I play world of warcraft on my computer, when I minimize the game and load a flash based website, my in game performance drops to 40FPS when I normally get 120-140FPS. Not to mention my cpu cycles kick up to maximum.
I've gone to ClickToFlash on all of my Macs. We can only hope that one day Flash dies.
What part of flash? The videos? The adverts? I hope you realize the adverts aren't going anywhere and no matter what format is used (ex. HTML5) for videos or adverts...they still will suck up your CPU usage and battery life. Try taking a look at your Activity Monitor sometime.
I have no problem admitting flash is a problem, but don't think for one second that the other current solutions are any better...they are simply the solution Apple wants to push on us.
I play world of warcraft on my computer, when I minimize the game and load a flash based website, my in game performance drops to 40FPS when I normally get 120-140FPS. Not to mention my cpu cycles kick up to maximum.
Where in-game? Flash-based adverts or videos? What was your CPU usage before you opened that page? Do a comparison between a flash-based page and an HTML-based page and see again if your CPU usage doesn't go up and your framerate drops.
does adobe not have access to hardware acceleration? and why not ?
Apple recently provided public APIs in OS X so third-party programs can use hardware accelerated video decode routines. However, for some reason best known to Apple, OS X only supports video decoding in the Nvidia 9400M and 320M integrated GPUs, despite GPUs having at least some form of hardware video decoding for several years now. Go figure.
Having said all that, lack of hardware video decoding in Flash is absolutely no excuse for its utterly piss-poor performance. From a post I made a while back:
Adobe would have you believe that hardware acceleration is a requirement for low CPU usage when decoding video. This is simply untrue. For small mobile devices, video decode in hardware is preferable as it maximises battery life. On computers with more powerful CPUs though, hardware acceleration isn't so important. For example, I watched the 720p version of a youtube clip in my browser (I waited for the whole clip to finish loading before starting playback) - CPU usage = 150%. Then, I downloaded it and played it with VLC (which has no hardware acceleration) - CPU usage = 40 to 50%. I have a 2.4 GHz Penryn Core 2 Duo.
Having said all that, lack of hardware video decoding in Flash is absolutely no excuse for its utterly piss-poor performance. I have shown that for a 720p video on youtube, Flash used about 120% CPU, and VLC player with no hardware decode used about 30%.
Again, this proves that Jobs was correct when he labeled them LAZY
What part of flash? The videos? The adverts? I hope you realize the adverts aren't going anywhere and no matter what format is used (ex. HTML5) for videos or adverts...
Adblock software takes care of the ads. Flash-based or not.
While I don't care for flash, my Mac Mini's CPU (2.0Ghz dual core) usage for a flash video only increases (according to Activity Monitor) only about 10-12%. That really isn't skyrocketing.
I'm not really on anyone's side here, but my 4 year old MacBook Core Duo uses 70 - 80% CPU when displaying almost ANY Flash Video from YouTube and uses about 25% when in HTML5 mode.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a container to have that kind of overhead. Flash isn't even a codec when it comes to video, it's a freaking container.
Quote:
If you want to someone to take you serious...don't use hyperbole.
If you want someone to take you seriously, don't misuse words. 'Exhaggerate' would have been a better word, and certainly less pretentious.
it is no more ridiculous that your statement regarding running two videos at once.
Whenever I go to NFL.com and want to see highlights, I am often forced to see two concurrent videos...one an ad at the top of the page with audio, the next one an ad at the start of the highlight, then I'll finally get to see the highlight. With ads in between each highlight.
I'm not really on anyone's side here, but my 4 year old MacBook Core Duo uses 70 - 80% CPU when displaying almost ANY Flash Video from YouTube and uses about 25% when in HTML5 mode.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a container to have that kind of overhead. Flash isn't even a codec when it comes to video, it's a freaking container.
If you want someone to take you seriously, don't misuse words. 'Exhaggerate' would have been a better word, and certainly less pretentious.
The word is being used correctly. It is your opinion that the word is pretentious.
Whenever I go to NFL.com and want to see highlights, I am often forced to see two concurrent videos...one an ad at the top of the page with audio, the next one an ad at the start of the highlight, then I'll finally get to see the highlight. With ads in between each highlight.
But yea, it drives me nuts.
Maybe you should use the Adblock that was mention by another poster above.
Flash is perfect just the way it is, isn't it? Where did those crickets come from.
Sounds like the Mission Impossible just ended - and they can no longer deny any knowledge of what Flash actually does in the field.
I recently installed Click to Flash and I am lovin' it. Had one web site that was crashing about every other time I loaded it - with several Flash based Ads being the problem.
Also had the entire system locking up - not kernel panic - just frozen - with audio from iTunes still playing in some cases - or black screen in other cases. I should have kept a log - but seems less so now with Click to Flash installed.
Forgive my lack of understanding here - but it looks like Unity is a programming language not a runtime that is interpreting code in a layer the way flash does - opening performance and security concerns. Even if Unity is providing a framework in to facilitate more rapid development by reusing code but ALL the code gets compiled into the App - vs Unity running as a command interpreter which in turn compiles and or runs the user facing App - then it is different.
