Good-Bye Adobe
-
I apologize in advance for the following rant. Sorry guys, I simply have lost my cool over the constant Adobe update nonsense. Every freakin' time I turn on my computer I have to jump through the same stupid set of hoops to update Flash and Adobe Reader. If it happened infrequently that would be one thing but I've got to run through this stupid ritual on nearly a daily basis. I don't want or need your permission to use my computer. The part that kills me is accepting the license agreement. I'm pretty sure that license agreement means absolutely NOTHING. What if one guy installed the original on the machine and each subsequent update was authorized by a different user of the system? Yeah, it is just that meaningless. Someone needs to get a hold of Adobe Systems and let them know that this is no longer 1999 so the whole Adobe System superiority nonsense can go die in a fire. I can generate .PDF documents from Word now (or any other number of tools) and I can read those documents using any number of free .PDF readers that don't give me the same bloated, redundant, ivory tower shake down three times a week. Adobe, run your updates in the background and skip the license thing - implement this NOW. FUN TIP: Steve Jobs might be on to something as 15 million iPad users don't need you. You guys are about this close || to being nothing but a memory on the trash heap of computing history so hassling casual users is a really BAD PLAN. Part of this is that I well remember the obscene cost of your tools - the snobbery - the superiority - it still comes through with stupid updates and extra clicks for bogus license agreements, all because as a company you've yet to realize that you're fading fast. I'll be glad when you are all gone. You're still stuck in the '90s but are no longer a part of my hard drive. Hopefully your archaic stone age company will be gone soon. Losers.
Bravo!
-
Is it an Adobe bagel? :rolleyes:
[www.tamelectromecanica.com] Robots, CNC and PLC machines for grinding and polishing.
-
Just adjust your startup programs so the updater doesn't run when you start up your computer. you can always manually update at your discretion. Just a thought. I use CCleaner a lot and there is a way to configure this through CCleaner.
-- ** You don't hire a handyman to build a house, you hire a carpenter. ** Jack of all trades and master of none.
Slacker007 wrote:
I use CCleaner a lot and there is a way to configure this through CCleaner.
Bullseye. CCleaner allows one to exercise complete control over startup programs.
If Barney Frank eats a fruitcake, is it cannibalism?
-
There are definitely some people at Adobe who have a hard time grasping reality. Here is my own favorite example: I was doing some research on the issue of WPF versus WinForms a few months ago, and I stumbled upon this: http://www.thejoyofcode.com/10_reasons_you_should_consider_WPF_for_your_next_desktop_application.aspx[^] Near the top of the page, there is a matrix comparing various "desktop UI" platforms. WPF and WinForms are in there, along with some technologies that are really pretty different, like DirectX, Media Player, and PDF. I don't really see how these technologies all belong on the same axis; I guess the author was trying to be really, really general and think outside of the proverbial box. In the "PDF" column, the author put an "X" at the "Fixed Format Documents" row, and nowhere else. This seems pretty logical to me. PDFs are for fixed-format documents. Again, I'm not sure why this matrix has a "PDF" column... but it does, and "Fixed Format Documents" seems like a pretty fair description of what PDFs are good for (to the extent that they are even good for that; that's another debate). Well, some bigwig at Adobe took offense at the way this grid omits all of the other (cough, cough) great capabilities of the PDF format. Check out the comments beneath the grid... look for "I would like to point out that the column for PDF in that table is completely inaccurate." I'm not sure what this person is attempting to accomplish... I have never, ever looked at a requirements document and said anything like "well, we could use WinForms for this, or WPF, or Adobe PDF." (And even if I did, I seriously doubt PDF would be my eventual selection for such a project.) Incidentally, no one seems to have changed the article or responded in any way to the Adobe bigwig's comments.
modified on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:20 PM
_beauw_ wrote:
I have never, ever looked at a requirements document and said anything like "well, we could use WinForms for this, or WPF, or Adobe PDF.
I rarely use PDF. Just about everyone has a program that can read .rtf, .odt or .doc. I generally send out an .rtf file if it involves text and static images. I cannot think of even one person I know that likes PDF.
If Barney Frank eats a fruitcake, is it cannibalism?
-
You forgot to add the rant about the size and slothness of Adobe Reader. I'm totally with you.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
... as well as that they still require a reboot after almost every update to Acrobat.
