Alternative Flash Player Auto-Updater

[greenknight]

Alternative Flash Player Auto-Updater lets you download and install the Flash Player without having to download Adobe's download manager - it downloads the latest version and asks you whether it should be installed or not.

You can choose to let it run at the start of Windows, this way you can be sure that your system will never run an outdated and extremely dangerous version of Flash Player.

Key Features:

- Even works if no Flash Player is installed on the system (offers download)

- Works on Windows x86 & x64

- German & English (automatically detecting system language)

- Can work completely hidden (except notifications when updates are available)

- User can choose to let it start with Windows automatically

Requirements - .NET Framework 3.5 or higher

Author - DiSTANTX

Download (English): Alternative Flash Player Auto-Updater 1.0.0.1.zip

Screenshot: Screenshots

View: Version history

Homepage: Alternative Flash Player Auto-Updater

[James_A]

I really don't understand the need for this, since I've always downloaded the (standalone) installer and run it.

Also, it requires .NET Framework 3.5 installed, which is an additional requirement for XP.

I just run

install_flash_player_ax.exe

or

install_flash_player_ax.exe -install

for a silent install.

I can then easily run that on multiple computers.

At what point, or from which web page, do Adobe force the download manageer on you?

.

[0_0]

I really don't understand the need for this

I agree, at least with the existing requirements - .Net 3.5 is why I avoided Paint.NET for so long, until I finally updated .NET.

There are many download sites for Flash Player, FileHippo for example, small download, run with a simple /switch and you're updated for another few months.

[Eldmannen]

It is rather stupid that Adobe has their download manager, Apple has theirs, Google has theirs, Sun has theirs, EA has theirs, etc.

And often when you start the computer, they all start up in the background doing a latest version check.

All running their own processes.

On Linux, all application updates and latest version checks are all centrally managed by the same application, the system package manager.

[greenknight]

At what point, or from which web page, do Adobe force the download manageer on you?.

I used to be able to get the standalone installer from Adobe.com, but not anymore; every Adobe page I tried sent me to this page, which pushed the Adobe Installer on me. The "seamless installation" they touted was slow, and it took two tries before it worked. Really irritating - the real reason for it appears to be to show you some ads.

I saw this little app on MajorGeeks right after that infuriating experience. I decided to tell the world about it, help the less technical users out there avoid Adobe's adware.

.Net 3.5 is why I avoided Paint.NET for so long, until I finally updated .NET.There are many download sites for Flash Player, FileHippo for example, small download, run with a simple /switch and you're updated for another few months.

I avoided .NET altogether for a long time, but once I caved in and got it I thought it should be kept up-to-date. Horrible piece of bloatware, I think, but so many apps use it that it's hard to do without.

Sure, there's lots of places you can get Flash, but I didn't used to need to hunt for it - I had the Adobe download page bookmarked. That page is now crap.

It is rather stupid that Adobe has their download manager, Apple has theirs, Google has theirs, Sun has theirs, EA has theirs, etc.And often when you start the computer, they all start up in the background doing a latest version check.

The Adobe Download Manager is run-once garbage, doesn't stay on your computer, so at least it's not tying up resources all the time. That way you get to download it all over every time you go there for an update, and get some fresh ads - and waste more time.

[James_A]

Although Adobe now own Macromedia, the download locations for the Flash Installer files still have Macromedia (not Adobe) URLs.

You could try this direct download link:-

http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_ax.exe

That file has a different name, but has identical contents, to the file downloaded by corporate administrators who hold a licence from Adobe. Wherever you download the file from, you can right-click on the file and check that it is genuine and has a valid digital signature, because it is digitally-signed.

For install or silent install, see my previous post. The silent install/uninstall commands are different for Flash 10.1 than for Flash 9.x and earlier (/s does NOT work on Flash 10.1).

.

[greenknight]

Although Adobe now own Macromedia, the download locations for the Flash Installer files still have Macromedia (not Adobe) URLs.

You could try this direct download link:-

http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_ax.exe

That file has a different name, but has identical contents, to the file downloaded by corporate administrators who hold a licence from Adobe. Wherever you download the file from, you can right-click on the file and check that it is genuine and has a valid digital signature, because it is digitally-signed.

For install or silent install, see my previous post. The silent install/uninstall commands are different for Flash 10.1 than for Flash 9.x and earlier (/s does NOT work on Flash 10.1).

.

Thanks for the effort, but...I should have explained better; it's mostly the plugin version of Flash that I'm concerned with, as I rarely use IE (though I did update the ActiveX while I was at it).

