This has been one of the big arguments against Adobe all along. No regard for Mac users.
So just dump them. Apple and the rest of us are moving on. The more Adobe and old shiftless-Shantanu drag their feet with Mac products, the more incentive there is for other more enterprising developers to come up with alternatives (and the more incentive for Apple to move some of its $40 billion to help them.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gt1948
With all the problems Graphic Designers had with the Snow Leopard vs Adobe products when we all upgraded was an eye opener for me. Total crashes of Adobe products and this was after they (Adobe) said that their products weere compatible. HOGWASH.
Now my Illustrator version (CS3) will not work with SL and Adobe will not upgrade their product.
I am moving on? no more dollars for Adobe products/upgrades.
Flash is dead!
I am with both of you. I hope some new company comes along and gives Adobe a run for its money. I am sick to death of Adobe.
i obviously don't know what will happen in five years. but h264 is not the only codec available. the members of mpeg-la will have to determine if this is about licensing fees or standards. then again - this is also going to be an issue for any h264 that's being wrapped in flash right now, isn't it?
Yes that is true, but I'm am at a lost to understand why so many people think the worlds problems will disappear when flash does, all that will happen is a new problem will turn up.
Apple have lost credibility over this and they haven't gained anything.
Adobe were on the right track by moving away from their proprietary plug-in and toward generating native apps for the iPhone.
It's not going to hurt Apple's bottom line though, the tech market has proven they are happy to purchase from unscrupulous and deceitful companies, so at the end of the day I doubt Apple execs will care.
Apple have lost credibility over this and they haven't gained anything.
Adobe were on the right track by moving away from their proprietary plug-in and toward generating native apps for the iPhone.
It's not going to hurt Apple's bottom line though, the tech market has proven they are happy to purchase from unscrupulous and deceitful companies, so at the end of the day I doubt Apple execs will care.
The apps are Native if you're talking about leveraging the full API set from Apple. Flash tools would only create Native support in the areas the the Flash tool had mapped to Cocoa Touch.
No Apple hasn't lost credibility because the people walking into AT&T and buying iPhones don't give a flying leap about how the apps got there they just want good apps that work.
I honestly had no clue. My God. Ok, my position just changed: Adobe shouldn't bring flash to the iphone because obviously the OS can't handle it.
(4 youtube vids playing, 21% cpu utilization. Intel C2D at 3 ghz, 2gb of ram.)
*******
Your showing him how CPU non-intensive Flash is on Windows as a bench mark?
The same throttle is here on Linux as well.
UNIX/Unix-based operating systems are the oldest, most standards based platforms currently running, outside of VAX.
How poorly or well Flash runs on Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, OpenSolaris, IRIX, AIX, RISC OS, HP-UX, etc, is due to Adobe's poor implementation for Flash on Non-Windows NT/XP/VISTA/7 systems.
Dude, you are pimping Flash Player 10.1, which doesn't exist!
I love this particular brand of irrationality. Cheese indeed!
Or better yet, ``Dude we're pimping HTML5, WebGL, SVG1.1/1.2/2.0, CSS3 and more because they all are rolling rapidly into Safari, Chrome, Opera, Firefox, Epiphany, IE9, etc....''
Right now, Epiphany 2.30 is now out and in trunk, the small team of GTK+ devs are restructuring the Pasteboard framework for Epiphany back into WebCore and already rolling WebKit2 into Epiphany trunk.
Clearly, Adobe has a vested interest in their $4.5 Billion for Macromedia and this board is beginning to prove it wasn't a wise investment.
i think we're on the same page. i don't really see flash ever happen on the iWhatever. what i think will happen though is that the content providers are going to drop flash for video delivery (that's what you're really talking about, right), or will at least provide alternate solutions. it's not in their interest to stick with flash if fairly big parts of a choice demographic can't consume their offerings. for them it's about eyeballs, not about technology. whether or not it's feasible for them is another question. i'd say that's their issue to sort out. some won't i'm sure. the big boys will and have started to.
as far as 'most are from apple users' goes - the same was predicted about the ipod, then the iphone... only time will tell i guess. the window of opportunity is certainly smaller than it was with the iphone.
keeps it interesting though, eh?
I saw an article, in the last day or so, that 40% of iPad users run Windows... Too lazy to find a link.
