Slashdot Mirror
Flash Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life
The lack of Flash in the new MacBook Air may annoy some users, but it has a big upside, too. According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader, "Having Flash installed can cut battery runtime considerably — as much as 33 percent in our testing. With a handful of websites loaded in Safari, Flash-based ads kept the CPU running far more than seemed necessary, and the best time I recorded with Flash installed was just 4 hours. After deleting Flash, however, the MacBook Air ran for 6:02 — with the exact same set of websites reloaded in Safari, and with static ads replacing the CPU-sucking Flash versions."
Why would ANYONE use Safari on Mac when you have FF? ABP and NoScript for the win!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"It certainly does suck."
Block all flashes by default but allow user to enable one specifically. Problem solved.
...but my computer ran out of batteries and I had to find an outlet.
It couldn't be Apple, who has been impartial to Flash, and welcoming of it on their platform... ...oh, wait.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
... web ads can rob 2 hours from a macbook air's life, the main reason why the battery lasts longer in the no-flash case is because the ads aren't loaded, once all ads move to HTML5 I don't think there'll be that much of a difference.
-- the cake is a lie
Using the computer might drain your battery!
Flash is totally a suck monster.
Plus, the giant bug hole in it won't be patched until a week from now anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Wow, that's... news.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
"According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader," According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader who talked to his cousin who found out from his baby's mama who saw this girl at 7-11 talking to her brother who said...
The world is how you make it
Flash will suck the life out of a battery charge on my MacBook Pro, too, as well as every non-Apple laptop that I've owned recently, too. Interestingly, I don't have that issue if I watch a "raw" mp4 via the QuickTime plugin.
Anyone has the saving when you just don't install any software on a Macbook Air? Come on! Either use flash or don't use flash - it's here, it will be so for some time to come - get over it.
Not blocking it selectively with noscript, flashblock etc. sucks the Battery.
Why is this news? Flash is actively drawn and persistent. It's also known that it is CPU intensive. It's like running a DVD or a videogame. It takes extra CPU cycles and possibly extra components(does Flash utilize a GPU/FPU?) to accomplish these types of things. In a word, duh.
...good to know?
It's great that someone is finally recognizing this sort of stuff. Think of the millions of kwh wasted all over the world every day running flash on laptops and desktops...not to mention the security issues involved with the 'active' content that the flash player brings to the system. All of this comes from an unlovely company that does not seem to shoulder any responsibility for the software that it looses upon the user community. Okay Adobe, mod this troll, but you can't stop everyone from eventually seeing the light.
...viewing TFA caused a Flash popover ad to appear over the article text. Just sayin'.
Almost a year on this pc with no flash loaded.
So far I couldn't see a menards ad since the online ad is flash only. So I went to Home Depot instead.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
So running CPU-intensive software reduces battery life. Who knew?
In other news, Apple is disabling playing games or movies on its new MacBook Air line. "People's batteries are suffering," an Apple spokesperson said today. "Clearly, when customers' batteries are being used, the customers are not free. We are now giving customers freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom."
The spokesperson further hinted that the next addition to the MacBook Air line will not be allowed to be turned on at all. "Our market research shows that people are happiest with an Apple product when it is turned off and on prominent display to their friends. The next MacBook Air will not only give the user freedom from software, but it will have a battery life measured in years."
That's why I'm gonna go install ClickToFlash so I don't have it running when I don't want it to.
If you're going to report one uptime as being "6:02", don't just report the other as being "4 hours". Tell us if it was 4:01 or 4:00 or whatever.
When your difference is on the order of 120 minutes, 1 or 2 minutes difference either way is indeed notable.
And if this test was done over wireless, I wonder how much the browser cache played a role. No need to refetch content, right? Did he even make sure all pages served him the same ads?
This is Mythbusters-levels of bad science.
Reinstall Flash and install adblock. Then the story changes to "Ads Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life". But not many ad-supported websites would run with that title, would they?
