Java control panel: Next generation plug-in?

Discussion in 'Windows XP General' started by jim, Jun 21, 2012.

  1. jim

    jim Guest

    Does anyone know about the efficiency/deficiency of having the Java
    "next-generation plug-in" enabled?

    jim
     
    jim, Jun 21, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jim

    Paul Guest

    jim wrote:
    > Does anyone know about the efficiency/deficiency of having the Java
    > "next-generation plug-in" enabled?
    >
    > jim


    I don't use Java, so installing that would be a "deficiency".

    I don't currently use any Java applications (or visit Java web sites),
    to need it.

    It's like a few things on the computer. If you don't use the
    features, or use the code, there's no reason to waste
    disk space on such.

    If you install Java, then any time you read of some new Java
    malware being in circulation, and you haven't upgraded lately,
    then you'll need to install the latest version. In many ways,
    it's like maintaining Adobe Flash on a computer. And if I don't
    install it, that's one less thing I have to worry about.

    The only serious application I've used, that relied on Java,
    was some encrypting VPN software, so I could connect to the
    servers at work. Once I no longer used that stuff, I could
    uninstall the Java libraries.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 21, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. jim

    jim Guest

    On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:32:55 -0400, in
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, Paul <>, wrote

    >jim wrote:
    >> Does anyone know about the efficiency/deficiency of having the Java
    >> "next-generation plug-in" enabled?
    >>
    >> jim

    >
    >I don't use Java, so installing that would be a "deficiency".
    >
    >I don't currently use any Java applications (or visit Java web sites),
    >to need it.
    >
    >It's like a few things on the computer. If you don't use the
    >features, or use the code, there's no reason to waste
    >disk space on such.
    >
    >If you install Java, then any time you read of some new Java
    >malware being in circulation, and you haven't upgraded lately,
    >then you'll need to install the latest version. In many ways,
    >it's like maintaining Adobe Flash on a computer. And if I don't
    >install it, that's one less thing I have to worry about.
    >
    >The only serious application I've used, that relied on Java,
    >was some encrypting VPN software, so I could connect to the
    >servers at work. Once I no longer used that stuff, I could
    >uninstall the Java libraries.
    >
    > Paul


    I agree with your philosophy. A friend of mine calls me a computer
    "minimalist". That is mostly the case (I do have Java and Flash) and
    probably is the reason that when i had a disk problem and had to install
    ..net framework 4 to run Seatools, a week later when i determined that the
    disk was stable and the changes/repairs were not of a fleeting nature that
    i uninstalled .net framework 4 using REVO uninstaller in advanced mode to
    (allegedly) remove all traces.

    I came across the following on the Mozilla secure server -- and no, i do
    not believe everything i read, but i did uncheck this option moreless as a
    test, so have your salt dose handy:

    ~~~~
    << Although the memory leak problem appears to have begun with the
    release of Firefox 12, it is actually not Firefox that is causing the
    problem. The problem is your friend and mine, Sun Java, whose concept of
    a "next-generation plug in" appears to be lag your computer to all hell.

    Go to your control panel, double click Java, and review your settings.

    There is an option [called] "Enable the next-generation java plug-in".
    Make sure you uncheck that.

    This fixed my Firefox memory problem (similar to those problems posted)
    immediately.

    You must disable the plug in through Java, it will override Firefox
    settings.
    I would like to end this by saying I have always hated Java, and regret
    that it is 2012 and that it is still in use. >>

    *Does this Java related "fix" ruin or turn off Java usage in Firefox 12,
    or does it just "disconnect" a probably faulty part of Java ? >>
    *

    *Answer back states:
    *

    Hi, disabling this option has had no effect on my web browsing
    experience, other than

    1.) halving the memory usage by firefox.exe
    2.) prevent firefox.exe process from still running after I have closed
    all firefox windows and tabs

    ~~~~

    Do I take the above as some kind of gospel? No.
    Was the OP talking about XP or Win7 or does it make any difference with
    the cross-platform Java? I dunno.

    I did not notice any significant difference, but how many people can
    really notice l the difference in 1/10 and 1/25 of a second in an
    instruction by eyeballing it? It is when 1000 instructions at those two
    speeds are done consecutively that one can notice the difference.

    (If anyone wonders where this option is, it is under the "advanced" tab of
    the Java Control panel and then under the obscure subcategory of
    "plugin".)

    I was wondering if there was any XP-specific experience on this.

    jim
     
    jim, Jun 21, 2012
    #3
  4. jim

    Paul Guest

    jim wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:32:55 -0400, in
    > microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, Paul <>, wrote
    >
    >> jim wrote:
    >>> Does anyone know about the efficiency/deficiency of having the Java
    >>> "next-generation plug-in" enabled?
    >>>
    >>> jim

    >> I don't use Java, so installing that would be a "deficiency".
    >>
    >> I don't currently use any Java applications (or visit Java web sites),
    >> to need it.
    >>
    >> It's like a few things on the computer. If you don't use the
    >> features, or use the code, there's no reason to waste
    >> disk space on such.
    >>
    >> If you install Java, then any time you read of some new Java
    >> malware being in circulation, and you haven't upgraded lately,
    >> then you'll need to install the latest version. In many ways,
    >> it's like maintaining Adobe Flash on a computer. And if I don't
    >> install it, that's one less thing I have to worry about.
    >>
    >> The only serious application I've used, that relied on Java,
    >> was some encrypting VPN software, so I could connect to the
    >> servers at work. Once I no longer used that stuff, I could
    >> uninstall the Java libraries.
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > I agree with your philosophy. A friend of mine calls me a computer
    > "minimalist". That is mostly the case (I do have Java and Flash) and
    > probably is the reason that when i had a disk problem and had to install
    > .net framework 4 to run Seatools, a week later when i determined that the
    > disk was stable and the changes/repairs were not of a fleeting nature that
    > i uninstalled .net framework 4 using REVO uninstaller in advanced mode to
    > (allegedly) remove all traces.
    >
    > I came across the following on the Mozilla secure server -- and no, i do
    > not believe everything i read, but i did uncheck this option moreless as a
    > test, so have your salt dose handy:
    >
    > ~~~~
    > << Although the memory leak problem appears to have begun with the
    > release of Firefox 12, it is actually not Firefox that is causing the
    > problem. The problem is your friend and mine, Sun Java, whose concept of
    > a "next-generation plug in" appears to be lag your computer to all hell.
    >
    > Go to your control panel, double click Java, and review your settings.
    >
    > There is an option [called] "Enable the next-generation java plug-in".
    > Make sure you uncheck that.
    >
    > This fixed my Firefox memory problem (similar to those problems posted)
    > immediately.
    >
    > You must disable the plug in through Java, it will override Firefox
    > settings.
    > I would like to end this by saying I have always hated Java, and regret
    > that it is 2012 and that it is still in use. >>
    >
    > *Does this Java related "fix" ruin or turn off Java usage in Firefox 12,
    > or does it just "disconnect" a probably faulty part of Java ? >>
    > *
    >
    > *Answer back states:
    > *
    >
    > Hi, disabling this option has had no effect on my web browsing
    > experience, other than
    >
    > 1.) halving the memory usage by firefox.exe
    > 2.) prevent firefox.exe process from still running after I have closed
    > all firefox windows and tabs
    >
    > ~~~~
    >
    > Do I take the above as some kind of gospel? No.
    > Was the OP talking about XP or Win7 or does it make any difference with
    > the cross-platform Java? I dunno.
    >
    > I did not notice any significant difference, but how many people can
    > really notice l the difference in 1/10 and 1/25 of a second in an
    > instruction by eyeballing it? It is when 1000 instructions at those two
    > speeds are done consecutively that one can notice the difference.
    >
    > (If anyone wonders where this option is, it is under the "advanced" tab of
    > the Java Control panel and then under the obscure subcategory of
    > "plugin".)
    >
    > I was wondering if there was any XP-specific experience on this.
    >
    > jim
    >


    I can find a reference to that plug-in here. Introduced around Firefox 3 timeframe.

    http://www.java.com/en/download/help/new_plugin.xml

    "As a result the next-generation plug-in runs applets outside of the browser
    in one or more separate processes. Applets still appear inside of the
    web browser window..."

    http://kb.mozillazine.org/Java

    "Important: Starting in Firefox 3.6, Java will not work unless you are using
    the Next-Generation Java Plug-In (included in Java 6 Update 10 and above)"

    "Note: Starting in Firefox 3.6 "Enable Java" is no longer available in
    options/preferences and you must use the Add-ons manager."

    So the memory usage, may depend on whether using separate processes to
    run java, results in a higher total memory usage. An interesting question,
    would be whether there would be a Task Manager entry when Java is running.

    Since I don't install Java a lot, I've never run into this aspect
    of it. I didn't know there was even any effort going into the
    Java stuff. I'd assumed it was more less "dead" or "sleeping" :)
    Like a parrot in a Monty Python's sketch.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 21, 2012
    #4
  5. jim

    VanguardLH Guest

    jim wrote:

    > Does anyone know about the efficiency/deficiency of having the Java
    > "next-generation plug-in" enabled?


    Whether you install Java depends on whether you visit sites that have
    applets you want to run (these download to your host and run there using
    the Java interpreter hence why you need to install it). However, Java
    is NOT just for web browsing and running Java applets from sites. Any
    local program can use Java. For example, to capture streaming media,
    you could use TubeMaster++. That is a Java program so obviously you
    need to install Java to use that program. Java isn't just for web
    browsing and running Java applets (which is what the add-on does you are
    asking about which provides an interface to the Java interpreter you
    install). Java is also used by programs. So whether you need to
    install Java depends on whether you visit (or may visit) any sites where
    you want to run their Java applet (e.g., crossword puzzle) or if you
    have any Java applications.

    I have Java installed. I do not let it update automatically but just
    tell me when updates are available; i.e., it's update is configured for
    "Notify me before downloading". I also have it check for updates only
    once per month, not every day or every week. After getting notified
    about an update and when I decide to get around to it, I uninstall ALL
    versions of Java (there should only be one since I always do this
    procedure) and install just the latest one. I only need the JRE (Java
    run-time environment) for Java support to run applets and applications
    that use Java. I don't need the JDK (Java Developer Kit) at home.

    I also configure Java NOT to leave resident its quick-start utility. I
    run Java applets and applications infrequently so a quick start is of
    little value when you don't often start. I also configure Java to NOT
    locally cache the applets downloaded from sites. The idea there is that
    if you often visit a site where you keep running their Java applet that
    caching that applet locally makes it run faster (because you don't have
    to wait for the download). Java will check for a newer version of the
    applet and download it if there is a newer version. If it's the same
    version as you have already cached then the cached version gets used.
    Since Java exploits show up periodically and anti-virus programs will
    alert on them, users will see a cached copy of an applet get an AV
    alert. Rather than have the AV program remove and quarantine the
    applet, just configure Java not to locally cache any applets. Again,
    whether caching helps depends on how often you re-run the same Java
    applet. Since I visit few sites that run the same Java applet, there's
    not much point in enabling caching of those applets. I do visit a
    couple crossword sites that use Java applets but they're small and I
    don't mind the few seconds to download the applet before I can start
    cogitating on what words to put into the puzzle.

    The Java plug-in comes with the JRE install. So getting the plug-in
    means you installed the Java package. If you need Java only for
    applications and not for applets, you can disable the Java plug-in in
    your web browser.
     