-
I apologize in advance for the following rant. Sorry guys, I simply have lost my cool over the constant Adobe update nonsense. Every freakin' time I turn on my computer I have to jump through the same stupid set of hoops to update Flash and Adobe Reader. If it happened infrequently that would be one thing but I've got to run through this stupid ritual on nearly a daily basis. I don't want or need your permission to use my computer. The part that kills me is accepting the license agreement. I'm pretty sure that license agreement means absolutely NOTHING. What if one guy installed the original on the machine and each subsequent update was authorized by a different user of the system? Yeah, it is just that meaningless. Someone needs to get a hold of Adobe Systems and let them know that this is no longer 1999 so the whole Adobe System superiority nonsense can go die in a fire. I can generate .PDF documents from Word now (or any other number of tools) and I can read those documents using any number of free .PDF readers that don't give me the same bloated, redundant, ivory tower shake down three times a week. Adobe, run your updates in the background and skip the license thing - implement this NOW. FUN TIP: Steve Jobs might be on to something as 15 million iPad users don't need you. You guys are about this close || to being nothing but a memory on the trash heap of computing history so hassling casual users is a really BAD PLAN. Part of this is that I well remember the obscene cost of your tools - the snobbery - the superiority - it still comes through with stupid updates and extra clicks for bogus license agreements, all because as a company you've yet to realize that you're fading fast. I'll be glad when you are all gone. You're still stuck in the '90s but are no longer a part of my hard drive. Hopefully your archaic stone age company will be gone soon. Losers.
- Good alternative for Adobe Reader: Foxit Reader[^]
- Good alternative for flash: Google Chrome [^] has a build-in version of flash. I think you need to disable Adobe Flash from about:plugins[^] before Chrome uses the build-in flash plugin
- You might want to uninstall flash player (if you haven't already done so) http://www.ghacks.net/2010/07/19/how-to-uninstall-flash-player-completely/[^]
-
_beauw_ wrote:
I have never, ever looked at a requirements document and said anything like "well, we could use WinForms for this, or WPF, or Adobe PDF.
I rarely use PDF. Just about everyone has a program that can read .rtf, .odt or .doc. I generally send out an .rtf file if it involves text and static images. I cannot think of even one person I know that likes PDF.
If Barney Frank eats a fruitcake, is it cannibalism?
I know some people who would probably describe PDFs as a necessary evil. Nobody seems to be denying the "evil" part. This is my overall view: Most PDFs fall into two categories. First, there are scans, e.g. of old, obscure printed matter. These things might as well be monochrome images. The use of the PDF extension for these files actually misleads people about their real nature (non-searchable and difficult-to-scrape). Second, I sometimes see newer documents that are disseminated in searchable PDF form. These would be better distributed in RTF, HTML, or something similar, in my opinion.
-
I know some people who would probably describe PDFs as a necessary evil. Nobody seems to be denying the "evil" part. This is my overall view: Most PDFs fall into two categories. First, there are scans, e.g. of old, obscure printed matter. These things might as well be monochrome images. The use of the PDF extension for these files actually misleads people about their real nature (non-searchable and difficult-to-scrape). Second, I sometimes see newer documents that are disseminated in searchable PDF form. These would be better distributed in RTF, HTML, or something similar, in my opinion.
_beauw_ wrote:
These would be better distributed in RTF, HTML, or something similar, in my opinion.
Agreed. I got in the habit of using rtf back when I wrote a weekly column. Too easy to just type and revise the text, drop in whatever images are needed, and fire it off to whoever needs it. Compared to that, creating PDF (for me at least) was more akin to brushing my cat's teeth.
If Barney Frank eats a fruitcake, is it cannibalism?
-
I know some people who would probably describe PDFs as a necessary evil. Nobody seems to be denying the "evil" part. This is my overall view: Most PDFs fall into two categories. First, there are scans, e.g. of old, obscure printed matter. These things might as well be monochrome images. The use of the PDF extension for these files actually misleads people about their real nature (non-searchable and difficult-to-scrape). Second, I sometimes see newer documents that are disseminated in searchable PDF form. These would be better distributed in RTF, HTML, or something similar, in my opinion.
What should the file format for a site 1. Publishing content online 2. Does not want to any changes in the content by user 3. The content should be downloadable and easily distributable 4. Document content should be searchable 5. Does not want to allow user to Copy-Paste the content Right now, these all are accomplished using PDF. Thanks!