This is a complete non-story. It's no surprise that replacing animated content with a static image improves battery life. I would prefer more websites used static content for their ads rather than Flash content. Then maybe I wouldn't block them so much. With AdBlock, having Flash installed makes no difference to how long my battery lasts - but it does make a difference to what I can do on the web.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
"I've be trying to stop Flash for years!" - The Shade
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think we should keep quiet about this. Soon the ad companies will move to html5 to get past our no-flash motion adblock method.
I needed a review to tell me this? Flash totally hikes the processor usage and thus increases heat, decreases battery life. I run ClickToFlash to block all the annoying ads, etc, but watching youtube or other video sites totally drains the battery. Rather annoying, and I can see why Steve Jobs hates flash. /fanboyism.
You mean running animations in the background on multiple pages eats CPU cycles??? Oh noes! Geez, I wonder how Jobs' little darling, HTML5, will manage to do animations without using any CPU power?
I swear every day it's another retarded "report" about something equally as retarded.
Wonder how much battery life is wasted by the stupid glowing apple logo on the lid?
Rick Romero here with Breaking News:
Water is wet, Flash eats CPU power and bears do in fact shit in the woods.
Every time I have used Flash on my Ubuntu, mostly for playing videos, I must manually use the `top` and `kill` command or Chrome's task manager to manually kill the npviewer.bin process. Flash always eats more than 50% of my CPU even long after I have closed all web pages using Flash, only killing it will bring my CPU back to idle and shuts off the noisy laptop fan. There is huge difference in power consumption between an idle CPU and running CPU, that's why for laptop it is best to keep the CPU idle most of the time to save power.
Now having to kill the Flash process manually is not user friendly at all. I'd imagine that average joes can't do anything on it and have no idea that Flash is the one that causing their laptop fan spinning, heating up, and soaking battery powers.
But this is a no-brainer. Seriously, the only people who think having Flash installed *at all* is a good idea are people who have no brains, namely Adobe and a handful of lazy web developers. Flash is just, exactly, precisely, no-doubt-about-it as retarded as Steve Jobs said ... only I've been saying it since a long time ago, he's just got a bigger platform than I do to evangelize against that steaming pile of crap that is Flash.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
And how much battery life does the LCD screen rob? I bet OSX robs the battery of quite a bit of life, too. In fact, the entire laptop is a savage murderer of battery life!
Its what all the kids are doing.
I don't even have it installed on my laptop, i don't miss it a bit.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Safari, adblock + click2flash, and I get 7 1/2 hours of run time on my Macbook pro with wifi. Pretty sweet ;)
Flash was fine back in the days when users kept only one or two browser windows open but now that everyone has tens or hundreds of tabs/windows open at any one time the CPU cost for Flash is too much to pay. Partly this is a problem with the way browsers work where every tab/window executes all plugins whether or not the tab/window has focus, but partly this is a design problem because even though the day of one or two windows/tabs are long gone, web designers still populate every page with as much bouncy, blinky annoying bullshit as possible as if they and only they had any right to my CPU.
Yes here you are posting in this thread.
to get a PC. :) The battery life on my laptop when running flash seems to be great.
Life without walls.
I've written a program that constantly finds different permutations of Steve Jobs experiencing self-awareness. However, while running the program, my Macbook Air's battery life drops by nearly 50%. So I suppose I should write an article titled "Steve Jobs cuts Macbook Air battery by half." or some such drivel.
Or I could just turn off the program when I don't need it. But then I couldn't make inflammatory headlines, and that wouldn't be nearly as fun.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
unlike Flash, the browser makers can actually address HTML5 performance issues.
I've found that if I never turn on my laptop, I can never know whether or not it has any power capacity.
Well, then install an ad blocker. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It sounds like it's more of a problem with the implementation of the Adobe Flash Player than anything. Let's put the blame where it belongs.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
V10.1.102.64 to fix security bugs and not the battery life and CPU issue. ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Cripes, I must be getting tired -- I originally read your post as:
Because its not an option in firefox or safari by default. Its handled by penguins.
Gah! They're everywhere!
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
But web surfing can easily burn all 6 hours of a MacBook air's Battery life. A slow internet connection can also rob runtime hours and battery life, since you spend more time with your monitor and wireless radios fully powered waiting for pages to load. I think ATT should reimb me for lost battery time, every time I don't get the full advertised speed :)
Hell, just running OS X can do that, if you are keeping the CPU out of sleep mode, OS X can suck all the battery.
What's more scary about Flash ads and website advertising is how much they can rob from YOUR life.. laptop batteries can always be charged, but humans have finite lifetime... reduced in the form of annoyance/stress and time consumed wasted looking at stupid ads.
The Ads can grab your attention which can ultimately be expensive. Maybe each time isn't much a footprint -- but it happens so often, especially with d*****'ed annoying BLINK tags, Animated GIFs, Flash, Javascript/DHTML, Web 2.0 stuff, Java, and other similar effects.
Flash itself begins to seem darn benign.
And we haven't even talked about spam, popups, and web pages that convince gullible people to read articles, and waste their energy trying to sign up for some scammer's Nigerian "money windfall", make-money-fast, pyramid scheme, ponzi scheme, or Work-at-Home-for-massive-$ scam.
Imagine how much laptop battery time web-based flash (and not flash-based) advertisement cause users to drain. And how many years of "human run-time" are drained, esp. net over all humans who use the internet, as a result of that junk.
In other news: Staying on the menu screen in quake II significantly improves frame rates and battery life over entering into the game and actually playing.
The more your CPU or/and GPU work, the more they consume power. As a side note, some of it is wasted through heat dissipation.
Rendering any kind of compressed video, including ads, has a tendency to make both work more thus consuming more power thus making battery life shorter.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
What do you mean playing videos will run down your battery?! Now that's just absurd. Adobe needs to redesign Flash so that it charges up your battery.
I wrote about this on my blog. Using my Watt's Up? meter I measured my computer's power usage at about 100W. But then I noticed that it was running at 160W for some reason. I eventually found the problem was flash player - and the only thing it was doing was a single ad on the travelocity web site. The ad was for - you guessed it - travelocity. And 15 years ago it would have been a 4 frame GIF because it simply flipped between 4 static images with no user interaction at all. Hooray Web 2.0
I heard turning your MacBook on can drain your battery, is there any truth to that? Also once on, running things drain it even faster. Wow!
I just read elsewhere that plugging your laptop into an AC outlet eliminates all battery drain, cool!
not including this
Since I prefer my eggs unfertilised, go flash, go.....
I use NoScript. All Flash is blocked by default. I temporarily whitelist sites where I want something to play, and otherwise it doesnt run. I save the battery, skip the annoying ads, and still get to use YouTube. I paid a lot less for this laptop than I would for a MacBook Air to boot.
Not that they arent nice. But I think this study, while bringing up a definite truth, is an after-the-fact justification/spin for Apple, who blocked Flash for entirely different reasons.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I am using my MacBook Air right now WITH flash running and I havent had any battery li
I dont use Flashblock so tell me, how exactly does it break hulu.com?
I do use NoScript, which does NOT break hulu.com. It simply improves the interface, allowing me to browse without a bunch of unwanted stuff starting inappropriately and grabbing control of my computer against my will. When I *want* to watch a video I temporarily whitelist it, the page reloads, and the video plays.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
It is not just inconvenience, it is a major financial cost. New batteries are not cheap.
Flash BAD. ClickToFlash GOOD !!!!!!
Click2Flash does this for h.264 already.
... is not data. The singular of anecdote is also not data.
Basically, one guy used one computer with flash on a few times, and with flash off a few times. What web sites was he looking at? How many did he have open at once? Why couldn't he just use an ad blocker rather than kill Flash altogether?
I think Adobe Flash sucks as much as the next FLOSS fanboy, but this is just an insubstantial anecdote. Couldn't the author at least run PowerTOP or some Mac equivalent, and try to figure out how much the processor is waking up with/without flash, how much disk is being used, etc?
