It works about as well as a piece of dump for me. Safari 5 was working perfectly for a few days. I just installed the new Flash and it's crashing every couple minutes. In the plug-in path description in the error report it shows Adobe Flash as the culprit. I'd advise not to install it, if you use Safari 5 until they get a fix.
I installed the Flash 10.1, then I installed Safari 5, went to Hulu and watched a trailer. Watched couple of news videos on cbs5.com. Happily, no crashes.
I've not been able to get this extension to work yet. I can't find the button when watching .264 YouTube.
There is no additional button.The button that would take you to full screen in Flash only takes the video to the full width of the Safari window with HTML5. If you have this extension installed, enabled and then load the video in HTML5 that same button will now take it to full screen because it uses the webkitEnterFullScreen() WebKit API.
Of course, there could be some glitch causing it to not work on your end, but it works fine for me.
Allow me to play devil?s advocate for a second here. I?m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash?s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, ?Adobe couldn?t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?? and otherwise criticize Flash?s Mac performance. Yeah, it?s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn?t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash?s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It?s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it?s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash?s occasional crash, I wouldn?t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don?t result in a great browsing experience.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.
Don't play devil advocate, since if you knew your history about Adobe-Apple relationship, Apple have been very open and willing to obtain a working version that works for mac. Actually Apple approached Adobe about Flash for iPhone in the iPhone's development stages.
So comments about Adobe being lazy and Flash is awful is pretty accurate and all information you require is in Appleinsider and been discussed to death.
Not sure where you got that information about APIs just being provided to Adobe, but I would request a link because just don't believe that occurred.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.
If that was the ONLY issue then I'd see your point, but Adobe has had since Leopard to work on adding Core Animation, to make a 64-bit version, to make it less CPU intensive in general (something they did for 10.1 over 10.0) and to make it less crashy.
They only good that came out of Adobe not making a 64-bit version of Flash is Apple moved the plugin to it's own process when they made Safari 64-bit for Snow Leopard. They had no choice in the matter if they wanted Safari to be 64-bit.
Even now with the HW accerlated version of Flash for Mac OS X, it's still considerably more CPU intensive than HTML5 for doing the same task. Just check out a YouTube video to see the excessive divide between Flash for video streaming and HTML for video streaming. And this all on Macs, you bring this down to an ARM CPUs with much more limited performance running on a very small battery and you run into a much bigger issue; one that Adobe still hasn't resolved.
Not sure where you got that information about APIs just being provided to Adobe, but I would request a link because just don't believe that occurred.
That part is true. Apple did change 10.6.3 to all devs ? though specifically Adobe ? access to a framework that will offer HW acceleration.
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.
PS: Note that Flash for Windows has always been considerably better even without HW acceleration that only came with the 10.1 Beta late last year so Planet Blue's argument doesn't hold water.
Great work, Adobe! I just installed 10.1 on my Windows 7 machine and even all my favorite flash games that are free run perfectly! I'll be getting a Nexus One real soon to replace my iPhone 3GS that cannot run simple things as Flash.
Even now with the HW accerlated version of Flash for Mac OS X, it's still considerably more CPU intensive than HTML5 for doing the same task. Just check out a YouTube video to see the excessive divide between Flash for video streaming and HTML for video streaming. And this all on Macs, you bring this down to an ARM CPUs with much more limited performance running on a very small battery and you run into a much bigger issue; one that Adobe still hasn't resolved.
How many HTML5 games are there? Five? How many Flash games are there? FIVE MILLION!?
Also, Flash Player 10.1 on Nexus One runs the same stuff much faster than iPhone 3GS runs HTML5. Think about that. Both have ARM CPU inside.
I'll be getting a Nexus One real soon to replace my iPhone 3GS that cannot run simple things as Flash.
So simple that it only took Adobe until the middle of 2010 to get it to a public beta stage and is only officially available on one Android phone, the Nexus One. And according to Adobe's own requirements the Moto Droid which only came out last November can't get it because it uses a WVGA display thereby requiring an 800MHz CPU at the very least. How could it any simpler?
2) The Nexus One runs a 1GHz CPU and the 3GS has a 600GHz CPU so you'd expect it to be faster. Yet, for graphics it was still shown to be slower than the 3GS.
