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
"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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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%.
Comments
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.)
+∞ !!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
?????????????
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.
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).
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.
We should feel so lucky that Adobe would develop for the Mac?
In this day and age? Yes.
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.
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 post the
Utilities -> Grab
Capture -> Screen