or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe exec defends Flash, says Mac improvements are coming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe exec defends Flash, says Mac improvements are coming - Page 2

post #41 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

And say goodbye to the vast majority of video on the 'web. Personally, I prefer machines that can run Flash effortlessly, rather than machines which need useful stuff to be disabled in order to function properly.

Goodbye!
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #42 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Quote:
Quote:
Currently, he admitted, video renders are more processor intensive on Apple's hardware than they are on Windows machines.

My SUV runs fine too. Gets terrible gas milage but why should I care? I drive very few miles and have lots of money. But more to the point: I also have an old iMac and Flash runs fine on it as well, so I just don't get what the problem is. Is it just Windows envy?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Hmmm....I think you should consider yourself lucky that they put any resources at all into Apple products. Lots and lots of (most?) developers don't.

Negligence implies that they have some sort of duty that they neglected. They have no duty to spend more money than the user base is worth.

Too busy trolling the Mac forums hoping to drum up support for Windows and Flash?
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #44 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


And this whole thing of finally improving Flash on the Mac, well why now? Why not 5 years ago?

I don't understand why they do it at all. My guess is that there's some money to be made, but not much, so they deploy their best and brightest resources elsewhere.
post #45 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

My SUV runs fine too. Gets terrible gas milage but why should I care? I drive very few miles and have lots of money. But more to the point: I also have an old iMac and Flash runs fine on it as well, so I just don't get what the problem is. Is it just Windows envy?

I'm assuming you actually read the article in question? When the CEO admits that it performs poorly on a Mac, you kind of lose all credibility claiming there is no issue.

Try harder. You're current attempts are rather sad.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #46 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

There are millions of Macs out there. Troll much? (sorry, that last bit was a redundant question).

Yeah, but there are billions and billions of other computers out there.
post #47 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Yeah, but there are billions and billions of other computers out there.

And none of them are important except for the platform of my choice. What do I care as to what other brands you choose to use. By all means, go use them.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #48 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I'm assuming you actually read the article in question? When the CEO admits that it performs poorly on a Mac, you kind of lose all credibility claiming there is no issue.

Try harder. You're current attempts are rather sad.

Maybe I read a different article. Where does it say that?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #49 of 206
I never gave Flash much thought until a very recent experience. My trusty G5 tower had been running flawlessly until just this weekend when Safari started crashing. I would open a web page, it would display, then shortly thereafter, the window would disappear. This would happen on just about any web page I tried - and that had been opened successfully the day before.

I checked the Safari crash logs, and sure enough, Flash was mentioned. I removed the plug-in and Safari worked without a hitch (no Flash content though). I downloaded 10.0.45 version and it's running normally again.

I can see where Apple comes from on Flash. Most people experiencing this problem would blame Safari and get completely frustrated with Apple. The average user is not going to know how find, let alone read, a crash log; or find out where plug-ins are stored. Most users would end up taking their computer into a service, and have their wallet drained a bit for their trouble. Apple gets the bad rap for being a poorly supported platform, when Flash deserves the blame for being poorly written software.

Is Adobe lazy? Hell yes. Flash should have clearly identified itself as the culprit behind my experience with Safari crashing, and either offered to repair itself, disable itself, or point to where and how to get a fresh copy.
post #50 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Flash runs fine on all my Macs.

Is there anything unusual about your Macs? Are they configured in some specific manner? Do you have some sort of extra software on them?

From what I have seen, most folks have horrible problems with their Macs if they try to surf the 'web.
post #51 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Maybe I read a different article. Where does it say that?

Quote:
He then revealed that Adobe is working to improve the performance of Flash on the Mac. Currently, he admitted, video renders are more processor intensive on Apple's hardware than they are on Windows machines.

I wouldn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious bits.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #52 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Is there anything unusual about your Macs? Are they configured in some specific manner? Do you have some sort of extra software on them?

From what I have seen, most folks have horrible problems with their Macs if they try to surf the 'web.


Yeah, they are running Windows!

No seriously they are just stock out of the box - no problems.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #53 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Is it just Windows envy?

Has nothing to do with Windows. Has to do with Adobe's whining about Flash not being included on some platforms. It's completely understandable why Apple doesn't want Flash on the iPhone and iPad and why some Mac users don't want it on their computers.

These statements by Adobe prove that they know the Mac version of Adobe needs improvement. And the only reason why they're saying this now is because Apple is giving them the cold shoulder and everyone is writing and reading about it.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #54 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I wouldn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious bits.

No the 'poorly' remark is what I was referring to. My comment about running fine did not take into account how much CPU was being used as I apparently have plenty to spare.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #55 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'm not going to tell you, just google it.