My bicyles
By pushing the hard work (rendering) to the client, you can keep your file sizes very small. Flash got big because it permitted rich effects over dial-up connections.
As HTML5 becomes more ubiquitous it'll start to be a drain on batteries too, although Javascript performance has improved drastically in recent years.
One thing Adobe could do to keep Flash product alive is to have the IDE output HTML5. It's the IDE that they make their money on anyway. (Haven't used Flash in a long time so maybe this is already in the pipe).
At least, compared the number of hours of my life that Flash games and other doohickies waste.
On a more serious note, I think this is a good thing. I find that I'm more inclined to get work done on my lappy if I'm threatened with a low battery, my lappy's inability to effectively run flash anything nonwithstanding.
You should turn signatures off.
No. I don't think so. Asleep I might agree with. Apple is the only commercial system I know of with which I get a free development environment just as I have on the BSDs (and Linux if I bothered with it). I even get one for the iPhone and iPad too.
macs are for faggots and faggots need to shut their fucking mouths.
Well I guess if there's even the slightest manufacturing fault with the batteries the high current drain could result in fire. Your browsing session is pretty much over then.
I would be more interested to understand just how much power (Aja money) can be saved by disabling flash ads - say per typical user and in broad aggregate.
... because every time you run Flash a kitten dies.
Signed: The Pope
Punchy advertising requires the user's cycles? But this is supposed to be just like TV! We want more punch! Make it pop!
http://xkcd.com/676/
Why would ANYONE use Safari on Mac when you have FF?
Because I find Safari slightly more pleasant to use (though I have Firefox installed of course for some very useful web development tools).
Safari has extensions now as well, and has had ClickToFlash for some time, which I like a lot as a Flash blocking solution.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
except that browsing is so slow that I usually give up and use the laptop.
Do keep in mind that the Android Flash implementation has "Tap-to-Flash" meaning ads are not loaded as flash unless you explicitly tap them to see what they are. As such, Flash content drains battery cycles when it's not being actively used/seen.
The same could easily be done with a Macbook by installing ClicktoFlash. With that done, the effect of having Flash installed on your device would be minimal to your battery life unless you're constantly and intentionally using Flash.
Im playing a flash on my laptop right now and its running just fine, TFA is a conspiracy by Steve Jo
How much battery is lost playing Apples.mov files? This is ridiculous, if you want multimedia on your whatever device its going to use power to run it no matter what medium it is. Flash is by far the best medium at this time.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Wait, you mean when you increase CPU utilization then battery life decreases?
How about comparing HTML5 versions of the same workload vs Flash? Or how about measuring the CPU overhead of flash when it is doing nothing? This isn't really news.
Is it really robbing if your playing realm of the mad god?
"Flash Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life" should be "Ads can rob 2 hours from macbook air's (and anything else) battery life", I presume.
You could say that evolution is "Captain Hindsight," where everyone but Captain Hindsight dies.
Actually, besides removing flash from the default install, Apple added code like this to the latest Mac OS X:
IF (Flash_is_running())
{
If Rand() > 0.5
{
folding_at_home->Process(waste_battery);
}
Else
{
Rc64_Challenge->Process_block(waste_battery)
}
}
else
sleep();
So... running software uses power. This is news, somehow? Other things that will shorten your battery life: Playing games, running poorly written software that spin-waits on input, video encoding, that stupid dancing tree USB thing. Yes, Flash is an inefficient pig. Lots of software is. Get FlashBlock or NoScript so you can run it when you want it (to see, say, a video or play a game) while avoiding it otherwise (99% of the crap on the web).
Search 2010 Gen Con events
if you want multimedia on your whatever device
You got to be kidding. How much of multimedia delivered by flash do people actually "want"? For that too an optimized video decoder using platform's GPU and vector processing capabilities got to be better than interpreted ActionScript.
