Vimeo player

[]
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 06:25:11 -0600, Ken wrote:

I have an elderly stepmother who is using Windows XP, and I do not want
to enter a new operating system into her life. Can Windows XP view

Under a similar situation (except she'd bought a new laptop - came with
W8 IIRR), I installed Classic Shell (free); IMO that did a good enough
job of imitating her previous Windows [it offered 7, Vista, and XP
options] that, for the limited range of things she did on the computer,
it _was_ in effect the version selected. If you have the _option_ of
installing a later OS, this _might_ be less bother than jumping through
hoops trying to get XP to play ball.

Vimeo files on the web. I have a spare computer with XP and I have not

Is Vimeo an actual type of file, or just the name of the website that's
giving trouble?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Feudalism : It's your count that votes.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 06:25:11 -0600, Ken wrote:

I have an elderly stepmother who is using Windows XP, and I do not want
to enter a new operating system into her life. Can Windows XP view

Under a similar situation (except she'd bought a new laptop - came with
W8 IIRR), I installed Classic Shell (free); IMO that did a good enough
job of imitating her previous Windows [it offered 7, Vista, and XP
options] that, for the limited range of things she did on the computer,
it _was_ in effect the version selected. If you have the _option_ of
installing a later OS, this _might_ be less bother than jumping through
hoops trying to get XP to play ball.

Vimeo files on the web. I have a spare computer with XP and I have not

Is Vimeo an actual type of file, or just the name of the website that's
giving trouble?
[]

First off, my thanks to all who tried to help. I really appreciate your
comments and time.

A little more about my stepmother. She is approaching 99, and lives
1000 miles from me. Although she is mentally alert for her age, she is
not the kind of person who could follow complex instructions regarding
software. Just yesterday she inadvertently clicked on a triangle on her
Email component and removed her tool bar for mail. I was able to
correct that over the phone, but it was not easy.

The reason I am not willing to upgrade her operating system is evident.
She knows what she is using and I might create a mess introducing a new
OS. I received notice of a Vimeo link from her not working and I tried
the link on my computer using XP to see if it was OK. When I found I
too had a problem, I looked for a solution I could send her. Not having
found one, I thought I would post the question on the newsgroup to see
if anyone else had a solution. Again I had hoped for a simple setting
or piece of software that would help her, as anything too complex would
not work. Suggestions have been made that might work, but I do not feel
comfortable trying them on a computer 1000 miles away. I could fix or
undo a problem on my computer, but might create a "Career choice" on
hers. Thanks again to all who tried to help.

In message , Ken writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 06:25:11 -0600, Ken wrote:

I have an elderly stepmother who is using Windows XP, and I do not want
to enter a new operating system into her life. Can Windows XP view

Under a similar situation (except she'd bought a new laptop - came with
W8 IIRR), I installed Classic Shell (free); IMO that did a good enough
job of imitating her previous Windows [it offered 7, Vista, and XP
options] that, for the limited range of things she did on the computer,
it _was_ in effect the version selected. If you have the _option_ of
installing a later OS, this _might_ be less bother than jumping through
hoops trying to get XP to play ball.

Vimeo files on the web. I have a spare computer with XP and I have not

Is Vimeo an actual type of file, or just the name of the website that's
giving trouble?
[]

First off, my thanks to all who tried to help. I really appreciate
your comments and time.

A little more about my stepmother. She is approaching 99, and lives
1000 miles from me. Although she is mentally alert for her age, she is
not the kind of person who could follow complex instructions regarding
software. Just yesterday she inadvertently clicked on a triangle on
her Email component and removed her tool bar for mail. I was able to
correct that over the phone, but it was not easy.