Add Flash to the mix and you now weaken the Nexus One even more while draining the battery even faster with the weak sauce it's shown for using the web browser.
I suppose not everyone feels the way I do about technology. If you feel some marketing buzzwords are more important that some marketing buzzwords are important than quality engineering and good programming, or that games designed for the OS are and device are less important than a Flash game then knock yourself out. No one here is going to stop you from buying a Nexus One, but you may want to consider one of the other, better Android-based phones on the market before you commit to the failed Nexus One.
3) If you are going to comment at try to have a viable counter argument. This is pathetic.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.
Whilst it is true that hardware acceleration APIs only became available recently on OS X, it is a massive red-herring perpetuated by Adobe that hardware acceleration is required for decent performance.
The fact is that Adobe are shit at optimising code on OS X, probably because they use their own compatibility layer so that they can write code once and deploy on multiple platforms. Of course, the whole thing is architected to work best on Windows, and when used on OS X performance sucks.
There is simply no way that Flash should use so much CPU time, even without hardware accelerated video decode. See this post from a different thread.
Actually runs a little bit better on the old PowerPc platform (not that many people care), when I ramp the clock speed to high performance on my trusty old Powerbook 1.67 I can actually just about watch 480i video.
I've been using 10.1 beta for a few months, the performance was better than the terrible 10.0 release. However some weird bugs manifested itself whenever I watch youtube videos where the sound starts out of sync then double tracks when the video starts. Odd
Mind you this is all worthless, I just tried Safari 5 with the html5 option in Youtube and I've been impressed with 5's performance increase even on this lowly old platform.
How did you find that site? The same domain name ending with .com shows hundreds, and that's just one site.
Plus, gotApple has either ignorantly overlooked or was just being sleazy about Flash game numbers by ignoring all the native app games and the fact that Adobe had to rewrite Flash, not just to be more efficient, but to even work on a touch-based phone.
Think about it, most Flash apps require the keyboard or mouse to navigate the game, you can't just pop that onto a touchscreen display and retain those controls. The first thing you have to do is touch inside the Flash window to give control to it, not the browser. Then you have to navigate the game. I still don't see how Adobe has worked that out without some intelligently mapped overlays, but I still foresee issues which with this limited tech.
Allow me to play devil?s advocate for a second here. I?m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash?s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, ?Adobe couldn?t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?? and otherwise criticize Flash?s Mac performance. Yeah, it?s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn?t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash?s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It?s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it?s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash?s occasional crash, I wouldn?t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don?t result in a great browsing experience.
So in your mind 'devil's advocate' means Adobe shill, I guess.
The fact is that no one else seems to require hardware acceleration to get good results. Furthermore, it's a total BS argument from Adobe. My daughter uses a game called 'Webkinz' which doesn't have any video, so it wouldn't benefit from hardware acceleration at all. It's a simple menuing system based on Flash - yet it shoots CPU usage over 100% on 10.0 and to right around 100% on 10.1----even when it's sitting there not doing anything? How in the world is it possible to use that much CPU to simply display a game that's idle when the same system can handle video editing or Photoshopping multi-MB images with aplomb?
Not to mention, of course, that in 2007 when Adobe promised Flash for the iPhone 'real soon now', they knew that hardware acceleration wasn't available, yet they were telling the world that they would have it soon. It never showed up.
Comments
It works about as well as a piece of dump for me. Safari 5 was working perfectly for a few days. I just installed the new Flash and it's crashing every couple minutes. In the plug-in path description in the error report it shows Adobe Flash as the culprit. I'd advise not to install it, if you use Safari 5 until they get a fix.
I installed the Flash 10.1, then I installed Safari 5, went to Hulu and watched a trailer. Watched couple of news videos on cbs5.com. Happily, no crashes.
If you watch YouTube often you can now run their HTML5 version completely and still get fullscreen with a Safari 5 extension.
I've not been able to get this extension to work yet. I can't find the button when watching .264 YouTube.
I've not been able to get this extension to work yet. I can't find the button when watching .264 YouTube.
There is no additional button.The button that would take you to full screen in Flash only takes the video to the full width of the Safari window with HTML5. If you have this extension installed, enabled and then load the video in HTML5 that same button will now take it to full screen because it uses the webkitEnterFullScreen() WebKit API.