I recently came across this issue using a utility called "App Tamer" from St. Clair Software (not going to provide a link, look it up, I don't work for the company & this is not a product plug), that revealed itself to me via what I thought was a misconfiguration. I use BOINC, and noticed that my MacBook Pro was high-fan'ing even though I was on battery, thought maybe I'd misconfigured BOINIC. Checking the process table by hand via top & ps from the CLI, no BOINIC, but "WebKit" was consuming 93% of one of my cores! -- After some digging with lsof and the process table? It was a single Flash advert in Safari running a bit of a movie and animation. This is more than horrid - it quite pissed me off considering that at any time, my page can refresh, my battery life decreases, usage goes up and I burn CPU & create BTU so someone can run a power-hungry advert *on my hardware*. -- To me, this borders on theft of my computer resources! So, before this, I have Safari open, and how much longer did I wait for Mathematica to complete a calculation run so Bozo Corporation could show me a product I'll never buy anyway? In years prior (look up "time sharing") - you got charged for usage. -- Maybe we all ought to bill the source advertiser back for CPU time and charge them some kind of bizarre carbon tax for creating heat, just like we get annoyed at the paper waste from advertising.
News at 11.
Doing graphical stuff with a plugin that Apple won't let access hardware acceleration that would make a lot of what it's doing trivial uses large amount of CPU. Special report to come.
Puzzle Daze is now my job
I think we all should start using Lynx instead of Safari or FFox, we will save couple of more hours of battery life
Using Vim instead of OpenOffice significantly increased the battery life of my notebook. I have repeated the tests with Toshiba, Sony and Lenovo notebooks. Do you know a good tech site where I could sell my benchmarks?
firefox and flashnot. with that and flash you can decide whether you want flash or not. REFUSING to allow flash has more downsides than having flash available but uninstalled, so stop trying to spin the lack of flash as a good idea from apple you freaking loon.
Except that there are H264 codecs in flash. therefore, if Apple supported an export of the API to access the hardware acceleration for H264, flash would use the accelerator.
Just like Ogg Theora support. The hardware can accelerate the decode for that but Apple don't want to do it because they want their codec used to rake in the profits and the lock-in.
These are FLASH ads, the kind of animation early computers operating at mhz were capable of. For god sakes, we are talking banners that flash 2 small images. How can this require 100% CPU power on what is by alrights a super-super-computer.
Most of the time my computer busy running even such hogs as java and opera with tab icons 1 pixel in width barely reaches 4% cpu. But flash can bring the same machine to its knees.
It is the same with PDF. I can play a game that renders an entire world with super high textures made by fans for Fallout at break neck speed. But open a PDF and each page takes seconds to render and when browsing you constantly have to wait... WTF is wrong with the code?
Flash AND PDF either are the most horrible code ever written or they invite designers to make such horrendous choices that the most simple things take more computation then moddeling a nuclear explosion. ANd yes, nuclear explosions WERE modelled on machines far less powerful then your current desktop.
Just having flash banners during web browsing eats 1/3 of the battery power and you think that is just fine. My god, how wipped can you get. Would you accept the radio in your car sucking 1/3 of the fuel to give you ads as well?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
when you see the ads you are paying for the content. This means apple users who don't install flash are thieves. And in iOS powered devices Apple is condoning piracy!!!! :O
For playing a video, the most effective way is to use HTML5 and a video codec, not in an embedded flash machine. ( would you consider playing videos in a webpage with an embedded Java applet?)
Otherwise, what is flash used for? Interactive ads ?
"Web pages" that are all flash, are not really web pages, they are flash pages/applications, and do not act like web pages. (Again, one could also write a "web page" that is just one big Java applet. I would not consider that a web page either. perhaps a "blank web page with embedded applet" )
flash is also used for cartoon movies (animated vector graphics).
But, again, a VM such as flash is general purpose, and not really suitable for this. If an animated vector graphics media format is needed, then it should be solely created for that purpose and nothing else.
Hopefully animated SVG will fill that need as well. If not, another animated vector format standard.
As a general purpose VM, flash/AVM is can really not compare to Java.
Of course I use Windows to play games and Linux to do development so the graphics card gets a workout when running Windows, still, Windows swaps a lot more often than Linux, and hard drive usage does eat power. (Same laptop dual boot).
