Category Archives: Troubleshooting

When WU Repairs Fail Try UUPDump

I’ve got two test machines on the Beta Channel release right now. The older of the pair — a 2014 vintage Surface Pro 3 — is stuck on KB5000842 and keeps throwing install errors. Others reporting into the TenForums thread on this update have had success using the terrific UUPdump tool to build a customized image to install 19043.906. So that’s what I’m trying, too. In general, my strategy is “When WU repairs fail try UUPDump” next anyway. Glad to see others use that strategy, too.

When WU Repairs Fail Try UUPDump.WUerror

A couple of failures, including a complete WU reset, means it’s time to change update strategies.
[Click image for full-sized view.]

Why Say: When WU Repairs Fail Try UUPDump?

The update installs fail each time with an error code of 0x800F081F. This is interesting, and a bit strange, because the error is often associated with the Windows Update Assistant nowhere present in this situation. It can also pop up when items are missing from the download packages that WU delivers to the desktop.

That latter reason explains why a switchover to UUPDump makes sense. It grabs the ISO-based image for the base OS version from MS servers  (19043 aka 21H1 in this case). Then, it uses DISM to apply all newer updates packages up to and including the problematic KB5000842 item that’s throwing the error here. It’s perfectly safe because it uses only Microsoft Servers as the source for its OS and update files.

Building the 19043.906 ISO File

Running UUPDump to build an ISO for a patched OS takes some time because of the many and various steps involved. For the SP3 PC, it took over an hour before it got stuck mounting the image for Build 19041.1. That’s when I realized it makes sense to run UUPdump batch files on the fastest PC around.

Thus, I ran the same job on my Lenovo X1 Extreme, with its 6-core i7-8850H CPU. Given more threads and a faster CPU and much faster Samsung OEM PCIe x3 SSDs, it ran noticeably faster, though the KB5000842 cab file update still took 5 minutes to complete (click “view image” inside the lead-in graphic for this story). The whole thing still took 35 minutes from start to finish.

And it went that fast only because we have fast (nominal GbE, actual 900 Mbps or so) Internet service here at Chez Tittel. What takes the real time, however, is bringing the windows image (.wim) file up from base level Build 19043.844 to the current/highest level Build 19043.906. This takes several steps, each one involving mounting the image, adding packages, the dismounting the image, and continuing forward. There’s some mucking around with a WinRE.wim file along the way, too.

Performing the In-Place Repair Install

This is the easy part: mount the image, run setup.exe and let the installer do its thing. This takes a while, too — considerably longer than applying the update would (checking the PC, agreeing to the EULA, checking for updates,  and so forth; then finally into OS installation). This entire process took another hour or so to complete. But here’s the end result, straight from winver.exe:

When WU Repairs Fail Try UUPDump.final

All’s well that ends well: here’s Build info from the upgraded SP3, right where I want it to be

More About UUPDump

I’ve written about UUPDump for numerous other sites, including TechTarget and Win10.Guru, both for my Windows Enterprise Desktop blog. Here are some links, if you’d like to learn more:

  1. UUPDump Invaluable Resource (TechTarget)
  2. A Peek Inside UUPDump (Win10.Guru) includes a brief interview with its developer who goes by the handle “Whatever”
  3. UUPDump Outdoes Windows Update (Win10.Guru)

Cheers!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Lenovo Vantage Updates Take Patience

Here’s a sticky situation I’ve found myself in more than once. I’m reasonably fond of the Lenovo Vantage update tool, which handles BIOS, firmware, driver and ancillary software updates pretty well. Occasionally, two or more updates requiring a reboot appear together therein. That’s what happened today, as an Intel Manage-ment Engine (IME) firmware update and a BIOS update appeared in tandem. It’s also what reminded me that Lenovo Vantage updates take patience.

Why Say: Lenovo Vantage Updates Take Patience?

This doesn’t happen with Windows Update, but when you’re applying low-level updates to a system, items that require a reboot must be applied one at a time. I’ve learned this working with Vantage over the past few years. If a firmware update and a BIOS update show up on the same day, it’s best to download and install one by itself. Then, repeat for the second item.

What happens if you try to do more than one? When you attempt to install the second item with a reboot pending, installation fails because it is smart enough to recognize that two separate and distinct reboots are needed.