Again - I do not know nearly enough about how Unity or Flash work - just thinking that there is more than one way to get code to run - where Unity and Flash are perhaps different enough that any policy affecting one does not necessarily apply to the other for specific, definable reasons - and not just marketing or political reasons.
Flash is perfect just the way it is, isn't it? Where did those crickets come from.
Sounds like the Mission Impossible just ended - and they can no longer deny any knowledge of what Flash actually does in the field.
I recently installed Click to Flash and I am lovin' it. Had one web site that was crashing about every other time I loaded it - with several Flash based Ads being the problem.
Also had the entire system locking up - not kernel panic - just frozen - with audio from iTunes still playing in some cases - or black screen in other cases. I should have kept a log - but seems less so now with Click to Flash installed.
Too bad Click to Flash is only for Safari (I hate Safari as much as I hate Explorer.) I think there are several add-ons for Firefox, but I don't know if Chrome has such an add-on. Hmmm....need to check.
Too bad Click to Flash is only for Safari (I hate Safari as much as I hate Explorer.) I think there are several add-ons for Firefox, but I don't know if Chrome has such an add-on. Hmmm....need to check.
What gruber does in uninstall flash completely. Chrome has an imbedded version of flash. So use safari for most of your browsing, but when you need flash use Chrome. Pretty good advice if you ask me.
I believe gruber even got rid of click to flash because it is no longer available in safari, not sure about that detail.
Apple recently provided public APIs in OS X so third-party programs can use hardware accelerated video decode routines....... CPU usage = 150%. Then, I downloaded it and played it with VLC (which has no hardware acceleration) - CPU usage = 40 to 50%. I have a 2.4 GHz Penryn Core 2 Duo.
Thanks, I knew it wasn't as simple as was being made out. If Adobe spent as much time fixing their code as they did complaining to the media, we wouldn't have a problem.
Guessing the optimized version will have some kind of processor usage cap that subsequently increases battery life. Meanwhile, Flash performance ends up sucking even harder than usual.
Guessing the optimized version will have some kind of processor usage cap that subsequently increases battery life. Meanwhile, Flash performance ends up sucking even harder than usual.
Comments
I've gone to ClickToFlash on all of my Macs. We can only hope that one day Flash dies.
What part of flash? The videos? The adverts? I hope you realize the adverts aren't going anywhere and no matter what format is used (ex. HTML5) for videos or adverts...they still will suck up your CPU usage and battery life. Try taking a look at your Activity Monitor sometime.
I have no problem admitting flash is a problem, but don't think for one second that the other current solutions are any better...they are simply the solution Apple wants to push on us.
I play world of warcraft on my computer, when I minimize the game and load a flash based website, my in game performance drops to 40FPS when I normally get 120-140FPS. Not to mention my cpu cycles kick up to maximum.
Where in-game? Flash-based adverts or videos? What was your CPU usage before you opened that page? Do a comparison between a flash-based page and an HTML-based page and see again if your CPU usage doesn't go up and your framerate drops.
does adobe not have access to hardware acceleration? and why not ?
Apple recently provided public APIs in OS X so third-party programs can use hardware accelerated video decode routines. However, for some reason best known to Apple, OS X only supports video decoding in the Nvidia 9400M and 320M integrated GPUs, despite GPUs having at least some form of hardware video decoding for several years now. Go figure.
Having said all that, lack of hardware video decoding in Flash is absolutely no excuse for its utterly piss-poor performance. From a post I made a while back:
Adobe would have you believe that hardware acceleration is a requirement for low CPU usage when decoding video. This is simply untrue. For small mobile devices, video decode in hardware is preferable as it maximises battery life. On computers with more powerful CPUs though, hardware acceleration isn't so important. For example, I watched the 720p version of a youtube clip in my browser (I waited for the whole clip to finish loading before starting playback) - CPU usage = 150%. Then, I downloaded it and played it with VLC (which has no hardware acceleration) - CPU usage = 40 to 50%. I have a 2.4 GHz Penryn Core 2 Duo.
Having said all that, lack of hardware video decoding in Flash is absolutely no excuse for its utterly piss-poor performance. I have shown that for a 720p video on youtube, Flash used about 120% CPU, and VLC player with no hardware decode used about 30%.
Again, this proves that Jobs was correct when he labeled them LAZY
What part of flash? The videos? The adverts? I hope you realize the adverts aren't going anywhere and no matter what format is used (ex. HTML5) for videos or adverts...
Adblock software takes care of the ads. Flash-based or not.
While I don't care for flash, my Mac Mini's CPU (2.0Ghz dual core) usage for a flash video only increases (according to Activity Monitor) only about 10-12%. That really isn't skyrocketing.
I'm not really on anyone's side here, but my 4 year old MacBook Core Duo uses 70 - 80% CPU when displaying almost ANY Flash Video from YouTube and uses about 25% when in HTML5 mode.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a container to have that kind of overhead. Flash isn't even a codec when it comes to video, it's a freaking container.