-
What should the file format for a site 1. Publishing content online 2. Does not want to any changes in the content by user 3. The content should be downloadable and easily distributable 4. Document content should be searchable 5. Does not want to allow user to Copy-Paste the content Right now, these all are accomplished using PDF. Thanks!
All of that can be easily accomplished using RTF, HTML, or an image format, except for items 2 and 5. These are the items that deal with preventing the user from doing something... so I guess what you are saying is that PDF is a good format for preventing people from doing things, and on that we agree. Sarcasm aside, I think that what you're attempting to do in items 2 and 5 is actually an unrealistic goal. Suppose I publish some official document, like a contract or a technical specification. Once I make this document publicly available, absolutely nothing prevents someone else from creating a lookalike document. Company logos are easy to replicate, and the copy/paste prohibition you mention is really weak. Even the free version of Adobe Reader will export the text of a PDF to a TXT file. Even if this is somehow locked out, a PDF can be treated as an image (remember the PrintScreen key) and subjected to OCR. Unless it's some kind of low-quality scan (i.e. the PDF is really just a TIFF), this will be effective. In cases where there is a real need to somehow publish something to the world without allowing it to be changed, I would suggest that the answer is to basically rely on file system or HTTP-level security. That is, publish it at a well-known URL without allowing the general public to post changes. The format is irrelevant... claiming that the use of PDF format somehow proves the source of a document, or prevents edits to a document, is spurious. This argument conflates privilege and format, which are orthogonal issues. I would also submit that PDFs are inferior to RTFs, etc. with respect to search capabilities (your item #4). Not all PDF text is searchable, which results in confusion about the real nature of many of these document files. If you promise to supply me with something in "PDF format," you've actually promised me very little. You can basically send me a non-searchable image. In general, RTF and HTML documents don't exhibit this duality. They're basically all searchable. I suppose that one could make an RTF or HTML document that looked like text but was really an image, but I've never seen this. Unfortunately, this is very common among PDFs (e.g. scanner output).
modified on Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:55 AM
-
I apologize in advance for the following rant. Sorry guys, I simply have lost my cool over the constant Adobe update nonsense. Every freakin' time I turn on my computer I have to jump through the same stupid set of hoops to update Flash and Adobe Reader. If it happened infrequently that would be one thing but I've got to run through this stupid ritual on nearly a daily basis. I don't want or need your permission to use my computer. The part that kills me is accepting the license agreement. I'm pretty sure that license agreement means absolutely NOTHING. What if one guy installed the original on the machine and each subsequent update was authorized by a different user of the system? Yeah, it is just that meaningless. Someone needs to get a hold of Adobe Systems and let them know that this is no longer 1999 so the whole Adobe System superiority nonsense can go die in a fire. I can generate .PDF documents from Word now (or any other number of tools) and I can read those documents using any number of free .PDF readers that don't give me the same bloated, redundant, ivory tower shake down three times a week. Adobe, run your updates in the background and skip the license thing - implement this NOW. FUN TIP: Steve Jobs might be on to something as 15 million iPad users don't need you. You guys are about this close || to being nothing but a memory on the trash heap of computing history so hassling casual users is a really BAD PLAN. Part of this is that I well remember the obscene cost of your tools - the snobbery - the superiority - it still comes through with stupid updates and extra clicks for bogus license agreements, all because as a company you've yet to realize that you're fading fast. I'll be glad when you are all gone. You're still stuck in the '90s but are no longer a part of my hard drive. Hopefully your archaic stone age company will be gone soon. Losers.
