06-02-2010, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Doug b

Um... nice FUD there bud. Can you and other's like you try for once to actually prove something without quoting someone else for proof ? "What it does to Mac's?" LOL that's hilarious. Nothing has EVER "happened" to either of my MacBook Pro's while running any sort of Flash site, application etc.. EVER. No slow down's, no huge resource hogging etc... So stop with the repeated mantra which you've been taught and have never even [possibly] experienced. You guys love to pretend that Flash consumes resources to the point of where it's impossible to do anything else while it's running. And you KNOW this is a lie.

Nice one. You just accused me of saying a lot of things i didnt write in my post. You also accuse me of thinking like some others you might or might not know, that seem to have said things in that direction before.
Furthermore you accuse me of lying.
Well done.

Flash IS eating resources. Of course it doesn't make the system unusable, but it uses enough resources to not be able to watch 720p Videos fluently on 2GB Ram. Since I know it and experienced it and others report it too, I do not need to prove that in any way, and especially not to you.

06-02-2010, 03:37 PM

Play nice, folks. That's rule #1 in the link in my signature.

06-04-2010, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by lifeisabeach

Test shows Flash 10.1 bogging down Android 2.2 [video] | Electronista

Not surprising that a beta application has stability and speed issues. I'd say wait until the final version is out before casting stones at it's performance. That said, any reasonable person should admit that the lack of flash on the iPhone and iPad makes the browsing experience less than complete. HTML5 has not even reached draft stage, and is not expected to be complete until 2022. Tests done so far show that flash performs better than html5 in graphics intensive applications. So all this html5 cheer leading is pretty premature.

06-04-2010, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by dan828

HTML5 has not even reached draft stage, and is not expected to be complete until 2022.

I hope you meant 2012 ?

06-05-2010, 04:14 AM

I am surprised that anyone here who owns a Mac and has Flash installed on it would want such an unstable, flawed, resource hog of an app running on their iPhone, iPod, or iPad. Yes, please give me a plug-in that will likely crash my browser, drain my battery, open security holes, and diminish performance. That's what I want!

I think we can all agree that that's an accurate description of what you get with Flash. The amazing thing is that if it were any other piece of software with those qualities we would all avoid it like the plague and warn others to do the same. And yet more than a few of us here want to put Flash on our mobile devices. It amazes me.

06-05-2010, 05:32 AM

I really am a glutton.

Originally Posted by Kamina

Nice one. You just accused me of saying a lot of things i didnt write in my post. You also accuse me of thinking like some others you might or might not know, that seem to have said things in that direction before.
Furthermore you accuse me of lying.
Well done.

Flash IS eating resources. Of course it doesn't make the system unusable, but it uses enough resources to not be able to watch 720p Videos fluently on 2GB Ram. Since I know it and experienced it and others report it too, I do not need to prove that in any way, and especially not to you.

What are you talking about ? I answered each unsubstantiated point you tried to make, one by one. I didn't misrepresent anything you said. As far as "thinking like others", don't for a minute try and back peddle and pretend that everything you've said doesn't fall in line with what everybody else whom loathes Flash (and only because Apple tells them to) has said. You pretty much just picked and chose things from my response to you and took them out of context with the issue on the whole.

I didn't call YOU a liar, I said:

You guys love to pretend that Flash consumes resources to the point of where it's impossible to do anything else while it's running. And you KNOW this is a lie.

That is not calling YOU a liar. Sorry if you misunderstood, because this is a big difference to me.

Yeah, of course Flash eats up resources. Its integration as a plug in relies on the cooperation of every browser developer to provide the tools it needs to work with properly. I've only been able to site one example where Flash has been a shoddy piece of work, but can also admit that it's because the developer of the software which it runs on has done a poor job in coding. Otherwise, as I've said before... not once have I witnessed any security flaws/holes, browser crashes yada yada and more yada.

Originally Posted by J.Fo

I think we can all agree that that's an accurate description of what you get with Flash.

I beg to differ. What amazes me, is the amount of people who feel the need to exaggerate in order to defend Apple's every move which only serves Apple, and not the people during tumultuous times such as this.

Again, I'm all for the death of Flash. Just give me something NOW which can replace it, or just stop spreading half truthes, and falsities [Apple].

Doug

06-05-2010, 08:39 AM

Flash? No thanks! I've been EXCELLENT without it for the past year…I'm not missing anything. Anyways, look at the problems people are having android, who were the one's who made fun of apple for not supporting flash, and also said that their flash would be great….guess they spoke too soon!

