I use a PC for most things, so for me flash is fine and rarely causes any problems, but I also have a Macbook. It's pretty old and slow for well, just about everything, but I can't say I've ever noticed Flash crashing Firefox or slowing the system down.
I don't care for flash for the same reasons as many of the others here. One customer of ours got a flash movie developped for their website and it ended up hogging 80% of one of the cores of a Core 2 Duo Windows PC. The problem here is that a good number of these flash developers don't seem to understand anything about optimising the user experience or the performance. All they care about is making it look good. In this regards it is not necessarily Adobe's fault, but they could provide solutions to help reduce the resource impact of flash applications.
I have seen plenty of cases where a Flash movie could have easily been written in HTML within a day. I believe the problem for many of these designers is not whether it is Flash or HTML, but the authoring tools to do the same thing in HTML just aren't there. The field is wide open for someone to develop an authoring tool that makes itvas easy to make solutions in HTML as it is in Flash. One other thing that Flash does manage to address is that it looks the same in every browser. The bane of web development is IE and this is probably the biggest hinderance to a DHTML authoring tool. In just hope IE9 supports HTML5, SVG and CSS3. Special casing for IE is a pain.
I am all for getting rid of flash, but certain things need to be done first.
Edit: Just wanted to add a note, while Windows and OS X may share the same CPU, an application needs to be adapted to take advantage of the OS architecture and frameworks that are optimised for a particular task. There is also a good chance that Flash is still a legacy 32-bit application with code that was never really updated to take advantage of the right APIs. Also, if Adobe is having such a hard time here it makes hard to feel how that they can do a good job on an alternative CPU, which in this case is the ARM. Adobe needs to prove itself for us to believe.
They most certainly do not. Virtually all sub $1000 PCs use integrated graphics. Intel integrated graphics are in most of the worlds computers. Once you price out a decent dedicated GPU and a decent monitor your computer heads north of $1000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp
This post made me realize something. Most pcs come with a dedicated gpu wheras MacBook use onboard gpu. I wonder if that plays a role. I have a few macs, all dedicated GPU, zero problems.
Yes, there are a lot MORE windows machines than Macs in the wild, but would you consider it a waste of resources when that 10% of the market makes up more than half of your revenue? By your logic, you would consider it a waste of resources even if only 1% of the market are Mac users but they make up of 99% of your revenue, wouldn't you?
Got any stats on this, or are you just spinning "more than half" of Adobe's revenue from whole cloth?
And while the mobile market is small compared to the "desktop" market, it will continue to outpace desktop sales and if Flash isn't as ubiquitous in the mobile space as it is on the desktop, then there's no reason to default to it. This of course scares the hell out of Adobe who makes all of its money from selling development and content creation tools.
Did you miss all the current events? Adobe has a new version of Flash for every popular smartphone OS EXCEPT iOS. Other mobile OSs are selling like hotcakes. Everyone expects Apple's market share to go down compared to other OSs.
There is nothing illogical about it. Mac users have been relegated to second class citizenship by Adobe many years ago, and we're FUCKING sick and tired of it.
What part of that don't you understand?
What I don't understand is how Adobe's attitude is different from the majority of other developers. Mac users are a niche market, and ISTM that most software developers spend their time serving larger market segments.
I also don't understand the attitude that a niche product should get widespread support from third parties. I've owned several products which were not market leaders, such as my Palm Treo, and relatively few accessories were available for it. But I didn't curse at Belkin - I knew what I was getting into when I bought a Treo instead of a Blackberry.
So what the heck is so surprising when the Mac has less current, less quantity and less quality of software? Isn't that something you knew when you bought a Mac instead of a popular platform?
Wasn't iTunes compatible with Windows Vista before MS's own Zune software? Windows & multimedia have never played nice together, it's therefor not surprising to me that it might hit snags with iTunes.
I'm not talking about iTunes as a multimedia player. I use better software for that.
Instead, I'm talking about it as a means to get data onto my iPhone. And again, except for a few data types, third party software is MUCH better than iTunes.
CopyTrans, for example, is modular - you need not load the whole bloated shebang of iTunes for one simple function. And it will do what you tell it to do, as contrasted with iTunes, which mysteriously locks up (while still using CPU) and does God-knows-what while not responding to user input.
I don't think you or your alter-ego "iGenius" have ever been within ten feet of a Mac.
Isn't there a nice Windows forum somewhere that you two could hang out at together?
Personal insults have no place in this forum. Especially these sorts of lame attempts at insults. If you want to (f)lame folks who disagree with you, go elsewhere.
Mstone, iGenius and others are to the Comment Section of AppleInsider.
The symmetry is remarquable.
Personal insults have no place on this forum. Especially these sort of lame attempts at insults. There are other fora for (f)lame insults - but if you keep up your disruptive behaviour here, I will report it.
And the whole spiel about Mac marketshare being "so much smaller" that it doesn't make a difference is ridiculous.. Apple sold about 11 million Macs last year, and about 9 million the year before, that's about 20 million current Mac users not to mention another approximate 10 or so million with computers over 2 years old..
So were talking approximately 30 million Mac users out there..
There's also millions of amputees out there, but Levis does not make one-legged pants. The absolute size of the market makes these millions a mere niche.
2) Here is a great example of HTML5 Video: Sublime Video
Is the low frame rate a limitation of HTML5 or is it just this particular video? I noticed that many of the scenes were in slomo, and looked jerky, but that on the scenes with panning IRT it was also jerky. It also stuttered many times when there was a lot of motion on the screen.
Personal insults have no place in this forum. Especially these sorts of lame attempts at insults. If you want to (f)lame folks who disagree with you, go elsewhere.
Nothing in there was a personal attack.
I said that I didn't think you or your sock puppet "mstone" have ever been in the vicinity of a Mac, based on the fact that you make identical (but completely bogus) arguments and assumptions. Anyone who's run Flash on OS X knows it doesn't matter what GPU you have or how powerful the CPU is, CPU utilization goes right to 100%. Expect to get called out on not understanding that in any Mac forum.
Is it just Mac Flash that is slow and buggy, or is it every version except for Windows?
It's about Adobe entering markets that they are unprepared for but claiming they support.
They claim they have Flash for Windows, Mac and Linux. The claim is true to a degree. Adobe has created software for all three platforms, that inputs code and outputs Flash. The difference seems to be akin to compilation vs interpretation, where Windows users are treated to "compiled" Flash and everyone else gets "interpreted" Flash.
If Adobe were to truly support all three platforms, they would have people fluent in all three architectures and performance would be similar on all three. I suspect this is where the accusations of laziness come in.
Let's compare. When Apple moved from OS 9 to OS X, they supported a Classic environment that allowed older software to run UNTIL IT WAS RE-WRITTEN FOR OS X. When Apple transitioned to Intel they supported older software with Rosetta UNTIL THE SOFTWARE GOT RE-WRITTEN FOR INTEL PROCESSORS. They set a life span for the support and if the developer didn't want to adapt then the software died out when the crutch got removed.
Adobe? Apple's offered you the same crutch for well over their suggested time limit. They're pulling it. Adapt or die. Support the platform as you claim to, or go away.
Going away isn't an option - Apple's too popular. If Adobe is providing a conduit for web ads - yes, Flash is used for other things but where's the money coming from? - then those paying for the ads are going to want to hit as many people as they can. Missing a 10% slice of the market - give or take, for all you bean counters - is not tolerable. When they really start pushing for mobile devices, and they can't reach out to how many iPhone users, are they going to stick with Flash?
We're not talking feature parity here - we're Mac users and have come to expect to be shorted on every release. Microsoft does it. Adobe does it. We're used to it. Bt at least make the software work within acceptable parameters.
'dude' I doubt you have ever programmed a single line of code in your life. There are dozens if not hundreds of PhDs working on Flash, Actionscript, Air and Flex at Adobe that would probably take offense by your derogatory remarks which are an insult to decades of hard work and research. You try to come off as some sort of authoritative and knowledgeable expert but you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please STFU or post something that validates your expertise on the subject.
Well, I actually have programmed, and more than just a few lines. Admittedly though, I'm not a software engineer, and don't make a living from programming. However, I don't need a PhD to be able to tell the difference between shit and shinola, and from where I'm sitting (at my Macintosh), Flash is definitely closer to the former than the latter.
Btw, I judge based on how it performs (like shit), and the content that it delivers (much of which is noise). I'm not concerned about offending either it's creators, who frankly should have just done a better job with it, or the people who use it to make annoying ads and useless web animations. None of those people add value to my life.
Not sure what sort of credentials you think I should have in order to state my opinions, but I'll continue to call Flash out for the way that I see it. Adobe have made their own bed in this case.
The reference is to the fact that 85% of the most popular sites has some bits of flash on it, not that it's created and housed inside the Flash Object container.
Maybe. But go to ABC NBC CBS FOX SCIFI and watch streaming video. What you can watch for free with 5 :15-:30 ads versus 17 minutes in tv, all the streaming devices use flash ifflash were in the iPhone, it's unclear how much CPU it would use but what would happen is Apple may lose iTunes tv shows. $2.99-$1.99 vs Free. You can't beat free and we stream on a MacBook pro driving a 24" HDMI monitor with no problems.
iTunes would take a hit and therefore I dont think we'll see flash on the iPhone until more smartphones have it.
'dude' I doubt you have ever programmed a single line of code in your life. There are dozens if not hundreds of PhDs working on Flash, Actionscript, Air and Flex at Adobe that would probably take offense by your derogatory remarks which are an insult to decades of hard work and research. You try to come off as some sort of authoritative and knowledgeable expert but you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please STFU or post something that validates your expertise on the subject.
Everybody has an opinion on everyone's work and if you are telling me you never made a comment that may seem offense to another person's work..BS
Do not take the high mighty road with us, when you in the pass have done the same with other people. tired of lame people like you taking the high road when it suits you.
I said that I didn't think you or your sock puppet "mstone" have ever been in the vicinity of a Mac, based on the fact that you make identical (but completely bogus) arguments and assumptions. Anyone who's run Flash on OS X knows it doesn't matter what GPU you have or how powerful the CPU is, CPU utilization goes right to 100%. Expect to get called out on not understanding that in any Mac forum.
Comments
Maybe I've just been lucky.
I have seen plenty of cases where a Flash movie could have easily been written in HTML within a day. I believe the problem for many of these designers is not whether it is Flash or HTML, but the authoring tools to do the same thing in HTML just aren't there. The field is wide open for someone to develop an authoring tool that makes itvas easy to make solutions in HTML as it is in Flash. One other thing that Flash does manage to address is that it looks the same in every browser. The bane of web development is IE and this is probably the biggest hinderance to a DHTML authoring tool. In just hope IE9 supports HTML5, SVG and CSS3. Special casing for IE is a pain.
I am all for getting rid of flash, but certain things need to be done first.
Edit: Just wanted to add a note, while Windows and OS X may share the same CPU, an application needs to be adapted to take advantage of the OS architecture and frameworks that are optimised for a particular task. There is also a good chance that Flash is still a legacy 32-bit application with code that was never really updated to take advantage of the right APIs. Also, if Adobe is having such a hard time here it makes hard to feel how that they can do a good job on an alternative CPU, which in this case is the ARM. Adobe needs to prove itself for us to believe.
This post made me realize something. Most pcs come with a dedicated gpu wheras MacBook use onboard gpu. I wonder if that plays a role. I have a few macs, all dedicated GPU, zero problems.
Yes, there are a lot MORE windows machines than Macs in the wild, but would you consider it a waste of resources when that 10% of the market makes up more than half of your revenue? By your logic, you would consider it a waste of resources even if only 1% of the market are Mac users but they make up of 99% of your revenue, wouldn't you?
Got any stats on this, or are you just spinning "more than half" of Adobe's revenue from whole cloth?
And while the mobile market is small compared to the "desktop" market, it will continue to outpace desktop sales and if Flash isn't as ubiquitous in the mobile space as it is on the desktop, then there's no reason to default to it. This of course scares the hell out of Adobe who makes all of its money from selling development and content creation tools.
Did you miss all the current events? Adobe has a new version of Flash for every popular smartphone OS EXCEPT iOS. Other mobile OSs are selling like hotcakes. Everyone expects Apple's market share to go down compared to other OSs.
There is nothing illogical about it. Mac users have been relegated to second class citizenship by Adobe many years ago, and we're FUCKING sick and tired of it.
What part of that don't you understand?
What I don't understand is how Adobe's attitude is different from the majority of other developers. Mac users are a niche market, and ISTM that most software developers spend their time serving larger market segments.
I also don't understand the attitude that a niche product should get widespread support from third parties. I've owned several products which were not market leaders, such as my Palm Treo, and relatively few accessories were available for it. But I didn't curse at Belkin - I knew what I was getting into when I bought a Treo instead of a Blackberry.
So what the heck is so surprising when the Mac has less current, less quantity and less quality of software? Isn't that something you knew when you bought a Mac instead of a popular platform?
How do you figure that. The majority of video on the web is not flash but rather whatever codec could be shoved into the avi format that week.
I base it on many quotes from various sources that say Flash accounts for X% of video on the 'web.
I've seen X as high as 85.
Wasn't iTunes compatible with Windows Vista before MS's own Zune software? Windows & multimedia have never played nice together, it's therefor not surprising to me that it might hit snags with iTunes.
I'm not talking about iTunes as a multimedia player. I use better software for that.
Instead, I'm talking about it as a means to get data onto my iPhone. And again, except for a few data types, third party software is MUCH better than iTunes.
CopyTrans, for example, is modular - you need not load the whole bloated shebang of iTunes for one simple function. And it will do what you tell it to do, as contrasted with iTunes, which mysteriously locks up (while still using CPU) and does God-knows-what while not responding to user input.
It sounds as though the big companies that use flash for advertisements are now putting pressure on Adobe to fix flash for the Mac.
Yeah? Got any support for that? I'd love to read your cites.
Many years ago Adob But the idea is nothing short of stupidity and will kill the company that follows it. It is killing Adobe.
Yeah? The stock is now more than twice its 52-week low. I guess they are going to go out with a BANG.
I don't think you or your alter-ego "iGenius" have ever been within ten feet of a Mac.
Isn't there a nice Windows forum somewhere that you two could hang out at together?
Personal insults have no place in this forum. Especially these sorts of lame attempts at insults. If you want to (f)lame folks who disagree with you, go elsewhere.
As an exercise in Logic:
Flash is to the Mac OSX creative environment what
Mstone, iGenius and others are to the Comment Section of AppleInsider.
The symmetry is remarquable.
Personal insults have no place on this forum. Especially these sort of lame attempts at insults. There are other fora for (f)lame insults - but if you keep up your disruptive behaviour here, I will report it.
And the whole spiel about Mac marketshare being "so much smaller" that it doesn't make a difference is ridiculous.. Apple sold about 11 million Macs last year, and about 9 million the year before, that's about 20 million current Mac users not to mention another approximate 10 or so million with computers over 2 years old..
So were talking approximately 30 million Mac users out there..
There's also millions of amputees out there, but Levis does not make one-legged pants. The absolute size of the market makes these millions a mere niche.
2) Here is a great example of HTML5 Video: Sublime Video
Is the low frame rate a limitation of HTML5 or is it just this particular video? I noticed that many of the scenes were in slomo, and looked jerky, but that on the scenes with panning IRT it was also jerky. It also stuttered many times when there was a lot of motion on the screen.
Personal insults have no place in this forum. Especially these sorts of lame attempts at insults. If you want to (f)lame folks who disagree with you, go elsewhere.
Nothing in there was a personal attack.
I said that I didn't think you or your sock puppet "mstone" have ever been in the vicinity of a Mac, based on the fact that you make identical (but completely bogus) arguments and assumptions. Anyone who's run Flash on OS X knows it doesn't matter what GPU you have or how powerful the CPU is, CPU utilization goes right to 100%. Expect to get called out on not understanding that in any Mac forum.
Is it just Mac Flash that is slow and buggy, or is it every version except for Windows?
It's about Adobe entering markets that they are unprepared for but claiming they support.
They claim they have Flash for Windows, Mac and Linux. The claim is true to a degree. Adobe has created software for all three platforms, that inputs code and outputs Flash. The difference seems to be akin to compilation vs interpretation, where Windows users are treated to "compiled" Flash and everyone else gets "interpreted" Flash.
If Adobe were to truly support all three platforms, they would have people fluent in all three architectures and performance would be similar on all three. I suspect this is where the accusations of laziness come in.
Let's compare. When Apple moved from OS 9 to OS X, they supported a Classic environment that allowed older software to run UNTIL IT WAS RE-WRITTEN FOR OS X. When Apple transitioned to Intel they supported older software with Rosetta UNTIL THE SOFTWARE GOT RE-WRITTEN FOR INTEL PROCESSORS. They set a life span for the support and if the developer didn't want to adapt then the software died out when the crutch got removed.
Adobe? Apple's offered you the same crutch for well over their suggested time limit. They're pulling it. Adapt or die. Support the platform as you claim to, or go away.
Going away isn't an option - Apple's too popular. If Adobe is providing a conduit for web ads - yes, Flash is used for other things but where's the money coming from? - then those paying for the ads are going to want to hit as many people as they can. Missing a 10% slice of the market - give or take, for all you bean counters - is not tolerable. When they really start pushing for mobile devices, and they can't reach out to how many iPhone users, are they going to stick with Flash?
We're not talking feature parity here - we're Mac users and have come to expect to be shorted on every release. Microsoft does it. Adobe does it. We're used to it. Bt at least make the software work within acceptable parameters.
'dude' I doubt you have ever programmed a single line of code in your life. There are dozens if not hundreds of PhDs working on Flash, Actionscript, Air and Flex at Adobe that would probably take offense by your derogatory remarks which are an insult to decades of hard work and research. You try to come off as some sort of authoritative and knowledgeable expert but you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please STFU or post something that validates your expertise on the subject.
Well, I actually have programmed, and more than just a few lines. Admittedly though, I'm not a software engineer, and don't make a living from programming. However, I don't need a PhD to be able to tell the difference between shit and shinola, and from where I'm sitting (at my Macintosh), Flash is definitely closer to the former than the latter.
Btw, I judge based on how it performs (like shit), and the content that it delivers (much of which is noise). I'm not concerned about offending either it's creators, who frankly should have just done a better job with it, or the people who use it to make annoying ads and useless web animations. None of those people add value to my life.
Not sure what sort of credentials you think I should have in order to state my opinions, but I'll continue to call Flash out for the way that I see it. Adobe have made their own bed in this case.
Flash doesn't account for 85% of all web sites.
The reference is to the fact that 85% of the most popular sites has some bits of flash on it, not that it's created and housed inside the Flash Object container.
Maybe. But go to ABC NBC CBS FOX SCIFI and watch streaming video. What you can watch for free with 5 :15-:30 ads versus 17 minutes in tv, all the streaming devices use flash ifflash were in the iPhone, it's unclear how much CPU it would use but what would happen is Apple may lose iTunes tv shows. $2.99-$1.99 vs Free. You can't beat free and we stream on a MacBook pro driving a 24" HDMI monitor with no problems.
iTunes would take a hit and therefore I dont think we'll see flash on the iPhone until more smartphones have it.
'dude' I doubt you have ever programmed a single line of code in your life. There are dozens if not hundreds of PhDs working on Flash, Actionscript, Air and Flex at Adobe that would probably take offense by your derogatory remarks which are an insult to decades of hard work and research. You try to come off as some sort of authoritative and knowledgeable expert but you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please STFU or post something that validates your expertise on the subject.
Everybody has an opinion on everyone's work and if you are telling me you never made a comment that may seem offense to another person's work..BS
Do not take the high mighty road with us, when you in the pass have done the same with other people. tired of lame people like you taking the high road when it suits you.
Nothing in there was a personal attack.
I said that I didn't think you or your sock puppet "mstone" have ever been in the vicinity of a Mac, based on the fact that you make identical (but completely bogus) arguments and assumptions. Anyone who's run Flash on OS X knows it doesn't matter what GPU you have or how powerful the CPU is, CPU utilization goes right to 100%. Expect to get called out on not understanding that in any Mac forum.
nicely written.