Another alternative to handle Flash updating:[^] best, Bill
"Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning." C.S. Lewis
-
I apologize in advance for the following rant. Sorry guys, I simply have lost my cool over the constant Adobe update nonsense. Every freakin' time I turn on my computer I have to jump through the same stupid set of hoops to update Flash and Adobe Reader. If it happened infrequently that would be one thing but I've got to run through this stupid ritual on nearly a daily basis. I don't want or need your permission to use my computer. The part that kills me is accepting the license agreement. I'm pretty sure that license agreement means absolutely NOTHING. What if one guy installed the original on the machine and each subsequent update was authorized by a different user of the system? Yeah, it is just that meaningless. Someone needs to get a hold of Adobe Systems and let them know that this is no longer 1999 so the whole Adobe System superiority nonsense can go die in a fire. I can generate .PDF documents from Word now (or any other number of tools) and I can read those documents using any number of free .PDF readers that don't give me the same bloated, redundant, ivory tower shake down three times a week. Adobe, run your updates in the background and skip the license thing - implement this NOW. FUN TIP: Steve Jobs might be on to something as 15 million iPad users don't need you. You guys are about this close || to being nothing but a memory on the trash heap of computing history so hassling casual users is a really BAD PLAN. Part of this is that I well remember the obscene cost of your tools - the snobbery - the superiority - it still comes through with stupid updates and extra clicks for bogus license agreements, all because as a company you've yet to realize that you're fading fast. I'll be glad when you are all gone. You're still stuck in the '90s but are no longer a part of my hard drive. Hopefully your archaic stone age company will be gone soon. Losers.
I agree with you. I've read the license agreement and I think its sole purpose is to have you agree to let them track you on the internet. This is so they can make money from selling your data of course. It's in the license I read. Adobe sucks and always has. Delete the update EXEs and remove them from the registry.
-
I apologize in advance for the following rant. Sorry guys, I simply have lost my cool over the constant Adobe update nonsense. Every freakin' time I turn on my computer I have to jump through the same stupid set of hoops to update Flash and Adobe Reader. If it happened infrequently that would be one thing but I've got to run through this stupid ritual on nearly a daily basis. I don't want or need your permission to use my computer. The part that kills me is accepting the license agreement. I'm pretty sure that license agreement means absolutely NOTHING. What if one guy installed the original on the machine and each subsequent update was authorized by a different user of the system? Yeah, it is just that meaningless. Someone needs to get a hold of Adobe Systems and let them know that this is no longer 1999 so the whole Adobe System superiority nonsense can go die in a fire. I can generate .PDF documents from Word now (or any other number of tools) and I can read those documents using any number of free .PDF readers that don't give me the same bloated, redundant, ivory tower shake down three times a week. Adobe, run your updates in the background and skip the license thing - implement this NOW. FUN TIP: Steve Jobs might be on to something as 15 million iPad users don't need you. You guys are about this close || to being nothing but a memory on the trash heap of computing history so hassling casual users is a really BAD PLAN. Part of this is that I well remember the obscene cost of your tools - the snobbery - the superiority - it still comes through with stupid updates and extra clicks for bogus license agreements, all because as a company you've yet to realize that you're fading fast. I'll be glad when you are all gone. You're still stuck in the '90s but are no longer a part of my hard drive. Hopefully your archaic stone age company will be gone soon. Losers.
I can remember when the version went from 9.xxx to 10.0xxx and all the web sites that used it told me to upgrade! This was because 10.xxx as a string is less than 9.xxx Thank God they fixed that bug and I can use YouTube again. I think a 2 year old could have told them that '1xx' is less than '9xx' and they need to convert it from a string to a number first.
-
I apologize in advance for the following rant. Sorry guys, I simply have lost my cool over the constant Adobe update nonsense. Every freakin' time I turn on my computer I have to jump through the same stupid set of hoops to update Flash and Adobe Reader. If it happened infrequently that would be one thing but I've got to run through this stupid ritual on nearly a daily basis. I don't want or need your permission to use my computer. The part that kills me is accepting the license agreement. I'm pretty sure that license agreement means absolutely NOTHING. What if one guy installed the original on the machine and each subsequent update was authorized by a different user of the system? Yeah, it is just that meaningless. Someone needs to get a hold of Adobe Systems and let them know that this is no longer 1999 so the whole Adobe System superiority nonsense can go die in a fire. I can generate .PDF documents from Word now (or any other number of tools) and I can read those documents using any number of free .PDF readers that don't give me the same bloated, redundant, ivory tower shake down three times a week. Adobe, run your updates in the background and skip the license thing - implement this NOW. FUN TIP: Steve Jobs might be on to something as 15 million iPad users don't need you. You guys are about this close || to being nothing but a memory on the trash heap of computing history so hassling casual users is a really BAD PLAN. Part of this is that I well remember the obscene cost of your tools - the snobbery - the superiority - it still comes through with stupid updates and extra clicks for bogus license agreements, all because as a company you've yet to realize that you're fading fast. I'll be glad when you are all gone. You're still stuck in the '90s but are no longer a part of my hard drive. Hopefully your archaic stone age company will be gone soon. Losers.
