Or uses Safari. I have to use firefox quite a bit still due to compatibility issues with Safari.
The one little devils advocate thing here is that Chrome for Mac is still very much a work in process, I don't know how much we can to get from its test results.
I think that is Job's (alleged) point. It seems reasonable, but it isn't being done. Xcode is free to download and available for adobe to use. All the objective C frameworks are in place to access the hardware.
The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy and start being progressive like they used to in the past. I yawned when I saw the CS3 to CS4 feature changes. Same story on flash. No improvements and only overload added.
Exactly. Looking at After Effects (which compiles code to run on the GPU realtime), they certainly have the skill to do something like this. Since Flash is just used for playing back video 99% of the time, they could at least optimize this use case. I'm no Flash expert, but I think Flash is based purely on a painters model which isn't very efficient to begin with. Modern systems only use a painters model for things that don't change very often.
Apple provide access to the Quicktime framework. Adobe just wants direct access to the hardware, and there is no reason for that other than to introduce security holes and instability. If they would be willing to stick with the proper API than they wouldn't have such a preformance problem (with video anyway).
Anyone able to explain to me how it is that applications like VLC or mplayer are able to accomplish H.264 acceleration if there is no direct access to that feature? What is it exactly that Adobe needs to make this happen?
One just gets the feeling like somewhere some Apple guy is picking apart the Adobe flash code with Steve & going, "what the heck is this garbage?! They seriously can't believe we want this crap running on our mobile devices, it'll ruin our reputation!"
The main stink is Flash on mobile devices. Flash on desktops is bad enough. I find it a bit odd as to why the discussion is flash on the desktop. Efficient or not, full PC's can handle Flash. Stability is another issue.
Why isn't there a comparison between HTML5 on the iPhone vs. Flash on Android or something? It's mobile platforms that's making the most noise.
Excellent point, this study is garbage. Jobs didn't mean a cpu hog for desktops, he meant so for mobile devices.
The article was not very clear on the procedure used with respect to that percentage issue.
On dual core for example Mac full CPU usage = 200% where full usage on Windows is 100%
Which would mean you have to scale the Windows numbers to match the range on the mac numbers. This report to me looks like it was custom tailored to bend the number in favor of the selected outcome. Much like the data being used in the global warming debate.
Quote:
So maybe my math is faulty or the data needs adjusting but it makes Flash look even less of a CPU hog.
No I think you are going the wrong way you would need to scale the Windows numbers to a range of zero to 200% given that both machines are on dual core hardware. But there are even questions here such as the threading model used by Flash, the actual number of thread and the accumulated processor usage numbers. Frankly I trust Unix accounting a little more than Windows but in the long run there is to little data here for some body to make their own deductions.
Quote:
I think one of the things that you hear a lot is that as soon as you click on a Flash element you hear the hard drive and the fans come on. That could be because you are running Click2Flash which is blocking the plugin. When you click it the plugin launches. This behavior is different if the plugin loads when the browser is launched without Click2Flash. In the later case you don't sense the ramp of launch on click, making it much less noticeable.
But with all the ads you have to run Click2Flash.
Yes this is by far the most important Plugin I've ever installed it just makes the web that much more usable.
What I find interesting here is that people think that Flash works well on Windows machines. It really doesn't unless you have a lot of hardware to throw at it. This is the whole point of 10.1 to leverage as much hardware as possible to make Flash bearable on Windows. Don't believe me, then try running Flash on a PC with Intel integrated GPU tech.
It is notable that you mention the spinning fans. Run Flash on a PC with the required virus checker/blockers and you will really hear those fans crank up. Using more hardware to get results that barely match the HTML5 approach isn't better performance, it is performance at a cost.
Excellent point, this study is garbage. Jobs didn't mean a cpu hog for desktops, he meant so for mobile devices.
Mobile devices are where the current issue is. But obviously there is discontent with Flash on the desktop too. There is a reason so many of us run Click-to-flash.
