AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe releases Flash Player 10.1 for Mac
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe releases Flash Player 10.1 for Mac - Page 6

post #201 of 267
6/13/10 at 4:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No. It's about how Flash for mobile devices is a fail.

It has not yet been released. How can it be a fail?
Reply
Reply
post #202 of 267
6/13/10 at 5:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

It has not yet been released. How can it be a fail?

Because it hasn't been released?

It's been 3 years since the iPhone came out and there STILL isn't a version of Flash for mobiles. That's why the industry is rushing to find alternatives (remember all those sites I listed?). Adobe blew it - the mobile industry has moved on without them.

BTW, it's really rather funny when you Flash shills insist that Flash is available for mobile devices on one hand (citing a slow, buggy beta that has been circulating for a few months) but when it suits your purposes, you say that it's not there yet so we have to wait even longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

perhaps I mistakenly quoted you as implying that. It appears it was jragosta which I guess isn't a surprise. Sorry.

No, it's NOT a surprise that you're making up lies about me. I never said that, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I don't know who those people were. But floppies was dying fast before Mr. Jobs said anything about it. There were enough alternatives (like usb floppies I believe) that if someone really wanted it they could have it. It wasn't like STeve Jobs said "you're NOt allowed to have floppies on os x!"

Nice revisionism-you're 100% wrong. EVERY OTHER COMPUTER VENDOR had floppies on every computer they sold when Apple launched the iMac. EVERY ONE. Do some searching and read the computer press at the time. Virtually every article labeled the iMac as a fail because of its lack of a floppy drive. Given your level of 'discourse' and your lack of knowledge of what happened even as recently as the mid-90's, I'm guessing that you're a teenager who was barely out of diapers at the time.

And, as has been pointed out, the iMac wasn't released with OS X. You really should stick to discussing topics you know something about.
Reply
Reply
post #203 of 267
6/13/10 at 5:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

It was 1998, optical media slot was still very new and expensive. The far majority of computers still had floppy drives, even though it was inevitable that floppy was over.

Apple totally abandoned floppy while it was still widely used. At the time people thought they were crazy. Its only in revision that it doesn't seem so cray.

sure, there were still a lot of people who did use it. But, it was already, in very fast decline, certainly no one I knew used it, I stopped using it, Mac users, the ones without preinstalled floppies, had either a zip drive, a floppy which did everything a floppy did, and more, and, could easily spend 50 bucks on a usb floppy should they need the compatibility.

Steve Jobs didn't say, floppies run badly, you are simply not allowed to have one on a mac. Big difference. When Steve Jobs disallowed anyone from having flash on their iphone, flash was not in decline, whatsoever. Despite it not running as well on a mac as the pc, at the time.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #204 of 267
6/13/10 at 6:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Because it hasn't been released?

It's been 3 years since the iPhone came out and there STILL isn't a version of Flash for mobiles. That's why the industry is rushing to find alternatives (remember all those sites I listed?). Adobe blew it - the mobile industry has moved on without them.

BTW, it's really rather funny when you Flash shills insist that Flash is available for mobile devices on one hand (citing a slow, buggy beta that has been circulating for a few months) but when it suits your purposes, you say that it's not there yet so we have to wait even longer.



No, it's NOT a surprise that you're making up lies about me. I never said that, either.



Nice revisionism-you're 100% wrong. EVERY OTHER COMPUTER VENDOR had floppies on every computer they sold when Apple launched the iMac. EVERY ONE. Do some searching and read the computer press at the time. Virtually every article labeled the iMac as a fail because of its lack of a floppy drive. Given your level of 'discourse' and your lack of knowledge of what happened even as recently as the mid-90's, I'm guessing that you're a teenager who was barely out of diapers at the time.

And, as has been pointed out, the iMac wasn't released with OS X. You really should stick to discussing topics you know something about.

man you need to ah, drink some herbal tea. Or... something.

here, before you continue shrieking. This is where you said it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

*cough* Safari *cough*

I guess in fairness I should add Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc. Those apps are far more complex than Flash - and almost certainly some of them do not have the amount of resources that Adobe can afford.