Of course, there could be some glitch causing it to not work on your end, but it works fine for me.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it?s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash?s occasional crash, I wouldn?t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don?t result in a great browsing experience.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.
Don't play devil advocate, since if you knew your history about Adobe-Apple relationship, Apple have been very open and willing to obtain a working version that works for mac. Actually Apple approached Adobe about Flash for iPhone in the iPhone's development stages.
So comments about Adobe being lazy and Flash is awful is pretty accurate and all information you require is in Appleinsider and been discussed to death.
Not sure where you got that information about APIs just being provided to Adobe, but I would request a link because just don't believe that occurred.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.
If that was the ONLY issue then I'd see your point, but Adobe has had since Leopard to work on adding Core Animation, to make a 64-bit version, to make it less CPU intensive in general (something they did for 10.1 over 10.0) and to make it less crashy.
They only good that came out of Adobe not making a 64-bit version of Flash is Apple moved the plugin to it's own process when they made Safari 64-bit for Snow Leopard. They had no choice in the matter if they wanted Safari to be 64-bit.
Even now with the HW accerlated version of Flash for Mac OS X, it's still considerably more CPU intensive than HTML5 for doing the same task. Just check out a YouTube video to see the excessive divide between Flash for video streaming and HTML for video streaming. And this all on Macs, you bring this down to an ARM CPUs with much more limited performance running on a very small battery and you run into a much bigger issue; one that Adobe still hasn't resolved.
Not sure where you got that information about APIs just being provided to Adobe, but I would request a link because just don't believe that occurred.
That part is true. Apple did change 10.6.3 to all devs ? though specifically Adobe ? access to a framework that will offer HW acceleration.Here is more info from DF: http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/fl...e_acceleration
PS: Note that Flash for Windows has always been considerably better even without HW acceleration that only came with the 10.1 Beta late last year so Planet Blue's argument doesn't hold water.
Even now with the HW accerlated version of Flash for Mac OS X, it's still considerably more CPU intensive than HTML5 for doing the same task. Just check out a YouTube video to see the excessive divide between Flash for video streaming and HTML for video streaming. And this all on Macs, you bring this down to an ARM CPUs with much more limited performance running on a very small battery and you run into a much bigger issue; one that Adobe still hasn't resolved.
How many HTML5 games are there? Five? How many Flash games are there? FIVE MILLION!?
Also, Flash Player 10.1 on Nexus One runs the same stuff much faster than iPhone 3GS runs HTML5. Think about that. Both have ARM CPU inside.
I'll be getting a Nexus One real soon to replace my iPhone 3GS that cannot run simple things as Flash.
So simple that it only took Adobe until the middle of 2010 to get it to a public beta stage and is only officially available on one Android phone, the Nexus One. And according to Adobe's own requirements the Moto Droid which only came out last November can't get it because it uses a WVGA display thereby requiring an 800MHz CPU at the very least. How could it any simpler?
Also, Flash Player 10.1 on Nexus One runs the same stuff much faster than iPhone 3GS runs HTML5. Think about that. Both have ARM CPU inside.
1) Flash isn't more efficient that native webcode. Just check out streaming video from YouTube. it's also not more efficient than a native game.
Here, I even made one just to show you how incredibly wrong you are...2) The Nexus One runs a 1GHz CPU and the 3GS has a 600GHz CPU so you'd expect it to be faster. Yet, for graphics it was still shown to be slower than the 3GS.Add Flash to the mix and you now weaken the Nexus One even more while draining the battery even faster with the weak sauce it's shown for using the web browser.I suppose not everyone feels the way I do about technology. If you feel some marketing buzzwords are more important that some marketing buzzwords are important than quality engineering and good programming, or that games designed for the OS are and device are less important than a Flash game then knock yourself out. No one here is going to stop you from buying a Nexus One, but you may want to consider one of the other, better Android-based phones on the market before you commit to the failed Nexus One.
3) If you are going to comment at try to have a viable counter argument. This is pathetic.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second here. I’m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash’s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, “Adobe couldn’t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?” and otherwise criticize Flash’s Mac performance. Yeah, it’s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn’t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash’s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It’s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it’s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash’s occasional crash, I wouldn’t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don’t result in a great browsing experience.