06-05-2010, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Doug b

I beg to differ. What amazes me, is the amount of people who feel the need to exaggerate in order to defend Apple's every move which only serves Apple, and not the people during tumultuous times such as this.

I'm not exaggerating at all. Flash is a resource hog of the first degree. No where is this more apparent than on my late 2007 MacBook. If I visit a site that uses Flash, I guarantee that in a minute or two, the CPU temperature will skyrocket due to the added workload, causing the fans will kick in to overdrive, and suddenly the three to four hours of battery life I had been enjoying drops in half. Why? Because I decided to play a video running in standard definition. If that doesn't exemplify how awful Flash is, I don't know what does.

06-05-2010, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by idrinorbarsaku

Flash? No thanks! I've been EXCELLENT without it for the past year…I'm not missing anything. Anyways, look at the problems people are having android, who were the one's who made fun of apple for not supporting flash, and also said that their flash would be great….guess they spoke too soon!

I guess I'm the only one with Android 2.2 that hasn't had any problems with flash.

06-05-2010, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by J.Fo

I'm not exaggerating at all. Flash is a resource hog of the first degree. No where is this more apparent than on my late 2007 MacBook. If I visit a site that uses Flash, I guarantee that in a minute or two, the CPU temperature will skyrocket due to the added workload, causing the fans will kick in to overdrive, and suddenly the three to four hours of battery life I had been enjoying drops in half. Why? Because I decided to play a video running in standard definition. If that doesn't exemplify how awful Flash is, I don't know what does.

Well, fair enough. I can't speak to your experiences with your older Macbook. But what you must understand is that there's a flip side to the coin. My 2008 and 2009 MacBook Pro's never exhibit such performance woes when faced with the same scenario's. I've also never experienced the issues you've sited when using any of my friend's iMac's or MacBooks. Some of them use Chrome, others Opera or Firefox.

Me personally, I use Firefox (and Opera) because I really get a lot of use from a couple extensions. Safari to me is just so inefficient compared to FF simply because of mouse gestures alone, never mind the other very useful extensions. I dunno man, ya have to believe me when I say that if I was experiencing your issues with Flash on my browsers of choice, I'd find it just as loathsome, but this isn't the case.

Flash works fine for me on Chrome, Opera and FF. I don't like Safari, so I can't tell you about its performance with it. I don't really use Chrome anymore either though, since I find Opera to be superior, and the only reason I use Opera at all, is for when I'm working on my web page and need to be logged into it with one browser, and logged out on the other in order to view it as a 'user'. And in both instances, I've usually got Flash running as either a slide show for the home page, or just have separate Flash elements.

In any case, I just find it rather ODD that I'm what.. the ONLY person on this forum who has absolutely zero issues with Flash running on multiple browsers (minus Safari) ? And if Safari is the problem, I'd suggest ditching it. Pretty simple IMO. But yeah, that won't happen, I know. It would undermine everything that Steve is working to achieve apparently. Which seems to be the hopes that everybody on the planet will take up Safari and ditch any other browser. Because really when you look at that silly new HTML 5 web page on the Apple website, that's pretty much the message he's sending out. Anyway.. guess that's all I can say on this matter.

Doug

06-05-2010, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by bargsbeer

I guess I'm the only one with Android 2.2 that hasn't had any problems with flash.

There are exceptions to everything!

06-05-2010, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Doug b

Well, fair enough. I can't speak to your experiences with your older Macbook. But what you must understand is that there's a flip side to the coin. My 2008 and 2009 MacBook Pro's never exhibit such performance woes when faced with the same scenario's. I've also never experienced the issues you've sited when using any of my friend's iMac's or MacBooks. Some of them use Chrome, others Opera or Firefox.

<snip>

In any case, I just find it rather ODD that I'm what.. the ONLY person on this forum who has absolutely zero issues with Flash running on multiple browsers (minus Safari) ? And if Safari is the problem, I'd suggest ditching it. Pretty simple IMO. But yeah, that won't happen, I know. It would undermine everything that Steve is working to achieve apparently. Which seems to be the hopes that everybody on the planet will take up Safari and ditch any other browser. Because really when you look at that silly new HTML 5 web page on the Apple website, that's pretty much the message he's sending out. Anyway.. guess that's all I can say on this matter.

