx?