4 ms·
There's nothing stopping you from just running Flash itself… even in a Windows XP VM if necessary.
by colanderman 9y ago
There's nothing stopping you from just running Flash itself… even in a Windows XP VM if necessary.
- drak0n1c 9y agoSome kind of conversion is needed to help hosts keep their flash content alive - visitors will ignore what is not accessible.
- colanderman 9y agoYes, but that's not the problem the GP was addressing.
- colanderman 9y agoI really don't get the downvotes here. Yes, there are umpteen ways to run a Flash program. But if you goal is "preserve the experience of running a Flash program for future generations", the most obvious solution is to simply emulate the platform on which Flash runs. (This solution also has the benefits of being simple and a solved problem, which the GP admits is not true of other solutions.) Proposing to preserve Flash apps through a bytecode emulator is frankly somewhat absurd if you consider analogies. HTML 2.0 sites don't render on modern browsers either, but no-one seriously proposes maintaining a modern HTML 2.0 browser to view them. They simply run an old copy of Netscape Navigator, in a Windows 95 VM if necessary. Likewise with old BASIC programs on an Apple 2: no-one (from a preservation standpoint) runs them on an AppleSoft BASIC emulator; they run them on real AppleSoft BASIC inside an emulated Apple 2.