I honestly had no clue. My God. Ok, my position just changed: Adobe shouldn't bring flash to the iphone because obviously the OS can't handle it.
(4 youtube vids playing, 21% cpu utilization. Intel C2D at 3 ghz, 2gb of ram.)
First: what you see in my post is the Flash plugin only... That's Adobe's code, not the OS.
Second: I can play a lot of YouTube vids, concurrently, too.. While rendering a Final Cut Studio hires vid at the same time. The hardware, OS, apps, etc. all work well together... This is not a pissing contest!
The odd man out is the Flash Plugin, downloaded from the Adobe site. It, just sucks!
The issue is that Windows is perfectly okay with having a web plug-in have direct access to hardware acceleration. You know, the way things used to be done in 1991?
If you call that an OS "handling it" your dreaming. No decent OS would allow it.
I thought hardware acceleration is coming in 10.1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Isn't it the other way around? Since Flash was here before HTML5, shouldn't Apple (or HTML5 people) need to highlight what HTML5 can do that Flash can't? Why should whole industry replace one existing, wide-spread standard for another - that just does the same (and is not even fully standardised yet)?
Adobe has to justify the price of going with Flash. HTML5 could come up short, but so long as it did the same major functions for free, it's Adobe who has to show why flash is the way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Ever get mistaken for a fence post?
Your showing him how CPU non-intensive Flash is on Windows as a bench mark?
The same throttle is here on Linux as well.
UNIX/Unix-based operating systems are the oldest, most standards based platforms currently running, outside of VAX.
How poorly or well Flash runs on Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, OpenSolaris, IRIX, AIX, RISC OS, HP-UX, etc, is due to Adobe's poor implementation for Flash on Non-Windows NT/XP/VISTA/7 systems.
Ever start your responses out without an insult? HI THERE [!]
I was showing him my cpu load doing something that apparently uses more than 100% of cpu utilization on a Mac? BTW anyone else find something wrong with saying "more than 100%"?
You bring up those other operating systems, but what kind of demographic uses them? I mean how often will someone want to check out hulu on IRIX?
Your bringing up those operating systems as proof Flash sucks is like me bringing up how HTML5 uses more cpu utilization in Windows than it does in OSX (which is a fact) and then saying HTML5 sucks.
First: what you see in my post is the Flash plugin only... That's Adobe's code, not the OS.
Second: I can play a lot of YouTube vids, concurrently, too.. While rendering a Final Cut Studio hires vid at the same time. The hardware, OS, apps, etc. all work well together... This is not a pissing contest!
The odd man out is the Flash Plugin, downloaded from the Adobe site. It, just sucks!
.
Sorry if I didn't follow you entirely. I'm not an osx user.
So you're saying just the act of having the plugin installed and running uses the cpu, but then everything flows just fine afterwards?
I'm a little lost lol. (And no, I didn't mean for it to be a pissing contest.)
Sorry if I didn't follow you entirely. I'm not an osx user.
So you're saying just the act of having the plugin installed and running uses the cpu, but then everything flows just fine afterwards?
I'm a little lost lol. (And no, I didn't mean for it to be a pissing contest.)
Here's what frequently happens on OS X
1) run non-Flash-- many apps, starting, stopping, all play well together... Occasional errant app aborts, with no effect on system. Go weeks without any problems or reboots.
2) as above, browse to many Flash sites... Slows entire system down, mem leaks, eventually need to abort Flash plugin... Acts like an enema. (Apple recently made Flash plugin run as a separate process so it wouldn't crash the browser).
The problem is that Adobe's Flash plugin (Adobe code) doesn't perform well or reliably on Mac OS X.
The situation I posted was after running several YT Flash vids, one at a time. Then any browser window with Flash (except 1) was closed. In the only window with Flash in it was not running.
Apparently there were mem leaks and runaway loops (100% CPU for an idle plugin). The only way to correct this is to kill the plugin... Then everything is fine.
The problem is that you can recreate it. Adobe has known about this for years, and has made no apparent effort to resolve it.
