I define a "good platform for games" as being a platform (such as the console) specifically designed for gaming. PCs making such good gaming platforms because they were designed from the start to be able to run anything thrown at them (within the limits of the hardware available). Cell-phones (and in turn smart devices) were from the start designed to be communications platforms. They have relatively tiny viewing ports. Cramped controls and poor support for anything but a narrow sampling of code bases to develop from. Even with Apple deciding that only C/C++/Objective-C will be supported (ostensibly for improved app quality, something I really am not against), the iPhone and iPod were not designed from the ground up as gaming devices (well, perhaps the iPhone in particular but not the cell phone/smart device in general).
Yes, things change and progress. Woohoo, let's all celebrate change!
But is all change actually good? In this case I say, and adamantly so, NO. Keep the phone as a communications device (and the iPod an music/video player). I don't care what they do for the iPad. It's a tablet computer. It's supposed to be a low(er)-power, high-performance gadget. Who knows what it will be good at. Personally I see myself using such a device in place of an ebook-reader like Sony's eReader or Amazon's Kindle just because I don't like the lack of control over either the Reader or Kindle (nor do I like the idea of some company deciding that the book I legally purchased shouldn't be on my device because they had a snafu). I'd never dream of using it as a gaming platform not because I lack imagination or forward thinking, but because it really isn't made for that. Sure you can make some neat games that work well on it, just like you can make for any available platform something that will work well on it. Do we really need a PHONE taking the place of a PSP or a Gameboy? I don't think so. Perhaps we could add some features to the PSP or Gameboy (internet connectivity, app stores for purchasable games, etc.) that don't change it's underlying function (going from game platform to communications device).
But that's exactly what we're trying to do to phones. We are taking a device that's awesome at one thing (always available communications) and trying to make it, like the PC (dedicated rigs not considered because they are in reality the exception to the rule), only decent at everything (gaming, phone call making, whatever else you can do with an iPhone).
But you know what? That's just my opinion. The facts in evidence, as I see them, thusly:
1) Phones are communications devices 2) In order to become general purpose devices that have to, out of necessity for keeping things small, stop being completely awesome at making calls (inversely, if you keep them awesome at making calls while making them great at everything else, size will increase) 3) Eventually phones will morph into tablets tethered to cell phone providers (or ubiquitous wifi will become the norm within the next 20 years forcing all the telco's to become ISPs if they want to survive (oh wait, that's already happening)) 4) Certain decisions have to be made. Will we let the companies lead the way into the future of what they think technology should be, or should the user be in the lead with the company and both decide what's best with the user (via purchasing power) having the final say? Personally I would choose the latter but because consumers are more prevalent than users, it will never happen.
Right now the companies are making all the decisions and even the users are going along with them because they think that is the right way of the world. They treat the corporation like government. "Because they are many and we are few, they must know better and since that is the case I'll just sit here and vegetate and go along with what ever they say."
If that's what you want, fine. Have it. Don't expect me to support it or like it, though.
Really? Then you need to let flash website developers know. I've yet to come across a modern site, done entirely in flash, that allows you to deep link.
Again, just because games are designed for a platform does not make that platform good for games. Just because Angry Birds was designed with a touch screen in mind does not make a PHONE a good platform for a game.
It should, that's still pretty decent and only 500MHz under the max AMD can come up with. Actually it's only 687MB on my parents system. Quit pulling out numbers you haven't a clue of. Some generic card. It shouldn't matter. Software decoding of H.264 is slow on any system I've ever used! Flash was never meant for that task! That's the freaking point! Flash has been co-opted by Adobe and others for tasks it was never meant for.
I'll have to bookmark it. My crappy USB powered speakers are messing with my keyboard. Tuesday I buy a new set (these were used from a friend). Perhaps I can plunk down only $80 for a set similar to what I had about 11 years or so ago (2 4-inch full range satellites with a 6 1/2" omnidirectional sub-woofer in a wooden box). Best set of speakers I've ever had for a computer. If a nearby lightening strike hadn't of toasted them I'd still be using them (the sub-woofer wasn't damaged, just the satellites).
That wasn't the issue I was discussing though (although in a later thread I think I made that same conclusion). Flash has become too grandiose to be any good. When Macromedia was bought out is when Flash died. I agree that Flash is a horrible platform (though it used not to be so bad). I agree it has no place at all on a phone or tablet (or any website aside from simple animation effects).
Until it dies, though, we are going to have to deal with it.