Yes most peecees had a floppy, many people still used them. And yes the media, who likes to bash apple any chance they get, moaned and wailed about it. But truthfully, even though peecees had them, many many people were no longer using them. It was already, in fast decline.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #205 of 267
6/13/10 at 6:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

... But truthfully, even though peecees had [floppy drives], many many people were no longer using them. It was already, in fast decline.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume you are correct. Wouldn't this pretty much describe the situation with Flash? With ad blockers and tools like ClickToFlash many many people have it installed but actively avoid using it. Many buy mobile devices that don't have it at all and do just fine without it. Looks like, by your definition, Flash is in fast decline.
Reply
Reply
post #206 of 267
6/13/10 at 7:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

For the sake of argument, we'll assume you are correct. Wouldn't this pretty much describe the situation with Flash? With ad blockers and tools like ClickToFlash many many people have it installed but actively avoid using it. Many buy mobile devices that don't have it at all and do just fine without it. Looks like, by your definition, Flash is in fast decline.

no. My point is, at the point apple released the iphone, and said no to flash, flash was not at all, in any state of decline. The floppy drive, was very much in decline when apple began dropping support for it. Of course the other difference is apple didn't prevent floppies from operating on macs either.

Not a good analogy. Is there a decline in flash now? On the desktop, no I wouldn't say so. A small minority of clickForFlash users wouldn't really dent that. But in the mobile space,there's no "decline", it's almost stillborn at the moment.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #207 of 267
6/13/10 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

no. My point is, at the point apple released the iphone, and said no to flash, flash was not at all, in any state of decline. The floppy drive, was very much in decline when apple began dropping support for it. Of course the other difference is apple didn't prevent floppies from operating on macs either.

This is a bit of revisionist history. People have been using ad blockers to block Flash since before the iPhone came out, so, going along with the logic of your original analogy, Flash was already very much in decline. That Apple saw that is probably why they felt completely comfortable in not having Flash on their platform.

Quote:
Not a good analogy. Is there a decline in flash now? On the desktop, no I wouldn't say so. A small minority of clickForFlash users wouldn't really dent that. But in the mobile space,there's no "decline", it's almost stillborn at the moment.

I wouldn't qualify it with "almost". It is stillborn. And, it's not just a "small minority" of ClickToFlash users. There are quite a few users on all platforms who actively and intentionally block Flash using ad blockers and other techniques. Flash is already widely not used.
Reply
Reply
post #208 of 267
6/13/10 at 7:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This is a bit of revisionist history. People have been using ad blockers to block Flash since before the iPhone came out, so, going along with the logic of your original analogy, Flash was already very much in decline. That Apple saw that is probably why they felt completely comfortable in not having Flash on their platform.



I wouldn't qualify it with "almost". It is stillborn. And, it's not just a "small minority" of ClickToFlash users. There are quite a few users on all platforms who actively and intentionally block Flash using ad blockers and other techniques. Flash is already widely not used.

You've said it yourself - the blockers are mostly about blocking ads, not about eliminating all Flash content. If ClickToFlash users didn't use Flash, they wouldn't install Flash and therefore wouldn't need ClickToFlash. The whole point is that they need Flash but are annoyed by much Flash content so install ClickToFlash.

Personally, I wish that Flash was as dead as you think it is; unfortunately it isn't.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #209 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You've said it yourself - the blockers are mostly about blocking ads, not about eliminating all Flash content. If ClickToFlash users didn't use Flash, they wouldn't install Flash and therefore wouldn't need ClickToFlash. The whole point is that they need Flash but are annoyed by much Flash content so install ClickToFlash.

Personally, I wish that Flash was as dead as you think it is; unfortunately it isn't.

"they"? This is kind of like the peecee guys who build their own peecees, and keep upgrading their video cards, thinking they represent the majority. The ones who bash macs because, they're not upgradable. Or some crap. In actuality, they represent a fraction of users. Apple proved that hands down.

They're the minority. SO are the ones who actively block flash, or hate flash. Truthfully, no one cares that much (except for us few on forums), and there are plenty of crappy performing sites not even based on flash.

