Saving YouTube Videos via New FireFox V14


J

jaugustine

Hi,
I have been using FireFox 3.6 and Flash player plug in V10 for some
time, and if I wanted to save a YouTube video(s), I know how to save it/them
from the Cache. Note: I have my own technique.

Today I went to YouTube, but I no longer can view videos with my
older Flash plug in. I could not install a newer Flash plug in unless I have
FireFox 4.0 or later. I couldn't find that version at Mozilla's web site so
I downloaded FireFox 14 (newest FireFox). After installing the new FireFox,
I had no trouble downloading/installing the Flash player plug in V11.

I had no trouble viewing a video(s) at YouTube, but now I can
not save the video(s) from the Cache because it is no longer a "single
location", but contains multiple locations. The video is no longer a single
file, but "split" into parts.

I suppose there may be a plug in that would allow me to save a
YouTube video, but I have no clue what it is. Do you know?

Thank You in Advance, John
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

I have been using FireFox 3.6 and Flash player plug in V10 for some
time, and if I wanted to save a YouTube video(s), I know how to save it/them
from the Cache. Note: I have my own technique.

Today I went to YouTube, but I no longer can view videos with my
older Flash plug in. I could not install a newer Flash plug in unless I have
FireFox 4.0 or later. I couldn't find that version at Mozilla's web site so
I downloaded FireFox 14 (newest FireFox). After installing the new FireFox,
I had no trouble downloading/installing the Flash player plug in V11.

I had no trouble viewing a video(s) at YouTube, but now I can
not save the video(s) from the Cache because it is no longer a "single
location", but contains multiple locations. The video is no longer a single
file, but "split" into parts.

I suppose there may be a plug in that would allow me to save a
YouTube video, but I have no clue what it is. Do you know?

The Firefox add-on I use is called Easy Youtube Video Downloader 6.2,
and I think this is the homepage: http://www.bestvideodownloader.com/
although I initially found it via Firefox's 'search add-ons' function.

Once you install it and visit a youtube page, it adds a "Download"
button to the page, just below the video. When you click the button,
you get multiple choices of quality and can download just the audio,
or video with audio. It seems to work perfectly.
 
P

Paul

Hi,
I have been using FireFox 3.6 and Flash player plug in V10 for some
time, and if I wanted to save a YouTube video(s), I know how to save it/them
from the Cache. Note: I have my own technique.

Today I went to YouTube, but I no longer can view videos with my
older Flash plug in. I could not install a newer Flash plug in unless I have
FireFox 4.0 or later. I couldn't find that version at Mozilla's web site so
I downloaded FireFox 14 (newest FireFox). After installing the new FireFox,
I had no trouble downloading/installing the Flash player plug in V11.

I had no trouble viewing a video(s) at YouTube, but now I can
not save the video(s) from the Cache because it is no longer a "single
location", but contains multiple locations. The video is no longer a single
file, but "split" into parts.

I suppose there may be a plug in that would allow me to save a
YouTube video, but I have no clue what it is. Do you know?

Thank You in Advance, John

You can get any version of Firefox you want.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/4.0.1/win32/en-US/

Firefox Setup 4.0.1.exe 12229 KB 4/14/2011 12:00:00 AM

They don't really want you using that server, like for regular
software updates. But for a one-off, if you can't find the file
elsewhere (like on a mirror), you can get it there.

You can also get source from there, which is why I went there. Building
a copy for yourself, is a fair amount of work (and almost 2GB
of other downloads required, until you figure out what is really
needed). I was building a copy for Win2K at the time, with debugging
enabled.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.6.28/source/

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1456/v3628running.gif

Paul
 
C

Char Jackson

He could also try the sites: www.oldversion.com, and www.oldapps.com,
which have a lot of old versions of such software. I find them
indispensable, since "newer" is often "worse" (more bloat and (usually) more
useless features).

I've never understood the mindset of people who universally gravitate
toward older versions of popular software. There are exceptions where
'older is (arguably) better', but those exceptions are very few and
far between.
 