I'm really surprised though that Adobe just doesn't use Java (which is already widely supported on many cell phones and smart devices) but I guess they feel it wouldn't look so good if they went with a competitors product. *shrugs*
Sure the product really is good, and most people (e.g. typical consumers) are sheep who really don't care about these issues. Jobs knows that and that is what makes him (and Bill Gates and others) a good businessman. We all know Jobs wasn't the geek brains behind Apple. He is, however, the marketing powerhouse behind it.
That being said, such technical decisions should be left to both the CTO and CEO.
Don't cripple your platform. If you alienate too many developers eventually consumers will notice the lack of choice and they will start bleating.
If that were the case, then their should have been a general performance hit to any multimedia format. Other formats continue to perform exceptionally well (native video (even those wrappered), audio, scripted and compiled programs, etc.). So either Adobe has gotten lazy and AS3 isn't what it's cracked up to be, or OS optimizations and checks and such aren't as great as you suggest. I prefer to believe the former as even with Windows there are increases in stability and usability.
You're right, a feature shouldn't be in the way or consume resources when it is not used. If that is the case then what is the deal with Flash's continued poor performance? On my parents computer (WinXP SP3, 2.5GHz proc with ~700MB RAM) Flash is a constant poor performer except in the most basic of animation loops (such as this one (troll unrelated)) on her computer. I've come to expect Flash to be a poor performer on non-Windows based computers (I'm currently running FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE-p2) due to Adobe's lack of support for it on other platforms (despite claiming cross-platform compatibility, it's a very minimal amount of support to get that claim).
My system (2.4GHz PIV, 1.5GB RAM) routinely chokes on the most complex of flash and certain video sites (Vimeo comes to mind, YouTube performs fairly well) despite having the latest Flash (10.0 r45) from Adobe (via a linux compatibility layer since Adobe refuses to support FreeBSD at all and the OSS Flash plugins bite).
Given all that, I'd say there has been no real improvements to Flash, and possibly even a degradation of the format, in the prior 10 years (I would also like to note that I predicted, when I heard that Adobe bought out Macromedia, that Flash would go down the toliet; I'm sad to say I wasn't wrong).
Agreed, but that decision should be left to both developers and end users. If I want to use a piece of software that may or may not be top-notch, I should have that choice. I won't touch an Apple anything anymore just because Jobs is being a jerk about the whole issue. He's acting, in essence, like the government. "Trust me, I know what's best for you." No, you don't.
And none of that was meant for flash. It was meant to be a way to provide animated effects to a website. It wasn't meant to be the entire website (many, many issues there to include no ability to deep link). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Phones aren't gaming consoles. Yet they are used as one now. Does that make games a good fit for phones? No, it just means you can do it. I didn't say the games weren't good. I said they aren't a good fit for the medium (which is poorly supported on any non-Windows platform).
All I see is you making my point for me. "Flash supports this and flash supports that." Big whoop. That's like my above example of the phone as a gaming platform. Sure you can play games on it, but seriously. Why would you? Controls are a pain (and really not any better with full qwerty keyboards) and the screen size, even for something like the iPhone or Android, is TINY. What is a phone good for? Making phone calls and storing numbers. Period. Just because phones have tried to expand past that doesn't make that a good decision, just a popular one.
I'm all about expanding and moving beyond limitations, but Flash, at it's base, is an over-glorified animation program just like the modern cell phone is at it's base an over-glorified communications device.
You want HD video? Use a proper video codec. You want to play games? Use a proper platform (PC or dedicated console). You want some cute animations that turn into viral memes? Use Flash all you want. Want to make phone calls from anywhere? Get a cell phone.
That's only because Flash is strapped with new features that really don't fit well with the medium, although it has helped bring streaming video to the net (still doesn't make it a proper fit). Stuff like Neurotically Yours and badgers, otoh, are a perfect fit for the medium.
(Semi)Complex games and full streaming HD video? Not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Which really doesn't make any sense, though if it's passwords the users use in combination with the same login name and email address....
I define a "good platform for games" as being a platform (such as the console) specifically designed for gaming. PCs making such good gaming platforms because they were designed from the start to be able to run anything thrown at them (within the limits of the hardware available). Cell-phones (and in turn smart devices) were from the start designed to be communications platforms. They have relatively tiny viewing ports. Cramped controls and poor support for anything but a narrow sampling of code bases to develop from. Even with Apple deciding that only C/C++/Objective-C will be supported (ostensibly for improved app quality, something I really am not against), the iPhone and iPod were not designed from the ground up as gaming devices (well, perhaps the iPhone in particular but not the cell phone/smart device in general).