Bypass:
-- don't install Flash plugin
Or
-- install Click2Flash which intercepts Flash requests by the browser, and let's the user decide if he wants to allow Flash for a given embed. A byproduct is that all the annoying Flash ads are eliminated (not downloaded or displayed).
ok seriously guy, i've read some of the posts here and some of you said flash player 10.1 doesnt exist or some of you have no clue if hardware acceleration exists. yes hardware acceleration exists in the new flash player 10.1. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/
or course right now its a RC release right now but so far on my mac, the CPU usage has dropped down to 40-60(max)% in youtube HD. still not as good as the windows version(about 20-35% in youtube HD).
With all the problems Graphic Designers had with the Snow Leopard vs Adobe products when we all upgraded was an eye opener for me. Total crashes of Adobe products and this was after they (Adobe) said that their products weere compatible. HOGWASH.
Now my Illustrator version (CS3) will not work with SL and Adobe will not upgrade their product.
I am moving on? no more dollars for Adobe products/upgrades.
Flash is dead!
So because you installed an Apple update which broke your illustrator you blame Adobe? You've got nothing against Apple for not caring about backwards compatibility, or basically anyone with a machine out of warranty. They can just completely focus on new machine sales or anything new enough to support the latest OS and if people don't keep spending then tough.
Really what is it the SL does that makes it so vital that a whole industry re-work there products for compatibility?
I was showing him my cpu load doing something that apparently uses more than 100% of cpu utilization on a Mac? BTW anyone else find something wrong with saying "more than 100%"?
Ummm... more than 1 CPU!
Quote:
Your bringing up those operating systems as proof Flash sucks is like me bringing up how HTML5 uses more cpu utilization in Windows than it does in OSX (which is a fact) and then saying HTML5 sucks.
How do you know this... in a prior post you said that you don't use OS X.
Most people in this forum are aware that Flash runs better on Windows. They are also aware that on OS X Flash sucks (performance, crashes, hangs, memory leaks, etc.). Since this is an Apple forum, i suspect that most visitors are expressing that when they post that [Adobe's Mac OS X implementation of] Flash sucks!
The alleged cooperation would have been years earlier when Macromedia was in charge. Silverlight is relatively new, only a couple years old. I would assume the warm relations between Adobe and MS has cooled considerably over the Silverlight launch.
Considering Silverlight came out to the public in 2007 that would be a safe guess.
Though, if statOwl is giving correct number Silverlight seems to be having more of an effect on Quicktime and Windows Media Player support and even there the effect is not such you call substantial.
Please show me these flash sites that don't work great for ANYONE.
OK. Go to www.webkinz.com and log in. It shoots the CPU to 120% on my Core 2 Duo 2.3 GHz and 3 GB RAM - and that's just showing the opening page, not doing anything. Read the Webkinz forums and users on ALL platforms complain about how worthless it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
Second, at a certain level it is ok for Adobe not to give Mac people optimized software, just as I think it is ok for Apple to bar Flash on the iPhone.
Sure. The difference is that Apple has shown that no Flash on its iPhone is not interfering with great sales. Adobe's failure to support OS X would put them out of business in 6-12 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino
i thought so too, but somebody corrected me: there is a version of flash 9 that works on nokia's maemo platform on the Nsomethingorother. doesn't work with all files though. close - but no cigar.
That's not a full flash implementation - it's a VERY limited Mobile Flash. In fact, it is so limited that site developers really need a separate site if they're going to use Mobile Flash - in which case they might as well code for html 5. There is NO full version of Flash on any mobile device. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
I will start respecting them more once they weed out garbage based on it's content, and not only on platform it is made with.
Of course that would cripple some of their PR efforts, so it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Actually, Apple HAS been weeding out crappy content over the past 6 months. They trimmed tens of thousands of apps - which probably accounts for the tens of thousands of apps now on the Android store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwklam
ok seriously guy, i've read some of the posts here and some of you said flash player 10.1 doesnt exist or some of you have no clue if hardware acceleration exists. yes hardware acceleration exists in the new flash player 10.1. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/
So your point is that you're unable to tell the difference between a marketing release on vaporware and a real product? Flash 10.1 is not out yet. And even if it were, the hardware requirements are greater than the iPhone 3GS offers, so it wouldn't run, anyway - because of Adobe's inability to make it run on the most popular mobile devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
I thought hardware acceleration is coming in 10.1.
Supposedly. However, early reports are that it's still choppy and slow.