    VanguardLH, Jun 21, 2012
    #5
  6. jim

    VanguardLH Guest

    Paul wrote:

    > jim wrote:
    >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:32:55 -0400, in
    >> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, Paul <>, wrote
    >>
    >>> jim wrote:
    >>>> Does anyone know about the efficiency/deficiency of having the Java
    >>>> "next-generation plug-in" enabled?
    >>>>
    >>>> jim
    >>> I don't use Java, so installing that would be a "deficiency".
    >>>
    >>> I don't currently use any Java applications (or visit Java web sites),
    >>> to need it.
    >>>
    >>> It's like a few things on the computer. If you don't use the
    >>> features, or use the code, there's no reason to waste
    >>> disk space on such.
    >>>
    >>> If you install Java, then any time you read of some new Java
    >>> malware being in circulation, and you haven't upgraded lately,
    >>> then you'll need to install the latest version. In many ways,
    >>> it's like maintaining Adobe Flash on a computer. And if I don't
    >>> install it, that's one less thing I have to worry about.
    >>>
    >>> The only serious application I've used, that relied on Java,
    >>> was some encrypting VPN software, so I could connect to the
    >>> servers at work. Once I no longer used that stuff, I could
    >>> uninstall the Java libraries.
    >>>
    >>> Paul

    >>
    >> I agree with your philosophy. A friend of mine calls me a computer
    >> "minimalist". That is mostly the case (I do have Java and Flash) and
    >> probably is the reason that when i had a disk problem and had to install
    >> .net framework 4 to run Seatools, a week later when i determined that the
    >> disk was stable and the changes/repairs were not of a fleeting nature that
    >> i uninstalled .net framework 4 using REVO uninstaller in advanced mode to
    >> (allegedly) remove all traces.
    >>
    >> I came across the following on the Mozilla secure server -- and no, i do
    >> not believe everything i read, but i did uncheck this option moreless as a
    >> test, so have your salt dose handy:
    >>
    >> ~~~~
    >> << Although the memory leak problem appears to have begun with the
    >> release of Firefox 12, it is actually not Firefox that is causing the
    >> problem. The problem is your friend and mine, Sun Java, whose concept of
    >> a "next-generation plug in" appears to be lag your computer to all hell.
    >>
    >> Go to your control panel, double click Java, and review your settings.
    >>
    >> There is an option [called] "Enable the next-generation java plug-in".
    >> Make sure you uncheck that.
    >>
    >> This fixed my Firefox memory problem (similar to those problems posted)
    >> immediately.
    >>
    >> You must disable the plug in through Java, it will override Firefox
    >> settings.
    >> I would like to end this by saying I have always hated Java, and regret
    >> that it is 2012 and that it is still in use. >>
    >>
    >> *Does this Java related "fix" ruin or turn off Java usage in Firefox 12,
    >> or does it just "disconnect" a probably faulty part of Java ? >>
    >> *
    >>
    >> *Answer back states:
    >> *
    >>
    >> Hi, disabling this option has had no effect on my web browsing
    >> experience, other than
    >>
    >> 1.) halving the memory usage by firefox.exe
    >> 2.) prevent firefox.exe process from still running after I have closed
    >> all firefox windows and tabs
    >>
    >> ~~~~
    >>
    >> Do I take the above as some kind of gospel? No.
    >> Was the OP talking about XP or Win7 or does it make any difference with
    >> the cross-platform Java? I dunno.
    >>
    >> I did not notice any significant difference, but how many people can
    >> really notice l the difference in 1/10 and 1/25 of a second in an
    >> instruction by eyeballing it? It is when 1000 instructions at those two
    >> speeds are done consecutively that one can notice the difference.
    >>
    >> (If anyone wonders where this option is, it is under the "advanced" tab of
    >> the Java Control panel and then under the obscure subcategory of
    >> "plugin".)
    >>
    >> I was wondering if there was any XP-specific experience on this.
    >>
    >> jim
    >>