Yes, things change and progress. Woohoo, let's all celebrate change!
But is all change actually good? In this case I say, and adamantly so, NO. Keep the phone as a communications device (and the iPod an music/video player). I don't care what they do for the iPad. It's a tablet computer. It's supposed to be a low(er)-power, high-performance gadget. Who knows what it will be good at. Personally I see myself using such a device in place of an ebook-reader like Sony's eReader or Amazon's Kindle just because I don't like the lack of control over either the Reader or Kindle (nor do I like the idea of some company deciding that the book I legally purchased shouldn't be on my device because they had a snafu). I'd never dream of using it as a gaming platform not because I lack imagination or forward thinking, but because it really isn't made for that. Sure you can make some neat games that work well on it, just like you can make for any available platform something that will work well on it. Do we really need a PHONE taking the place of a PSP or a Gameboy? I don't think so. Perhaps we could add some features to the PSP or Gameboy (internet connectivity, app stores for purchasable games, etc.) that don't change it's underlying function (going from game platform to communications device).
But that's exactly what we're trying to do to phones. We are taking a device that's awesome at one thing (always available communications) and trying to make it, like the PC (dedicated rigs not considered because they are in reality the exception to the rule), only decent at everything (gaming, phone call making, whatever else you can do with an iPhone).
But you know what? That's just my opinion. The facts in evidence, as I see them, thusly:
1) Phones are communications devices
2) In order to become general purpose devices that have to, out of necessity for keeping things small, stop being completely awesome at making calls (inversely, if you keep them awesome at making calls while making them great at everything else, size will increase)
3) Eventually phones will morph into tablets tethered to cell phone providers (or ubiquitous wifi will become the norm within the next 20 years forcing all the telco's to become ISPs if they want to survive (oh wait, that's already happening))
4) Certain decisions have to be made. Will we let the companies lead the way into the future of what they think technology should be, or should the user be in the lead with the company and both decide what's best with the user (via purchasing power) having the final say? Personally I would choose the latter but because consumers are more prevalent than users, it will never happen.
Right now the companies are making all the decisions and even the users are going along with them because they think that is the right way of the world. They treat the corporation like government. "Because they are many and we are few, they must know better and since that is the case I'll just sit here and vegetate and go along with what ever they say."
If that's what you want, fine. Have it. Don't expect me to support it or like it, though.
Really? Then you need to let flash website developers know. I've yet to come across a modern site, done entirely in flash, that allows you to deep link.
Again, just because games are designed for a platform does not make that platform good for games. Just because Angry Birds was designed with a touch screen in mind does not make a PHONE a good platform for a game.
I guess I would have to map that out, then.
It should, that's still pretty decent and only 500MHz under the max AMD can come up with.
Actually it's only 687MB on my parents system. Quit pulling out numbers you haven't a clue of.
Some generic card. It shouldn't matter.
Software decoding of H.264 is slow on any system I've ever used! Flash was never meant for that task! That's the freaking point! Flash has been co-opted by Adobe and others for tasks it was never meant for.
Go crawl back in your troll hole.
Compose key? What the heck? I don't see such a beast on any keyboard I've ever owned.
I'll have to bookmark it. My crappy USB powered speakers are messing with my keyboard. Tuesday I buy a new set (these were used from a friend). Perhaps I can plunk down only $80 for a set similar to what I had about 11 years or so ago (2 4-inch full range satellites with a 6 1/2" omnidirectional sub-woofer in a wooden box). Best set of speakers I've ever had for a computer. If a nearby lightening strike hadn't of toasted them I'd still be using them (the sub-woofer wasn't damaged, just the satellites).
Agreed.
That wasn't the issue I was discussing though (although in a later thread I think I made that same conclusion). Flash has become too grandiose to be any good. When Macromedia was bought out is when Flash died. I agree that Flash is a horrible platform (though it used not to be so bad). I agree it has no place at all on a phone or tablet (or any website aside from simple animation effects).
Until it dies, though, we are going to have to deal with it.
I'm really surprised though that Adobe just doesn't use Java (which is already widely supported on many cell phones and smart devices) but I guess they feel it wouldn't look so good if they went with a competitors product. *shrugs*
I blame the sales figures on good marketing.
