Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
asdfg

KernelEx v4.5.2 flash 11.6.602.168

32 posts in this topic

How can the registry keys exist for a brand new file that I drop into C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\MACROMED\FLASH\ ???

In that case they obviously won't first t exist. But there is more than one way to skin a cat!

Lots of programs are hardcoded to look in specific folder structures, others are softcoded to look in the current directory and below ( Opera in at least some versions ), or they can do both in either order of precedence. Once a browser locates a file in this manner ( without registry keys ) it might then call some of its functions directly with no fuss, it might load the whole DLL into memory, or, it might first call the self-register procedure which sets up those aforementioned registry keys ( using that particular filename and location ). BTW, the registry keys being are most often used as a quick source of file pointers by applications created with standard tools like Visual Studio that are aware of the COM model with Registry keys, etc. It is standard procedure for big, traditional, non-portable applications.

Also be aware that there are further possibilities as well. Some applications don't even require a valid filename at all and will load all DLLs it finds in its path even if the file is called abc.old or just abc. This doesn't yet pertain to Flash in browsers but it is part and parcel of debugging Windows errors. especially on big programs like CorelDraw which might have literally thousands of libraries in its path, so you can imagine how easy a conflict can arise. So there are many possible combinations of problems. For example, IrfanView will load up every plugin underneath it regardless of name.

This is why I mentioned doing an audit of both the registry and disk so that the user can get all their ducks in a row, because:. The registry might be correct, pointing to the latest flash somewhere on disk while a different version is tucked away in a folder that the program manually searches, and a version conflict might arise. And I wouldn't be surprised if all browsers work slightly differently in their order of precedence.

I didn't "install" the new version of flash. All I did was drop NPSWF32_11_6_602_168.DLL into the macromed\flash directory. So how can Mozilla FF/Netscape know that it exists? It can't be present anywhere in the registry, because I didn't install that version (didn't run the flash installer) and I didn't register it manually using regsvr32.

As above, it loaded the file from either the browser directory structure or it searched hardcoded traditional well-known paths.

And (I ask again) why do these flash DLL's exist as both NPSWF32.DLL *AND* NPSWF32_version_number.DLL ??? Why does Adobe create / distribute them using dual-names like that? Who else (what other company) has ever distributed / installed new versions of DLL files by including the version_number in the name of the file?

As Zoinkity mentioned, it is simply their latest distribution scheme probably meant to make things easier in their eyes. Complain to Adobe, they're good listeners, NOT :lol: What I do myself, is an audit of the registry and disk, then I prefer to normailze the names to the original format without versions numbers. It probably does not matter, but there is also the possibility of a program not only searching a hardcoded path, but also the traditional filename. Such a hypothetical program would find no Flash DLL file on disk using the newer compound filename+version format ( well, unless it also used the registry ).

So to summarize the entire problem ... there are lots of combinations of Flash versions, filenaming, location, and browser methodology. If you want to have zero conflicts ( or security holes from not using the latest greatest most secure release ), do an audit of everything, step back and understand all the possibilities that may arise and fix it accordingly.

You keep talking about the ocx files - I don't care about the ocx files because I don't care about IE6 or how flash works (or doesn't) with IE6.

Okay! But this isn't email and you're not the only one here, and other visitors will visit this thread years into the future! :lol: I just wanted to point out that they are doing the exact same thing with both types of Flash, DLL and OCX. They name them similarly, and they self-register in the same way.

Also note, I am NOT saying that the OCX and DLL must be matched, there is no technical reason for that and someone might actually want different Flash levels in MSIE than in Mozilla/Opera maybe for dev purposes or some other experiment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\MozillaPlugins\@adobe.com/FlashPlayer]

"Path"="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\Macromed\\Flash\\NPSWF32.dll"

There is also an equivalent HKCU MozillaPlugins key were Flash path could eventually be.

Finally there are the browsers's own plugins directories.

That should sum it all up.

As for the OP's "problem" in Opera, it's most likely just the plugin on-demand setting that is enabled I would guess.

Edited by loblo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still doesn't explain how FF 2 was coded back in 2008 to know that when loading the flash plugin, that it should search for all NPSWF32_version_number.DLL files and choose the most current version - when Adobe wouldn't even start creating/distributing NPSWF32_version_number.DLL files until 4 years later in 2012.

I guess whoever was coding FF2 was just so clever to anticipate that method of flash file naming 4 years in advance, and build it into FF2 eh?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still doesn't explain how FF 2 was coded back in 2008 to know that when loading the flash plugin, that it should search for all NPSWF32_version_number.DLL files and choose the most current version - when Adobe wouldn't even start creating/distributing NPSWF32_version_number.DLL files until 4 years later in 2012.