Would like to add one point: When I was beginner level VC++ programmer, I lost almost a week debugging an EXE crash while selecting a file using CFileDialog dialog from desktop. The reason was one of the Acrobat Reader DLL. It was loaded whenever the crash happened. Got the solution from my colleague, then updated my question with answer in codeproject. I've written a mail / updated through their own forum to Acrobat that time, obviously there was no response.
-- "Programming is an art that fights back!"
-
All of that can be easily accomplished using RTF, HTML, or an image format, except for items 2 and 5. These are the items that deal with preventing the user from doing something... so I guess what you are saying is that PDF is a good format for preventing people from doing things, and on that we agree. Sarcasm aside, I think that what you're attempting to do in items 2 and 5 is actually an unrealistic goal. Suppose I publish some official document, like a contract or a technical specification. Once I make this document publicly available, absolutely nothing prevents someone else from creating a lookalike document. Company logos are easy to replicate, and the copy/paste prohibition you mention is really weak. Even the free version of Adobe Reader will export the text of a PDF to a TXT file. Even if this is somehow locked out, a PDF can be treated as an image (remember the PrintScreen key) and subjected to OCR. Unless it's some kind of low-quality scan (i.e. the PDF is really just a TIFF), this will be effective. In cases where there is a real need to somehow publish something to the world without allowing it to be changed, I would suggest that the answer is to basically rely on file system or HTTP-level security. That is, publish it at a well-known URL without allowing the general public to post changes. The format is irrelevant... claiming that the use of PDF format somehow proves the source of a document, or prevents edits to a document, is spurious. This argument conflates privilege and format, which are orthogonal issues. I would also submit that PDFs are inferior to RTFs, etc. with respect to search capabilities (your item #4). Not all PDF text is searchable, which results in confusion about the real nature of many of these document files. If you promise to supply me with something in "PDF format," you've actually promised me very little. You can basically send me a non-searchable image. In general, RTF and HTML documents don't exhibit this duality. They're basically all searchable. I suppose that one could make an RTF or HTML document that looked like text but was really an image, but I've never seen this. Unfortunately, this is very common among PDFs (e.g. scanner output).
modified on Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:55 AM
Thanks for a detailed analysis on what PDF and other related formats can do and can not. I agree that PDF can not provide full security as at least the text can be exported or read with OCR; however, a general internet user is not really able to perform this. I would like to provide more information on the actual business requirement and would appreciate your help in coming to identifying which document format/presentation method suites best. 1. Its a internet website. 2. It aims to provide users with soft copies of books (for free) which are written in English and non-English languages (the later is hard to OCR). 3. The site wants users to read and spread the books; but without any content modification. :-O 4. The content is not one person's property and so can not be tagged under intellectual property rights. 5. As we already discussed, the content (books) present on the site must be Google searchable. 6. There are rival sites as well. These rivals do download these books, and Copy-Paste the content from PDF (unless its disabled) and creates new documents and publishes on their site. Spreading the books for free is the aim of our site under discussion, however, it should not loose the credit (as done by rivals). :^) I would appreciate your suggestions; thanks!
-
I apologize in advance for the following rant. Sorry guys, I simply have lost my cool over the constant Adobe update nonsense. Every freakin' time I turn on my computer I have to jump through the same stupid set of hoops to update Flash and Adobe Reader. If it happened infrequently that would be one thing but I've got to run through this stupid ritual on nearly a daily basis. I don't want or need your permission to use my computer. The part that kills me is accepting the license agreement. I'm pretty sure that license agreement means absolutely NOTHING. What if one guy installed the original on the machine and each subsequent update was authorized by a different user of the system? Yeah, it is just that meaningless. Someone needs to get a hold of Adobe Systems and let them know that this is no longer 1999 so the whole Adobe System superiority nonsense can go die in a fire. I can generate .PDF documents from Word now (or any other number of tools) and I can read those documents using any number of free .PDF readers that don't give me the same bloated, redundant, ivory tower shake down three times a week. Adobe, run your updates in the background and skip the license thing - implement this NOW. FUN TIP: Steve Jobs might be on to something as 15 million iPad users don't need you. You guys are about this close || to being nothing but a memory on the trash heap of computing history so hassling casual users is a really BAD PLAN. Part of this is that I well remember the obscene cost of your tools - the snobbery - the superiority - it still comes through with stupid updates and extra clicks for bogus license agreements, all because as a company you've yet to realize that you're fading fast. I'll be glad when you are all gone. You're still stuck in the '90s but are no longer a part of my hard drive. Hopefully your archaic stone age company will be gone soon. Losers.
