118115 - Flash and Shockwave not working

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 110441

(Core Graveyard :: Plug-ins, defect)

Description

[Oscar van Vliet]

I have a problem in that shockwave movies show what I think is the first frame
is displayed but that is as far as it gets. This has been going on for a while
in Mozilla, but the latest installer from Macromedia recognized Mozilla and I
thought it should work now.

I have a problem that the flash plugin doesn't show anything. It loads and I can
ask for the Flash 'about' page but nothing is shown. Flash used to work fine.

I tried putting back the previous plugins but those didn't help either.

I use a PCel 300 with 128Mb Ram. I run NT 4 SP6 and use build 2001122106
(release 0.9.7), disk and memcache enabled, memcache at 8192 KB, disk at 0. 

My about:plugins page gives the following:

Shockwave Flash

    File name: C:\Program Files\Mozilla\plugins\npswf32.dll
Shockwave Flash 5.0 r41

Mime Type Description Suffixes Enabled
application/x-shockwave-flash Flash (*.swf) swf Yes
application/futuresplash FutureSplash Player (*.spl) spl Yes

Shockwave for Director

    File name: C:\Program Files\Mozilla\plugins\np32dsw.dll
Macromedia Shockwave for Director Netscape plug-in, version 8.5

Mime Type Description Suffixes Enabled
application/x-director Shockwave Movie (*.dir;*.dxr;*.dcr) dir,dxr,dcr Yes

Comment 1

[Oscar van Vliet]

Putting in some keywords

Comment 2

[shrirang khanzode]

basic test shows that both are working for me in 0103 trunk .will do some 
extensive testing to see if this is an install problem? Reporter, how did u 
install the plugins?

Comment 3

[Martin Dougiamas]

I'm having exactly the same problem under Windows 98 SE (eg for 2002010403), and
have had it for the past few weeks of nightlies.  I install trunk nightlies by:
renaming Mozilla install directory, doing the install, then manually moving
plugins from the old directory to the current one.   

Comment 4

[Oscar van Vliet]

I used the Macromedia installer program as downloaded from their site on
december 21st. When it didn't work I used their own uninstaller to clear it and
reinstalled again. Then I used the flashinstaller I got on januari 3rd to try to
make flash work at least. Nothing worked.

I also kept a copy of my plugins folder which I bluntly dumped over the mess
afterwards. That didn't bring anything back, but I didn't epect it too.

Interestingly, while the shockwave installer now recognizes netscape6+, the
flash installer still doesn't.

I put severity to Major and added two more keywords, which I think are
appropriate. If this turns out to be a bad on my part, my apologies for all the
whistling but it is really annoying me..

This started as soon as I switched to release 0.9.7

Comment 5

[Chris Underhill]

I have exactly the same problem, using Linux nightly builds. I'm using version
5.0r47 of the flash plugin, and it is symlinked to in my <INSTALLIONDIR>/plugins
directory. Currently I'm using build 2002011108-trunk - checking up with older
versions that I still have around, I see the same problem in build
2001121308-trunk, but build 2001110805-trunk works fine. 

The working build pops up a Java console window when a page containing a flash
file is first loaded, but the non-working versions do not. 2002011108-trunk does
however put 'Starting plugin for type: application/x-shockwave-flash' in the
status bar, and right-clicking on where the animation is supposed to brings up
the shockwave menu. This however only contains 'Movie not loaded' greyed-out and
'About Flash Player 4'. With the build that works I see all the options, but the
final one is 'About Flash Player 5'. 

libflashplayer.so is symlinked to exactly the same file in all cases and
about:plugins confirms it is version 5.0r47 in all cases.

Comment 6

[Chris Underhill]

I've found the cause of the bug, at least in my setup. As I use a local squid
caching proxy, I had set the size of my disk cache to zero. After upping this
preference to something bigger than the size of the flash file, the plugin
loaded and the swf file played properly with build 2002011108-trunk.

Comment 7

[Zac Jacobson]

same as bug 110441 ?

Comment 8

[shrirang khanzode]

marking this as dup of  110441. anyone disagree, pls explain and reopen.Thc!

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 110441 ***

Comment 9

[shrirang khanzode]

*** Bug 117986 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10

[shrirang khanzode]

mass duplicate verifications . For filtering purposes, pls use keywd
"massdupverification"