I guess whoever was coding FF2 was just so clever to anticipate that method of flash file naming 4 years in advance, and build it into FF2 eh?

If that is exactly what happened ( FF2 picking the best version regardless of filename ) it wasn't from Nostradamus. It probably does something like this when executed ...

FF2 fires up, enumerates all files in its plugin search path, requests standard file information for each, throws away every file except those with npswf32.dll in the "Original File Name" field, weighs the remaining versions and then keeps the best one. That pretty much describes a thinner algorithm for a portable application. Of course they may enhance that decision-making by using the registry and by expanding the search path to other folders perhaps under other browsers, it's up to them ( actually I believe this is the case because I think I've seen Opera or Firefox find Flash under each others' folder structure in the past ).

Rest assured there is an algorithm, perhaps very complex, for plugin handling. You could have a look at the source code if you are so inclined or try to nail it down using FileMon and RegMon in tandem ( that's on Win9x naturally ). On WinXP using ProcMon will definitely expose all the search locations, but naturally it turns up a LOT more extraneous events than Win9x!

EDIT: typo

Edited by CharlotteTheHarlot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Info on installing Flash 11.6 is here.

BTW, if you previously installed Flash 11.3.*, then perhaps you need to rename npswf32_11.6.*.dll to npswf32_11.3.*.dll.

Edited by jumper
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the past few days, I've been setting up a new install of win-98se on a clean drive on a 3 ghz P4 Soyo i845 motherboard. (And I've installed 98 SE SP 3.18 just prior to installing KernelEx).

Something I noticed is that I wasn't able to install any version-11 version of flash, at least not as the first version the system had ever seen. I eventually got some version of Flash-10 working, and then was able to get the most recent Flash-11 working. So for someone working with a new install of win-98, you might have to install flash-10 first before trying flash-11.

Oh - yea, I might as well mention that even though Firefox 8 does install and run, I don't see the point of using it when the bookmarks and recent-history don't function.

Edited by Nomen
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a problem with the new FP 11_6_602_180. That's my scenario:

It was working fine with KernelEx v4.5.2 + FF 3.6.28 + FP 11_6_602_171. On 17 Mar 2013, the system refused to start due to the notification of FP 11_6_602_180.

Then I installed the FP 11_6_602_180 msi and renamed NPSWF32_11_6_602_180.dll to NPSWF32.dll. FP 11_6_602_180 failed to function.

Then I tried ways to uninstall, including the standalone FP uninstaller. The uninstaller failed with R6025 pure virtual function call.

Luckily, I was able to uninstall by right clicking uninstall on the msi, and then able to install FP 11_1r102_63.

Now, FP 11_1r102_63 is the newest version that I'm able to set up.

I was trying to re-install FP 11_6_602_171 or FP 11_6_602_168 but failed. I remembered that I was able to install FP 11_6_602_171 even with the error message:

A required .DLL file, WINHTTP.DLL, was not found.

All suggestion and advice are appreciated.

OC

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a problem with the new FP 11_6_602_180. That's my scenario:

It was working fine with KernelEx v4.5.2 + FF 3.6.28 + FP 11_6_602_171. On 17 Mar 2013, the system refused to start due to the notification of FP 11_6_602_180.

Then I installed the FP 11_6_602_180 msi and renamed NPSWF32_11_6_602_180.dll to NPSWF32.dll. FP 11_6_602_180 failed to function.

Then I tried ways to uninstall, including the standalone FP uninstaller. The uninstaller failed with R6025 pure virtual function call.

Luckily, I was able to uninstall by right clicking uninstall on the msi, and then able to install FP 11_1r102_63.

Now, FP 11_1r102_63 is the newest version that I'm able to set up.

I was trying to re-install FP 11_6_602_171 or FP 11_6_602_168 but failed. I remembered that I was able to install FP 11_6_602_171 even with the error message:

A required .DLL file, WINHTTP.DLL, was not found.

All suggestion and advice are appreciated.

OC

The latest Flash Player works with FF 3.6.28 for me.

Try this: Don't change the name "NPSWF32_11_6_602_180.dll" in the macromedia folder. Paste a copy of the file renamed to NPSWF32.dll in the plugin folder of Firefox or set the Firefox.exe from default mode to Win2000.

If this doesn't work look in the registry and delete the keys FlashPlayerPlugin, FlashPlayerUpdate (with path and version) HKLM\SOFTWARE\Macromedia\FlashPlayerPlugin, HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Macromedia\FlashPlayerUpdate and HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Macromedia\FlashPlayerUpdate.