You definitely need TeamViewer! Probably the normal version - she runs
the simple single executable, then when she 'phones you, tells you the
password number it puts on her screen, you type it into your end, then
you can see her desktop, and control it. I use it to help assorted folk
- XP, Vista, and 7 - including several blind folk (the blind perceive
Windows in a very different way to how we do). I'd actually install it
in the form where it loads at bootup and you can gain access without
needing her to tell you a password, but I can see the security aspects
of that might worry some people, so the normal version should be fine.
(Both are free for private use.) Talking her through downloading and
installing it (actually, IIRR, there isn't an install as such involved,
I think you just run it) would only have to be done once. The QS is at
http://www.teamviewer.com/download/TeamViewerQS_en.exe (install the
handler, which you'll have to get, on your machine, then email her the
above URL [so she can click on it from the email to avoid mistypes] and
ask her to call you, so you can talk her through it the once). It works
like a charm - at least, it's gone swimmingly on all the systems I
support, probably about 15 machines.

The reason I am not willing to upgrade her operating system is evident.
She knows what she is using and I might create a mess introducing a new

Indeed. You'd need to be there to do it yourself - or send her a new
laptop (on which you'd already installed both Classic Shell [or
StarDate] and TeamViewer.

OS. I received notice of a Vimeo link from her not working and I tried
the link on my computer using XP to see if it was OK. When I found I

So "vimeo" is just a site, not a filetype.

too had a problem, I looked for a solution I could send her. Not
having found one, I thought I would post the question on the newsgroup
to see if anyone else had a solution. Again I had hoped for a simple
setting or piece of software that would help her, as anything too
complex would not work. Suggestions have been made that might work,
but I do not feel comfortable trying them on a computer 1000 miles
away. I could fix or undo a problem on my computer, but might create a
"Career choice" on hers. Thanks again to all who tried to help.

Good luck! (I'd definitely get TeamViewer - or some equivalent remote
desktop - installed on both ends, whether you get the Vimeo problem
sorted or not.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 03:33:23 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:


What are you using to disable, by default, Flash content in web pages?

run one version back

gfretwell wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

What are you using to disable, by default, Flash content in web pages?

run one version back

Yep, vague again so insinuating intentional vaguity. Run one version
back ... OF WHAT? WHAT web browser? WHAT version of it? WHAT add-ons
are installed into it? Under WHAT operating system, version, and
edition?

Firefox introduced Click-to-Play in version 14 (2012).
Internet Explorer added "ActiveX Filtering" in version 9 (2011).
Google Chrome had Click-to-Play since version 8 (2011).

Only you know what add-on you installed into your UNIDENTIFIED web
browser and version that produces the "do you want to activate flash"
prompt, and you're not telling what you are using in your, um, test.

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:10:44 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

gfretwell wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

What are you using to disable, by default, Flash content in web pages?

run one version back

Yep, vague again so insinuating intentional vaguity. Run one version
back ... OF WHAT? WHAT web browser? WHAT version of it? WHAT add-ons
are installed into it? Under WHAT operating system, version, and
edition?
I am running Flash Player one version back of current under Firefox
(current) and XP SP3 with the updates.
Firefox pops up a window warning me my plug in is out of date and I
can decide whether I want to run it.
I seldom do and only on things I really need to see from a fairly
reliable source.

gfretwell wrote:

I am running Flash Player one version back of current under Firefox
(current) and XP SP3 with the updates. Firefox pops up a window
warning me my plug in is out of date and I can decide whether I want
to run it. I seldom do and only on things I really need to see from a
fairly reliable source.

Oh, you talking about another prompt - the one about an out-of-date
plugin which merely is to get you to update the Flash player, not
control ALL versions of the plug-in as to whether it will get used to
render content in the web page.

An out-of-date prompt (warning) is not the same as the Click-To-Play
function to control if, when, and where that plug-in is allowed to run.

Thanks for the clarification.

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2012...omment-page-1/

So what version of Firefox are you running on Windows XP? "(current)"
does specify a version. Is it 51.0.1?