Even if it works, it's irrelevant. It's not available today, so Adobe's whining about Apple not having Flash on the iPhone is misplaced. Apple CAN'T have Flash on the iPhone until Adobe releases a version that would work with that level of computing power. Adobe has not done so, nor do they even have any vaporware that would work on a phone with the power of an iPhone. It's NOT Apple's fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
I was showing him my cpu load doing something that apparently uses more than 100% of cpu utilization on a Mac? BTW anyone else find something wrong with saying "more than 100%"?
Yes. What's wrong is that you haven't bothered to learn how Apple reports CPU usage.
Apple reports CPU usage as a percentage of a single CPU. So if you have a quad core i7 iMac, you could get CPU usage well over 300% if you have an app that takes advantage of it.
The issue is that Windows is perfectly okay with having a web plug-in have direct access to hardware acceleration. You know, the way things used to be done in 1991?
If you call that an OS "handling it" your dreaming. No decent OS would allow it.
Apple to Allow Hardware Accelerated Flash on Macs; Android Gets Flash, Air
Jason Mick (Blog) - April 23, 2010 9:30 AM
Despite the pair's icy relationship, Apple did just quietly release a new API that will allow for Adobe to finally offer hardware accelerated Flash on Mac computers. Technical Note TN2267 describes the new API, the Video Decode Acceleration Framework, stating:
The Video Decode Acceleration framework is a C programming interface providing low-level access to the H.264 decoding capabilities of compatible GPUs such as the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M. It is intended for use by advanced developers who specifically need hardware accelerated decode of video frames.
If this doesn't kill Flash, I don't know what will.
So... are we back in 1991? Or is OSX, after all, not a decent OS?
Isn't it the other way around? Since Flash was here before HTML5, shouldn't Apple (or HTML5 people) need to highlight what HTML5 can do that Flash can't? Why should whole industry replace one existing, wide-spread standard for another - that just does the same (and is not even fully standardised yet)?
Because there's a difference between an actual standard, as in a ratified spec of HTML, and a de facto "standard" which simply has to do with market penetration.
It would be like asking why we would ever want to change the Internet Explorer "standard" with unknown quantities like Firefox, which didn't (at first) even work with a lot of sites that had been built around the Explorer "standard."
Comments
This has been one of the big arguments against Adobe all along. No regard for Mac users.
So just dump them. Apple and the rest of us are moving on. The more Adobe and old shiftless-Shantanu drag their feet with Mac products, the more incentive there is for other more enterprising developers to come up with alternatives (and the more incentive for Apple to move some of its $40 billion to help them.)
With all the problems Graphic Designers had with the Snow Leopard vs Adobe products when we all upgraded was an eye opener for me. Total crashes of Adobe products and this was after they (Adobe) said that their products weere compatible. HOGWASH.
Now my Illustrator version (CS3) will not work with SL and Adobe will not upgrade their product.
I am moving on? no more dollars for Adobe products/upgrades.
Flash is dead!
I am with both of you. I hope some new company comes along and gives Adobe a run for its money. I am sick to death of Adobe.
i obviously don't know what will happen in five years. but h264 is not the only codec available. the members of mpeg-la will have to determine if this is about licensing fees or standards. then again - this is also going to be an issue for any h264 that's being wrapped in flash right now, isn't it?
Yes that is true, but I'm am at a lost to understand why so many people think the worlds problems will disappear when flash does, all that will happen is a new problem will turn up.
Adobe were on the right track by moving away from their proprietary plug-in and toward generating native apps for the iPhone.
It's not going to hurt Apple's bottom line though, the tech market has proven they are happy to purchase from unscrupulous and deceitful companies, so at the end of the day I doubt Apple execs will care.
Apple have lost credibility over this and they haven't gained anything.
Adobe were on the right track by moving away from their proprietary plug-in and toward generating native apps for the iPhone.
It's not going to hurt Apple's bottom line though, the tech market has proven they are happy to purchase from unscrupulous and deceitful companies, so at the end of the day I doubt Apple execs will care.
The apps are Native if you're talking about leveraging the full API set from Apple. Flash tools would only create Native support in the areas the the Flash tool had mapped to Cocoa Touch.
No Apple hasn't lost credibility because the people walking into AT&T and buying iPhones don't give a flying leap about how the apps got there they just want good apps that work.