I don’t always remember this, so I got bitten today when Vantage finished the pre-reboot phase of the BIOS update and transitioned into the IME update. As soon as the IME update got going, it stopped itself and reported an error. Part of the text read “An installation failed to complete properly. Please reboot and try again.”

The Reboot’s the Thing

Of course, as soon as the reboot got through shutdown and into restart, the BIOS update ran to completion and the system rebooted again. After that reboot, I returned to Vantage to generate the lead-in graphic for this story that shows the IME firmware update still pending. As soon as I clicked install, I got an explicit reboot warning, to wit:

If I’d run the sequence IME first, BIOS second, I’d have seen this warning right away, and not been caught in an error. Sigh.

In general, it’s a good idea to make firmware and BIOS changes piecemeal anyway. You don’t want more than one thing at a time to blow up. That could complicate troubleshooting beyond belief. That’s NOT what anyone wants when making deep-level system changes.

Live and learn — or in my case, keep living and get an occasional reminder. Cheers!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Zen and the Art of USB Troubleshooting

Back in the 1970s, Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance made its debut. I was a year out of college, working in a somewhat technical job as an audio engineer at the Library of Congress. I devoured that book and many of its thoughts have stayed with me over the intervening years. None has stuck better than his discussion of the scientific method (that link goes to a reprint of that section). It always struck me afterward that when somebody wants to get serious about troubleshooting, it’s time to invoke the awesome majesty of “the formal scientific method.” That’s why I call this blog post, with tongue in cheek: “Zen and the Art of USB Troubleshooting.”

What Good is Zen and the Art of USB Troubleshooting?

Early in the cited section on the scientific method, Pirsig makes two great observations. First he says “Actually, I’ve never seen a cycle-maintenance problem complex enough really to require full-scale formal scientific method.” Second, he compares that method to “an enormous juggernaut, a huge bulldozer — slow, tedious, lumbering, laborious, but invincible.” As I’ve been troubleshooting a vexing issue with a recently-acquired Sabrent Nano 1 TB M.2 2242 NVMe SSD lately, I’ve had reason to revisit and ponder Pirsig’s thinking and  problem-solving toolset.

Here’s the Deal

Here’s the combination of the four-plus ingredients that go into my problem set:

  1. A Sabrent NVMe SSD enclosure, model EC-NMVE
  2. The Sabrent 1 TB Nano SSD, model SB-1342-1TB; for comparison I also have an M.2 ADATA XPG 256GB 2280 NVMe
  3. The USB-C  cable (with USB 3.1 female to USB-C male adapter) that Sabrent shipped with the enclosure
  4. The USB port on Windows PC into which I plug enclosure (1) using cable (3)

The only time I have problems with the enclosure is when the Sabrent Nano device is plugged in. It works reliably and constantly if I use the enclosure, its cable and the ADATA SSD. When the Nano is plugged in, however, the device goes offline if I leave it plugged in overnight. When I come into my office, the controller light on the enclosure is blinking constantly. At other times, and at irregular intervals, the device goes offline while it’s idle.

I take the constant blinking to mean the USB controller in the PC is trying — and failing — to handshake with the drive controller in the enclosure. If I unplug the device (either end) and plug it back it, it resumes working.

The scientific method tells me that you must vary only one item in a collection of possible causes for trouble at a time to determine which item is the actual cause. The only collection of the items listed in 1-4 above that causes a fault occurs when the Sabrent Nano is present. Therefore, the Sabrent Nano is the faulting item.

Filing a Tech Support Case

I’m going to use this article as the documentation for a tech support filing, and re-open my trouble ticket with Sabrent. I believe I have shown that the Nano is not working as it should be, and that it faults regularly. I am hopeful Sabrent will agree with my analysis, and send me a replacement SSD. I’ll keep you posted, and share their response(s) here. Stay tuned.

[Note Added 3/17 Afternoon]

Sabrent simply asked for a copy of the invoice (easy to retrieve from my Amazon order history) and the ship-to information. Let’s see how long it takes for a replacement to get here. Interesting, and satisfying, so far!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Interesting Partial 21H1 Component Store Cleanup

I’m running the Beta Channel Insider Preview on my Surface Pro 3. I just bumped it to Build 19043.899 thanks to KB5000842. Out of curiosity, I then ran the DISM commands to analyze and clean up the component store as shown in the lead-in graphic for this story. A final analyze shows interesting partial 21H1 component store cleanup occurred. Let me explain…

What Does Interesting Partial 21H1 Component Store Cleanup Mean?

