Holy crap man, that's FUD you're spreading. It's nothing but lies from a pro-apple site.
You need ActionScript 3 in order to access new APIs like mult-touch for mobile devices. 10.1 mobile will playback all AS1/2 content, but to state the obvious, any developer that's concerned about their content working on a mobile platform should update it accordingly, which is true for any platform.
No, 10.1 mobile fully supports H.264 video and it's fully GPU accelerated. Flash adopted this format back in 2008 and it's here to stay.
If you want it to suck cycles on your desktop or most laptops, that's not a problem, for your PC or Mac has them and electrical power to spare, generally.
But Flash sucks the electrical life out of mobile devices. This isn't theory, it's fact. Take your laptop off AC power and see it die after a few YouTube videos or Flash games.
Flash 10.1 is built for mobile devices, as was Flash Lite -- which was just a bit limited, but it's been around for about 9 years,. 10.1 takes full advantage of GPU acceleration for both video playback and drawing vectors, which helps out for both performance and battery life.
All the devices that are supporting 10.1 allow full access to the GPU, so battery life is no more an issue for Flash on them, than any other platform, it will come down to the competence of the developer, not the toolkit itself.
On this note, Apple deliberately held back the APIs that Flash needed to access the GPU on the Mac, so video playback could never be as efficient as Apple's Quicktime. So for Apple to call Flash a battery/CPU hog, is them speaking out of both sides as they're the ones that prevented my Macs from being as efficient as my PC for any video playback via Flash.
I'm not against Flash. I'm against it on devices that must be reliable and are built with limited processor and electrical power.
Flash is the Web standard of.NET. It's sloppy. It's developer hasn't made great inroads to optimize it or secure it. It is flexible, but some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen. And only Adobe makes it.-
Thanks for assuming all developers are the same. I'm going to apply your logic to the App Store. Because I've encountered more than a few crap apps, so according to you, all developers including my self that have worked in XCode via OBjective c are sloppy. Thanks for the assumption... What shall I assume about you?
On the touch-screen, like Apple's toolkit, Flash has evolved to support multi-touch, which is why 10.1 is a big deal for mobile devices. This whole point has been moot from the get go and only really an issue because most are really quite ignorant and don't care to look for the facts.
If Adobe wants to side with another platform for Flash AND make it work, great. But apparently Apple doesn't want to be Adobe's guinea pig and it has every reason not to.
Nice, do you always throw out passive aggressive insults?
Apple has already dealt before with competitors both inside and out who change their business plan and as a result, leave Apple twisting in the wind. It's good business practice not to let your business become overly dependent on others. Hell, Adobe was in that situation when Apple began to flounder. So why would Apple emulate Adobe in that regard?
To all their own... You know what bothers me about Apple's business model, it's that with their closed and limited devices, they're trying to dictate what should or not be allowed on the web in general. They don't want Flash, so they're taking the stance that no one should have it.
As for Flash on the Android? Let's see it, then. What doesn't kill your phone only makes it stronger.
Perhaps Apple will have Billy Dee Williams in for some endorsements, standing over a person with a locked, overheated phone.
But console manufactures don't care which middleware tool you use to build games for their platform. This is the clear distinction. A developer can use something like Gamebryo to build a 360, PS3, and Wii game as an example, where as with Apple this is not allowed.
If Apple were actually consistent in which apps are excluded, that would be one thing, but they are not, so it's really hard to gauge what they'll allow one week from the next, especially when they change the language in their TOS.
Anyways, I agree on the efficiency no matter what toolset is used. Let the customer decide if they like or dislike something and crap will always get flushed out. I certainly learned to not trust most content from the App Store as it's battery-hogging-crap, much of which was coded with Objective C.
Flash 10.1 for mobile devices, which is in BETA -- and will be available shortly for your Android phone -- is actually further along than the desktop plug-in. It supports full vector and video acceleration via the GPU on devices like the Nexus one. Adobe has been working on this for sometime, so instead of telling them to shut-up, use your search engine.:)
Anyways, I don't like Flash-Lite either, but that excuse is really nothing more than one now, since Apple is clearly blocking Flash 10.1, which is tailored for mobile devices, not because it's as he says, but because it's a viable threat to his business plan.
And I am an Apple guy, a long time Mac user from the System 7 days. I'm pretty sure most other Mac guys have drank way too much of Job's koolaid in recent years, because much what he says really doesn't add up when checked against reality.