Yes. When Joe Shmoe goes to a flash internet site, and it will not work, he realizes right away that Flash is not part of the whole internet. And as we all know, only geeks care about watching video adjacent to the internet.
Excellent point, this study is garbage. Jobs didn't mean a cpu hog for desktops, he meant so for mobile devices.
The study is useless for more than that reason. I wouldn't even venture to call it a study, more like someone threw together some quick tests in order to conclude that Flash was still a viable competitor.
It's hard to really compare HTML 5 when the standard is still being finalized & most HTML 5 pages are in beta right now. When it passes final draft & starts being used you will see Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, & all the others get significant updates that will enable HTML 5 on both systems. Then & only then can you really compare performance side by side.
There are other factors to consider as well in this, pure measurement of CPU might also be misleading. Like many have already said, this really should have been directed towards flash vs HTML 5 on mobile devices since in the end Adobe can't even currently provide a fully functional player for any mobile device.
This was just a bad test & it really doesn't tell us anything about how HTML 5 will stand against flash in the real world.
For IO like Mic or Webcam, for Augmented reality, Marker Detection etc.
And for designer it's Timeline animation.
Designers are not gona create interactive adverts in Javascript. We need timeline- and WYSIWYG editors for HTML5 and JavaScript.
And javascript, dom, etc. needs an overhaul for this too. It would be well suited as a flash replacement with a few minor changes. Personally, I think the ECMA, Mozilla, or whoever controls JavaScript these days should identify these areas create some additions that allow easier rich editor integration with JavaScript. I'm sure there are some issues with packaging, code reuse, and streaming. Maybe some of these will be addressed with things like HTML5 web sockets. I think JavaScript needs some sort of reusable package format for it to scale to larger frameworks.
Yeah! "CPU hog" means what we say it means! And we mean for mobile devices.
Flash is a CPU hog. Get over it!
Of course it means what the one who said it intended it to mean. It doesn't mean whatever the heck you 'd want it to mean for sure. That's the way conversation works. Steve clearly referred to flash being a cpu hog in response to the (moronic) no flash support debate on the ipad, ipod, iphone devices. He hasn't banned flash on macs.
Like the other poster here said, let's do a test of how well flash runs on a mobile device such as an android, what the battery and performance penalties are.
HTML5 is not natively supported in Firefox or Internet Explorer, but the update from Flash 10 to Flash 10.1 improved CPU performance for the browsers by 73 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Flash 10.1 in Windows offers added hardware acceleration.
Wrong. The H.264 Videos on YouTube are not natively supported in the HTML 5 support in Firefox because Firefox doesn't have a license for the codec.
Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.
So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?
So the the question then is why would anyone buy a PC to surf the net when you could buy a Mac and view web-content faster and more efficiently (if only the web wasn't riddled with closed access content you need a insecure and slow plugin to see! ).
I think that is Job's (alleged) point. It seems reasonable, but it isn't being done. Xcode is free to download and available for adobe to use. All the objective C frameworks are in place to access the hardware.
The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy and start being progressive like they used to in the past. I yawned when I saw the CS3 to CS4 feature changes. Same story on flash. No improvements and only overload added.
Comments
Not everyone's on a Mac
Or uses Safari. I have to use firefox quite a bit still due to compatibility issues with Safari.
The one little devils advocate thing here is that Chrome for Mac is still very much a work in process, I don't know how much we can to get from its test results.
I think that is Job's (alleged) point. It seems reasonable, but it isn't being done. Xcode is free to download and available for adobe to use. All the objective C frameworks are in place to access the hardware.
The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy and start being progressive like they used to in the past. I yawned when I saw the CS3 to CS4 feature changes. Same story on flash. No improvements and only overload added.
Exactly. Looking at After Effects (which compiles code to run on the GPU realtime), they certainly have the skill to do something like this. Since Flash is just used for playing back video 99% of the time, they could at least optimize this use case. I'm no Flash expert, but I think Flash is based purely on a painters model which isn't very efficient to begin with. Modern systems only use a painters model for things that don't change very often.
