Google Chrome* CRASH on Flash every 10 webpages browsed? *(Version 24.0.1312.56 m on Win7 Pro 64bits)

After a month of nightmare in constant crashes, I got the idea of this radical SOLUTION that works for me. And I hope for you too.


I edit the original post to add this now. Uninstalling Chrome + fresh install sometimes proved to resolve it all without even the need for the next steps.


In chrome address bar, type: chrome://extensions and deactivate a maximum of all those accumulated extensions you don't use daily.


Go to chrome://plugins and deactivate Chrome Flash Plug-in while keeping Adobe's one, as described in the chrome://plugins FIX.

3. Do that to ALL your Chrome USER PROFILES if you have.

That's right! And Google Chrome finally works now.
That resolved my issues. Well, not entirely but at least 95% stable instead of 85% UNstable.

4.  If it worked for you too, thank me & click an add on this page. Then share or leave a comment if it saved your life :)

My configuration :

Since I migrated from Windows XP Home 32 bits to Windows Seven Pro 64 bits, the same Chrome profiles that worked smoothly before became totally unstable and crashed on so many Flash plugged-in webpages. That's when you discover how many they are. HTML5 only pages are so awaited!! Flash has only been a security and crash nightmare since day one.
I had tried in vain the famous chrome://plugins FIX alone with every possible combinations but it never worked. I even uninstalled/re-installed Chrome and/or Flash independent Plugin in all possible combinations, then switched between all. Nothing seemed to make Chrome more stable. It always crashed painfully at the worst time, right in the middle of working with 6-12 tabs open on pages any other browser (Firefox, IE8/9) never fails on.
DEACTIVATING ALL EXTENSIONS you don't use on a daily basis finally resolved the issue. I don't really miss those and if I ever occasionally do, I can always reactivate them cause I did not delete them. Yet! Only 2 extensions left active for me: Chrome to Phone & Checker Plus for Gmail, out of a dozen installed over time before. I still don't know which extension exactly crashed Chrome and I don't plan on looking for it now.



<!-- http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/default.asp

We now can share hard-drives between PC & Mac!

GREAT NEWS for all of us with PC external hard-drives that Mac OS cannot read or write to:

One file system compatible with PC AND Mac.

At last Microsoft came up with a solution.

Format your external hard-drives with exFAT instead of NTFS. And Mac will be able to READ AND WRITE on PC external hard-drives.

The advantages and disadvantages of exFAT are listed in wikipedia here.
For your internal PC only use, keep NTFS.
NTFS (NT File System) formated drives can sometimes (sometimes not) be READ by Mac OS, depending on every folder/file Access Control List. But they sure can never be written to by the Macs. exFAT can be written to by Macs.



While investigating how to upgrade our home computing nervous cell, my non gaming multimedia workstation that also served as the home media file server, hours of reading finally made me realize that today, with more than 10 TB of data, it may be time to split the 2 functions into 2 machines:

#1. NAS or better file server for managing large amounts of datas (films, photos, medias, personal documents) 24/7 with low power consumption.

#2. Computing power for multimedia (video/photo/sound) editing, encoding for specific momentum uses (no more 24/7 power on).

RESULTS : 2 computers instead of 1?

Today's best CPU+Motherboard+RAM is only 2x faster than 5 years ago for the same power consumption (70-130W).

Latest Intel i7 3770K CPU + 8-16GB DDR3 RAM + Motherboard cost about 400€ today for 'only' 2x the encoding and overall speed of my actual Intel Q6600 Quad Core CPU + 4GB DDR2 RAM.

HD4000, the GPU (Graphic Processor Unit) of Intel i7 Ivy Bridge is very similar in performance to my actual cheap 2 year old passive graphic card HD5450. I am stunned it is no better. Power consumptions of the 2 GPUs are almost the same @idle and @100%.

Overall, 400€ seem expensive for an upgrade from which there is no hope to gain much power economy nor more than just a few minutes on heavy tasks like encoding that can run by night anyway. I may not upgrade before the gain/cost appears much more worth it.

#1 A power-wise more efficient 24/7 NAS/homeserver seems to maybe offer more perspective of evolution and gain/cost advantages.

There are several options so I will investigate that.

This http://www.willudesign.com/BlackDwarfTop.html very much looks like my dream tool. Am I alone? 


2013, January:

I'm on a mission to rebuild the home computing nervous cell: my workstation that also served for years as the media home server for most of our family music, films and photos.

I will detail the personal needs later but the first question that fast arises is :

Windows, Linux, Mac OSX?
Which OS for the workstation to choose?

Since I am not 'Apple'ized yet (for reasons I'll detail in another post), MacOSX is out. Even to run it in a virtual machine, as I tried already, you need another OS (Operating System) on top and a very powerful PC configuration.

I could have chosen an open source (free) Linux desktop distribution like famous Ubuntu but, to this day, in the Operating Systems choices, Windows still appears to be the most :

- Distributed : so it is easy to find some unused legal key somewhere in your friends/familly. Each key allows legal multiple installations and the original installation DVDs ISOs (images, copies) are free to legally download from Microsoft itself here.

- Versatile : the most compatible with all sorts of hardware and softwares you throw at it later.

- Powerful : no doubt, Windows Seven Pro 64 bits rocked my previous XP 32 bits Home edition on the same hardware.

I cannot believe I am writing a post on Why Windows? It hurts indeed. but reason is reason.

XP, Seven, 8?
Now which version of Windows to choose?

XP 32 bits Home edition (the cheapest XP) worked great to me to this day. But definitely Windows Seven is better on several technical aspects, years advanced. And XP support will end soon, in 2014. It means no more patches and bug fixes to strike back at the infinite security holes and threats coming up every week. And no more support on new hardware drivers, etc... XP death is planned now.