Very cool. Works great. I agree: What the heck is all the fuss about?
post #56 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

I don't understand why they do it at all. My guess is that there's some money to be made, but not much, so they deploy their best and brightest resources elsewhere.

Because selling tools to create content is Adobe's business. And a good chunk of those sales are to Mac OS X users.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #57 of 206
I have to say that the more I read about Adobe talking about Flash like this the less likely I am to support their products.

And reading the posts above and elsewhere it seems I am far from alone.
post #58 of 206
I’d rather see actions than words. Show me Flash working WELL (not slow, not hogging battery, not hogging RAM, not crashing) on any mobile device, and show me Flash working WELL on OS X. Otherwise you can’t expect it to be on the iPhone. But none of those things can be shown today—we only have statements about the future. Later, when Flash runs badly on those other devices, Apple (and we the users) won’t be in the middle of the mess.

Anyway, one thing many people overlook: current Flash sites could never be made work well on any touchscreen, and this cannot be solved by Apple, Adobe, or magical new hardware.

That's not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes (all of which are very real), nor because Flash mostly means ads. It's because of the mouseover problem.

Many (if not most) current Flash games, menus, and even video players require a visible mouse pointer. They are coded to rely on the difference between hovering over something (mouseover) vs. actually clicking. This distinction is not rare. It's pervasive, fundamental to interactive design, and vital to the basic use of Flash content. (Examples: steering a game character, and video players where clicking pauses but hovering brings up additional controls—a very common arrangement including on Hulu. We can imagine workarounds Adobe might come up with, like special gestures to learn that make the Flash part of a page act differently from the rest of the page—assuming the user knows which is which! But they’re poor, awkward solutions, especially in the middle of a game.) New Flash content designed just for touchscreens can be done, but people want existing Flash sites to work. All of them, not some of them here and there. That’s impossible no matter what.

All that Apple and Adobe could ever do is make current Flash content visible. It would be seen, but but very often would not work. Users would hate that broken promise much more than they hate blue brick icons.

I know Adobe wants Flash to somehow make sense on mobile devices. Maybe someday it will. But it does NOT make sense now, except maybe as a tool for making standalone apps, newly designed with touchscreens in mind. (And that IS coming to iPhone—it’s nothing to do with the browser.)
post #59 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Too busy trolling the Mac forums hoping to drum up support for Windows and Flash?

I have no hope to drum ups support for Windows or Flash. I'm not a cheerleader for any huge corporation, nor for any products made by them.

I do, however, like to ask probing questions which make the other person examine their assumptions and biases.

Case in point: You assume that I hope to drum up support. The assumption is wrong. I wonder how/why someone would assume that anybody would be a cheerleader for a product. The response you gave is (IMO) very interesting.
post #60 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Can you hear me now? Flash sucks.

This is way to little too late. Apparently they listen, just not to Mac users. How they could possible miss the criticism over the years is beyond me. To state they they are receptive is a joke. Exactly how many adobe programmers does it take to fix their software?

Yeah but can you also read that flash accounts for 85% of all websites? If you talk about tv, networks and movies, it's closer too 100%. Bottom line is flash would kill off iTunes sales but not too much as some like to own material ( e.g. ABC LOST), so Apple would still haves sales, but Appe needs to offer outakes, bloopers, while adding material the networks ciud offer.

Then everyone becomes happier. Problem solved. Plus apples media would offer no commercials and in occasion an a advanced episode where the buyer agrees to the buyer that no information is offered. To the public and a user coudnt get a few shows in advance if
few episodes and interviews in return for Allowing flash
post #61 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

And none of them are important except for the platform of my choice. What do I care as to what other brands you choose to use. By all means, go use them.

I never said anything was important to you. Instead, I asked why Adobe would put significant resources into a platform used only by millions, when instead they can reach billions.

What is important to you ain't got nothing to do with nothing.
post #62 of 206
'Old man yells at cloud.'
post #63 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Yeah, they are running Windows!

No seriously they are just stock out of the box - no problems.

I wonder why so many Mac users are apoplectic at the very mention of Adobe then?

If yours are stock, do those other folks do stuff to their machines which screws them up?
post #64 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

I do, however, like to ask probing questions which make the other person examine their assumptions and biases.

Case in point: You assume that I hope to drum up support. The assumption is wrong. I wonder how/why someone would assume that anybody would be a cheerleader for a product. The response you gave is (IMO) very interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

"Quit whining. There's a whole world of software that is not optimised for the Mac. You knew that when you chose an unpopular platform. "

"I don't find that terribly surprising, given how few Mac users there are."

"And say goodbye to the vast majority of video on the 'web. Personally, I prefer machines that can run Flash effortlessly, rather than machines which need useful stuff to be disabled in order to function properly."