If you take a look at some detail from the lead-in graphic then check the screencap below, you’ll see they show 7 reclaimable packages before clean-up. After cleanup, 2 reclaimable packages still remain behind.

Notice that 2 reclaimable packages persist, event after running the cleanup option.

Reclaimable packages persist after dism cleanup for one of two reasons AFAIK:
1. At some point, the user ran the /resetbase parameter in an earlier dism cleanup.
2. Something odd or interesting is going on in the component store, and dism can’t clean up one or more packages (in this case, two).

I don’t use /resetbase on test machines as a matter of principle. So something interesting and odd is going on here.

Another Try Produces No Change

Having seen this before on other Insider Previews (and production Windows 10 versions), I had an inkling of what would happen. I repeated the cleanup and got the same results: 2 reclaimable packages still show. In my experience, this means they’re “stuck” in the component store. What I don’t know is if taking the image offline and trying again would make any difference. What I do know is that this won’t change until Microsoft finalizes the 21H1 release for general availability (or issues a specifically targeted fix).

Trading on my connections with the Insider Team at MS, I’ll be letting them know about this curious phenomenon. We’ll see if anything changes as a result. My best guess is that this gets a cleanup as part of the final release work sometime in the next 2-3 weeks. That said, only time will tell. Stay tuned!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Strange Sabrent Rocket Adventures

Last Friday, I blogged about swapping out my review unit Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Nano SSD. I purchased a US$150 Sabrent Rocket Nano (Model SB-1342 1 TB). It replaced a Samsung OEM 512 GB SSD (NVMe PCIe 3.0 x4). Check the Friday post for details on performance, installation and so forth. Today, I’m writing about the strange Sabrent Rocket adventures I’ve had since taking that device out of the laptop. Frankly, it’s a continuing and wild ride.

Strange Sabrent Rocket Adventures: Drive MIA

First, I used Macrium Reflect to clone the original Samsung drive. Then, I made the swap, ran some tests and replaced the Sabrent with the original SSD. Things got intersting after I plugged the drive back into the Sabrent NVMe drive enclosure (EC-NVME). The drive was MIA: it showed up as 0 bytes in size and generated a “fatal device error” if I tried to access it. Ouch! I immediately reached out to vendor tech support.

Sabrent Tech Support quickly coughed up a link to a terrific tool, though. The name of the tool is lowvel.exe, and it performs a complete low-level format of the drive, zero-filling all locations as it goes. That turned out to be just what I needed and put the Rocket Nano back into shape where DiskMgmt.msc could manipulate it once again.

Then, I initialized the drive as GPT, and set it up as one large NTFS volume. For the next 12-14 hours, I was convinced this was a final fix. But my troubles are not yet over, it seems.

More Strange Rocket Adventures

The next morning, having left the device plugged in overnight, I sat down at my desk to see it blinking continuously. When I tried to access the device, it was inaccessible. It’s not throwing hardware errors to Reliability Monitor, but I have to unplug the device and plug it back in, to restore it to working order. Something is still weird. Temps seem normal and the Sabrent Rocket Control Panel utility (shown in this story’s lead-in graphic) gives the device a clean bill of health.

I’ve got an intermittent failure of some kind. I need more data to figure this one out. I’m leaving the Control Panel running on the test laptop where the Rocket Nano is plugged in. We’ll see if I can suss this one out further. It’s not inconceivable I’ll be going back to Sabrent Tech Support and asking for a replacement — but only if I can prove and show something definite and tangible. Sigh.