C

Char Jackson

I've got the older Firefox 3.5.8, with Flash 10.3.183 as the plug-in, and
have no problem playing YouTube videos, so I don't think you have to update
FF. So (possibly) this problem developed with the 3.6 and later builds, I
don't know. I *do* recall reading about some potential minor issues with
Java installations on the later builds (which can be resolved).

The OP said he has no trouble viewing videos. His question was about
saving them.
 
C

Char Jackson

THAT was AFTER he installed the new FF. See the "but now I can not save
the video" part?

So like I said, the OP says he has no trouble viewing youtube videos.
His question was about saving them. David Lipman and I gave him a
couple of options that will get him back on track.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

Well, there are some people on this planet that blindly subscribe to the
mantra that "newer is always better - by definition". And flashier is
always better.

I agree that there are people like that and IMHO they are right far
more often than not. They aren't right all the time, however, and
that's the problem with generalities. Newer isn't always better. Newer
is only *almost* always better.
Here's an example:

Try restoring an audio file using something like Cool Edit Pro or Adobe
Audition 1.5 vs the current version of Adobe Audition. And get back to me.

I've used Cool Edit Pro back in the day, then Adobe Audition 1.5, 2.0,
and 3.0. To be honest, when it comes to Audition, I'd have to check
the About menu to see the version info. They all work and look alike
to me, and all of the Audition versions are so close to Cool Edit Pro
that if you can use one, you can use the other. What problem were you
having?
Or using Office 2010 (or whatever) vs Office 2000 for normal work. (but
maybe you're one of those ribbon people, I don't know).

I use Office 2003 and Office 2010. I don't have problems moving back
and forth. What problem are you having?
Or the latest versions of most ANY software, for that matter. Oh, and you
can throw in the latest versions of Firefox there too. Or (heaven help us,
something like (egads) Google Chrome. Oh, and computing on the cloud,
while you're at it.

I've never used Chrome, but from what I can tell the rest of your
examples are swings and misses. Most *ANY* software? Seriously?
The bottom line: it all comes down to added bloat, more eye candy, longer
start up times, a much less trim interface, and a TON of extra features,
used or needed by perhaps 1% of the population. Perhaps you like that.

When features are added that make my life easier, I applaud that. When
security holes are plugged, I like that, too. You're not obligated to
use every feature of every one of your applications. Restrain yourself
and you should be fine.
For me, as is so often the case, and provided one is open enough to be
enlightened, the maxim, "Less Is More", is indeed a wise one. It's a pity
that so many .... miss getting it.

For me, less is usually less. YMMV
 
C

Char Jackson

Let me repeat what he wrote, since you apparently missed it:


The "saving" part was a second complaint (and I haven't had a problem with
that either, nor with installing Flash 10.3.182, which works fine)

Looks like you missed this part, which is the part I was addressing
above:
As you can see, in this section the OP says he has no trouble viewing
youtube videos but is no longer able to save them. Maybe now my
suggestion to the OP will make more sense to you.
 
C

Char Jackson

Since you didn't comment on the point above, I can safely assume that
you agree that "newer is almost always better". It's nice that we have
a bit of common ground.
Well, that's the problem right there. If you can't see the difference, I
can't add much. :) No, they don't look and work quite the same.

Well, ok, I guess you could state that apples and oranges are both fruits,
and are pretty much the same, and make your point. But I sure can tell and
appreciate the differences, however

Of the 4 programs, (Cool Edit Pro and 3 versions of Audition), if you
can use one you can use them all. It wouldn't be correct to say that
there are NO differences, but the differences are so slight that they
are mostly not noteworthy. I'm not aware of any differences that would
require a person to consult the help file, for example. After all,
they are all versions of the exact same program.

If you're having as much trouble with "bloat" and slow load times as
you repeatedly say, have you considered that it's your old hardware
that's the real culprit? Not everyone is still using the same hardware
that they were using 10-14 years ago. You certainly don't have to
upgrade if you can't or don't want to, but if that's the case it's not
really fair to complain. What you call bloat, the rest of us call
features. Why should one group of people have to give up things that
they've come to enjoy and rely on, just to keep a tiny minority happy?
Having to put up with a stupid, dumbed down, interface, AND the added bloat
and start up times, just to load that stupid bimbo *pane* interface in the
newer versions 2.0 and above (which wastes half the screen, of all things).