I honestly had no clue. My God. Ok, my position just changed: Adobe shouldn't bring flash to the iphone because obviously the OS can't handle it.
(4 youtube vids playing, 21% cpu utilization. Intel C2D at 3 ghz, 2gb of ram.)
*******
Your showing him how CPU non-intensive Flash is on Windows as a bench mark?
The same throttle is here on Linux as well.
UNIX/Unix-based operating systems are the oldest, most standards based platforms currently running, outside of VAX.
How poorly or well Flash runs on Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, OpenSolaris, IRIX, AIX, RISC OS, HP-UX, etc, is due to Adobe's poor implementation for Flash on Non-Windows NT/XP/VISTA/7 systems.
Dude, you are pimping Flash Player 10.1, which doesn't exist!
I love this particular brand of irrationality. Cheese indeed!
Or better yet, ``Dude we're pimping HTML5, WebGL, SVG1.1/1.2/2.0, CSS3 and more because they all are rolling rapidly into Safari, Chrome, Opera, Firefox, Epiphany, IE9, etc....''
Right now, Epiphany 2.30 is now out and in trunk, the small team of GTK+ devs are restructuring the Pasteboard framework for Epiphany back into WebCore and already rolling WebKit2 into Epiphany trunk.
Clearly, Adobe has a vested interest in their $4.5 Billion for Macromedia and this board is beginning to prove it wasn't a wise investment.
i think we're on the same page. i don't really see flash ever happen on the iWhatever. what i think will happen though is that the content providers are going to drop flash for video delivery (that's what you're really talking about, right), or will at least provide alternate solutions. it's not in their interest to stick with flash if fairly big parts of a choice demographic can't consume their offerings. for them it's about eyeballs, not about technology. whether or not it's feasible for them is another question. i'd say that's their issue to sort out. some won't i'm sure. the big boys will and have started to.
as far as 'most are from apple users' goes - the same was predicted about the ipod, then the iphone... only time will tell i guess. the window of opportunity is certainly smaller than it was with the iphone.
keeps it interesting though, eh?
I saw an article, in the last day or so, that 40% of iPad users run Windows... Too lazy to find a link.
.
I honestly had no clue. My God. Ok, my position just changed: Adobe shouldn't bring flash to the iphone because obviously the OS can't handle it.
(4 youtube vids playing, 21% cpu utilization. Intel C2D at 3 ghz, 2gb of ram.)
First: what you see in my post is the Flash plugin only... That's Adobe's code, not the OS.
Second: I can play a lot of YouTube vids, concurrently, too.. While rendering a Final Cut Studio hires vid at the same time. The hardware, OS, apps, etc. all work well together... This is not a pissing contest!
The odd man out is the Flash Plugin, downloaded from the Adobe site. It, just sucks!
.
The issue is that Windows is perfectly okay with having a web plug-in have direct access to hardware acceleration. You know, the way things used to be done in 1991?
If you call that an OS "handling it" your dreaming. No decent OS would allow it.
I thought hardware acceleration is coming in 10.1.
Isn't it the other way around? Since Flash was here before HTML5, shouldn't Apple (or HTML5 people) need to highlight what HTML5 can do that Flash can't? Why should whole industry replace one existing, wide-spread standard for another - that just does the same (and is not even fully standardised yet)?
Adobe has to justify the price of going with Flash. HTML5 could come up short, but so long as it did the same major functions for free, it's Adobe who has to show why flash is the way to go.
Ever get mistaken for a fence post?
Your showing him how CPU non-intensive Flash is on Windows as a bench mark?
The same throttle is here on Linux as well.
UNIX/Unix-based operating systems are the oldest, most standards based platforms currently running, outside of VAX.
How poorly or well Flash runs on Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, OpenSolaris, IRIX, AIX, RISC OS, HP-UX, etc, is due to Adobe's poor implementation for Flash on Non-Windows NT/XP/VISTA/7 systems.
Ever start your responses out without an insult? HI THERE [!]
I was showing him my cpu load doing something that apparently uses more than 100% of cpu utilization on a Mac? BTW anyone else find something wrong with saying "more than 100%"?
You bring up those other operating systems, but what kind of demographic uses them? I mean how often will someone want to check out hulu on IRIX?