Will flash die? I really don't know. It's truthfully, out of -my- hands. I can say I love the -development- platform, so do a lot of developers. That accounts for a lot. We'll see where it goes I guess. I also love developing php based sites.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #210 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You've said it yourself - the blockers are mostly about blocking ads, not about eliminating all Flash content. If ClickToFlash users didn't use Flash, they wouldn't install Flash and therefore wouldn't need ClickToFlash. The whole point is that they need Flash but are annoyed by much Flash content so install ClickToFlash.

Personally, I wish that Flash was as dead as you think it is; unfortunately it isn't.

Ad blockers are only part of it. There are widely used tools on all platforms specifically for blocking Flash and only Flash. As for installing Flash, it comes mostly preinstalled on the OS these days. But, this whole subthread is related to the Flash/floppy drive analogy, and the point is that Flash is widely not used.
Reply
Reply
post #211 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Ad blockers are only part of it. There are widely used tools on all platforms specifically for blocking Flash and only Flash. As for installing Flash, it comes mostly preinstalled on the OS these days. But, this whole subthread is related to the Flash/floppy drive analogy, and the point is that Flash is widely not used.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Anyone with the nous to install ClickToFlash would be able to uninstall Flash or just not install it in the first place.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #212 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

man you need to ah, drink some herbal tea. Or... something.

here, before you continue shrieking. This is where you said it:

Please read the thread.

The quote you just provided said that I claimed that Chrome, Opera, and Firefox were more complex than Flash (if you go back and read what I was responding to). YOU are the only one who dragged CS5 into that. No one in their right mind would think that Flash was more complex than CS5. Please stop making things up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

Yes most peecees had a floppy, many people still used them. And yes the media, who likes to bash apple any chance they get, moaned and wailed about it. But truthfully, even though peecees had them, many many people were no longer using them. It was already, in fast decline.

Nonsense. Go back and read the journals at the time. You were obviously not around then or you're remember the huge uproar that decision caused. At the time, a large portion of software was supplied on Floppies. Floppies were the major means of transferring files to people. It was a gutsy move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

no. My point is, at the point apple released the iphone, and said no to flash, flash was not at all, in any state of decline. The floppy drive, was very much in decline when apple began dropping support for it. Of course the other difference is apple didn't prevent floppies from operating on macs either.

Not a good analogy. Is there a decline in flash now? On the desktop, no I wouldn't say so. A small minority of clickForFlash users wouldn't really dent that. But in the mobile space,there's no "decline", it's almost stillborn at the moment.

You finally are getting closer to the truth. Flash is STILLBORN on mobile devices - and given the number of sites that have worked around it, that's not likely to change.

As for the desktop, the number of Clicktoflash users is apparently growing at very rapid rates, that means that Flash on the desktop IS in decline - whether you want to admit it or not.

Not to mention, of course, that many web developers are now using tools to make Flash even less 'necessary'.
Reply
Reply
post #213 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Anyone with the nous to install ClickToFlash would be able to uninstall Flash or just not install it in the first place.

Did people uninstall their floppy drives when they stopped using them?
Reply
Reply
post #214 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Did people uninstall their floppy drives when they stopped using them?

That's not the same and you know it. The point is if you don't want to use Flash at all, do you:

a.) Install an extra piece of software that blocks flash until you click. Remember, ClickToFlash does not disable Flash.

b.) Either remove flash or just don't install it in the first place.

Hint, the answer isn't a.)
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #215 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

... Personally, I wish that Flash was as dead as you think it is; unfortunately it isn't.

First of all, let's not get hung up on the semantics of "dead". Is Flash dead in the sense that no one any longer ever uses it, in the sense that it's extinct? No, it isn't.

But, throughout this thread and others on this topic, I and several others have pointed out why Flash faces serious problems that it simply can't overcome, and which it's not worth people waiting for them to overcome when there is an alternative in HTML5.

Despite this, it is repeated over and over again that Flash isn't dead, it's not even dying, it's not going away anytime soon, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And the only argument used to support this is that it's everywhere, everyone has it installed, and variations on that theme. Even the argument against the analogy with Floppy drives fails.