Thought I might have a use for that link anyway - if I could use that to get the ActiveX update without the need to launch IE it would be a time saver. Doesn't look like it, though; I tried downloading that file as a test, as soon as it finished the computer drastically slowed down - without my ever attempting to launch the file. I keep Process Explorer running minimized, so I could see that CPU usage was high, but not that high - and DPCs were using most! Weird. I eventually got the Process Explorer window to open, then I found the Windows Update client was running, and using a massive amount of memory.

I deleted the file, and things gradually settled down some; didn't return to normal until I restarted the computer, though. Appears I can't use it, anyway; maybe it doesn't work on XP Home Edition or something. Possibly my sister could use it at work - she runs the town library, and has a bunch of public access computers to maintain. They all have Deep Freeze or Steady State on them, which makes installing or updating programs a real pain; anything that can streamline an update would be welcomed.

[Eldmannen]

Die ActiveX! Die!

[greenknight]

Die ActiveX! Die!

My sentiments exactly.

[James_A]

Thanks for the effort, but...I should have explained better; it's mostly the plugin version of Flash that I'm concerned with, as I rarely use IE (though I did update the ActiveX while I was at it).

No problem, just remove the _ax, as in:-

http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player.exe

Thought I might have a use for that link anyway - if I could use that to get the ActiveX update without the need to launch IE it would be a time saver. Doesn't look like it, though; I tried downloading that file as a test, as soon as it finished the computer drastically slowed down - without my ever attempting to launch the file. I keep Process Explorer running minimized, so I could see that CPU usage was high, but not that high - and DPCs were using most! Weird. I eventually got the Process Explorer window to open, then I found the Windows Update client was running, and using a massive amount of memory.

I deleted the file, and things gradually settled down some; didn't return to normal until I restarted the computer, though.

That problem has nothing whatsoever to do with downloading either of the flash installers (provided, of course, you selected to SAVE the file and not to RUN it). You've been hit by the "use all available memory & use 100% CPU" problem/issue/bug that has brought computers to a crawl when Windows Update runs, starting in August. There's no known cure at this time.

Trust me, it was not the flash installer, it was coincidence of timing. And, since August, Windows Update needs up to about a GB of RAM to run in.

Those flash installers, BTW, work on both XP home and XP professional - just download and save them, then run them once Windows Update has finished taking over the computer for the day. You don't need to run either Internet Explorer or Firefox to install them. Quite the opposite, in fact. Shut down Internet Explorer or Firefox, as appropriate, then run the installer. Just tick the EULA accept box (or install silently from the command-line) and they install in seconds. Quick and easy.

.

[greenknight]

So the URL for the plugin version is the same but without _ax - who'd of thought? Tried that out, no problem this time; created a bookmark for it, too. Now that I've got links for both, updates should be a snap.

That problem has nothing whatsoever to do with downloading either of the flash installers (provided, of course, you selected to SAVE the file and not to RUN it). You've been hit by the "use all available memory & use 100% CPU" problem/issue/bug that has brought computers to a crawl when Windows Update runs, starting in August. There's no known cure at this time.

Trust me, it was not the flash installer, it was coincidence of timing. And, since August, Windows Update needs up to about a GB of RAM to run in.

It was quite a coincidence; I've never seen that before and it started the very instant the download was complete. These things happen, though. And no, I didn't select RUN instead of SAVE; I never do that.

Hadn't heard about this Windows update glitch, but it doesn't surprise me much; MS makes blunders like that periodically.

I have only 512MB of RAM; Process Explorer's Commit History graph showed sustained mem usage well above 900MB - you can imagine how much slowdown I was getting.

I have run the standalone Flash installers before (they didn't used to be so hard to find) - generally used them only if there was a problem and I wanted to do a clean install. There used to be a convenient update page - but since that's no longer the case, looks like the standalone installers are the fast way to go.

[James_A]

And no, I didn't select RUN instead of SAVE; I never do that.

Well, I didn't really think you had, but I try to cover all bases for the sake of everyone else reading this thread.

I have only 512MB of RAM; Process Explorer's Commit History graph showed sustained mem usage well above 900MB - you can imagine how much slowdown I was getting.

No need for me to imagine it. I've seen it first hand and it's horrible to behold. The big delays are because the OS is "disk thrashing" -- swapping memory for an active process out to the page file on disk and back again, whilst the process is actually running.

.

[greenknight]

Horrible is a good word for it. I'm well acquainted with disk thrashing, I see it all too often (really need to add more RAM, this is not good for the HDD) but never that bad for that long.

I did find a workaround, though, here.

