Adobe Flash Player Download

-= UPDATE =-

Nice try, Adobe. I notice that now the links depicted in the image below now simply refer you back to the main install page for Flash and other players.

Click below to obtain the installers for Flash without the Adobe Download Manager.

Flash for Internet Explorer

Flash for Firefox, Chrome, Opera and other browsers

Adobe also provides links to previous major releases of the Flash player, and a link to a Flash uninstaller for those times when it needs to be manually removed.

Archived Flash Player Versions

Flash Uninstaller

We can't live without Flash, now can we??

Optimizing SQL Views Profit++, Fun--

While working feverishly towards meeting a looming deadline on some SQL code, a problem arose. A particular UI that relies on a particular stored proc to perform a particular task was bombing. 

I brought up SQL Profiler and retraced the user's steps, and found the culprit, a convoluted view I was joining to as a step within the update seemed to be taking way too long to retrieve data.

The view started out relatively simple, a SELECT over several busy tables joined together along with a few scalar function calls and a very few subqueries nestled within some CASE statements. It evolved, thanks to lack of time and impatience and poor choices on my part, into a bit of a behemoth; it took roughly 1:30 to return the full result set. This didn't seem like a big deal at the time, however, because I planned to use it to pluck out specific entries, for this purpose it returned results in less than a second or two, which was acceptable.

Using it in a join though was a relatively new, hastily chosen design decision, and apparently it was proving a very poor choice since it was causing the UI to time out. I began by optimizing the view, minimizing the interaction with the busy tables as much as possible, avoiding subqueries unless absolutely necessary, and creating some new scalar functions to replace previously funky logic. No joy, however, as this only shaved around 10 seconds off the runtime for a SELECT, too little, I thought.

So began the quest to create a table-value function instead, full of optimizations like stuffing frequently used values into variables and creating a subset of the main tables in a table variable (impossible from within a view) and minimizing the use of scalar functions and even resorting to applying the WITH (NOLOCK) and eliminating string searches wherever possible...

It turns out, however, that the entire two paragraphs of chronicled woe were completely unnecessary. Here's a SELECT from within the stored proc which joins with the aforementioned view, notice anything odd?

SELECT TOP 1 @Fruit = 
        
  CASE 
      WHEN v.Operation IN ('APPLE', 'BANANA', 'GRAPE') THEN v.Operation
      ELSE NULL
  END

FROM dbo.ViewOfPain v
WHERE v.ID = ID 
ORDER BY v.InputDate DESC

  

Let's see, looks like I'm just trying a simple SELECT from the view with a CASE statement, checking the ID against the ID, yeah, that looks fi-- O SHI

Notice the missing '@' sign before the ID in the where clause??! I did, after spending a few hours writing a table function that I turned out not to need. The problem wasn't with the view, but with this bit of code in the stored proc, it was doing the equivalent of a SELECT on the entire view plus a bit more overhead to assign a value to the @Fruit variable. I ran this statement by itself in query analyzer, and indeed, it took well over 1:30 to execute!

Below is the code as it should've been, which returns almost instantaneously.

SELECT TOP 1 @Fruit = 
        
  CASE 
      WHEN v.Operation IN ('APPLE', 'BANANA', 'GRAPE') THEN v.Operation
      ELSE NULL
  END

FROM dbo.ViewOfPain v
WHERE v.ID = @ID
ORDER BY v.InputDate DESC

I'd spent hours optimizing and then finally creating a new table function to replace a view that turned out not to be the culprit. If I'd spot-checked my syntax in the stored proc, it's likely I could've picked out this omission of the '@' much sooner, but I was so tired and far gone into troubleshooting that I was getting increasingly desperate. 

The moral of my story is, take a break, unhook yourself from the problem, and review it again later with a fresh mind.

Long Live the Classic Start Menu!

At work, I have finally received a brand-spanking new Dell Latitude E6410 laptop, complete with Windows 7 Pro.

I'm certainly loving the speed so far. As you might expect, stuff that seemed to take ages with XP goes blazingly fast under 7.
 
But, what's this?? Where's my beloved CLASSIC START MENU???