Windows 8? I hate it already (so far) for being this monstruous unthinkable hybrid made at the same time for tactile tablets as much as for traditional non tactile workstation and screens. What nonsense to my mind so far. out Windows 8.

By elimination, rests Windows Seven.

Home or Professional edition?
So Windows Seven it will be! But which?

Windows 7 Home edition is fine for most. Now if you want to share and serve files from that workstation to other computers/devices in the house and keep some levels of control on who has access to what and privacyyou need Windows 7 Professional edition otherwise it becomes a nightmare in Home edition. At least it did to me on XP.

By privacy, I just mean that you don't need your kids or nannies with any laptop, tablet or phone to access your financial quicken files or work documents that you, on your side, could need to get access to anywhere in the house from your laptop in your living room or bed for example. And with use, come tons of situations where you can want to control the rights of access to whom for specific folders and files. So the Pro edition is the one. Plus it adds lots of other usefull features.

There might be other ways to control and manage the level of access and security to your shared files and folders on your Windows Network but I have searched extensively for free or commercial solutions and have seriously found none that would not require highly technical learning curves none of us has any time to spare when you can just get it fast and working in the Pro edition.

32 bits or 64 bits?
So Windows Seven Pro it will be! But which (again!?!)

Fast easy reply in a single sentence: GO 64 bits unless your CPU+harware is not compatible* or only have 2x1GB RAM and cannot go higher. *Microsoft offers a freeware to determine if your hardware is 64 bits compatible. Now some details and nuances...

The first main easy answer to the 32 bits or 64 bits question is RAM (Random Access Memory, the fastest memory used for computing by your computer, the one that disappears when you turn the power switch off, unlike hard drives that keep datas in)

32 bits Win7 can NOT see nor use more than 3.6 GB of RAM even if you have 2x2 GB or 2x4 or 2x8 or 2x16GB plugged in your motherboard. 32 bits editions will only see 3.6 GB. Punkt!

64 bits Win7 will use ALL the RAM you throw at it, up to 32 GB today (2x2x8GB). Cool! But why would I need it? This 32 bits vs. 64 bits debate leads to another main eternal computer users' question:

Do I need more RAM? Why would I need more than 3.6 GB of RAM => 64 bits edition?

Reply in a simple sentence: In Windows Seven, you would ONLY benefit from more than 4 GB of RAM (=need 64 bits Win7) in tasks similar to intensive gaming/video/photo/sound/3D editing/mixing/rendering and to a lesser degree encoding. And we are not talking about the tries of casual beginners here but of the daily work of heavy users, mostly professionals.

For most daily office/leisure uses like internet (mail, websurfing, blogging), Office, etc... home file serving and even simple photo corrections and casual video editing or DVD/BluRay ripping and encoding, 4 GB RAM (DDR2 or DDR3) is quite enough and you do NOT absolutely need more.

In fact, several tests have proved that in these very usual uses that concerns a majority of computer users, in Windows Seven, one can only observe a drastic increase (x2) of performance and tasks speed from 2 GB RAM to 4 GB RAM, but not much from 4GB to 8GB and nothing above. More than 4GB RAM in Win7 will only let you perform faster (from only 25% to 100%, depending of other factors) the intensive tasks mentioned above and open web browser tabs by multiple of dozens without ever closing any. Not everyone needs that.

So the 32 bits edition should be enough for most, even me who do some intensive multimedia work once in a while, but not all day long.

But yet I opted for the 64 bits edition of Windows 7 with 2x2GB DDR2 RAM and I never regret it. Why?

- If your computer configuration is recent (since 2009), DDR3 RAM is very cheap: 35€ for 2x4GB, 70€ for 2x8GB as of today (Jan 2013). So it makes sense to buy 8GB RAM minimum and you would thus need 64 bits edition to use your 8+GB RAM.

- If your computer configuration is as old as my 2007/10 Intel Quad Core Q6600 on a GA-P35-DS4 Motherboard with 2x2GB DDR2 RAM (+2x1GB spare DDR2 bars I could use as well)?
This DDR2 is about twice more expensive than today DDR3 and I don't plan on changing the whole combination of CPU+Motherboard+RAM with another 500€ bill so fast. And we saw there would be NO gain to spend another 40€ to double DDR2 RAM to 8GB.

Should I switch to 2x4GB DDR3 for 35€? NO.
First, DDR3 bars are not compatible with DDR2 slots. And tests proved that DDR3 higher clock frequency brings NO seriously visible gain in reality to DDR2.
So changing DDR2 RAM to DDR3 RAM is a dead end idea.

I kept my 2x2GB DDR2 RAM and installed Win 7 64 bits for better handling my RAM and overall Operating stability and speed when 64 bits softwares exist. Note that all legacy 32 bits software run smoothly on Win 7 64 bits because 64 bits computing is just 2x32 bits computing in parallel. And the milliseconds delays noticed in some benchmarks between 32bits apps running under 64 bits vs. 32 bits Windows Seven are ridiculous amounts in real life, so they run about the same speed unless you are Steve Austin with bionic powers able to get mad at loosing milliseconds or even seconds on tasks you do once a month if not a year.

GO Windows Seven Pro 64 bits on SSD if you can. You really won't regret it.



On the advises and warm encouragements of a crypto geek very old friend, I open this blog to share my consumer thorough investigations on electronic technologies (computers, cameras, appliances) and computer softwares and hardware daily issues.  

Since I've been experiencing and researching for 20 years now, I should at last finally share the results of my next hundreds of hours of reading, benchmarking, products comparisons and personal experiences in order to buy or use the best value for money and thus discuss the marketing hype.