The message "A required .DLL file, WINHTTP.DLL, was not found." goes away if you paste the Winhttp.dll (XP version) in your system folder. You can download it on DllDump.com.

Edited by schwups
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this: Don't change the name "NPSWF32_11_6_602_180.dll" in the macromedia folder. Paste a copy of the file renamed to NPSWF32.dll in the plugin folder of Firefox or set the Firefox.exe from default mode to Win2000.

It worked, thanks! I'll just ignore the WINHTTP.DLL error as it has no effect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have flash version 11.6.602.171 (most current version right now is 11.6.602.180). Adobe's flash player test page says my flash is working (the ball is moving back and forth). I can visit other sites (youtube) and flash seems to work just fine.

I have disabled my hosts file, and tried this on FF2, Netscape 9, and Opera 12.02. I get the same results with all three. I have changed my browser User-Agent string on FF2 to a more recent version of FF - and it doesn't matter. On a win-XP computer, it works fine.

What I'm trying to do is run the flash-based speed test located here:

http://206.47.199.107/speedtest.swf

When I go to that page, I enter some numbers for a phone number (9 or 10 digits, the numbers don't matter) and then select "begin test". It then displays my IP and something that looks like a tachometer and a cute diagram of a computer and server separated by a data pipe. After a few seconds I get a message saying "Unable to connect to the test server - A firewall or VPN might be blocking the connection to our speed test server. Please check and try again".

I'm using neither a VPN, proxy, nor a firewall.

For some reason, this flash app doesn't work for win-98se with Kex, but it does work for me when I try it from a win-XP computer.

Does that speed test URL work for anyone else running win-98?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems not everything works with Flash. For instance, the MySpace audio player doesn't work, it keeps on "connecting" to the stream but nothing ever happens. And it works with no version of Flash I tried, down to version 10. Version 9 which is compatible with vanilla 9x is unable to load the player itself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another flash issue that I have. Once in a while (perhaps once out of every 10 or 20 times that I boot up this win-98 PC) I get this error message during boot-up:

Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library

Runtime Error!

Program c:\windows\system\macromed\flash\flashutil32_11_6_602_171 plugin.exe

R6025

- pure virtual function call

(ok)

With that error message still on-screen, I run CCTask and sure enough, the above-mentioned flash EXE file is one of the processes running on the computer. I open msconfig look at the startup list - and see no evidence that flash had somehow inserted itself into the list. I run regedit, and search the registry for all occurances of "flashutil32" and again I don't see how or why that program would have been running as part of the boot-up sequence.

I dismiss the error and I get one final error about flashutil32_11_6_602_171.exe causing an illegal function call in module FPB.TMP. I do a search and find 6 copies of that file, each in it's own serialized subdirectory in windows\temp. Feb 22, March 13, 21, 28, April 4, 11.

The files are all 468 kb in size, and appear to be .exe files. File info says:

Description: Adobe flash Player Helper 11.6.r602

File version: 11.6.602.171

Any explanation?

Edited by Nomen
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a more recent version of flash 11.6.602.171 running on their win-98/me system? I've been trying to swap npswf32.dll for a more recent version (11.7 or 11.8) with no luck. I've been reading that the file flashplayer.xpt might also be needed, but I can't find a download package containing that file (or at least an 11.7 or 11.8 package containing that file). I've renamed my existing .xpt file and my current flash version works just fine, so I don't know what role the xpt file plays. My current version of the DLL file is set to Win-2000 compatibility mode in Kex, if that matters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another flash issue that I have. Once in a while (perhaps once out of every 10 or 20 times that I boot up this win-98 PC) I get this error message during boot-up:

Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library

Runtime Error!

Program c:\windows\system\macromed\flash\flashutil32_11_6_602_171 plugin.exe

R6025

- pure virtual function call

(ok)

With that error message still on-screen, I run CCTask and sure enough, the above-mentioned flash EXE file is one of the processes running on the computer. I open msconfig look at the startup list - and see no evidence that flash had somehow inserted itself into the list. I run regedit, and search the registry for all occurances of "flashutil32" and again I don't see how or why that program would have been running as part of the boot-up sequence.

I dismiss the error and I get one final error about flashutil32_11_6_602_171.exe causing an illegal function call in module FPB.TMP. I do a search and find 6 copies of that file, each in it's own serialized subdirectory in windows\temp. Feb 22, March 13, 21, 28, April 4, 11.

The files are all 468 kb in size, and appear to be .exe files. File info says:

Description: Adobe flash Player Helper 11.6.r602

File version: 11.6.602.171

Any explanation?

Probably the automatic Flash update fails. I seem to remember the error occurs not before an update is available.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant even get flash to work if its above flash 9 :(

Edited by lolnousernameforyou
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.