Dropping Adobe Flash boosts Apple's MacBook Air battery life by 2 hours

135

Comments

  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Check out the AnandTech review. I don't expect credit for the tip.



    Over in the battery-life segment of the AnandTech through review for the new MacBook Airs the 13" got 11.2 hours on the light web-browsing test with iTunes music running. But then, on the Flash test they got 5 hours.



    That's 6.2 hours of a difference, not 2. Great reporting, btw.



    Ireland +1.
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,917member
    Wow. Looks like a bunch of Adobe employees signed up to post on AI tonight! Very funny.



    Of course, more members means more eyeballs means more ads on AI means more...... wait....
  • firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,499member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe View Post


    This is not true. Easy example to convince yourself: HTML5 Youtube vs Regular Youtube in the same browser. Check activity monitor.



    Testing with Nvidia PureVideo HD 1080p Test full screen video on single core of Intel Core i7 860.



    It's not so clear cut!!



    Chrome 8 (HTML5)





    Flash 10





    ie9 Beta (HTML5)

  • orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    Testing with Nvidia PureVideo HD 1080p Test full screen video on single core of Intel Core i7 860.



    It's not so clear cut!!



    If you have a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M GPU then Flash will decode the video on the GPU. On other Macs there is no access to the GPU so it must use the CPU - which kills battery life.



    I'm actually surprised Chrome isn't using the GPU for video playback.
  • sprockketssprockkets Posts: 796member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    Testing with Nvidia PureVideo HD 1080p Test full screen video on single core of Intel Core i7 860.




    About 90% with flash and 80% usage on the CPU on my system with WebM instead.



    I can live without flash for most sites so it doesn't bother me. Though I miss zooming in on pictures while browsing newegg.com
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    You know, I used clicktoflash and it did good. The only think I didn't like is when a site loaded one of those rollover ads that take up the entire screen and I was stuck with a big outline of what should've been there. Maybe I wasn't using it right.



    I see that often and without clicktoflash you would not know it was there. They seem to be to ensure everyone clicks on them.
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Yeah, you can't live without it. Those ads would be unbearable to watch. But for all the Flash bashing AI does you'd think they would make some effort to get away from Flash themselves, but no, every news story has a flash video and almost all the ads are Flash as well. If Flash is so despicable, why does AI insist on displaying it throughout their whole site?



    I agree, they even had a video about HTML 5 the other day and it was Flash only no alt version. Irony at its best. Come on AI get with the program!
  • cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    Most importantly, many porn sites use Flash.

  • waldobushmanwaldobushman Posts: 774member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Using clikctoflash increases my MBP by several hours too from my unscientific usage tests so I am not surprised.



    clicktoflash has certainly been a saver for me, too. Websites load much faster, no ads to bother me, and longer battery life on an MBP. No flash, no problem, no downside.
  • splamcosplamco Posts: 5member
    Removing Flash has also enabled MacBook Air customers to dramatically reduce the chance that they catch a cold.
  • bushman4bushman4 Posts: 772member
    Two hours worth of battery time is a nice bonus for passing on Adobe Flash, especial with skyfire now available and HTML5 being used in more than 50% of all applications.
  • wildagwildag Posts: 21member
    What the author of this article, and almost every commenter here fails to understand is... "if it wasn't flash, it'd be something else".



    Adobe's not to blame for the poor implementation and deployments of badly written advertising banners. Just as the W3C's not to blame for any website's overly complicated HTML5 implementations.



    Advertisers arn't going to give up animations and annoying pop-overs, just because Flash goes away. If flash wasn't the appropriate choice, they'd find some other way.



    Those who use ClickToFlash, or some other plug-in blocking utility, are simply taking advantage of the fact that flash is a plugin that can be blocked. You should be really scared when advertisers start using overly engineered HTML5 animations in ads. There won't be an immediate and easy way to block those ads.



    Stop blaming Adobe for what independent developers and companies do with their technology. The reality is that Flash is a great tool for creating content that would not otherwise exist.



    I'm also highly amused at Apple Insider's constant barrage of Flash bashing articles, while their main advertising banners at the top are made in Flash. Uninstalling Flash, or installing ClickToFlash means Apple Insider's advertisements are blocked, and therefore they receive less revenue. Way to go Apple Insider!
  • daveyjjdaveyjj Posts: 120member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe View Post


    Do.



    http://stevenf.tumblr.com/post/13767...ir-models-were



    Yup. Gruber over at Daringfireball also pointed this out. Must say it's nice not to have Flash at all now.
  • nicolbolasnicolbolas Posts: 254member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wildcatherder View Post


    I bet if I removed the operating system, battery life would be extended indefinitely. Is it really a matter of removing popular features so people can can compute on a trans-Atlantic flight?





    i think this sums up this article, the less stuff running the more battery life you get (for instance, if you take the screen of your laptop, it can be "turned on" for longer
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,917member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wildag View Post


    What the author of this article, and almost every commenter here fails to understand is... "if it wasn't flash, it'd be something else".



    Adobe's not to blame for the poor implementation and deployments of badly written advertising banners. Just as the W3C's not to blame for any website's overly complicated HTML5 implementations.



    Advertisers arn't going to give up animations and annoying pop-overs, just because Flash goes away. If flash wasn't the appropriate choice, they'd find some other way.



    Those who use ClickToFlash, or some other plug-in blocking utility, are simply taking advantage of the fact that flash is a plugin that can be blocked. You should be really scared when advertisers start using overly engineered HTML5 animations in ads. There won't be an immediate and easy way to block those ads.



    Stop blaming Adobe for what independent developers and companies do with their technology. The reality is that Flash is a great tool for creating content that would not otherwise exist.