Apple provide access to the Quicktime framework. Adobe just wants direct access to the hardware, and there is no reason for that other than to introduce security holes and instability. If they would be willing to stick with the proper API than they wouldn't have such a preformance problem (with video anyway).
Anyone able to explain to me how it is that applications like VLC or mplayer are able to accomplish H.264 acceleration if there is no direct access to that feature? What is it exactly that Adobe needs to make this happen?
One just gets the feeling like somewhere some Apple guy is picking apart the Adobe flash code with Steve & going, "what the heck is this garbage?! They seriously can't believe we want this crap running on our mobile devices, it'll ruin our reputation!"
The main stink is Flash on mobile devices. Flash on desktops is bad enough. I find it a bit odd as to why the discussion is flash on the desktop. Efficient or not, full PC's can handle Flash. Stability is another issue.
Why isn't there a comparison between HTML5 on the iPhone vs. Flash on Android or something? It's mobile platforms that's making the most noise.
Excellent point, this study is garbage. Jobs didn't mean a cpu hog for desktops, he meant so for mobile devices.
The article was not very clear on the procedure used with respect to that percentage issue.
On dual core for example Mac full CPU usage = 200% where full usage on Windows is 100%
Which would mean you have to scale the Windows numbers to match the range on the mac numbers. This report to me looks like it was custom tailored to bend the number in favor of the selected outcome. Much like the data being used in the global warming debate.
So maybe my math is faulty or the data needs adjusting but it makes Flash look even less of a CPU hog.
No I think you are going the wrong way you would need to scale the Windows numbers to a range of zero to 200% given that both machines are on dual core hardware. But there are even questions here such as the threading model used by Flash, the actual number of thread and the accumulated processor usage numbers. Frankly I trust Unix accounting a little more than Windows but in the long run there is to little data here for some body to make their own deductions.
I think one of the things that you hear a lot is that as soon as you click on a Flash element you hear the hard drive and the fans come on. That could be because you are running Click2Flash which is blocking the plugin. When you click it the plugin launches. This behavior is different if the plugin loads when the browser is launched without Click2Flash. In the later case you don't sense the ramp of launch on click, making it much less noticeable.
But with all the ads you have to run Click2Flash.
Yes this is by far the most important Plugin I've ever installed it just makes the web that much more usable.
What I find interesting here is that people think that Flash works well on Windows machines. It really doesn't unless you have a lot of hardware to throw at it. This is the whole point of 10.1 to leverage as much hardware as possible to make Flash bearable on Windows. Don't believe me, then try running Flash on a PC with Intel integrated GPU tech.
It is notable that you mention the spinning fans. Run Flash on a PC with the required virus checker/blockers and you will really hear those fans crank up. Using more hardware to get results that barely match the HTML5 approach isn't better performance, it is performance at a cost.
Dave
Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.
So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?
... said the guy who's never been within 10 feet of a Mac...
So why would anyone want Flash over HTML5?
For IO like Mic or Webcam, for Augmented reality, Marker Detection etc.
And for designer it's Timeline animation.
Designers are not gona create interactive adverts in Javascript. We need timeline- and WYSIWYG editors for HTML5 and JavaScript.
Excellent point, this study is garbage. Jobs didn't mean a cpu hog for desktops, he meant so for mobile devices.
Yeah! "CPU hog" means what we say it means! And we mean for mobile devices.
Flash is a CPU hog. Get over it!
These folks (Streaming Learning Center) sell flash lessons.
Conflict of interest? Protecting their interests?
Dunno, what do you think?
Excellent point, this study is garbage. Jobs didn't mean a cpu hog for desktops, he meant so for mobile devices.
Mobile devices are where the current issue is. But obviously there is discontent with Flash on the desktop too. There is a reason so many of us run Click-to-flash.