If you want to someone to take you serious...don't use hyperbole.
If you want someone to take you seriously, don't misuse words. 'Exhaggerate' would have been a better word, and certainly less pretentious.
it is no more ridiculous that your statement regarding running two videos at once.
Whenever I go to NFL.com and want to see highlights, I am often forced to see two concurrent videos...one an ad at the top of the page with audio, the next one an ad at the start of the highlight, then I'll finally get to see the highlight. With ads in between each highlight.
But yea, it drives me nuts.
I'm not really on anyone's side here, but my 4 year old MacBook Core Duo uses 70 - 80% CPU when displaying almost ANY Flash Video from YouTube and uses about 25% when in HTML5 mode.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a container to have that kind of overhead. Flash isn't even a codec when it comes to video, it's a freaking container.
If you want someone to take you seriously, don't misuse words. 'Exhaggerate' would have been a better word, and certainly less pretentious.
The word is being used correctly. It is your opinion that the word is pretentious.
Whenever I go to NFL.com and want to see highlights, I am often forced to see two concurrent videos...one an ad at the top of the page with audio, the next one an ad at the start of the highlight, then I'll finally get to see the highlight. With ads in between each highlight.
But yea, it drives me nuts.
Maybe you should use the Adblock that was mention by another poster above.
Sounds like the Mission Impossible just ended - and they can no longer deny any knowledge of what Flash actually does in the field.
I recently installed Click to Flash and I am lovin' it. Had one web site that was crashing about every other time I loaded it - with several Flash based Ads being the problem.
Also had the entire system locking up - not kernel panic - just frozen - with audio from iTunes still playing in some cases - or black screen in other cases. I should have kept a log - but seems less so now with Click to Flash installed.
I'm getting tired of reading this without stating what it is that Apple actually restricts on iOS devices.
APPLE DOESN'T ALLOW ANY 3RD PARTY RUN-TIME ENGINES ON IOS DEVICES!
This isn't some Flash only conspiracy that the media and blogosphere love to portray it as. For instance, Silverlight is also not allowed.
Developers *currently* do not have the ability to create any system-wide services or applications. All 3rd party code runs in a sandbox.
Actually, Apple has allowed 3rd party runtimes on iOS.
http://blogs.unity3d.com/2010/09/10/unity-and-ios/
Actually, Apple has allowed 3rd party runtimes on iOS.
http://blogs.unity3d.com/2010/09/10/unity-and-ios/
Forgive my lack of understanding here - but it looks like Unity is a programming language not a runtime that is interpreting code in a layer the way flash does - opening performance and security concerns. Even if Unity is providing a framework in to facilitate more rapid development by reusing code but ALL the code gets compiled into the App - vs Unity running as a command interpreter which in turn compiles and or runs the user facing App - then it is different.
Again - I do not know nearly enough about how Unity or Flash work - just thinking that there is more than one way to get code to run - where Unity and Flash are perhaps different enough that any policy affecting one does not necessarily apply to the other for specific, definable reasons - and not just marketing or political reasons.
Adobe must finally realize they are losing the PR battle with Steve, and if they don't do something soon next they will lose the war.
Flash is perfect just the way it is, isn't it? Where did those crickets come from.
Sounds like the Mission Impossible just ended - and they can no longer deny any knowledge of what Flash actually does in the field.
I recently installed Click to Flash and I am lovin' it. Had one web site that was crashing about every other time I loaded it - with several Flash based Ads being the problem.
Also had the entire system locking up - not kernel panic - just frozen - with audio from iTunes still playing in some cases - or black screen in other cases. I should have kept a log - but seems less so now with Click to Flash installed.
Too bad Click to Flash is only for Safari (I hate Safari as much as I hate Explorer.) I think there are several add-ons for Firefox, but I don't know if Chrome has such an add-on. Hmmm....need to check.
Too bad Click to Flash is only for Safari (I hate Safari as much as I hate Explorer.) I think there are several add-ons for Firefox, but I don't know if Chrome has such an add-on. Hmmm....need to check.
What gruber does in uninstall flash completely. Chrome has an imbedded version of flash. So use safari for most of your browsing, but when you need flash use Chrome. Pretty good advice if you ask me.
I believe gruber even got rid of click to flash because it is no longer available in safari, not sure about that detail.
Apple recently provided public APIs in OS X so third-party programs can use hardware accelerated video decode routines....... CPU usage = 150%. Then, I downloaded it and played it with VLC (which has no hardware acceleration) - CPU usage = 40 to 50%. I have a 2.4 GHz Penryn Core 2 Duo.
Thanks, I knew it wasn't as simple as was being made out. If Adobe spent as much time fixing their code as they did complaining to the media, we wouldn't have a problem.
Guessing the optimized version will have some kind of processor usage cap that subsequently increases battery life. Meanwhile, Flash performance ends up sucking even harder than usual.
Sounds like an Adobe style of fix...