Info Added March 25: All Is Quiet

Who’d have thought a Sabrent NVMe enclosure and a Sabrent NVMe drive might be ill-fitted together? Apparently, that’s what ended up causing my intermittent failures. On a whim, I bought the cheapest NVMe enclosure I could find — a US$26 FIDECO USB 3.1 Gen 2 device — into which I inserted the Sabrent Nano SSD. It’s now run without issue, pause, hitch, or glitch for a week. I did not insert the device pad that normally sits between the case and the device (already present in the Sabrent enclosure). I’m inclined to blame some kind of heat buildup or connectivity issue resulting from an overly tight fit in the Sabrent enclosure, which I may have avoided in its FIDECO replacement. At any rate, it’s working fine right now. Case closed, I hope!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Swapping X1 Nano NVMe Drives

OK, then. I went and sprung US$150 for a Sabrent 1TB M.2 2242 NVMe drive at Amazon. It is depicted in the lead-in graphic above. The high-level sequence of events is as follows. Ordered on Wednesday, received and experimented on Thursday, reported on Friday (today). Alas, I seem to have hosed the drive and have started RMA negotiations with Sabrent. Along the way, I learned most of what’s involved in swapping X1 Nano NVMe drives.

Be Careful When Swapping X1 Nano NVMe Drives

As is almost always the case, there’s a YouTube video for that. It showed me everything I needed to do. Disassembly/reassembly were easy and straightforward. I had no mechanical difficulties. But once again, my US$7 investment in a laptop screws collection saved my butt. I mislaid one of the two NVMe holder screws (found it later during  cleanup). I lost one of the 6 battery restraint screws (fell on the floor into neutral brown carpet). Both were easily replaced from the collection.

Cloning Works, But Proves Mistaken

For whatever odd reason, the Sabrent drive shows up pre-formatted. The disk layout is MBR and the primary partition is ExFAT. Both of those got in my way as I cloned the original drive to the replacement. First, I had to clean the drive, convert to GPT, then format it as a single NTFS volume. Then, I used Macrium Reflect to clone the contents of the Samsung OEM drive to the Sabrent. Along the way Reflect told me it had turned off BitLocker and that I would need to re-enable it after boot.

Replacing the Samsung with the Sabrent, I went into BIOS and turned secure boot off instead. This let the X1 Nano boot from the cloned drive just fine. I was able to run CrystalDiskMark to compare their performance. Here’s what that looks like:

Swapping X1 Nano NVMe Drives.side-by-side

Samsung OEM results left; Sabrent results right. Best improvement where it counts most!
[Click image for full-sized view.]

What do these results show? Indeed, the Sabrent is faster on all measurements, and more so on the most important random 4K reads and writes (lower two rows). It’s not a night-and-day difference, but IMO the added capacity and increased speed justify the expense involved. It’s a good upgrade for the X1 Nano at a far lower price than Lenovo charges. Also, performance is somewhat better than what their OEM stock delivers.

Here’s a summary of performance row-by-row (count 1-4 from top to bottom):
1. Read speeds increase by <1%; write speeds by >28%
2. Read speeds increase by >7%; write speeds by >36%
3. Read speeds increase by  >52%; write speeds by >21%
4. Read speeds increase by >14%; write speeds by >51%

Where Did I Go Wrong?

Cloning was a mistake. I saw it in the disk layout, which showed over 400 GB of unallocated space. Better to have done a bare-metal backup using Reflect with their Rescue Media. Next time I’m in this situation, that’s what I’ll do.

Something untoward also happened when uninstalling the Sabrent drive. When I stuck it back in my M.2 Sabrent caddy (which fortunately handles 2242 as well as other common M.2 form factors), it came up with a fatal hardware error. None of my tools, including diskpart, diskmgmt.msc, MiniTool Partition Wizard, or the Sabrent utilities could restore it to working order. I suspect that removing the battery, even though the power was off on the laptop, spiked the drive with a power surge. It’s currently non-functional, so I hope my warranty covers this and I’ll get a replacement. If not, it will prove a more expensive lesson than I’d planned, but still a valuable one.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Might Wonky WU Presage Hardware Obsolescence

OK, then. Here’s an interesting story. After updating my 2012 vintage Lenovo X220 Tablet to Build 21327.1010 the Windows Update (WU) UI starting misbehaving. I’ve reported it to the Feedback Hub, with a screen recording to show what happens. This experience has me asking myself: might wonky WU presage hardware obsolescence?

Why Might Wonky WU Presage Hardware Obsolescence?

Built in 2012 and purchased in 2013 for a book on Windows 8, this system runs a Sandy Bridge CPU. It’s so old, it doesn’t support USB 3.0 natively (though I do have a plug-in Express Card that adds such capability). Simply put, the whole situation has me wondering if this old laptop is finally aging out of usefulness. I retired the companion system — a same vintage, same CPU T420 laptop — late last year because it was flaking out too often for everyday testing. Until this happened, the X220 Tablet remained a paragon of Windows support.