Apparently, Microsoft believes that since time marches on, all Windows users shall march in cadence with it. Some fanboys, too, wonder why all us holdouts don't simply drop the crude old Classic start menu altogether.

Absurd!

While I'm certainly happy for those who've enjoyed the new start menu, I for one would much rather keep the venerable Classic menu. I'm accustomed to it, I'm comfortable with it, and frankly, I don't really see a real need to switch.

Classic works for me.

Along those lines, I've found ClassicShell. The creators of this add-on compatible with Windows 7 allows users to once again have their Classic start menu available.

Please, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly all for innovation and efficiency. However, is it truly more efficient to force users to become accustomed to a new start menu, and eliminate one that a significant number of users have been comfortable with for years? 

Isn't it more innovative to allow users to maintain their own customizations and preferences, despite changes in the underlying operating system? Personally, I'd like to keep my grubby paws on the Classic start menu as long as I can, because frankly I don't care to explore the new start menu which Microsoft slaps upon Windows 7 users.

In my humble opinion, Microsoft would do well to ensure that their underlying OS works like a charm, and leave users to enjoy the preferences that they have come to enjoy, nay, expect, from their products.

Transferring a Windows Application to Another Computer

Let's say you want to migrate a Windows application from one PC to another. Not the entire hard drive, not your MP3 collection, but just one application.

Maybe for whatever reason you like the application, a lot, and don't want to fork over money for another license, nor do you want to compromise and purchase a replacement that does what you need it to, but makes you long for some quirky goodness your old app offers.

Utilities like Laplink PCMover and Move Me let you migrate applications, settings, files and all from one PC directly (via USB cable) or indirectly (via external hard drive) to another. There's also the excellent Acronis True Image, which enables you to clone your hard drive and copy every bit of data. Another possibility is a tool like the freeware Application Mover, which lets you move an installed application along with its files and registry settings to a new path on the same hard drive, or a new hard drive entirely.

Of these utilities, arguably the first few do the best, since they not only a working application, but most if not all data in the source and migrates it en masse to the target. If you wish to only transport one app, however, you're practically out of luck.

You could try simply copying the application folder, updating registry settings and all that manually, and it might work, but it's rather hit-or-miss. What if some crucial file the app needs for a very specific task wasn't copied over? What if a very old app has some stupid bug that didn't emerge when it lived in an old 8.3 naming system, but does once you try to stick it into a folder under "C:\Program Files"?

Thankfully, a solution exists, in the form of a utility included in the Symantec Ghost Solution Suite called Client Migration. As this article mentions, one of its features includes the ability to create installation packages for installed applications.

  "Client Migration 3.0 by Symantec migrates data and application settings to a new computer. It enables you to
  create application packages for the purpose of updating or installing applications on the new computer..."


Being able to simply migrate a single application can be handy by itself, but the ability to create an installation package is even better, for several reasons.

1. Portability. If you enjoy a particular application, and don't want to give up its usefulness, you can just install it on new hardware and enjoy.
   
   
2. Licensing. Rather than being stuck with buying another license for a program you already bought, you can simply move it to a new system.
   
   
3. Comfort. You love PhotoShop, but in the far future it becomes abandonware and is eclipsed by DodoShop, yet you just loved PhotoShop's way of doing things. Migration capability enables you the comfort of extending the usability of this one app that may no longer be available for purchase, let alone for download off some random site.

There can, as with everything in life, be a few pitfalls. 

• If the app you're migrating has any low-level conversations with your hardware, these peculiarities might translate with difficulty, if at all, to a new system with updated hardware and firmware. The app itself might not function, or worse, might cause your system to crash.
  
  
• If the operating system evolves to the extent that certain OS-specific resources the application depends on to do it's thing are no longer present in the current OS, you might need to enable any compatibility features (e.g. Windows ability to run applications in compatibility mode), or use something like Microsoft Virtual PC to emulate the desired operating system environment.

Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages in preserving a very useful old application. At least the Symantec product described above gives you the valuable option of being able to breathe new life into an old application despite upgrades to your hardware and operating system.