Your bringing up those operating systems as proof Flash sucks is like me bringing up how HTML5 uses more cpu utilization in Windows than it does in OSX (which is a fact) and then saying HTML5 sucks.
First: what you see in my post is the Flash plugin only... That's Adobe's code, not the OS.
Second: I can play a lot of YouTube vids, concurrently, too.. While rendering a Final Cut Studio hires vid at the same time. The hardware, OS, apps, etc. all work well together... This is not a pissing contest!
The odd man out is the Flash Plugin, downloaded from the Adobe site. It, just sucks!
.
Sorry if I didn't follow you entirely. I'm not an osx user.
So you're saying just the act of having the plugin installed and running uses the cpu, but then everything flows just fine afterwards?
I'm a little lost lol. (And no, I didn't mean for it to be a pissing contest.)
Clearly, Adobe has a vested interest in their $4.5 Billion for Macromedia and this board is beginning to prove it wasn't a wise investment.
Why!? It's used EVERYWHERE.
Sorry if I didn't follow you entirely. I'm not an osx user.
So you're saying just the act of having the plugin installed and running uses the cpu, but then everything flows just fine afterwards?
I'm a little lost lol. (And no, I didn't mean for it to be a pissing contest.)
Here's what frequently happens on OS X
1) run non-Flash-- many apps, starting, stopping, all play well together... Occasional errant app aborts, with no effect on system. Go weeks without any problems or reboots.
2) as above, browse to many Flash sites... Slows entire system down, mem leaks, eventually need to abort Flash plugin... Acts like an enema. (Apple recently made Flash plugin run as a separate process so it wouldn't crash the browser).
The problem is that Adobe's Flash plugin (Adobe code) doesn't perform well or reliably on Mac OS X.
The situation I posted was after running several YT Flash vids, one at a time. Then any browser window with Flash (except 1) was closed. In the only window with Flash in it was not running.
Apparently there were mem leaks and runaway loops (100% CPU for an idle plugin). The only way to correct this is to kill the plugin... Then everything is fine.
The problem is that you can recreate it. Adobe has known about this for years, and has made no apparent effort to resolve it.
Bypass:
-- don't install Flash plugin
Or
-- install Click2Flash which intercepts Flash requests by the browser, and let's the user decide if he wants to allow Flash for a given embed. A byproduct is that all the annoying Flash ads are eliminated (not downloaded or displayed).
.
or course right now its a RC release right now but so far on my mac, the CPU usage has dropped down to 40-60(max)% in youtube HD. still not as good as the windows version(about 20-35% in youtube HD).
With all the problems Graphic Designers had with the Snow Leopard vs Adobe products when we all upgraded was an eye opener for me. Total crashes of Adobe products and this was after they (Adobe) said that their products weere compatible. HOGWASH.
Now my Illustrator version (CS3) will not work with SL and Adobe will not upgrade their product.
I am moving on? no more dollars for Adobe products/upgrades.
Flash is dead!
So because you installed an Apple update which broke your illustrator you blame Adobe? You've got nothing against Apple for not caring about backwards compatibility, or basically anyone with a machine out of warranty. They can just completely focus on new machine sales or anything new enough to support the latest OS and if people don't keep spending then tough.
Really what is it the SL does that makes it so vital that a whole industry re-work there products for compatibility?
I
I was showing him my cpu load doing something that apparently uses more than 100% of cpu utilization on a Mac? BTW anyone else find something wrong with saying "more than 100%"?
Ummm... more than 1 CPU!
Your bringing up those operating systems as proof Flash sucks is like me bringing up how HTML5 uses more cpu utilization in Windows than it does in OSX (which is a fact) and then saying HTML5 sucks.
How do you know this... in a prior post you said that you don't use OS X.
Most people in this forum are aware that Flash runs better on Windows. They are also aware that on OS X Flash sucks (performance, crashes, hangs, memory leaks, etc.). Since this is an Apple forum, i suspect that most visitors are expressing that when they post that [Adobe's Mac OS X implementation of] Flash sucks!
.
The alleged cooperation would have been years earlier when Macromedia was in charge. Silverlight is relatively new, only a couple years old. I would assume the warm relations between Adobe and MS has cooled considerably over the Silverlight launch.
Considering Silverlight came out to the public in 2007 that would be a safe guess.