If it was a Flash video, right-click on it to see if you get the Flash
context menu. The Flash player's context menu looks similar to:

http://imgur.com/a/5mzAV

When I right-click on the video (within the player frame), I see
Firefox's context menu, not the Flash player's context menu. Same
happens when I visit https://vimeo.com/172852540 using Internet Explorer
11: right-clicking on the video brings up the web browser's context
menu, not the Flash plug-in's context menu.

I did find the following code in the web page:

meta property="og:video:url"content="https://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=172852540&autoplay=1"
meta property="og:video:secure_url" content="https://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=172852540&autoplay=1"
meta property="og:video:type" content="application/x-shockwave-flash"

og:video means using the Open Graph protocol (http://ogp.me/) for a
video (Facebook is woven into that spec; see
https://blog.kissmetrics.com/open-graph-meta-tags/). It says it is
Flash type (using the MIME type definition). However, they have that
meta tag for video type defined twice:

meta property="og:video:type" content="text/html"
meta property="og:video:type" content="application/x-shockwave-flash"

meta tags can be overridden: a later one overrides a prior one. So why
did the web author leave behind the text/html og:video:type meta tag?
Forgetful, changed direction, interrupted, sloppy, reused someone else's
crappy template, or doesn't know what he's doing? Ah, I think I got it:
multiple videos are defined for that web page.

meta property="og:video:url" content="https://player.vimeo.com/video/172852540?autoplay=1"
meta property="og:video:secure_url" content="https://player.vimeo.com/video/172852540?autoplay=1"
meta property="og:video:type" content="text/html"
meta property="og:video:width" content="1280"
meta property="og:video:height" content="711"
and
meta property="og:video:url" content="https://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=172852540&autoplay=1"
meta property="og:video:secure_url" content="https://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=172852540&autoplay=1"
meta property="og:video:type" content="application/x-shockwave-flash"
meta property="og:video:width" content="1280"
meta property="og:video:height" content="711"

The clip (video) ID is 172852540 for both so there are 2 blocks of meta
tags for Open Graph definitions that point to the same video. SWF files
are not necessarily the Shockwave video. They can be tiny files that
are simply pointers to where is the actual media.

Perhaps Firefox is trigging its out-of-date warning based on these meta
tags. It sees "Shockwave" or "Flash" mentioned somewhere in the page
and triggers to show you an out-of-date warning. While a Shockwave
video source is specified there, that may not be the one that gets
delivered to the visitor. When I visit the web page, the source is at:

https://skyfire.vimeocdn.com/1488681...segment-47.m4s

That's probably the server finding the video based on the clip ID.
Apparently .m4s files are segments of an .mp4 file (the "s" stands for
segment, not Shockwave). It is a container for [part of] their MP4
(MPEG) file at:

Culebra-Java Library Multi Behaviors 3D Demo File on Vimeo 7.mp4

As the video played, they shove out (stream) segments of the .mp4 file.
They can reuse the same filename for each segment to the visiting client
but will have to keep track on the server which part they are playing,
or maybe they are slicing it up on-the-fly as they deliver its pieces to
you. When I captured the video, each segment had the same Culebra...mp4
filename but the stream capture recorded each segment separately. After
capturing about 6 segments, I halted the recording because I really was
not interested in keeping a local .mp4 copy of their video.

So I'm getting their js-player to play a .m4s-containered segments of
their .mp4 file. You say you are getting the Shockwave version. To
test what you are getting, do a right-click on the video to determine
which context menu you see: the web browser's or the Flash player's.

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 20:50:40 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

gfretwell wrote:

I am running Flash Player one version back of current under Firefox
(current) and XP SP3 with the updates. Firefox pops up a window
warning me my plug in is out of date and I can decide whether I want
to run it. I seldom do and only on things I really need to see from a
fairly reliable source.

Oh, you talking about another prompt - the one about an out-of-date
plugin which merely is to get you to update the Flash player, not
control ALL versions of the plug-in as to whether it will get used to
render content in the web page.

An out-of-date prompt (warning) is not the same as the Click-To-Play
function to control if, when, and where that plug-in is allowed to run.

Thanks for the clarification.

It works great tho