Honestly, I'm sick of the whole update model of "install an update checker that runs on every startup and adds time to the point from bootup/login to full responsiveness, or even worse, stays running the whole time the computer is running wasting memory and CPU cycles, and continually prompts the user to install updates regardless of how rarely that particular application might be used, and regardless of whether the user in question even has the privileges to install said updates." There are so many stupid notification area icons on the average user's computer related to annoying version checkers, it's ridiculous. Adobe is by no means the only offender (Logitech comes to mind immediately), they're just more annoying than many because they insist on releasing new versions about ten times a day, and inexplicably requiring a re-affirmation of your agreement to the license. Others (like the aforementioned Logitech) make you go through a whole installation wizard sometimes as if you are installing brand new software, which is just as bad. The only software that should automatically prompt you for updates on system startup is 1) Your OS itself; and 2) Your virus or malware software. Everything else should do its checks when the application itself is running, or maybe even better, along the lines of what you see on Android: all the applications go through the same update checker interface integrated with the OS, which unobtrusively and with a consistent UI notifies you that you have things that could be updated, and lets you choose which you want to update, and on your own timing- controlled by an operating system process, not by 40 million separate auto-start processes of dubious efficiency all clogging up your processor and notification area. And it should run its checks when the computer has been idle for several minutes, on intervals you can set yourself, not immediately on startup. And if an application checks on its own startup, but isn't smart enough to actually update itself- where clicking on "update" just brings you to a web page to get the latest version- then it shouldn't be in a modal dialog unless there is some kind of serious security danger. It should just be some kind of status message, like the notification line that appears in IE when a file download is blocked, for instance, and/or prompt you upon exiting the application. When I start an application, what I want is to do something with it. Immediately. Being delayed by a several-minute upgrade cycle annoys the crap out of me.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
I apologize in advance for the following rant.
No apology necessary! Adobe deserves it. The other annoying part is that they ALWAYS put that stupid Adobe Reader icon on my desktop, without EVER asking if I want them to put it there. I have never once, in my whole life, launched Adobe reader from the desktop icon. We don't need your stinkin' icon! Is it so hard to ASK? :mad:
-
Are you agreeing to update? There have been 5 Flash Player updates in 4 months, and 3 updates for Adobe Reader, so unless you are not updating, "forcing" the update announce to re-appear, the maths are failing for me and am not able to see how you are seeing updates "on nearly a daily basis" :P. If you are not updating, when the announce appears and do not want to be notified of that update, there is a check to disable notificaciones for that particular update. Also, the update check interval can be configured or disabled at all if it bothers you. Anyway, yeah, the update process should be improved (luckily it's not like the Java update checker), although I think MS should somehow let other vendors distribute patches through Windows Update too.
The effing updater runs alot. . .for the same version! Like half hour ago it ran (same version as I had agreed to install about a half dozen times already) after I had rebooted my system due to ms updates that had pushed out a week ago or whatever. Crap like that. . .if you reboot or do system updates the damn thing runs - "v10.2 updater" it says, plain as day. Crazy and stupid. This is what annoys people. This came up on CP a couple weeks back - some suggestions on fixing (ha, other than uninstalling) were offered I think.
-
The effing updater runs alot. . .for the same version! Like half hour ago it ran (same version as I had agreed to install about a half dozen times already) after I had rebooted my system due to ms updates that had pushed out a week ago or whatever. Crap like that. . .if you reboot or do system updates the damn thing runs - "v10.2 updater" it says, plain as day. Crazy and stupid. This is what annoys people. This came up on CP a couple weeks back - some suggestions on fixing (ha, other than uninstalling) were offered I think.
I've never seen such behaviour, and I have 4 systems, nor any of my coworkers, relatives or friends have ever complained about it. Not all of us use the same Windows editions (although same language), but world is bigger than just the people I know, and we all here know how some bugs may appear unexpectedly heh. Maybe a bug with that particular Flash version? Latest version is 10.3, and dunno about others, but I often skip some Flash updates.