Here’s a short video (24 seconds) that shows very little, but enough for me to describe what’s wonky.

Normally, when you click the “Check for updates” button, the display changes to “Checking for updates” while the activity balls flow from left to right (and repeat until the check is complete). Next, if updates are available, the display reads “Updates available” while it installs them. When it’s done the display changes to “You’re up to date” with a timestamp to match. That final status info serves as the lead-in graphic for this story, in fact.

What Did Wonky WU Do Instead?

As you can see by playing the video, none of those display changes occur. I know the update is working because it grabbed and installed a Defender update when I tried it for the first time and that update shows under “Definition Updates” in Update History. That said, the usual animations (or status changes) that show WU is working are invisible on this PC. All that stuff works fine on my 2018 vintage Lenovo ThinkPad X380 Yoga (which has a Kaby Lake/7th Gen CPU).

Having reported the issue to MS via Feedback Hub, all I can do now is wait to see if it gets fixed. If it becomes a “new normal,” I may need to start retirement planning for my hitherto unflappable and unshakeable X220 Tablet. Sigh. That’s the way things go sometimes, here in Windows-World.

Note Added March 11, 2021

With the upgrade to Dev Channel Build 21332.1000, WU returned to “normal behavior.” But I did have to return to Advanced Sharing Settings/All Networks in the Network and Sharing Center. There, I had to turn off password protected sharing and turn on Public folder sharing. After a reboot,  RDP into the X220 Tablet worked again. This has been an on-again/off-again issue on this laptop for years. (A) it’s easily fixed locally, and (B) it seems to be a low-priority item for MS.

Finalley here’s a shout-out to Eddie Leonard (@DJ+EddieL). He told me the WU item was a known problem and would be fixed with the next build. He was spot-on, and I’m grateful.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Multiple Methods Clear Defender Threat History

First, an admission. I do occasionally use the CCleaner and the MiniTool Partition Wizard (MTPW) installers. Yes, I know they include “bundleware” elements that Defender flags as “potentially unwanted programs” (PUPs). In fact, until you clear the threat history and exclude that history from future scans, Defender keeps reporting them ad infinitum. Sigh. As I worked my way through a UGetFix.com article yesterday on my Lenovo X390 Yoga I learned multiple methods clear Defender threat history. In fact, when none of the article’s methods worked for me, a spin on one of them did the trick.

[Note] The lead-in graphic for this story shows a Defender warning for a “potentially unwanted application” (PUA) from another bundleware instance. That one comes from the Unlocker program (it’s always been a little dicey, which is why I provide a MajorGeeks download link). Use at your own risk.

Enumerating Multiple Methods Clear Defender Threat History

The UGetFix.com article is entitled “Windows Defender identifies the same threat repeatedly — how to fix?” It works readers through three separate methods:

  1. Delete the Service folder within the following Windows folder:
    C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Scans\History. This is where Defender keeps its logs and threat history info. There’s an alternate method based on Event Viewer described in the article as well to clear the history log.
  2. Prevent Defender from scanning the history file. This occurs in Manage Settings inside Virus & Threat Protection in Defender, under the Exclusions heading. By excluding the preceding folder specification, you stop Defender from repeating warnings based on its own history files.
  3. Clear Browser Caches: YMMV on this one, depending on the browsers you use. I’ll let you puzzle these efforts out for yourselves, from the help systems built into each browser.

As I said, none of the methods worked for me. What did work, was a variation on Item number 1 above. I was unable to delete the Service folder. It came back as “locked by Windows Defender.” What I was able to do, however, was to navigate within the Service folder and edit the history.log file using NotePad++ to delete its contents. I also found a series of two-digit-numbered folders with various history files inside (named 01, 02 and so forth) that I was able to delete (and did so).

After that maneuver, the annoying multiple repetitions of PUP warnings for the CCleaner (version 5.77) and MTPW (version 12.03) installers disappeared. I used Everything to check my systems and make sure the offending files were no longer present, too. It’s only the installers that include bundleware. Once deleted and flushed, they no longer pose any threat.