See above, please.
Seriously. Even when I've had to update some video apps to work with MP4
files, the somewhat older versions are much less bloated, and more direct,
and load faster. For example, I really don't need - OR WANT - a dumbass
Facebook or Twitter applet added to any of my software "for my convenience".

A program that loads blazingly fast and doesn't do what you need is
worthless.
But they often don't. In fact, quite to the contrary. It's just added
baggageware.

My opinion differs greatly from yours.
Why should I have to even bother with (or seeing) the added extra garbage?

Why do you refer to features that you don't use as garbage?
 
D

David H. Lipman

From: "Bill in Co" <[email protected]>


BTW: That's easily solved.

In FireFox; about.config
In "filter" field type; user
Find; general.useragent.extra.firefox
Change to; Firefox/7.0

Now the User-Agent will indicate its FireFox v7.0 and the latest Flash can be installed.
Easy!
 
M

Metspitzer

Hi,
I have been using FireFox 3.6 and Flash player plug in V10 for some
time, and if I wanted to save a YouTube video(s), I know how to save it/them
from the Cache. Note: I have my own technique.

Today I went to YouTube, but I no longer can view videos with my
older Flash plug in. I could not install a newer Flash plug in unless I have
FireFox 4.0 or later. I couldn't find that version at Mozilla's web site so
I downloaded FireFox 14 (newest FireFox). After installing the new FireFox,
I had no trouble downloading/installing the Flash player plug in V11.

I had no trouble viewing a video(s) at YouTube, but now I can
not save the video(s) from the Cache because it is no longer a "single
location", but contains multiple locations. The video is no longer a single
file, but "split" into parts.

I suppose there may be a plug in that would allow me to save a
YouTube video, but I have no clue what it is. Do you know?

Thank You in Advance, John
Just found this. Never tried it so use at your own risk.

http://lifehacker.com/5927303/direc...channels-or-all-your-favorites-in-glorious-hd
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

<snip> READ that part above again.

OK. Let's try this again. As per above, "today" (when he was STILL using
FF 3.6, BEFORE upgrading to the new version) he wasn't able to view YouTube
videos. Nor was he able to save them.

It was only at THIS point that he decided to upgrade FF to version 11, which
he didn't have to do, as I said. Ditto on the Flash plugin (10.3.182 works
fine)


One of us isn't getting what he said. To repeat, as I read it, BEFORE he
updated Firefox (which happened after his so called "today"), he was
suddenly unable to view YouTube videos nor save them.

I trimmed it above for you to see.

I give up.
 
C

Char Jackson

Bah, humbug.


You know what they say about "assume". No, you got it wrong. Newer is
(more often) worse.

I'm still driving a 1988 Nissan. When I go to rent a car at an airport, I'm
faced with a bunch of crap in that car that 1) I don't need, and 2) I don't
want, and 3) takes more time than its worth to figure out and even bother
with (and which of course, changes each year). That's not what I want. I
want simplicity.

The basics, the things you absolutely need, haven't changed. You still
have a place to put the ignition key, a seat facing forward, a
steering wheel, gas and brake pedals, etc. What is there to figure
out? Do you have any idea how old you sound right now? Not in calendar
years, necessarily, but in spirit and attitude. I hope I never get to
where you are, but sadly, I suppose I eventually will. I expect to be
somewhat horrified the day I realize that it happened to me.

If you feel the need to have some hi-tech flashy dash panel to make you feel
like a super stud flying a jet plane, go for it. I don't.

I don't remember saying anything like that.

Exactly. But that's really kind of an understatement... just a little,
LOL.


Gimme a break.
Then again, perhaps you would have said the same about comparing Windows
versions like Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 (which WAS a good update). Sure, I
could them both, but their differences were noteworthy. (I expect you'd say
they weren't, however, judging from your "sensitivity").


Sure I can use them all. But the later editions of Audition (with the
paneled, bimbo-like, interface taking up half the screen - and the bloat -
belong in the dump.