    >
    > I can find a reference to that plug-in here. Introduced around Firefox 3 timeframe.
    >
    > http://www.java.com/en/download/help/new_plugin.xml
    >
    > "As a result the next-generation plug-in runs applets outside of the browser
    > in one or more separate processes. Applets still appear inside of the
    > web browser window..."
    >
    > http://kb.mozillazine.org/Java
    >
    > "Important: Starting in Firefox 3.6, Java will not work unless you are using
    > the Next-Generation Java Plug-In (included in Java 6 Update 10 and above)"
    >
    > "Note: Starting in Firefox 3.6 "Enable Java" is no longer available in
    > options/preferences and you must use the Add-ons manager."
    >
    > So the memory usage, may depend on whether using separate processes to
    > run java, results in a higher total memory usage. An interesting question,
    > would be whether there would be a Task Manager entry when Java is running.
    >
    > Since I don't install Java a lot, I've never run into this aspect
    > of it. I didn't know there was even any effort going into the
    > Java stuff. I'd assumed it was more less "dead" or "sleeping" :)
    > Like a parrot in a Monty Python's sketch.
    >
    > Paul


    That's just better sandboxing the Java applets, much like you get
    another chrome.exe process for every extension you install for Google
    Chrome. By not having the web browser as the parent which can crash and
    take the child with it, a separate process can continue running. More
    likely is that if the child crashes then it doesn't take the parent with
    it, so if there is a problem with the Java applet your web browser
    continues to run.

    The other reason for this process separation is to allow multiple
    versions of Java to be used with different applets. In the past, all
    Java applets used the same version of Java yet some relied on old
    functionality that was lost or changed in a newer version. With Java
    applications, you can decide which Java interpreter to use and why you
    can end up with multiple versions of Java installed on your computer. I
    never ran across a problem where Java applets couldn't use the newest
    version of Java but then I don't have a lot of exposure to a wide range
    of old and new Java applets. I suspect this was more of something
    needed by businesses for old applets to eliminate having to either
    update their applets or force the use of an old version of Java.

    I found some more info on the next-gen plug-in at:

    http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javase/newapplets/
     
    VanguardLH, Jun 21, 2012
    #6
  7. jim

    jim Guest

    On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:56:35 -0400, in
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, Paul <>, wrote

    >jim wrote:
    >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:32:55 -0400, in
    >> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, Paul <>, wrote
    >>
    >>> jim wrote:
    >>>> Does anyone know about the efficiency/deficiency of having the Java
    >>>> "next-generation plug-in" enabled?
    >>>>
    >>>> jim
    >>> I don't use Java, so installing that would be a "deficiency".
    >>>
    >>> I don't currently use any Java applications (or visit Java web sites),
    >>> to need it.
    >>>
    >>> It's like a few things on the computer. If you don't use the
    >>> features, or use the code, there's no reason to waste
    >>> disk space on such.
    >>>
    >>> If you install Java, then any time you read of some new Java
    >>> malware being in circulation, and you haven't upgraded lately,
    >>> then you'll need to install the latest version. In many ways,
    >>> it's like maintaining Adobe Flash on a computer. And if I don't
    >>> install it, that's one less thing I have to worry about.
    >>>
    >>> The only serious application I've used, that relied on Java,
    >>> was some encrypting VPN software, so I could connect to the
    >>> servers at work. Once I no longer used that stuff, I could
    >>> uninstall the Java libraries.
    >>>
    >>> Paul

