Adobe flash player uses 100% CPU in Atom netbook (Solved)

Booting, installing, newbie
Post Reply
Message
Author
nicko02338
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu 07 Nov 2013, 01:07

Adobe flash player uses 100% CPU in Atom netbook (Solved)

#1 Post by nicko02338 »

Hi everybody! I hope I am using the correct forum place to post my problem. Anyway I'm a beginner user, then it could be correct. :)

I started to use puppy linux almost 6 months ago and I'm very very happy with this OS. I use it on a notebook with Intel I7 microprocessor with 4 GB ram and it goes excellent. The problem appear when I put this OS on a netbook with an Atom 1.6GHz microprocessor with 2 GB ram and I tried to use chromium or firefox on youtube.
The puppy linux runs very well without problem, but the flash player uses almost 100% of cpu!!! :evil: I hate that plugin!.

Do you know some solution what I can do or any alternative software?. I am really exciting to use this OS on older machines, but it is a problem if I cannot enter to some site because the flash player doesn`t work, don`t you think?

I`m sure you will help in anyway.

Thank you!.
Last edited by nicko02338 on Sun 27 Apr 2014, 16:26, edited 1 time in total.

cthisbear
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 22:07
Location: Sydney Australia

#2 Post by cthisbear »

Tell us your Puppy version.

I have an older Acer netbook...31/2 years old

>> eMachines eM350-21G16i

1.66 GHz Intel Atom N450 (1 cores)
Memory: 1 GB DDR2

I run the latest Lucid...no problems
Dpup Wheezy and Slacko...older versions

Look at my post here for links.

http://208.109.22.214/puppy/viewtopic.p ... dc7f7387dc

I also use the latest Flash.

However some Puppies would be too new for this Acer.

Chris.

User avatar
ardvark
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue 02 Jul 2013, 03:43
Location: USA

Re: Adobe flash plaery 100% cpu

#3 Post by ardvark »

nicko02338 wrote:Do you know some solution what I can do or any alternative software?
Hi...

One option would be to try another version of flash player. Here is a thread that provides different versions.

Another alternative would be to try Gnash as a replacement to flash player. You can also check the Puppy Package Manager to see if there is a copy there. Another one is called Lightspark but I'm not sure if either of these two are as good as Adobe's. :wink:

Regards...
Our Lord and Savior [url=http://peacewithgod.jesus.net/]Jesus Christ[/url] loves and cares about you most of all!

PLEASE READ! You don't have to end up [url=http://www.spiritlessons.com/Documents/BillWiese_23MinutesInHell_Text.htm]here![/url]

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#4 Post by mikeb »

Actually one very good move I find is to use flashblock...a browser addon.

Basically makes flash content a click to enable job unless you specify otherwise.

I often find its not the main flash item bogging down the page but half a dozen other unrelated junk items.

If I disable flashblock on our pentium 3 machines I find many sites unbrowsable ...one bad example is where I get train timetable info...crazy isn't it.

Otherwise javascript and crazy css are the other sources of slowdown which can be tricky to deal with. (noscript and adblock)

mike

tommy
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue 04 Oct 2005, 20:21
Location: Italy

#5 Post by tommy »

I'm happy with a program called 'gtk youtube viewer'
Here the forum page:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=76835

This program lets you SEARCH, VIEW and DOWNLOAD video streams without using browsers. No flash required! I tried it and it works very well.
Bye!

r4dic4l
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed 05 Feb 2014, 14:12

#6 Post by r4dic4l »

mikeb wrote:Actually one very good move I find is to use flashblock..
mike
Awesome. I despise flash intrusion(s). Makes browsing with low-bandwidth and/or older hardware a B**** and I want to slam S***.
Another bone.
GRrrrrrr

as77
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue 25 Feb 2014, 09:16

#7 Post by as77 »

The alternatives above work ok with Internet television? Which for me and several others is almost as important as email

nicko02338
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu 07 Nov 2013, 01:07

#8 Post by nicko02338 »

Thank you very much to all. I did all you said and in any moment the flash is running good, with normal limitations from graphic driver of course. But I am very happy with I get.

8)

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#9 Post by mikeb »

Thanks for the feedback...anything in particular help?

mike

nicko02338
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu 07 Nov 2013, 01:07

#10 Post by nicko02338 »

Well, first at all I made a clean uninstall of flash files. I back to flash 10.3 version and it worked very well. But considering advises about vulnerability from somebody from here, I tried again upgrading flash to the last version 13.x.x.x.
that is the reason I am saying I don't know which step provoque a better behaviour of flash plugin.
Thanks for all. I am really enjoying Puppy Linux! I think it is very important to have this support from all of you.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#11 Post by mikeb »

No problem...don't think you can go beyond version 12 on linux anyway.

I have flash from version 7 upwards... not had any security breaches yet...the older versions are simpler and that's not such a bad thing either in security terms.

Mike

nicko02338
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu 07 Nov 2013, 01:07

#12 Post by nicko02338 »

How can I test any security bug on older versions of flash? I mean, I am kind of newbie in linux systems, is there any way I can feel confortable using an older version of flash? I really don't want to depend from any plugin, neither flash what is getting more heavy on each new version.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#13 Post by mikeb »

Good question...no one answers that for me either.

All this hypothetical weakness stuff gets a bit tedious and no one backs it up with actual occurrences.

I reverted back to 10.0.15 as videos stream to /tmp and never had a sniff of a breach in the 4-5 years of using it

mike

Post Reply