Designers are not gona create interactive adverts in Javascript.
Do you promise? Oh, say it's true, oh do.
Yes. When Joe Shmoe goes to a flash internet site, and it will not work, he realizes right away that Flash is not part of the whole internet. And as we all know, only geeks care about watching video adjacent to the internet.
You fail to catch his point.
For IO like Mic or Webcam, for Augmented reality, Marker Detection etc.
And for designer it's Timeline animation.
Designers are not gona create interactive adverts in Javascript. We need timeline- and WYSIWYG editors for HTML5 and JavaScript.
Adobe—the makers of Flash—is adding HTML5 support to CS5.
Excellent point, this study is garbage. Jobs didn't mean a cpu hog for desktops, he meant so for mobile devices.
The study is useless for more than that reason. I wouldn't even venture to call it a study, more like someone threw together some quick tests in order to conclude that Flash was still a viable competitor.
It's hard to really compare HTML 5 when the standard is still being finalized & most HTML 5 pages are in beta right now. When it passes final draft & starts being used you will see Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, & all the others get significant updates that will enable HTML 5 on both systems. Then & only then can you really compare performance side by side.
There are other factors to consider as well in this, pure measurement of CPU might also be misleading. Like many have already said, this really should have been directed towards flash vs HTML 5 on mobile devices since in the end Adobe can't even currently provide a fully functional player for any mobile device.
This was just a bad test & it really doesn't tell us anything about how HTML 5 will stand against flash in the real world.
Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.
So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?
No one does actually want a Mac over a PC, since Flash is the only reason to own and use a computer.
For IO like Mic or Webcam, for Augmented reality, Marker Detection etc.
And for designer it's Timeline animation.
Designers are not gona create interactive adverts in Javascript. We need timeline- and WYSIWYG editors for HTML5 and JavaScript.
And javascript, dom, etc. needs an overhaul for this too. It would be well suited as a flash replacement with a few minor changes. Personally, I think the ECMA, Mozilla, or whoever controls JavaScript these days should identify these areas create some additions that allow easier rich editor integration with JavaScript. I'm sure there are some issues with packaging, code reuse, and streaming. Maybe some of these will be addressed with things like HTML5 web sockets. I think JavaScript needs some sort of reusable package format for it to scale to larger frameworks.
Yeah! "CPU hog" means what we say it means! And we mean for mobile devices.
Flash is a CPU hog. Get over it!
Of course it means what the one who said it intended it to mean. It doesn't mean whatever the heck you 'd want it to mean for sure. That's the way conversation works. Steve clearly referred to flash being a cpu hog in response to the (moronic) no flash support debate on the ipad, ipod, iphone devices. He hasn't banned flash on macs.
Like the other poster here said, let's do a test of how well flash runs on a mobile device such as an android, what the battery and performance penalties are.
HTML5 is not natively supported in Firefox or Internet Explorer, but the update from Flash 10 to Flash 10.1 improved CPU performance for the browsers by 73 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Flash 10.1 in Windows offers added hardware acceleration.
Wrong. The H.264 Videos on YouTube are not natively supported in the HTML 5 support in Firefox because Firefox doesn't have a license for the codec.
But HTML5 is there in Firefox 3.6.x.
Flash shows significantly better performance, over a Mac, on a PC.
So why would anyone want a Mac over a PC?
So the the question then is why would anyone buy a PC to surf the net when you could buy a Mac and view web-content faster and more efficiently (if only the web wasn't riddled with closed access content you need a insecure and slow plugin to see!
I think that is Job's (alleged) point. It seems reasonable, but it isn't being done. Xcode is free to download and available for adobe to use. All the objective C frameworks are in place to access the hardware.
The big question is why doesn't Adobe stop being lazy and start being progressive like they used to in the past. I yawned when I saw the CS3 to CS4 feature changes. Same story on flash. No improvements and only overload added.
Agreed.