Adobe releases Flash Player 10.1 Release Candidate
By Donald Melanson 
posted April 6th 2010 12:48PM
posted April 6th 2010 12:48PM
There's still a ways to go before a final, proper release, but Adobe has now upgraded its once beta Flash Player 10.1 to Release Candidate status, and introduced a host of fixes and improvements in the process. From the looks of it, there's nothing too radical in terms of changes from previous betas, but the RC does promise improved stability and performance, and fixes for a range of video playback problems with different graphics cards (which may or may not also involve driver updates). Hit up the PDF link below for the complete release notes, and grab the RC yourself for Windows, Mac or Linux straight from Adobe Labs.
How in the world did Adobe drop the ball on Flash? They have had years to clean it up.
Why is there no Ati HD 2000 support? They support Geforce 8000...
Of course, on Windows, a decent mobile dual core can handle 1080p Youtube videos, so it's not like it's actually needed.
Once developers stop using AS 2.0, and write proper code in AS 3.0, I think there will be fewer complaints about performance. But seriously, I'm not sure what people are complaining about. I really don't have any issues with flash on my desktop, laptop or N900.
Why doesn't HW acceleration work with Win7 x64 ?
I still get ~80% CPU when watching Youtube 720p video with my Core2Duo T9300 (2x2,51Ghz!)
Did they fix the bug of 100% CPU consumption on Mac?
I have 10.2
It's called Click to Flash and makes Flash run perfectly.
For anyone who owns a ion powered notebook, DO NOT UPGRADE! This last update got rid of my ability to play 1080 flash. Had to revert back.
Now, our sercurity vulnerabilities are hardware accelerated!
how's the ipad install?
are Adobe trying to become as idiotic and hated as those RealPlayer morons? seems that way, forever for a point release that still contains myriad bugs and quirks...jesus christ
Java Applets FTW!
At least they did a decent job.
Hulu desktop on my 24' mac hit at above 103 on activity monitor
Firefox running Hulu now only goes as high as 50 using the same clip at 480p.
I assume that Hulu won't gain the benefits of the new release until they integrate it into their desktop app.
Yeah hurry up Adobe. We want flash acceleration for our PCs and smartphones.
I'll bet there are a good number of awesome gadgets waiting for the full Adobe Flash 10.1 before they are released, so Adobe is holding up their release dates.
Still corrupts Youtube videos when run in fullscreen with ATI video cards just like all the previous betas did. Have to turn acceleration off to get rid of it. Adobe have any interest in fixing this or they going to perpetually ignore it?
Still boosts both cores to 100% .. Flash will never change ..
So 5 more years until its actually released as stable? Then another 5 before windows and osx x64 binaries right?
I think this extended the life of my netbook as hulu appears now watchable on ubuntu finally. I would have sooner rather upgraded to a new laptop then put xp back on the netbook.
Cool. Almost time to buy an Apire Revo then.
Lets just add this to the growing list of Adobe promises that they haven't even given indication that they'll fulfill. Starting with Flash for x64....
Apple was right. Adobe is lazy as hell.
We've been seeing videos of Flash running on Android for how long now? Months? Years? And they still won't release it? Idiots.
can i just say, as someone who works with video all day for a living , that processing video (wether rendering or viewing) is just...processor intensive.
The codec used makes a big difference to HOW intensive obviously, but ou guys need to realise that there's a tradeoff for being able to stream HD video down a broadband connection and that is that it takes a lot of CPU power to decode it at the other end.
OK, some of you have isues with Flash running video at high CPU usage - most people dont but some of you do obviously...some of you are saying that HTML5 video gives the same results.....has nobody thought that maybe you're BOTH right and its just becuase you're doing something that requires a SHITLOAD of processor cycles to do? Some videos will be better than others but on the whole its a big ask of ANY system. Just because it's commonplace these days doesn't make it any less taxing.
Jump of the anti-flash bandwagon for a minute and think about what you're saying
@dsignet so you're trying to say Flash wrapped h.264 isn't more processor intensive than straight h.264 played in a native player?
Wrong.
@hill60
am i?
awesome !
prove it!
max of 10% difference at a guess providing you've got a reasonably stable platform
X64 flash would be nice. Still running the same alpha more or less that I have for over a year now. I think there has been one refresh. Way to go on "committing to x64" Adobe.