Your posts speak for themselves. If you are trying to make some other point with those comments, you'll forgive us if we missed it. If there were any probing questions in there, I must have missed those too.

Adobe's CEO outright admits that Flash over utilizes the CPU on Macs. It is abused beyond belief, unsafe, ignores browser cookie settings, requires more bandwidth than simple text and images, and is IMO, just gives a bad experience on the web.

http://jimcarrey.com/

Web sites like that speak for themselves. I'm running a Quad I7 with 8GB of ram, and it's utilizing 30% just for a web page.

Inexcusable.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #65 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What a cop out. If you hate it so much just uninstall Flash. Why would you install click to Flash? Oh let me guess you might want to see something built in Flash- so just in case right?

Or so Flash content is blocked, and you don't keep getting notices to download and install Flash from sites that use it.

ClickToFlash stops that nonsense, too.
post #66 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What a cop out. If you hate it so much just uninstall Flash. Why would you install click to Flash? Oh let me guess you might want to see something built in Flash- so just in case right?

Exactly! There is some content (Google Street View for example) that isn't available unless you have Flash, but I don't want to be bothered by instability or the CPU and bandwidth requirements of Flash when I'm browsing for information.

Choice is a good thing.
post #67 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

id rather see actions than words. Show me flash working well (not slow, not hogging battery, not hogging ram, not crashing) on any mobile device, and show me flash working well on os x. Otherwise you cant expect it to be on the iphone. But none of those things can be shown todaywe only have statements about the future. Later, when flash runs badly on those other devices, apple (and we the users) wont be in the middle of the mess.

Anyway, one thing many people overlook: current flash sites could never be made work well on any touchscreen, and this cannot be solved by apple, adobe, or magical new hardware.

that's not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes (all of which are very real), nor because flash mostly means ads. It's because of the mouseover problem.

many (if not most) current flash games, menus, and even video players require a visible mouse pointer. They are coded to rely on the difference between hovering over something (mouseover) vs. Actually clicking. This distinction is not rare. It's pervasive, fundamental to interactive design, and vital to the basic use of flash content. (examples: Steering a game character, and video players where clicking pauses but hovering brings up additional controlsa very common arrangement including on hulu. We can imagine workarounds adobe might come up with, like special gestures to learn that make the flash part of a page act differently from the rest of the pageassuming the user knows which is which! But theyre poor, awkward solutions, especially in the middle of a game.) new flash content designed just for touchscreens can be done, but people want existing flash sites to work. All of them, not some of them here and there. Thats impossible no matter what.

All that apple and adobe could ever do is make current flash content visible. It would be seen, but but very often would not work. Users would hate that broken promise much more than they hate blue brick icons.

I know adobe wants flash to somehow make sense on mobile devices. Maybe someday it will. But it does not make sense now, except maybe as a tool for making standalone apps, newly designed with touchscreens in mind. (and that is coming to iphoneits nothing to do with the browser.)

+∞ !!!!

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #68 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Yeah, but there are billions and billions of other computers out there.

I've seen an estimate that there may be as many as 1 billion computers, but not billions and billions. You may be thinking of McDonald's.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #69 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

http://jimcarrey.com/

Web sites like that speak for themselves. I'm running a Quad I7 with 8GB of ram, and it's utilizing 30% just for a web page.

Inexcusable.

Wow. I too am running a quad-core i7, with only 4 gigs of Ram, and firefox reports only 1% to 3% CPU usage.

If I were to use Safari, do you think my results would be different?

The music on that website is mucho annoying.
post #70 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Wow. I too am running a quad-core i7, with only 4 gigs of Ram, and firefox reports only 1% to 3% CPU usage.

If I were to use Safari, do you think my results would be different?

The music on that website is mucho annoying.

I'm running Firefox 3.6. I don't like Safari. The CPU drops when you aren't actively viewing the tab.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #71 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I've seen an estimate that there may be as many as 1 billion computers, but not billions and billions. You may be thinking of McDonald's.

Or maybe the App Store?

I'll believe your numbers re millions vs. a billion. That puts Macs at a few machines per thousand installations. Or is my math wrong?

I was under the impression that Macs accounted for high single-digit market penetration.
post #72 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Wow. I too am running a quad-core i7, with only 4 gigs of Ram, and firefox reports only 1% to 3% CPU usage.

If I were to use Safari, do you think my results would be different?

The music on that website is mucho annoying.

I think you're lying here.

I just tried it on all three browsers and I get over a hundred percent CPU usage on both Safari and Firefox. Chrome only registers 80 something percent, but it has two "helper apps" each using up about 20 or 30 percent of the CPU as well.