I'm guessing it's your attitude that's getting in your way, much more
than any program differences. Words like 'bimbo' and 'bloat' give it
away. Maybe I'm just not as easily confused as you seem to be. I'm
able to find and use the features of Audition that I need, and
anything extra just fades into the background, not bothering me in the
least.
Actually, that brings up a good point. Want to debate the USER
desireability and preference of using Windows XP, vs, say, Windows 7? You
think most *prefer* going to (or being driven to) Windows 7? I guess you
do.

Among my customer base, some use XP and some use 7. Both camps seem to
be equally happy. Personally, I'm satisfied with 7. There are a couple
of things I liked better in XP, but overall 7 is a giant step forward.
But I think you missed the point about the dumbed down panel interface. Or
rather, you actually like it. OMG. No, I guess it's just that you don't
care, as long as you can use it. That's a pretty low bar, though.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The differences are
so slight that I can't begin to understand what you mean when you talk
about bimbos and dumbed-down panels. Are you that easily distracted if
a program has a feature you don't need? Can't you just ignore the
things you don't need and focus on the things you do need?
Well, "worth" is in the eye of the beholder. We all have our likes. Some
people like bimbo-downed interfaces and eye candy. I don't.

What's your fascination with bimbos and eye candy? How did you jump to
the conclusion that I like eye candy? Was it something I said?
However, the software companies can't stay in business with just rolling out
the old stuff, hence the (nearly forced upon us) updates. Like with
Windows. Egads. Well you're probably a fan of Windows 7 and 8 too, I
expect.

Windows 7 is fine. I haven't looked at 8, yet. I'll tell you what I'm
not a fan of, though. I'm not a fan of remaining frozen in time. I no
longer use a C-64 or Amiga or any of the old Intel stuff. Times
change, and I change along with them. I don't have much sympathy for
people who decide to live in the past.
Because, at least in so many cases, it is? Or was that rhetorical?

Let's say it was rhetorical. That way, your answer doesn't seem as
silly as it otherwise would be.
 
C

Char Jackson

That's fine, as long as you're happy with going to that version of Firefox.
But you don't have to. Version 3.5.8 still works great over here (with
Flash 10.3.183). I don't need or want the extra bells and whistles in the
newer versions of FF. :) (I would have been happy and stayed with FF
2.0, but too many web sites complained).

If you were to follow his suggestion, you'd see that you're not
actually upgrading anything. You'd still be running your ancient
version. The only difference is that Firefox would lie when web
servers asked what version it is. You could probably even go back to
2.0 and do the same thing, since you seem to be fascinated with old
software.
 
B

Bob CP

Hi,
I have been using FireFox 3.6 and Flash player plug in V10 for some
time, and if I wanted to save a YouTube video(s), I know how to save it/them
from the Cache. Note: I have my own technique.

Today I went to YouTube, but I no longer can view videos with my
older Flash plug in. I could not install a newer Flash plug in unless I have
FireFox 4.0 or later. I couldn't find that version at Mozilla's web site so
I downloaded FireFox 14 (newest FireFox). After installing the new FireFox,
I had no trouble downloading/installing the Flash player plug in V11.

I had no trouble viewing a video(s) at YouTube, but now I can
not save the video(s) from the Cache because it is no longer a "single
location", but contains multiple locations. The video is no longer a single
file, but "split" into parts.

I suppose there may be a plug in that would allow me to save a
YouTube video, but I have no clue what it is. Do you know?

Thank You in Advance, John
I have both Downloadhelper (drop-down) and the the Realplayer (popup
button) add-on. You're making it hard on your self.

Go to Tools > Add-on for even more.
 
G

glee

Bill in Co said:
snip
I've got the older Firefox 3.5.8, with Flash 10.3.183 as the plug-in,
and have no problem playing YouTube videos, so I don't think you have
to update FF. So (possibly) this problem developed with the 3.6 and
later builds, I don't know. I *do* recall reading about some
potential minor issues with Java installations on the later builds
(which can be resolved).