Oh you aren't the only one. I personally haven't observed any issues with Flash, and I mostly use Safari. No crashes caused by Flash (that I know of) and I'm oblivious to any performance hits on my system. That doesn't mean they aren't there… I just don't visit many Flash-intensive sites to begin with nor actively monitor what's going on with my system in terms of cpu load and the like. However… this is one of those things where my lack of observable issues doesn't equate to there simply being no issues.

That said… I'm also highly aware that the computing power of my portable devices is simply far less than that of my desktop computer. Given everything I've read and seen, Flash simply isn't scaling as smoothly to portable devices. In the D8 interviews, Jobs stated that when Adobe first came to them about Flash on the iPhone, he asked them to show something that was "better". They didn't, and it was left at that as far as Apple was concerned until the iPad was introduced and Adobe started whining like spoiled little children who weren't getting their way. If Adobe would just cooperate and develop a usable lightweight Flash plug-in that really works well for a portable device as Apple has envisioned, then perhaps it'd be a go. But Adobe wants it THEIR way. Granted, so does Apple, but at least I feel Apple is working for my interests, and a power-hungry, sluggish plug-in is most certainly not in my interests. Remember… the iPhone is a phone, first and foremost, and as a portable device, battery life should have top priority.

06-05-2010, 03:21 PM

As a reply to Doug b's post.

Steve Jobs is just promoting his own products and companies ethos. The same as any other company would do. So on that front Jobs is just the same as every other CEO out there. Every CEO wants their products to be used and their competitiors products to be used less. So nothing special there.

And I have to agree you with flash use. I've not ever had one crash with flash. In FireFox and Safari. I refuse to use Chrome as I think it puts my online security at major risk. Saying that mind you flash does use significantly much more of my system resources then say a HTML5 video would do.

So I do prefer HTML5 much more. But flash though using up way to much of my CPU works fine for me and I've not had one flash related crash or a visible OS slowdown when running a flash video. I think OS X is built so well that it can take the demands of flash and runs it with ease.

This asks the question, is a low CPU usage HTLM5 or a high CPU useage flash video better? Will using high CPU usage process a lot of the time do damage to my computer? Well in 4 years I've not seen even a tiny bit of damage from all the net flash that has popped up on my screen (mostly in flash website ads).

For the mobile devices I would say for the above reasons I agree ban flash from them. But for my imac it works just fine. But since websites these days are visited by mobile devices as well as notebook/desktop computers you want to use the codecs and formats that work best on all of the devices that will be viewing your web content.

And HTML5 in my opinion is needed if you care about the people who view websites with mobile devices (iphones/ipads etc).

06-05-2010, 05:42 PM

I think I've had maybe one or two crashes due to Flash. However, I am certainly in the camp where Flash uses up tremendous resources. Every time I go to Youtube or play a Flash game, my Macbook's fans fire up at full speed and my battery life goes down the toilet. I figure if a 2GHz chip can barely handle Flash, how would a much slower mobile chip without also seeing significant performance and battery problems?

I just did a test between my Windows PC and my Macbook playing the same video on Youtube. With the Windows PC, CPU utilization was pretty low (~4-5%), with a few spikes here or there. With the Mac, on the other hand, CPU utilization for Firefox never dropped below 50% (the %User stayed around 25%). What this tells me is that the Flash plugin for OS X wasn't coded as well as the one for Windows, which leads me to extrapolate that Flash on any OS X based device (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch) would also result in high CPU utilization. On mobile devices, that means a big battery hit.

06-05-2010, 08:00 PM

Speaking of Flash security vulnerabilities…
Adobe Flash, Acrobat vulnerable to major security hole | Electronista

Adobe on Saturday posted a warning of a critical security vulnerability for both Flash and Acrobat. Both Mac and Windows versions of Flash 10.0 and earlier, as well as all versions of Acrobat 9, are susceptible to being exploited for remote control over a user's computer. Flash 10.1's pre-release build and older versions of Acrobat aren't affected.

The hole doesn't yet have a fix and has already been used to attack computers in real conditions. Acrobat owners with Windows systems can delete, rename or block access to authplay.dll as a workaround, but the move prevents opening PDF files with embedded Flash. No schedule was given for when a patch would arrive for either Flash or Acrobat.

An exploit on this level comes ill-timed for Adobe as it has just recently tried to promote Flash as a secure environment in its bid to persuade Apple and users that the plugin is necessary on mobile devices. Flash 10.1 for Android 2.2 isn't known to have the problem but isn't yet in a finished state.