Though, if statOwl is giving correct number Silverlight seems to be having more of an effect on Quicktime and Windows Media Player support and even there the effect is not such you call substantial.
Please show me these flash sites that don't work great for ANYONE.
OK. Go to www.webkinz.com and log in. It shoots the CPU to 120% on my Core 2 Duo 2.3 GHz and 3 GB RAM - and that's just showing the opening page, not doing anything. Read the Webkinz forums and users on ALL platforms complain about how worthless it is.
Second, at a certain level it is ok for Adobe not to give Mac people optimized software, just as I think it is ok for Apple to bar Flash on the iPhone.
Sure. The difference is that Apple has shown that no Flash on its iPhone is not interfering with great sales. Adobe's failure to support OS X would put them out of business in 6-12 months.
i thought so too, but somebody corrected me: there is a version of flash 9 that works on nokia's maemo platform on the Nsomethingorother. doesn't work with all files though. close - but no cigar.
That's not a full flash implementation - it's a VERY limited Mobile Flash. In fact, it is so limited that site developers really need a separate site if they're going to use Mobile Flash - in which case they might as well code for html 5. There is NO full version of Flash on any mobile device. Period.
I will start respecting them more once they weed out garbage based on it's content, and not only on platform it is made with.
Of course that would cripple some of their PR efforts, so it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Actually, Apple HAS been weeding out crappy content over the past 6 months. They trimmed tens of thousands of apps - which probably accounts for the tens of thousands of apps now on the Android store.
ok seriously guy, i've read some of the posts here and some of you said flash player 10.1 doesnt exist or some of you have no clue if hardware acceleration exists. yes hardware acceleration exists in the new flash player 10.1. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/
So your point is that you're unable to tell the difference between a marketing release on vaporware and a real product? Flash 10.1 is not out yet. And even if it were, the hardware requirements are greater than the iPhone 3GS offers, so it wouldn't run, anyway - because of Adobe's inability to make it run on the most popular mobile devices.
I thought hardware acceleration is coming in 10.1.
Supposedly. However, early reports are that it's still choppy and slow.
Even if it works, it's irrelevant. It's not available today, so Adobe's whining about Apple not having Flash on the iPhone is misplaced. Apple CAN'T have Flash on the iPhone until Adobe releases a version that would work with that level of computing power. Adobe has not done so, nor do they even have any vaporware that would work on a phone with the power of an iPhone. It's NOT Apple's fault.
I was showing him my cpu load doing something that apparently uses more than 100% of cpu utilization on a Mac? BTW anyone else find something wrong with saying "more than 100%"?
Yes. What's wrong is that you haven't bothered to learn how Apple reports CPU usage.
Apple reports CPU usage as a percentage of a single CPU. So if you have a quad core i7 iMac, you could get CPU usage well over 300% if you have an app that takes advantage of it.
The issue is that Windows is perfectly okay with having a web plug-in have direct access to hardware acceleration. You know, the way things used to be done in 1991?
If you call that an OS "handling it" your dreaming. No decent OS would allow it.
Think again.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18207
In short:
Apple to Allow Hardware Accelerated Flash on Macs; Android Gets Flash, Air
Jason Mick (Blog) - April 23, 2010 9:30 AM
Despite the pair's icy relationship, Apple did just quietly release a new API that will allow for Adobe to finally offer hardware accelerated Flash on Mac computers. Technical Note TN2267 describes the new API, the Video Decode Acceleration Framework, stating:
The Video Decode Acceleration framework is a C programming interface providing low-level access to the H.264 decoding capabilities of compatible GPUs such as the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M. It is intended for use by advanced developers who specifically need hardware accelerated decode of video frames.
If this doesn't kill Flash, I don't know what will.
So... are we back in 1991? Or is OSX, after all, not a decent OS?
Isn't it the other way around? Since Flash was here before HTML5, shouldn't Apple (or HTML5 people) need to highlight what HTML5 can do that Flash can't? Why should whole industry replace one existing, wide-spread standard for another - that just does the same (and is not even fully standardised yet)?
Because there's a difference between an actual standard, as in a ratified spec of HTML, and a de facto "standard" which simply has to do with market penetration.
It would be like asking why we would ever want to change the Internet Explorer "standard" with unknown quantities like Firefox, which didn't (at first) even work with a lot of sites that had been built around the Explorer "standard."