
Adobe finally releases a decent version (10.2) of Flash Player for OS X - jseliger
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/stagevideo.html
======
rryyan
Note that the new hardware acceleration is only for video, and Flash
developers will have to update their applications (in a potentially non-
trivial way) to take advantage of the new API.

Details here:
[http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/stage_video...](http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/stage_video.html)

------
aniket_ray
Isn't this the first version after Apple finally allowed access to Mac OS X's
graphics api enhancements?

------
rdl
And yet they manage to not have a version for 64-bit OS X.

~~~
cloudwalking
All OS X is 64-bit, right? Flash player is 32-bit, so perhaps they didn't see
an advantage to compiling it 64-bit?

~~~
bound008
The majority of the time, when you see 32bit vs 64bit on the mac, the issue of
what works and doesn't work all boils down to direct hardware access... If you
are booted in 64bit, this version is useless to you, even if it runs.

Other similar example:

Transmit 3 has an extension that lets you access files on ftp servers in the
finder. Doesn't work when you are in 64 bit mode since it acts as if its a
hardware device.

Fitbit doesn't sync on 64 bit because the driver the use for USB->serial
didn't have a 64bit driver when they made it, even though it does now, and has
had for months.

These companies need to get their stuff together and at least release beta
versions to see how many people are using 64 bit versions. Flash has one, but
it didn't do anything better for me (and probably leaves open security holes.)

~~~
jrmg
You're mixing up two concepts.

By "booted 64-bit", you mean running a 64-bit kernel. It doesn't matter if
you're running the 32-bit or 64-bit kernel from a userspace app's point of
view - 32-bit and 64-bit userspace apps can run on either kernel. All Apple's
apps that ship with Snow Leopard are 64-bit (Safari included). A 64-bit Flash
would run in 64-bit on all Intel 64-bit capable systems regardless of kernel -
reducing memory footprint, because the 32-bit frameworks, currently loaded to
service 32-bit Flash* would not need to be loaded into RAM any more.

If you're interested in which userspace apps you run are 32-bit vs 64-bit,
Activity Monitor has a "Kind" column - or in 'top' in the terminal, the 32-bit
apps will have a '-' before their name.

The 'extensions' you refer to are kernel extensions. By default, Snow Leopard
still runs, on all systems, with a 32-bit kernel. A 64-bit kernel is available
(and will presumably be the default in the future), but most third-party
kernel extensions are shipped only in 32-bit form. Unlike userspace apps,
32-bit kernel extensions can't be run in the 64-bit kernel, so Apple still
uses the 32-bit kernel by default so that people's kernel extensions will
still work.

* and iTunes if you're running it, but that's another story...

~~~
mishmash
> By default, Snow Leopard still runs, on all systems, with a 32-bit kernel.

The 2010 Mac Pros boot in 64-bit mode by default.

~~~
borism
how many of those are around?

~~~
mishmash
The transition has started.

------
epo
Hmm, the title isn't quite the wording on Adobe's page, and from the reactions
so far should be qualified "for small values of decent"

------
phreeza
I just installed it, but my CPU load is now _higher_ than before when watching
flash video. Confusing, did I miss something?