    >>
    >> I agree with your philosophy. A friend of mine calls me a computer
    >> "minimalist". That is mostly the case (I do have Java and Flash) and
    >> probably is the reason that when i had a disk problem and had to install
    >> .net framework 4 to run Seatools, a week later when i determined that the
    >> disk was stable and the changes/repairs were not of a fleeting nature that
    >> i uninstalled .net framework 4 using REVO uninstaller in advanced mode to
    >> (allegedly) remove all traces.
    >>
    >> I came across the following on the Mozilla secure server -- and no, i do
    >> not believe everything i read, but i did uncheck this option moreless as a
    >> test, so have your salt dose handy:
    >>
    >> ~~~~
    >> << Although the memory leak problem appears to have begun with the
    >> release of Firefox 12, it is actually not Firefox that is causing the
    >> problem. The problem is your friend and mine, Sun Java, whose concept of
    >> a "next-generation plug in" appears to be lag your computer to all hell.
    >>
    >> Go to your control panel, double click Java, and review your settings.
    >>
    >> There is an option [called] "Enable the next-generation java plug-in".
    >> Make sure you uncheck that.
    >>
    >> This fixed my Firefox memory problem (similar to those problems posted)
    >> immediately.
    >>
    >> You must disable the plug in through Java, it will override Firefox
    >> settings.
    >> I would like to end this by saying I have always hated Java, and regret
    >> that it is 2012 and that it is still in use. >>
    >>
    >> *Does this Java related "fix" ruin or turn off Java usage in Firefox 12,
    >> or does it just "disconnect" a probably faulty part of Java ? >>
    >> *
    >>
    >> *Answer back states:
    >> *
    >>
    >> Hi, disabling this option has had no effect on my web browsing
    >> experience, other than
    >>
    >> 1.) halving the memory usage by firefox.exe
    >> 2.) prevent firefox.exe process from still running after I have closed
    >> all firefox windows and tabs
    >>
    >> ~~~~
    >>
    >> Do I take the above as some kind of gospel? No.
    >> Was the OP talking about XP or Win7 or does it make any difference with
    >> the cross-platform Java? I dunno.
    >>
    >> I did not notice any significant difference, but how many people can
    >> really notice l the difference in 1/10 and 1/25 of a second in an
    >> instruction by eyeballing it? It is when 1000 instructions at those two
    >> speeds are done consecutively that one can notice the difference.
    >>
    >> (If anyone wonders where this option is, it is under the "advanced" tab of
    >> the Java Control panel and then under the obscure subcategory of
    >> "plugin".)
    >>
    >> I was wondering if there was any XP-specific experience on this.
    >>
    >> jim
    >>

    >
    >I can find a reference to that plug-in here. Introduced around Firefox 3 timeframe.
    >
    >http://www.java.com/en/download/help/new_plugin.xml
    >
    > "As a result the next-generation plug-in runs applets outside of the browser
    > in one or more separate processes. Applets still appear inside of the
    > web browser window..."
    >
    >http://kb.mozillazine.org/Java
    >
    > "Important: Starting in Firefox 3.6, Java will not work unless you are using
    > the Next-Generation Java Plug-In (included in Java 6 Update 10 and above)"
    >
    > "Note: Starting in Firefox 3.6 "Enable Java" is no longer available in
    > options/preferences and you must use the Add-ons manager."
    >
    >So the memory usage, may depend on whether using separate processes to
    >run java, results in a higher total memory usage. An interesting question,
    >would be whether there would be a Task Manager entry when Java is running.
    >
    >Since I don't install Java a lot, I've never run into this aspect
    >of it. I didn't know there was even any effort going into the
    >Java stuff. I'd assumed it was more less "dead" or "sleeping" :)
    >Like a parrot in a Monty Python's sketch.
    >
    > Paul



    Whatever happened it did not seem to make much difference. This
    screenshot is a 5 minutes ago result of an old on-line app that runs
    javascript and a java applet, but it is good enough..........
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14875021/java.jpg

    jim
     
    jim, Jun 21, 2012
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tony
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    568
  2. Avatar_e
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,851
    Plato
    Jun 20, 2006
  3. Bill Rowland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    536
    Bill Rowland
    Dec 6, 2007
  4. barilaco

    Java plug-in control panel

    barilaco, Apr 17, 2008, in forum: Windows XP General
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    167
    Allan
    Apr 18, 2008
  5. Zinfan
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,083
    The Seabat
    May 23, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page