Concluding Unscientific Rantlet

It’s weird that Defender triggers PUA/PUP warnings from the contents of its own history file. Even when the files that legitimately trigger an alert on a Windows 10 PC are no longer present, the same alerts still trigger — repeatedly! My plea to the Defender development team is that they automatically exclude the history file from scans by default so as to further insulate users from this small but vexing gotcha.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Fixing Non-responsive Taskbar Icons

Last December, I wrote an article here that described an easy fix for an unresponsive Start Menu. The trick on my affected PCs was to go into Task Manager, right-click Windows Explorer, and select “Restart.” Over the past week the same thing is affecting Task Bar icons for open and pinned applications. It came in the wake of the occasionally wonky preview version of the upcoming March CU. That is, I’m inclined to name KB4601382 as an “update of interest” in this case. Fortunately, the same fix works.

Fixing Non-responsive Taskbar Icons

How can you tell when this problem manifests? Easy! You click on an icon in the taskbar and nothing happens. I show a portion of my taskbar icons in the lead-in graphic, by way of illustration.

I actually show the taskbar at the foot of both of my monitors. Sometimes, when one quits working, the other keeps going. Then I click that one instead. If neither works, the fix goes in. I’ve never had it fail.

As with my earlier report of Start Menu issues, I’m inclined to see some interaction between Stardock Software’s Start10 and the Explorer-based start menu and associated UI elements. Those include the taskbar icons and the notification area as well. Something wonky is happening, but is also easily fixed. I’ve reported this to Stardock and MS and am hopeful that, as before, a fix trickles into one or the other of those environments.

Seems Like a Limited Issue

I don’t see other reports of this phenomenon in the Start10 forums at Stardock. There’s plenty of discussion on the general phenomenon (Google search: “taskbar icons nonresponsive”). But all are unanimous in what to do: Restart Windows Explorer. Not much other cussin’ and discussin’ involved. Nice to know I’ve got the right fix, even if I don’t know the cause unequivocally and unambiguously. Sigh.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

KB4577586 Flash Killer Download Available

For those Windows 10 users with Adobe Flash still installed, the Microsoft Update Catalog has the KB457786 Flash Killer download available. If this means you, click the preceding link. Next, pick the version that matches your current Windows install. Then, click its Download button for the corresponding Microsoft Standalone Updater (MSU) file. The individual download window for the x64 version appears in this story’s lead graphic.

Note: For whatever odd reason, I had to right-click the download link in the window shown above. Upon selecting the file link near the bottom of that window, I had to right-click and select “Open link in new window” to actually get the file to download. YMMV.

If KB4577586 Flash Killer Download Available, Then What?

Once downloaded to your PC, run the MSU file that you just grabbed. The Windows Update Standalone Installer will ask you if you want to install the KB4577586 update. Click the “Yes” button to proceed.

Next you’ll see an “… updates are being installed” window appear, with progress bar. It took about 15 seconds to install on my i7 Skylake (i7-6700, 32GB RAM, 512 GB Samsung 950 SSD) PC.

If Install Fails, No Worries

I already knew that the Flash Player was gone, gone, gone from this PC. And sure enough, a peek into Update History under the Other Updates heading shows the following info:

A quick search on the 0x8024001e error string shows the most likely cause — in this case, for sure — is a missing DLL file associated with the Adobe Flash Player. Why is it missing? Because it’s already been uninstalled on this PC. Thus, there’s no cause for concern about this error. In fact, even if you don’t need this update it’s safe to run it anyway.

Those who already know Adobe Flash Player is absent on their PCs need not download or run this update. But if you’re not sure, it’s OK to do so just to make sure it’s gone. Your call!

Le roi est mort, vive le roi!

The foregoing phrase translates as “The king is dead, long live the king!” Seems like an appropriate epithet for Adobe Flash Player which has been around since FutureWave SmartSketch made its debut in 1993. Acquired by Macromedia in 1996, in turn by Adobe in 2005, Flash has been around since the earliest days of the WWW.

Now, of course, more modern technologies built into HTML 5 have made Flash obsolete. It’s now passed its End-of-Life date as of 12/31/2020. As of February 2021, all major browsers now block Flash and have no player capability. It really is over. Amazing! Many thought it would never die, and few are sorry to see it go…

 

 

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin