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.
You purchased a Mac. Mac's cannot handle Flash well, and this is widely known. Yet, it is a pastime for Mac users, and those who are on these forums, to berate Adobe. So who's fault is it? Is it Adobe's, for not bending over backward to the whims of Jobs, his needy customers, and the obstructiveness of OS X? Or is it your fault, for making the decision to buy a product you knew full well does not support Flash- a rich media format used extensively throughout the web? I have to tell you, my non-Apple desktop at home has much the same specs as yours, and Flash just works (to quote a familiar tag line). Do not complain about it after the fact, as you're doing at the very end of your post.
And as of yet, Adobe still hasn't released a Mac suitable version of Flash. From a business perspective, which do you cater to first? The 80% of the market which uses PCs and has very little to no issues with Flash and whose hardware can handle it? Or do you cater to <15% of the market which uses Macs, a company that openly chastises your product, and whose products feature software (and possibly hardware?) that cannot adequately handle Flash? I wonder.
As you can see from the results below, CPU utilization drops significantly when going from Flash 10.0.32.18 to 10.1.51.45. Not only do the numbers drop, but playback performance (number of dropped frames) improves significantly. I’d say that all of the tests below were totally playable on the Ion system thanks to Flash 10.1.
Windowed Average CPU Utilization \tFlash 10.0.32.18 \tFlash 10.1.51.45
Hulu Desktop - The Office - Murder \t70% \t30%
Hulu HD 720p - Legend of the Seeker Ep1 \t75% \t52%
Hulu 480p - The Office - Murder \t40% \t23%
Hulu 360p - The Office - Murder \t20% \t16%
YouTube HD 720p - Prince of Persia Trailer \t60% \t12%
YouTube - Prince of Persia Trailer \t14% \t7%
These are awesome improvements. The Hulu HD results were a bit high but the YouTube HD test showed a drop from 60% CPU utilization down to 12%. Most impressive. Now on to the full screen Hulu tests:
Full Screen 1920 x 1200 Average CPU Utilization \tFlash 10.0.32.18 \tFlash 10.1.51.45
Hulu Desktop - The Office - Murder \t70% \t55%
Hulu HD 720p - Legend of the Seeker Ep1 \t83% \t68%
Hulu 480p - The Office - Murder \t70% \t70%
Hulu 360p - The Office - Murder \t70% \t70%
It gets far worse on a typical Mac. Your claims that there is no performance issue just aren't holding water.
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.
Although you don't seem to know it, even now, Adobe still gets a disproportionate share of its revenues from Mac users. At one time, Adobe got 75% of its revenue from Mac users, though it is much less now as Adobe built a larger business out of PDFs. Still, as Lynch said, they are one of the largest Mac software developers.
Allowing the Flash issues to continue and fester (and the slowness in moving to Cocoa) just reinforces the perception (and likely reality) that Adobe has become more PR talk and less action.
Mac users should respond appropriately by supporting alternate products that meet their needs, and help Adobe to further decrease its revenues and net income.
And as of yet, Adobe still hasn't released a Mac suitable version of Flash. From a business perspective, which do you cater to first? The 80% of the market which uses PCs and has very little to no issues with flash and whose hardware can handle it? Or do you cater to <15% of the market which uses Macs, a company that openly chastises your product, and whose products feature hardware that cannot adequately handle Flash? I wonder.
As you said, your post also speaks for itself.
Couple of points:
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
It gets far worse on a typical Mac. Your claims that there is no performance issue just aren't holding water.
Very interesting data. Thanks.
And BTW, I have no idea of whether Macs are capable of playing Flash or not, or whether the performance issues are real or not - not firsthand anyways. I am just going by all the whining I read from Mac users.
It is very interesting that another poster claimed that all his stock Macs run Flash without issues. I wonder what accounts for that? He says that he has not done special configuration, which makes me suspect that other folks HAVE done something that screws up their Macs.
But I really don't know what the heck is going on or why Macs have such problems surfing the 'web.
Until you come up with a method for downrating trolls these forums will continue to lose knowledgeable people who contribute useful information and instead become a ghetto of attention whores. Simply blocking an undesirable user is not enough because the thread will become fractured and newcomers will perpetuate the replies.
Give this some serious thought because these user discussions are in danger of becoming completely useless.
And BTW, I have no idea of whether Macs are capable of playing Flash or not, or whether the performance issues are real or not - not firsthand anyways. I am just going by all the whining I read from Mac users.
It is very interesting that another poster claimed that all his stock Macs run Flash without issues. I wonder what accounts for that? He says that he has not done special configuration, which makes me suspect that other folks HAVE done something that screws up their Macs.
But I really don't know what the heck is going on or why Macs have such problems surfing the 'web.
They don't have an issue browsing they web. They have issues with web sites that require flash. It has never been properly optimized. It performs better on a Windows machine, but even those are hardly desirable compared to simple H.264.
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
And Macs have nowhere near 15% of the market.
You're correct, I should have said software in my second point. As I semi touched upon in my first point, there is no doubt, in my opinion, that OS X goes out of its way to hamper Flash. If Flash can run fine on Windows and PC hardware, there's no reason why it shouldn't run fine on OS X and Mac hardware. As hardware between the platforms is mostly similar, the answer has to lie within OS X or at the very least Safari, although I admit I am not knowledge about the inter working of Safari.
As for 15% market share, I was simply being generous
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.
Good point. What happens I wonder if you have Click to Flash but no Flash. Does it prompt for installing the plugin? I haven't ever seen the plugin install prompt on a Mac so I don't know. On Windows I think Flash can automatically install itself from the web page. Been a long time since I have looked at that feature.
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
And Macs have nowhere near 15% of the market.
I haven't checked the numbers lately, but Macs are probably still more than 15% of the market that Adobe sells software for, and definitely more if one excludes the PDF-based business productivity portion of Adobe's business.
In any case, it's material enough for Adobe to include Mac OS X sales in the risk section of their 10-K.
Until you come up with a method for downrating trolls these forums will continue to lose knowledgeable people who contribute useful information and instead become a ghetto of attention whores. ...
I assume you consider your earlier post contributing useful information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux
...sometime in 2036.
So what does it take? The CEO of a key customer? A shotgun to the head?
Actually, just keep your 'improvements'. Many of us have learned to live without Flash, and feel better for it.
Comments
It should not take a core 2 quad to play a hulu episode,
It doesn't take a quad-core processor to play a Hulu episode. I did it many times on AMD's version of a P4, with a half-gig of RAM.
90% of those 85% of the top websites that use flash need it only for ads.
thank you. exactly...
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.
You purchased a Mac. Mac's cannot handle Flash well, and this is widely known. Yet, it is a pastime for Mac users, and those who are on these forums, to berate Adobe. So who's fault is it? Is it Adobe's, for not bending over backward to the whims of Jobs, his needy customers, and the obstructiveness of OS X? Or is it your fault, for making the decision to buy a product you knew full well does not support Flash- a rich media format used extensively throughout the web? I have to tell you, my non-Apple desktop at home has much the same specs as yours, and Flash just works (to quote a familiar tag line). Do not complain about it after the fact, as you're doing at the very end of your post.
And as of yet, Adobe still hasn't released a Mac suitable version of Flash. From a business perspective, which do you cater to first? The 80% of the market which uses PCs and has very little to no issues with Flash and whose hardware can handle it? Or do you cater to <15% of the market which uses Macs, a company that openly chastises your product, and whose products feature software (and possibly hardware?) that cannot adequately handle Flash? I wonder.
As you said, your post also speaks for itself.
EDIT: misc grammatical stuff
It doesn't take a quad-core processor to play a Hulu episode. I did it many times on AMD's version of a P4, with a half-gig of RAM.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3678&p=2
As you can see from the results below, CPU utilization drops significantly when going from Flash 10.0.32.18 to 10.1.51.45. Not only do the numbers drop, but playback performance (number of dropped frames) improves significantly. I’d say that all of the tests below were totally playable on the Ion system thanks to Flash 10.1.
Windowed Average CPU Utilization \tFlash 10.0.32.18 \tFlash 10.1.51.45
Hulu Desktop - The Office - Murder \t70% \t30%
Hulu HD 720p - Legend of the Seeker Ep1 \t75% \t52%
Hulu 480p - The Office - Murder \t40% \t23%
Hulu 360p - The Office - Murder \t20% \t16%
YouTube HD 720p - Prince of Persia Trailer \t60% \t12%
YouTube - Prince of Persia Trailer \t14% \t7%
These are awesome improvements. The Hulu HD results were a bit high but the YouTube HD test showed a drop from 60% CPU utilization down to 12%. Most impressive. Now on to the full screen Hulu tests:
Full Screen 1920 x 1200 Average CPU Utilization \tFlash 10.0.32.18 \tFlash 10.1.51.45
Hulu Desktop - The Office - Murder \t70% \t55%
Hulu HD 720p - Legend of the Seeker Ep1 \t83% \t68%
Hulu 480p - The Office - Murder \t70% \t70%
Hulu 360p - The Office - Murder \t70% \t70%
It gets far worse on a typical Mac. Your claims that there is no performance issue just aren't holding water.
Utilities -> Grab
Capture -> Screen
No problem grabbing the screenshot (just push PrntScrn and save it).
But I can't figure out how to embed the image into a post unless it has a URL associated with it.
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.
Although you don't seem to know it, even now, Adobe still gets a disproportionate share of its revenues from Mac users. At one time, Adobe got 75% of its revenue from Mac users, though it is much less now as Adobe built a larger business out of PDFs. Still, as Lynch said, they are one of the largest Mac software developers.
Allowing the Flash issues to continue and fester (and the slowness in moving to Cocoa) just reinforces the perception (and likely reality) that Adobe has become more PR talk and less action.
Mac users should respond appropriately by supporting alternate products that meet their needs, and help Adobe to further decrease its revenues and net income.
And as of yet, Adobe still hasn't released a Mac suitable version of Flash. From a business perspective, which do you cater to first? The 80% of the market which uses PCs and has very little to no issues with flash and whose hardware can handle it? Or do you cater to <15% of the market which uses Macs, a company that openly chastises your product, and whose products feature hardware that cannot adequately handle Flash? I wonder.
As you said, your post also speaks for itself.
Couple of points:
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
And Macs have nowhere near 15% of the market.
No problem grabbing the screenshot (just push PrntScrn and save it).
But I can't figure out how to embed the image into a post unless it has a URL associated with it.
http://imageshack.us/
It gets far worse on a typical Mac. Your claims that there is no performance issue just aren't holding water.
Very interesting data. Thanks.
And BTW, I have no idea of whether Macs are capable of playing Flash or not, or whether the performance issues are real or not - not firsthand anyways. I am just going by all the whining I read from Mac users.
It is very interesting that another poster claimed that all his stock Macs run Flash without issues. I wonder what accounts for that? He says that he has not done special configuration, which makes me suspect that other folks HAVE done something that screws up their Macs.
But I really don't know what the heck is going on or why Macs have such problems surfing the 'web.
Until you come up with a method for downrating trolls these forums will continue to lose knowledgeable people who contribute useful information and instead become a ghetto of attention whores. Simply blocking an undesirable user is not enough because the thread will become fractured and newcomers will perpetuate the replies.
Give this some serious thought because these user discussions are in danger of becoming completely useless.
Very interesting data. Thanks.
And BTW, I have no idea of whether Macs are capable of playing Flash or not, or whether the performance issues are real or not - not firsthand anyways. I am just going by all the whining I read from Mac users.
It is very interesting that another poster claimed that all his stock Macs run Flash without issues. I wonder what accounts for that? He says that he has not done special configuration, which makes me suspect that other folks HAVE done something that screws up their Macs.
But I really don't know what the heck is going on or why Macs have such problems surfing the 'web.
They don't have an issue browsing they web. They have issues with web sites that require flash. It has never been properly optimized. It performs better on a Windows machine, but even those are hardly desirable compared to simple H.264.
Couple of points:
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
And Macs have nowhere near 15% of the market.
You're correct, I should have said software in my second point. As I semi touched upon in my first point, there is no doubt, in my opinion, that OS X goes out of its way to hamper Flash. If Flash can run fine on Windows and PC hardware, there's no reason why it shouldn't run fine on OS X and Mac hardware. As hardware between the platforms is mostly similar, the answer has to lie within OS X or at the very least Safari, although I admit I am not knowledge about the inter working of Safari.
As for 15% market share, I was simply being generous
http://imageshack.us/
Thanks. Here you go:
http://yfrog.com/3132893441p
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.
Good point. What happens I wonder if you have Click to Flash but no Flash. Does it prompt for installing the plugin? I haven't ever seen the plugin install prompt on a Mac so I don't know. On Windows I think Flash can automatically install itself from the web page. Been a long time since I have looked at that feature.
Thanks. Here you go:
http://yfrog.com/3132893441p
According to your screenshot, Firefox is using 23% under Windows 7. That is a bit more than the 1-3% you quoted.
They don't have an issue browsing they web. They have issues with web sites that require flash.
Fair enough.
Couple of points:
It doesn't seem to be the Mac hardware which is at fault: They use middle-of-the-road standard hardware on most Macs. It must be some other aspect of the Mac which causes the problem.
And Macs have nowhere near 15% of the market.
I haven't checked the numbers lately, but Macs are probably still more than 15% of the market that Adobe sells software for, and definitely more if one excludes the PDF-based business productivity portion of Adobe's business.
In any case, it's material enough for Adobe to include Mac OS X sales in the risk section of their 10-K.
Dear AppleInsider,
Until you come up with a method for downrating trolls these forums will continue to lose knowledgeable people who contribute useful information and instead become a ghetto of attention whores. ...
I assume you consider your earlier post contributing useful information.
...sometime in 2036.
So what does it take? The CEO of a key customer? A shotgun to the head?
Actually, just keep your 'improvements'. Many of us have learned to live without Flash, and feel better for it.