Whilst it is true that hardware acceleration APIs only became available recently on OS X, it is a massive red-herring perpetuated by Adobe that hardware acceleration is required for decent performance.
The fact is that Adobe are shit at optimising code on OS X, probably because they use their own compatibility layer so that they can write code once and deploy on multiple platforms. Of course, the whole thing is architected to work best on Windows, and when used on OS X performance sucks.
There is simply no way that Flash should use so much CPU time, even without hardware accelerated video decode. See this post from a different thread.
I've been using 10.1 beta for a few months, the performance was better than the terrible 10.0 release. However some weird bugs manifested itself whenever I watch youtube videos where the sound starts out of sync then double tracks when the video starts. Odd
Mind you this is all worthless, I just tried Safari 5 with the html5 option in Youtube and I've been impressed with 5's performance increase even on this lowly old platform.
Better, Adobe, but not good enough....
How many HTML5 games are there? Five?
There are two:
http://html5games.net/
There are two:
No, there are more than two:
http://web.appstorm.net/roundups/bro...aving-the-way/
3) If you are going to comment at try to have a viable counter argument. This is pathetic.
You and me are not talking about the same thing. Let me recap. Very simple. Understand, please.
iPhone runs HTML5 much slower than Nexus One runs flash:
http://recombu.com/news/flash-player...ne_M11610.html
"Chaize also shows HTML5 running on an iPhone 3GS and it's not pretty."
No, there are more than two:
http://web.appstorm.net/roundups/bro...aving-the-way/
Is it now 10+2 = 12?
There are two:
http://html5games.net/
How did you find that site? The same domain name ending with .com shows hundreds, and that's just one site.
Plus, gotApple has either ignorantly overlooked or was just being sleazy about Flash game numbers by ignoring all the native app games and the fact that Adobe had to rewrite Flash, not just to be more efficient, but to even work on a touch-based phone.
Think about it, most Flash apps require the keyboard or mouse to navigate the game, you can't just pop that onto a touchscreen display and retain those controls. The first thing you have to do is touch inside the Flash window to give control to it, not the browser. Then you have to navigate the game. I still don't see how Adobe has worked that out without some intelligently mapped overlays, but I still foresee issues which with this limited tech.
Allow me to play devil?s advocate for a second here. I?m no Flash lover, but I kinda think Adobe has gotten a raw deal from Apple & co. regarding Flash?s performance on Macs. People (and Steve Jobs) often say things like, ?Adobe couldn?t even get Flash to run well on a Mac, so how could they get it to run on a phone?? and otherwise criticize Flash?s Mac performance. Yeah, it?s been terrible (my CPU jumps to 45% when watching videos with Flash), but Apple only JUST gave them access to those APIs to allow Flash to be hardware accelerated. Adobe didn?t have much of a choice up until now (they had to use software acceleration). For Apple to criticize Adobe for Flash?s performance on Macs all this time is pretty lame if you think about it. It?s like telling someone to run only using one foot, and then sincerely and adamantly criticizing them for being slow.
So for all the people who seem to absolutely loathe Adobe Flash, I think it?s worth at least giving them until they release a stable version of the current beta version before making the final call on whether or not Adobe is lazy, Flash is awful, etc.
Whether this is related to Flash?s occasional crash, I wouldn?t know. Probably somewhat. Very high CPU cycles generally don?t result in a great browsing experience.
So in your mind 'devil's advocate' means Adobe shill, I guess.
The fact is that no one else seems to require hardware acceleration to get good results. Furthermore, it's a total BS argument from Adobe. My daughter uses a game called 'Webkinz' which doesn't have any video, so it wouldn't benefit from hardware acceleration at all. It's a simple menuing system based on Flash - yet it shoots CPU usage over 100% on 10.0 and to right around 100% on 10.1----even when it's sitting there not doing anything? How in the world is it possible to use that much CPU to simply display a game that's idle when the same system can handle video editing or Photoshopping multi-MB images with aplomb?
Not to mention, of course, that in 2007 when Adobe promised Flash for the iPhone 'real soon now', they knew that hardware acceleration wasn't available, yet they were telling the world that they would have it soon. It never showed up.