Flash is dead in the sense that it is a technology that is destined for the technology dustbin. It's dead in the sense that it's going to become irrelevant in the near-term future. So, call it dead, terminally ill, doomed, whatever word or phrase you prefer, but it's fate is decided and the only question is how long it has to "live". I give it 2-5 years.
Reply
Reply
post #216 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

That's not the same and you know it. The point is if you don't want to use Flash at all, do you:

a.) Install an extra piece of software that blocks flash until you click. Remember, ClickToFlash does not disable Flash.

b.) Either remove flash or just don't install it in the first place.

Hint, the answer isn't a.)

Actually, it is very much the same. People are lazy or technically challenged. If they don't want Flash, they will, just as with the floppy drive, do the easiest thing for them to not use it. If I'm a Firefox user, and I see there's this no-brainer to install Flash blocker available that will, to my mind, improve my browsing experience, what am I going to do:

a) spend the time to figure out how to uninstall Flash, or

b) click on the link that says, "Add to Firefox"?

Hint, the answer isn't (a).
Reply
Reply
post #217 of 267
6/13/10 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

And the only argument used to support this is that it's everywhere, everyone has it installed, and variations on that theme.

I don't think that's the main argument at all. I think it's much more to do with the development tools and that web developers don't have HTML5 tools that come anywhere close to the capabilities of the Flash development tools.

Now Adobe has no competition, who is going to provide these HTML5 development tools?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #218 of 267
6/13/10 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Please read the thread.

The quote you just provided said that I claimed that Chrome, Opera, and Firefox were more complex than Flash (if you go back and read what I was responding to). YOU are the only one who dragged CS5 into that. No one in their right mind would think that Flash was more complex than CS5. Please stop making things up.

last time I checked, flash is currently, flash CS5. It's a rather complex platform, the whole IDE, the compiler, the player, flex, etc etc. It's better to be clearer when you get into something, especially if you have very little knowledge about a platform you're talkig about.



Quote:
Nonsense. Go back and read the journals at the time. You were obviously not around then or you're remember the huge uproar that decision caused. At the time, a large portion of software was supplied on Floppies. Floppies were the major means of transferring files to people. It was a gutsy move.

Not around? Sure pal. My computer classes in high school consisted of filling out data cards. In 1998, I recall most of my software coming on CD.



Quote:
You finally are getting closer to the truth. Flash is STILLBORN on mobile devices - and given the number of sites that have worked around it, that's not likely to change.

closer to the truth? If we all have brain cells correctly functioning, what I stated is the case. If it wasn't for Nokia smartphones running a version of flash, and flash 10.1 in beat public release on android, I would have siad 'stillborn', not -almost- stillborn. You need to relax...

Quote:
As for the desktop, the number of Clicktoflash users is apparently growing at very rapid rates, that means that Flash on the desktop IS in decline - whether you want to admit it or not.

Not to mention, of course, that many web developers are now using tools to make Flash even less 'necessary'.

what are the stats? And what "tools" are you talking about? New development platforms? I know adobe released new html5 for dreamweaver recently, even though it's apparently supposed to... kill flash...
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #219 of 267
6/13/10 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I don't think that's the main argument at all. I think it's much more to do with the development tools and that web developers don't have HTML5 tools that come anywhere close to the capabilities of the Flash development tools.

Now Adobe has no competition, who is going to provide these HTML5 development tools?

this is a point that always seems to be completely missed.

When, and if, development tools are as good or better than what we have in the flash IDE, along with the powerful capabilities (along with less cross browser nonsense, another point missed often) then, we may really, start seeing a death knell being sounded.

But this is generally something developers are aware of. The storey is sooo much more than just the player.

good point.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #220 of 267
6/13/10 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

last time I checked, flash is currently, flash CS5. It's a rather complex platform, the whole IDE, the compiler, the player, flex, etc etc. It's better to be clearer when you get into something, especially if you have very little knowledge about a platform you're talkig about.

ROTFLMAO.

So you're publicly stating that you can't tell the difference between a Flash player and the entire CS5 suite?

That's really pretty embarrassing.
Reply
Reply
post #221 of 267
6/13/10 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

ROTFLMAO.