....which makes you part of the problem with the proliferation of
malware. Using unsupported, outdated web-connected programs like
Firefox 3.5.8 and Flash 10.3.183 allow easy access for malware. There
are numerous critical security vulnerabilities that were not addressed
in FF3.5.x because the newer versions (including until this year
v.3.6.x) superseded it and updates were only made to the newer supported
versions.

For example, there were at least 14 vulnerabilities, most critical, in
Firefox 3.6 which were not patched in 3.5.x because it was no longer
supported, although it was also vulnerable. The newer versions of FF
include the security fixes.
http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=firefox+3.6

Flash 10.3.183 has at least one Highly Critical Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/46113/
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

I'm using a 17" monitor (probably unlike Char, with perhaps a 40" one. :)

And - most often using 800x600 screen resolution, which I really prefer over
1024x768, although it's getting hard to find some apps that will work with
that.

Your screen resolution is the biggest 'a ha!' moment to date. Almost
by itself, that explains almost everything you've been complaining
about. Now I know why you're so against the addition of features and
why you hang on to old versions of software that mostly seem
ridiculous by current standards but have a warm place in your heart.
In your case, screen real estate really is as precious as you've been
saying. I feel for you.

One of the people I've been supporting since 1991 is in the same boat,
a nice lady in her 80's. She constantly complains about having to
scroll horizontally. Well, that's not quite true. What she complains
about is all the crap on the screen that isn't necessary and how if it
were tidied up she wouldn't be forced to scroll sideways just to see
the things she wants to see. I tried bumping up her resolution a
notch, which completely eliminated the need for horizontal scrolling,
but the smaller text size was even more upsetting, so I had to put it
back. Her complaints haven't stopped, but now I know she isn't
interested in resolving the problem. She just likes to complain, and
that's only the tip of the iceberg. Still, she always serves pie and
ice cream after we have a session, so it's good.
I'm 100. Can't ya tell?

But I can't speak for him. (He's probably a youngster in his 40's. :)

Why stop speaking for me now? You've been on a roll, telling me how
much I like bloat and bimbo-interfaces, eye candy, and panels taking
up precious real estate. Let's also remember that you assumed I need
to be connected at all times, that I have a short attention span, need
high tech flashy interfaces, and much more.

Of course, I've done plenty of the same. I've surmised that you're old
well beyond your years, completely stuck in the past, unable to adapt
to the world around you and completely bewildered by most of what you
see. I picture you as a denture-wearing, "you kids get off of my
lawn!" kind of guy who finds comfort in things that were current some
decades ago.

When I think about how wrong you are in your assumptions and
conclusions about me, it makes me wonder if I'm as wrong about you.
Naw, I doubt it. ;-)

Have a good weekend! You too, John.
 
C

Char Jackson

...which makes you part of the problem with the proliferation of
malware. Using unsupported, outdated web-connected programs like
Firefox 3.5.8 and Flash 10.3.183 allow easy access for malware. There
are numerous critical security vulnerabilities that were not addressed
in FF3.5.x because the newer versions (including until this year
v.3.6.x) superseded it and updates were only made to the newer supported
versions.

For example, there were at least 14 vulnerabilities, most critical, in
Firefox 3.6 which were not patched in 3.5.x because it was no longer
supported, although it was also vulnerable. The newer versions of FF
include the security fixes.
http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=firefox+3.6

Flash 10.3.183 has at least one Highly Critical Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/46113/

What you say is absolutely true, but I wish you luck in getting the
message across. I've mostly found it darned hard to get people (not
speaking of Bill here, specifically) to accept any responsibility for
the interconnected community as a whole.

Taking it a big step further, on more than one occasion I've had
customers tell me not to remove malware from their computers because,
and I quote, "it's not bothering me, and removing it might break
something." Argh!
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

In message <[email protected]>, Bill in Co

No, this time, Bill, _you_'re not getting it. The suggestion of changing
the User-Agent string is a way of continuing to use an old version, but
making it _appear_ to webpages that you're using a later one, for the
brain-dead webpages that won't play ball unless you are.

I just saw his reply to your post and it's clear that he still thinks
it's some kind of upgrade that's being discussed. You can lead a horse
to water...
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top