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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
Comments
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe I read a different article. Where does it say that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not going to tell you, just google it.
Very cool. Works great. I agree: What the heck is all the fuss about?
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.
And reading the posts above and elsewhere it seems I am far from alone.
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.)
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.
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
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.