So you're publicly stating that you can't tell the difference between a Flash player and the entire CS5 suite?

That's really pretty embarrassing.

you seem to have a lot of trouble with reading. It tends to derail a conversation. I notice I'm not the only one seeing this. Anyway. When you can get back on track, great. Enjoy your merry-go-round.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #222 of 267
6/13/10 at 10:56am
Can we switch the conversation to the World Cup or something? At this point I think I could respond for everyone on this thread and vice versa.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #223 of 267
6/13/10 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I don't think that's the main argument at all. I think it's much more to do with the development tools and that web developers don't have HTML5 tools that come anywhere close to the capabilities of the Flash development tools.

Now Adobe has no competition, who is going to provide these HTML5 development tools?

That's sometimes mentioned, but it's certainly not the main argument. If one were to actually go back through all the threads on this topic and count instances of arguments, the, "Flash isn't going anywhere, it's too entrenched," argument would probably outnumber the tools argument by at least 5 to 1. The tools are either already here, as in the case of video, or will come. There were no tools when the web started, yet it was built, and the tools followed. Tool development will always lag. If Adobe doesn't build them, someone else will, they probably are building them right now.
Reply
Reply
post #224 of 267
6/13/10 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Can we switch the conversation to the world cup or something? At this point I think I could respond for everyone on this thread and vice versa.

might as well...
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #225 of 267
6/13/10 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Whilst it is true that hardware acceleration APIs only became available recently on OS X, it is a massive red-herring perpetuated by Adobe that hardware acceleration is required for decent performance.

Oh yeah? You obviously haven't a clue if you think that hardware acceleration for video decoding isn't required for any decent HD decoding performance, i.e. unless you want to see your CPU handling most of the hard work that a GPU can do, then bitch that is use too much CPU when viewing HD videos (through flash or not). I can't remember if there is any option to disable hardware acceleration with quicktime (Safe mode GDI only?), if yes then maybe you should try it and see by yourself. My first nvida graphic card with hardware video decoding allowed me to look at full-HD videos while keeping my CPU of that time around 10% of utilization whereas that CPU alone was struggling to do so alone while being stuck at 100% utilization. Just saying.
Reply
Reply
post #226 of 267
6/13/10 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Tool development will always lag. If Adobe doesn't build them, someone else will, they probably are building them right now.

I hope they are making plastics too.

Sorry, only a few old-timers will get that one.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #227 of 267
6/13/10 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Oh yeah? You obviously haven't a clue

You're obviously too lazy to read the post I linked to. Here's a summary:

Flash playing a 720p H.264 flv file (playback not started until fully downloaded) = 150% CPU utilisation. Same flv video played with VLC (no hardware decoding) = 40% CPU utilisation.

Conclusion: hardware acceleration not required to give good performance, and Adobe suck at optimising code. Yes, if you want to get CPU usage down to 10% or lower, you're going to need hardware acceleration. If you just want CPU usage well below 100%, you just need to be not shit at coding.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #228 of 267
6/13/10 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You're obviously too lazy to read the post I linked to. Here's a summary:

Flash playing a 720p H.264 flv file (playback not started until fully downloaded) = 150% CPU utilisation. Same flv video played with VLC (no hardware decoding) = 40% CPU utilisation.

Conclusion: hardware acceleration not required to give good performance, and Adobe suck at optimising code. Yes, if you want to get CPU usage down to 10% or lower, you're going to need hardware acceleration. If you just want CPU usage well below 100%, you just need to be not shit at coding.

Even with HW Acceleration of Flash 10.1 "Gala" Preview 2 on Mac OS X playing a video in Flash requires more processing than booting into Windows (Bootcamp, not a VM) and playing that same video in Flash 10.0 without HW acceleration.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #229 of 267
6/14/10 at 6:08am
Yup, Flash on the Mac is a sad story. It seems to slow the entire web browsing experience down.
Many times when loading a page containing a lot of Flash elements Safari stalls (beach ball) for a few seconds and now with Safari 5 and Flash 10.1 it's more choppy to scroll pages containing Flash than it was before (Safari 4 and Flash 10.1 seem OK though and so do Flash 10 and Safari 5).