    I'm also highly amused at Apple Insider's constant barrage of Flash bashing articles, while their main advertising banners at the top are made in Flash. Uninstalling Flash, or installing ClickToFlash means Apple Insider's advertisements are blocked, and therefore they receive less revenue. Way to go Apple Insider!



    I have to admit it: seriously excellent post.
  • bk212bk212 Posts: 11member
    You don't make any sense. It's like blaming the post office for junk mail. The post office didn't create the junk mail. They just deliver it. When HTML 5 starts displaying crappy video ads and awful animated banners that slow your machine, who are you going to blame then? Adobe deserves blame for some flash problems, but fanboys are blaming them for everything and cancer. The test wasn't fair period.

    I'm not congratulating Steve Jobs for being a censoring dictator like fanboys do.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    LOL. The facts are nonsense? You've got to be kidding.



    You think this has something to do with Apple fanboys or fanboyism? Grow up, dude. I hate Flash, not because Steve Jobs is my all-powerful dark master of magic unicorns and shit, but because FOR YEARS FLASH HAS RUINED MY WEB BROWSING EXPERIENCE ACROSS MULTIPLE PLATFORMS AND HARDWARE. I was hating Flash and wanting to kill it back when I was browsing with Firefox on the PC. I pleaded with Mozilla version after version to fix that, and they were like, "it's the Flash plugin that's spinning up your CPU to 100% and locking up your PC laptop and causing you to have to bring up Windows task manager and kill Firefox, sorry." It wasn't even because the sites I visited used Flash themselves; it was all of the stupid ads. Macromedia earned my scorn through YEARS OF SUCK. OMFG I can't believe you defend this pile of crap. What, do you like Flash ads or something? Did you punch the monkey and save thousands refinancing your home?



    No dude, the point that should be made to Apple hateboys IS WHETHER FLASH STINKS OR NOT. And I contend that Flash does whiff malodorous. Now run home to Slashdot where "freedom of choice" is more important than quality of the user experience.



  • orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post


    clicktoflash has certainly been a saver for me, too. Websites load much faster, no ads to bother me, and longer battery life on an MBP. No flash, no problem, no downside.



    No money for the people who run the sites and write the articles you are reading.
  • firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,499member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


    About 90% with flash and 80% usage on the CPU on my system with WebM instead.



    The WebM version is only 720p, so Flash may even be a little more efficient.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    If you have a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M GPU then Flash will decode the video on the GPU. On other Macs there is no access to the GPU so it must use the CPU - which kills battery life.



    I think that's the point. It's not so much Flash Video == crap, HTML5 Video == awesome. It pretty much depends on the use of hardware acceleration. I've added two 720p WebM tests.





    Chrome 8. 1080p, h264, HTML5





    Chrome 9d. 1080p, h264, HTML5





    Flash 10. 1080p





    IE 9b. 1080p, h264, HTML5





    Safari 5. 1080p, h264, HTML5





    Firefox 4b6. 720p, WebM, HTML5





    Opera 10. 720p, WebM, HTML5

  • cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,084member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anthropic View Post


    But what I really don't get is this:

    When advertisers start creating all their adverts in HTML5 and you can no longer avoid them with a clicktoflash tool as they suck your battery life stone cold dead. Will you wake up lamenting the day Flash was overtaken by HTML5 for advertising presentation?



    So try thinking before you bag Flash.



    Uh, except Apple provides quality support for efficient h.264 video decoding, HTML5 and Safari. Adobe couldn't possibly and won't support Apple platforms to such a degree.



    If you like the status quo, just keep using Flash and enjoy (hah!). HTML5 is enough for the rest of us. The world doesn't need a poorly supported, proprietary standard like Flash on any platform.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bk212 View Post


    You don't make any sense. It's like blaming the post office for junk mail. The post office didn't create the junk mail. They just deliver it. When HTML 5 starts displaying crappy video ads and awful animated banners that slow your machine, who are you going to blame then? Adobe deserves blame for some flash problems, but fanboys are blaming them for everything and cancer. The test wasn't fair period.



    "Wah, wah, the test isn't fair! The fanboys are blaming Adobe for everything!" LOL. Please.



    First of all, I was not "blaming Adobe." Adobe acquired Macromedia not too long ago, and it's a pity they didn't just kill Flash. If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I blamed Flash (plugins) for ruining my web browsing experience without giving me much more than annoying ads in return. That's all. I don't hate Adobe. I never did. I hate Flash.



    Oh, you think it's "not fair" to blame Flash? Tell that to Mozilla. Or Apple. Or Google. Or anyone else who maintains a browser. They'll tell you that Flash plugins cause all kinds of problems. Do you think playing some goddamned animation is supposed to hog 100% of one processor, causing Windows XP to become non-responsive on a single core machine? That's NOT NORMAL. It's bugginess in Flash. It's one of the reasons why Apple and Google run Flash plugins in an isolated process in their newest browsers.



    Spouting hypotheticals about "When HTML 5 starts displaying crappy video ads..." doesn't work to deflect Flash's role in causing problems. Flash was causing problems long before HTML5 was implemented in browsers. That's not a hypothetical, its a fact, so don't whine about it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bk212 View Post


    I'm not congratulating Steve Jobs for being a censoring dictator like fanboys do.



    LOL. Calling Steve Jobs a "censoring dictator" sounds like a regurgitation of your "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" baloney. Let me explain how this works: Apple is a business. Apple is not a political movement, religion, or moral ideology. Apple wins fans simply because it serves its customers and shareholders well. Understand this, and you will understand the rationale of all of Apple's decisions. If you want "freedom of choice", look to the market.



    And by the way, "fanboys" is spelled c-u-s-t-o-m-e-r-s.
Sign In or Register to comment.