Sure the product really is good, and most people (e.g. typical consumers) are sheep who really don't care about these issues. Jobs knows that and that is what makes him (and Bill Gates and others) a good businessman. We all know Jobs wasn't the geek brains behind Apple. He is, however, the marketing powerhouse behind it.
That being said, such technical decisions should be left to both the CTO and CEO.
Don't cripple your platform. If you alienate too many developers eventually consumers will notice the lack of choice and they will start bleating.
If that were the case, then their should have been a general performance hit to any multimedia format. Other formats continue to perform exceptionally well (native video (even those wrappered), audio, scripted and compiled programs, etc.). So either Adobe has gotten lazy and AS3 isn't what it's cracked up to be, or OS optimizations and checks and such aren't as great as you suggest. I prefer to believe the former as even with Windows there are increases in stability and usability.
You're right, a feature shouldn't be in the way or consume resources when it is not used. If that is the case then what is the deal with Flash's continued poor performance? On my parents computer (WinXP SP3, 2.5GHz proc with ~700MB RAM) Flash is a constant poor performer except in the most basic of animation loops (such as this one (troll unrelated)) on her computer. I've come to expect Flash to be a poor performer on non-Windows based computers (I'm currently running FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE-p2) due to Adobe's lack of support for it on other platforms (despite claiming cross-platform compatibility, it's a very minimal amount of support to get that claim).
My system (2.4GHz PIV, 1.5GB RAM) routinely chokes on the most complex of flash and certain video sites (Vimeo comes to mind, YouTube performs fairly well) despite having the latest Flash (10.0 r45) from Adobe (via a linux compatibility layer since Adobe refuses to support FreeBSD at all and the OSS Flash plugins bite).
Given all that, I'd say there has been no real improvements to Flash, and possibly even a degradation of the format, in the prior 10 years (I would also like to note that I predicted, when I heard that Adobe bought out Macromedia, that Flash would go down the toliet; I'm sad to say I wasn't wrong).
Touche, dear /.er, touche. (yes, I'm too lazy to fire up gnucharmap to get the accented e).
I was responding to the OP's complaint of:
Agreed, but that decision should be left to both developers and end users. If I want to use a piece of software that may or may not be top-notch, I should have that choice. I won't touch an Apple anything anymore just because Jobs is being a jerk about the whole issue. He's acting, in essence, like the government. "Trust me, I know what's best for you." No, you don't.
And none of that was meant for flash. It was meant to be a way to provide animated effects to a website. It wasn't meant to be the entire website (many, many issues there to include no ability to deep link). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Phones aren't gaming consoles. Yet they are used as one now. Does that make games a good fit for phones? No, it just means you can do it. I didn't say the games weren't good. I said they aren't a good fit for the medium (which is poorly supported on any non-Windows platform).
All I see is you making my point for me. "Flash supports this and flash supports that." Big whoop. That's like my above example of the phone as a gaming platform. Sure you can play games on it, but seriously. Why would you? Controls are a pain (and really not any better with full qwerty keyboards) and the screen size, even for something like the iPhone or Android, is TINY. What is a phone good for? Making phone calls and storing numbers. Period. Just because phones have tried to expand past that doesn't make that a good decision, just a popular one.
I'm all about expanding and moving beyond limitations, but Flash, at it's base, is an over-glorified animation program just like the modern cell phone is at it's base an over-glorified communications device.
You want HD video? Use a proper video codec. You want to play games? Use a proper platform (PC or dedicated console). You want some cute animations that turn into viral memes? Use Flash all you want. Want to make phone calls from anywhere? Get a cell phone.
That's only because Flash is strapped with new features that really don't fit well with the medium, although it has helped bring streaming video to the net (still doesn't make it a proper fit). Stuff like Neurotically Yours and badgers, otoh, are a perfect fit for the medium.
(Semi)Complex games and full streaming HD video? Not so much.
+5 funny as this is the funniest comment I've ever read on /. (:
That would partly explain why I couldn't find it in ports. I'll stick with FF for now. (:
They have Chrome for Linux? I'll have to check ports to see if it's on FreeBSD yet.
Which part? :p
No, but the submitter sure is a troll.
The company who has this "milestone" isn't making any of those claims that I can see. The submitter is being a bit disingenuous though.
Like I said, good riddance to bad rubbish.
To be honest I really don't care anymore. I've been using Windowmaker for about 5 years now.
I'm sure you'll be more than happy with your new robotic overlords, too.
I remember using GNOME in the late 90s, and if bonobo is dead than it's a good thing. That was a nightmare to mess with.