I don't see anything of this when browsing in Windows 7 on the same hardware. For whatever reason web browsing in Windows 7 feels snappier overall and page scrolling is (more or less) always smooth.
Reply
Reply
post #230 of 267
6/14/10 at 6:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

And, it's not just a "small minority" of ClickToFlash users. There are quite a few users on all platforms who actively and intentionally block Flash using ad blockers and other techniques. Flash is already widely not used.

I assume you have some facts to demonstrate that these conclusions and reality coincide?
Reply
Reply
post #231 of 267
6/14/10 at 6:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

the point is that Flash is widely not used.

Have we seen any objective information on this point?

ISTM that is is wildly inaccurate, but I will accept reasonable evidence that it is based on fact, and not just wild guesses.
Reply
Reply
post #232 of 267
6/14/10 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I assume you have some facts to demonstrate that these conclusions and reality coincide?

Well, tekstud, there's this,

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433/

which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option.
Reply
Reply
post #233 of 267
6/14/10 at 7:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As for the desktop, the number of Clicktoflash users is apparently growing at very rapid rates, that means that Flash on the desktop IS in decline - whether you want to admit it or not.


It may or may not mean that. You need to compare the increase in PC sales with Flash against any increase in Click-to-Flash sales.

And do you have any information whatsoever on these two fronts?
Reply
Reply
post #234 of 267
6/14/10 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Flash is dead in the sense that it is a technology that is destined for the technology dustbin.

In that sense, every technology is "dead".

So how is Flash different from (almost?) every other technology you might name?

Why use a word that describes every technology when you are trying to differentiate Flash from the others?
Reply
Reply
post #235 of 267
6/14/10 at 7:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, tekstud, there's this,

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433/

which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option.

There's also this:

"As of June 2008, the number of personal computers in use worldwide hit one billion, while another billion is expected to be reached by 2014."

I assume the 8M includes updates for existing customers, but even if it didn't the stat is nowhere near a showing that this is popular software.
Reply
Reply
post #236 of 267
6/14/10 at 8:17am
I'm pretty sure 8 million represents the majority of all computer users.

What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #237 of 267
6/14/10 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

In that sense, every technology is "dead".

So how is Flash different from (almost?) every other technology you might name?

Why use a word that describes every technology when you are trying to differentiate Flash from the others?

Well, tekstud, because Flash is acutely and terminally ill, particularly in comparison to HTML5, while others are not necessarily so.
Reply
Reply
post #238 of 267
6/14/10 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I'm pretty sure 8 million represents the majority of all computer users.

1. No one that I'm aware has argued that the "majority of all computer users" are blocking Flash at the moment. What was argued, and is correct, is that users are blocking Flash in significant and increasing numbers.

2. "... which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option." There are obviously many other ways to go about this. Eight million here, eight million there, pretty soon you have some pretty big numbers.
Reply
Reply
post #239 of 267
6/14/10 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

1. No one that I'm aware has argued that the "majority of all computer users" are blocking Flash at the moment. What was argued, and is correct, is that users are blocking Flash in significant and increasing numbers.

2. "... which currently reports 8,817,654 downloads, and that's only one option." There are obviously many other ways to go about this. Eight million here, eight million there, pretty soon you have some pretty big numbers.

You did. You said that flash is not that much in use, and went on to say that people are using clickforflash, blah blah, insinuating that most computer users were blocking flash rendering flash pretty much dead.

nonsense. Pure, BS.

Flash with either die in the next few years slowly, or, it will morph and stay alive.But currently, it ain't dead on the desktop, at all.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #240 of 267
6/14/10 at 8:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

You did. You said that flash is not that much in use, and went on to say that people are using clickforflash, blah blah, insinuating that most computer users were blocking flash rendering flash pretty much dead. ...

No, I said that it is increasingly not being used by more and more users. Just as it is increasingly not in use by more and more content publishers. (Which, BTW, isn't inconsistent with your claims of new customers, in case you were planning to rebut on that basis.)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe releases Flash Player 10.1 for Mac