Flash sucks CPu cycles on a Mac. It's a fact, and it doesn't really matter what browser you use.
post #73 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Hmmm....I think you should consider yourself lucky that they put any resources at all into Apple products. Lots and lots of (most?) developers don't.

Negligence implies that they have some sort of duty that they neglected. They have no duty to spend more money than the user base is worth.

Are you such a fraking idiot that you can't remember where adobe started? We should feel so lucky that Adobe would develop for the Mac? Oh yes we are blessed and humbled that the great Adobe has not forsaken us. (Bloated POS software maker) Your belief is not only arrogant but illogical and misinformed. Adobe wouldn't have had a platform to develop for if it weren't for the mac OS and the Apple computer. Those computers were the first to offer color displays and other features needed by graphic artists. There was no other platform to develop for at the time of Photoshop V1. Pc's were and are still primarily office machines. Only in the 90's did things change and designers finally felt comfortable switching to PC.

While there may be millions more PC's than Mac users (22million of us) but that says nothing about Adobe's client share of each. The percentage of mac users with PS installed is much higher than on PC's no doubt about that . Your attitude is probably the same attitude that lead Apple to build Aperture and Iphoto and F_-K Adobe.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #74 of 206
If Adobe is serious about fixing Flash, it would:
  • Implement auto update.
  • Built-in Click2Flash like setting (that would show just a static title screen with a "play" button by default).
  • "Automatic" quality setting that is more respectful CPU utilization.
  • If it is supportive of HTML5, implement HTML5 engine for IE users.
  • Oh yeah, do something about crappy performance and stability issues.
post #75 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by avidfcp View Post

plus apples media would offer no commercials and in occasion an a advanced episode where the buyer agrees to the buyer that no information is offered. To the public and a user coudnt get a few shows in advance if few episodes and interviews in return for allowing flash

?????????????
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #76 of 206
Guys, seriously, immature trolls thrive on attention. Take that away and they'll starve to death.

The AI forms have a great feature that makes this effortless:

Step 1) Go to "User CP" in the top-level navigation

Step 2) Click on "Edit Ignore List" on the left side

Step 3) Type in the name of the troll you'd like to never see again and click "Okay"

Step 4) Enjoy the AI forums free of vapid troll-bait.

You're welcome.
post #77 of 206
Flash on Mac is terrible, even the 10.1 is. It is a lot better on Windows, but even there it is not stellar. I like the scalability of flash so that it could be used across all platforms, but it's just so resource intensive. I don't really know much about coding flash, so the performance is my only annoyance with it.

After testing out HTML 5 on Youtube and other sites that support it, I like it a lot better in terms of performance ( I have one gripe with the lack of support for FireFox). I absolutely support replacing Flash with HTML5. If Flash had made a huge leap forward with 10 or even 10.1 I would have had a different opinion, but at this point how long can we wait for Adobe to make this thing work properly? It should not take a core 2 quad to play a hulu episode, and if HTML 5 will make video less hardware demanding flash should die (at least for video).
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #78 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I think you're lying here.

I just tried it on all three browsers and I get over a hundred percent CPU usage on both Safari and Firefox. Chrome only registers 80 something percent, but it has two "helper apps" each using up about 20 or 30 percent of the CPU as well.

Flash sucks CPu cycles on a Mac. It's a fact, and it doesn't really matter what browser you use.

Want a screen shot? Lemme fire up that jim carrey site....

I couldn't figure out how to embed the .gif. Is there any way to do it?

You're right that 1-3% was too low. I looked after I had clicked a link on the site, which seemingly uses less CPU than the home page. When I did it again, the CPU was at 23%.

If you care, tell me how to embed the pic. If that is not possible, and if you really want to see it, I'll throw it onto the 'web.
post #79 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

We should feel so lucky that Adobe would develop for the Mac?

In this day and age? Yes.
post #80 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Your posts speak for themselves. If you are trying to make some other point with those comments, you'll forgive us if we missed it. If there were any probing questions in there, I must have missed those too.

Adobe's CEO outright admits that Flash over utilizes the CPU on Macs. It is abused beyond belief, unsafe, ignores browser cookie settings, requires more bandwidth than simple text and images, and is IMO, just gives a bad experience on the web.

http://jimcarrey.com/

Web sites like that speak for themselves. I'm running a Quad I7 with 8GB of ram, and it's utilizing 30% just for a web page.

Inexcusable.

"Inexcusable" is an understatement...here on my extremely speedy C2D iMac 24", that horrible page taxes my computer with 120% out of 200% of CPU power (both on Safari AND Firefox)...simply pathetic.
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe exec defends Flash, says Mac improvements are coming