ADOBE FLASH and JAVA

Question

I am seeking information about installing JAVA and ADOBE Windows RT compatible versions.

I am need to access noaa.gov regularly for my job and tried viewing the Hurricane Sandy radar loops offered on JAVA and ADOBE Flash Player.

However when attempting to access the JAVA Loop; http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/18L/java-vis-long.html it responds Java must be enabled.

In Windows previous versions you could access some control through Internet Explorer's options. I cannot fond this in RT.

When jumping to the Adobe Flash page, http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/18L/flash-vis-long.html

All you get is a placeholder image and no content.

Attempts to get most recent version of either fails.

This is one area the is important to me, and seeking some insight or direction from a blue badge please.

Thanks for any response in advance.

Answer 1

Java is completely unsupported on Surface RT. I don't expect that to change due to the general hostile attitude of Oracle in working with Microsoft (and Apple, for that matter).

Flash is present but controlled by Microsoft through whitelists. I'm not sure if there's a way to submit a site for whitelisting or not, but it would be nice if there was so we could request additions like this one. I appreciate their desire to protect us, but we need an option to function too, right? :)

Surface Pro (coming in January/February) will run Windows 8 Pro and be much more suited to advanced usage. In the mean time, you could see if your company can give you Remote Desktop (better yet, RemoteApp) access to a desktop version of IE/Chrome/Firefox to use for that purpose. I'm an IT guy where I work, and I plan to set that up for myself as well.

Answer 2

Java no, flash yes.

Answer 3

I hear that ha, thanks

Answer 4

Yuck. Licensing is ALWAYS so complicated. From discussions I've had with my licensing vendors, I believe the answer is simply-- yes, we are responsible for it.

My strategy is as simple as I can make it... when possible, license per-user so that it doesn't matter what devices they're using.

For Surface RT, it seems that there's two potential licensing points-- device or user CAL for Windows Server (user recommended), if and only if they are accessing resources like network printers or files. Also, a license for Office (Office 365 or Office Standard will suffice) if using Surface to edit those corporate files. Since Exchange is already licensed per-user, there's no cost there, and I would assume the same is true of Lync and SharePoint as long as you're using those per-user.

I guess there's something to be said for the iPad limitations of not being able to do any of this stuff. No extra licensing, but only because it can't do the functions in the first place. Once there Office for iPad, I'm sure that will change.

Of course, this is always justification to not allow any non-sanctioned device too. If your CEO/CFO don't want to pay for employee devices, it's your justification to ban them. :)

PS-- as for the turf wars, I agree about the innovation, but then again I really hate Flash and Java. They're slow, insecure, and kill system performance, so I wouldn't object if they went away.

Answer 5

I am disappointed by that turf war, it sniffles innovation. These three giants need to live on the real world and realize it is because of is early adopters that they enjoy their positions on their respective markets.

To your comment on corporate environments, I too run an enterprise environment. The issue I am wrestling with is MS's unclear position on whether I am to be responsible for client licenses for the connection of Surface units to other MS enterprise servers or client based license required software or applications.

I cannot introduce something that will result on more costs to the organization without business justification.

I guess more on those will become available as the Pro version emerges.