Google's Chrome to block Flash this year - except for 10 top websites

www.zdnet.com ^ | May 16, 2016 | By Liam Tung

[telstar12.5]

headline should read:

“....10 LIBERAL Web Sites”

[dhs12345]

Apparently they are no longer supporting older OSS too like XP. Thankful for Firefox.

[discostu]

Hi hoe
Hi hoe

Can’t wait for the web to be a Flashless place. Then people can stop using PDF, and Adobe can just be flushed into the past where they belong.

[rottndog]

When is Chrome going to provide an option to disable auto-play videos?

[dennisw]

PDF is OK.... what don’t you like about it?

[exPBRrat]

The only thin I’ll miss about Flash is ...Flashblock.

[TomGuy]

For the time being, Flash will still be bundled with Chrome, but it will no longer automatically load Flash Player on sites that require it. ​

That is dumb. It should up to the USER, not the PROGRAMMER, to determine whether I want Flash or any other add-on to run automatically or by selection only.

I have dropped many software programs during the last 3 decades because they stupidly removed parts that I wanted or NEEDED.

[discostu]

The format itself isn’t terribly efficient, it seems efficient because it’s better than Word, but that’s the kind of curve grading that let’s bad software seem good. And the Acrobat Reader is just plain a hunk of junk, bigger, slower and less stable every revision.

[bgill]

Good. They’ll lose even more customers.

[kiryandil]

Use Foxit Reader for PDFs. It's got about one-third the RAM footprint that Adobe Acroshat has.

Acroshat is NOT allowed on my machines.

Nowadays, I "print" pretty much everything to PDF in Chrome (in lieu of actually printing it).

That way, I don't have to mess with saved html - and I get everything that I want.

When I want to look at it, Foxit snaps it onto the screen.

[discostu]

Yep, Foxit is my main PDFer. Especially when I’m doing demos at work, Acrobat doesn’t support a low enough resolution to go through our (admittedly antique) projectors.

[minnesota_bound]

Drawback with HTML5 ads is there is no pop up blocker in the web browser that can stop the annoying popups.

[dennisw]

Chrome loads PDFs lots quicker and surer than Firefox...... I use Foxit too for reading a saved PDF. It is a lighter program than Adobe Acrobat.

I like the PDF format...It is out of Adobe’s hands theses days. They don’t have a lock on it anymore.

[dennisw]

Last I looked the Adobe Acrobat download was 70 or 90mb. All to read a stinkin PDF....and do other mischief.

[kiryandil]

I like the PDF format

I used to save webpages, but I didn't like the dissociation of the graphics files.

By printing to PDF, I get the pictures - and I can retrieve them individually from the actual webpage if I really want to.

[kiryandil]

"And do other mischief."

What a RAM-sucking pig.

[dennisw]

Nowadays, I "print" pretty much everything to PDF in Chrome (in lieu of actually printing it).

I just tried that out. Great little trick. I do "save" webs pages from time to time and I will do it this way sometimes. Saving a chrome webpage to PDF format. Tried it at Firefox...cannot do it that PDF way.

I use Firefox as primary browser and chrome for my #2. Firefox is less of a memory hog when you have say 25 tabs open across 4 browser windows. I have scrutinized Chrome and Firefox memory usage in Windows Task Manager and Firefox uses less memory.

[dennisw]

One good thing about PDF is that any computer or mobile device can understand and read it right away. PDF has been around forever and IIRC it was the first format that you were easily able to get to print out the way it looked on the computer screen. WYSIWYG.

Now I see the Adobe Acrobat wiki and it has only been around since 1993. I thought it had been around since 1983.

[ken in texas]

Tried it at Firefox...cannot do it that PDF way.

If you really want to print to PDF from Firefox have a look at CutePDF Writer (free). It installs as a printer subsystem and you can print to PDF from any program.