There it says that you get this problem only if you've opted in to Microsoft Update (Windows Update is the default update source for XP). You can disable Microsoft Update while leaving Windows Update on, and no more problem. The difference is, Windows Update does NOT offer updates for MS Office, Windows Live applications and/or Silverlight. Microsoft Update does.

It's simple to do - go to Microsoft Update (in IE), click "Change Settings" on the left, scroll down and select "Disable Microsoft Update".

When you want to re-enable MS Update, you have to re-install the MS Update software. I hope they get this bug fixed soon so I only have to do that once, instead of every time there's an update to MS Office (I haven't installed Silverlight, and don't use Windows Live).

[Eldmannen]

Horrible is a good word for it. I'm well acquainted with disk thrashing, I see it all too often (really need to add more RAM, this is not good for the HDD) but never that bad for that long.

I hate disk thrashing. I experience it when using other peoples computers.

I have 4 gb RAM and a solid-state disk (SSD), ain't no such thing as disk thrashing.

[greenknight]

I should have scanned the rest of that thread on MS Answers more carefully - links are provided to update MS Office manually, including the Microsoft Download Center. I won't need to enable MS Update to get MS Office updates after all.

I passed all this info along to my sister, the "Library Director" (that's her official title, though she directs just herself, a part-time assistant, and whatever volunteer help they get). She was glad to hear about the Flash installer links - though she just finished updating Flash on all the computers, this will make the next update go faster.

That Update bug was news to her as well, and probably is the answer to a mystery that's been vexing her - their staff computer, an older machine running XP, has been lagging badly right after start-up. She's suspected a problem with the AV software, but hasn't been able to come up with a fix. Maybe she can stop wasting time on that now.

Thanks for all the help, I really appreciate it.

[James_A]

... an older machine running XP, has been lagging badly right after start-up. She's suspected a problem with the AV software, but hasn't been able to come up with a fix. Maybe she can stop wasting time on that now.

Thanks for all the help, I really appreciate it.

I timed one older computer as effectively unusable for the first 16 minutes after switch-on. That wasn't even a bad example. It was running MSSE (Microsoft Security Essentials) as the AV software, which uses rather less memory than most. Computers running a bigger, slower, AV (like McAfee, for example) take much longer as both the AV update and Microsoft/Windows Update attempt to run at the same time.

I've clocked McAfee VirusScan, during a definitions update, as using over 450MB (actual, not commit) on its own. Add the Microsoft Update to that and you can see why things just slow to an unusable crawl.

.

[greenknight]

Well, now she says the staff computer seems to have fixed itself, without any action by her. Could Microsoft have fixed it already? Or maybe it was an AV problem; I think it's got Avira Antivir, which isn't usually a resource hog - but bugs happen.

I don't know why anybody uses McAfee, it takes only a little research to find so many better choices.

[James_A]

... You've been hit by the "use all available memory & use 100% CPU" problem/issue/bug that has brought computers to a crawl when Windows Update runs, starting in August. There's no known cure at this time.

... I hope they get this bug fixed soon so I only have to do that once, instead of every time there's an update to MS Office (I haven't installed Silverlight, and don't use Windows Live).

Microsoft have apparently fixed this, see the topic I posted HERE: Microsoft fixes Microsoft Update

.

[James_A]

Adobe Flash Player 10.1.85.3 has been released.

Now you can try out the standalone installer links I posted (above) .

.

[greenknight]

Adobe Flash Player 10.1.85.3 has been released.

Now you can try out the standalone installer links I posted (above) .

.

I already tried out those links, verified that they download the Flash installers - all I need to know.

I used this update to test the original subject of this thread, and verified that the Alternative Flash Player Auto-Updater works as advertised. Now I'll uninstall it - I sure don't need it!

It might be a good thing for the technologically challenged, though - those of us who have relatives who just can't manage this stuff, for instance, might consider installing it for them.

However, the program does not auto-update itself, which makes no sense.

[James_A]

It might be a good thing for the technologically challenged, though - those of us who have relatives who just can't manage this stuff, for instance, might consider installing it for them.

Good point.

However, the program does not auto-update itself, which makes no sense.

There's a newer version (1.0.0.2) out which is supposed to check for updates for itself as well as other improvements. See the product page for details.

However, according to comments posted on the author's website, this is still not bug-free.

.

[greenknight]

However, the program does not auto-update itself, which makes no sense.

There's a newer version (1.0.0.2) out which is supposed to check for updates for itself as well as other improvements. See the product page for details.

However, according to comments posted on the author's website, this is still not bug-free.

.

Yes, I got the new version. It notifies you when an update is available - not quite an auto-update, but better than nothing.