Flash drinks your milkshake
Flash knows basement cat's real name
Flash put bad concrete into your oil well
Flash stood on the grassy knoll
Flash has the negatives from the Christmas party
Flash is the fifth Beatle
Flash wears no condom
Flash is pure evil
FFFFFLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH
As the article says - the cause of the problem is advertising.
If the user wants to watch flash videos in youtube, it drains the battery just as much as watching downloaded videos on the video playe of his choice.
But if the user doesn't want the "content", then the system shouldn't spend valuable, scarce resources (such as battery life) on them - the solution is not disabling flash, the solution is to ship computers with AdBlock preinstalled and preconfigured. The computer vendors can and should do that, to improve the value of their product to consumers.
I'm sure a Macbook's battery would also last longer without all the masturbatory graphics crap that OS X does. When I open a window, just draw the damn window. I don't need to see it gyrating in 3D OpenGL texture mapped glory as it unflushes from the dock in a saucy pirouette while its icon bounces gleefully, girls-on-trampolines style. I can't even use OS X for more than five minutes without reaching for Dramamine. Maybe it could spend my CPU cycles and precious mAh's actually doing some goddammed work.
More applications running uses more juice? IT CAN'T BE!?!?!
Give me a break. "Oh, don't install that Office software. Running it might use more battery!!! ZOMG!11!!11!!1!"
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Please, I have used iTunes on both OS X and windows and although my primary OS at home is currently OS X, I was a windows user exclusively form 1996 until 2002 and I have an actual "paid" job as a software developer on the windows platform.
Based on my "REAL LIFE" experience with windows over the years including in the Windows XP beta program, I have noticed that the overall performance including boot times does tend to deteriorate over time regardless if you have iTunes installed. iTunes is not the culprit but rather a canary in the coal mine when your registry is corrupt or about to become corrupt. I have been able to improve the performance of my workstation at work by removing cached login profiles as it not only removed the directories but removes the registry trees for those users from your local workstation speeding up boot time and program loading.
Every time you boot up or every time you load program, windows has to scan the user settings for the currently logged in/logging in user in addition to program specific settings if you are running a program.
The Registry HIVE is a binary tree (Btrieve) database. Why you might think that it is magic and fairy dust that only loads in a small amount of information, the HIVE database has to be mounted and scanned and it will take considerably more memory and time to perform when you add new programs and/or users to the system.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I just picked up an 11" MBA this past weekend, and the battery life is pretty impressive. I resisted installing flash for several days, just to experience life without it. Unfortunately, many if not most multimedia content that you might want to see on the web appears to be only available in flash format, so I broke down and installed it. Flash does seem to run the battery down faster than without, though not as bad as trying to run a game (find an outlet for that!), so I am going to try Click2Flash...
Maybe lazors are like razors, only they use lasers instead of blades?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I'm shocked that the advertising industry doesn't write more efficient software.
So what are the details of the test. How many times was the browser re-launched. How long was it running? Both can affect battery life significantly. (ie: Browser launches usually involved some writing to disk, which consumes battery life).
Okay, so what did the Flash do. Did it just sit there and display a static page, or did it provide a rich user experience or even a multimedia experience.
Do you think playing video and rich interactive applications might just require more processing power. Did the control group do the same activities. If not, then it's really a comparison of Apples to Oranges. For example, how long would the battery last if you were doing CAD versus letting your laptop just sit there.
I mean, granted if I left my computer on a simple black screen saver, the battery would last much longer than if I had it playing movies. But watching the screen saver for hours sure would be boring.
--
This sounds like a great case study for poor scientific practice.
Web pages that use JavaScript are NOT real web pages.
If you want to be purist and elitist. Then the only real web pages are those that use standardized HTML to create text based documents viewable on multiple devices. Anything requiring additional scripting languages is a hybrid site.
--
As a user interface and rich application environment, Java cannot compare to Flash/AVM.
But anyone who's ever used it already knows that, of course.
Shutting down the operating system and doing absolutely nothing at all.