I do have Bootcamp installed on my main Mac(Unibody 17" 10.6.3) and I also have an i7 920 that I pieced together last year -- I've been using PCs longer than Macs, since the eighties.. My bootcamp partition is running Windows 7 64bit, my PC is running XP64. I also own a copy of Parallels 5 on my Mac.
The difference now days with Flash performance, between both platforms is marginal. I don't get the ghastly part, but I'd be interested in trying out of some of your links though? I recall when G4s and G3s ran Flash atrociously when compared to the Pentium 3s, but when Apple switched the G4 to DDR memory, the difference one the Mac side increased substantially. My G4 DP 1.25Ghz from 2002 still does a great job with Flash considering its age -- Flash runs way better on it than HTML 5's canvas, or SVG.
Same here, Flash has always ran fine on my Macs and I've been a Mac guy since the early nineties. I'm getting the impression that most of these Mac-Flash-haters are telling nothing but half-truths, or their luck with hardware is really bad, but I doubt it.
The trouble is that instead of "reading" my post, you skimmed it and you missed something that throws your entire response out the door. I mentioned more than once that I own a Unibody MacBook Pro 17". I also mentioned that it gets about 100 fps faster on average with Flash vs the other examples.
And just for reference, there's also an Aluminum MacBook Pro 17" here and a PC( i7 920 + GTX 275) in my household.
Don't patronize me. You're the one that can't bother to read all of what was written. Also, you're the one that makes reference to a "pile of crap all around" and HTML 5, that comes from your thoughts buddy, not mine. I only pointed out that what GreatDrok stated doesn't add up with the realty of things and provided links to show that HTML 5 will not run better than Flash on a G4.
Once again, I was responding to another post and you didn't read the fact that I'm on a Unibody MBPro 17".
Anyways, plug-ins like Flash already deliver "MORE" now and it runs better on older and newer Macs. Your so-called new and promising stuff(FLUFF) is nothing more than a BIG step back for the majority. And this might come as a surprise, but plug-ins are optional.
They could, but that would limit export to basically ActionScript 2(Big step back from AS3) with a drawing API that's closer to what could be done with Flash 7(Which compared to the current AS3 Drawing API is quite limiting). But it would be a nice feature none the less, just like CS5's option to compile iPhone applications.
Flash 10 noticeably improved the performance on my old G4 DP 1.25. What you're saying honestly reads more like FUD, as it doesn't add up. Prior to my Intel MacBook Pros, I had Titanium 1Ghz Powerbooks and they ran Flash content -- like games - well enough for the most part.
My G4 Gets about 27 fps on all "Flash" examples, including 500 particles with shadows. With HTML 5, it averages about 12 fps 'without' shadows and about 4fps with shadows. The Flash examples are about 2 - 7x faster on average with my "PPC" running Flash Player 10. My UniBody 17" averages about 100 fps faster on all examples for reference.
With "heavy" HTML 5 content -- the link below -- on my MBpro unibody 17" in Safari and Firefox, the browser becomes almost unresponsive and the animation is very choppy. With the same type of content in Flash, my browser responds without hesitation and the animation is smooth;
Flash: http://mrdoob.com/46/Depth_of_Field_Test_07
HTML 5: http://mrdoob.com/97/Depth_of_Field_HTML5
I won't attempt this HTML 5 example on my G4 as it gives newer Mac a heavy work out.
What you're saying is more inline with what Jobs wants the world to believe instead of what's actually a reality. Please, stop regurgitating his talking points. He's not spreading FUD about Flash because it's the right thing for us as consumers, but because it stands to benefit his closed off platforms if consumers are OK with using iTunes/Quicktime as a gateway to all entertainment instead of a popular alternative like Flash, or any plug-in for that matter.
According to lab tests(Apple), my Unibody MBPro 17" promises up to 7 hours when using my 9600m GPU. That would be great, but I've never got more than about 4 hours on a charge and I charge it 2 to 3 times a day. My iPod Touch's battery dies in about 2 hours, if I use it to view simple websites or play a game. So when Apple says their iPad lasts about 10 hours, I have my doubts.
I'm OK with adds. If they bother me too much, I'll simply size my browser window to cover them. The only thing that ticks me off, are those BUBBLE ROLLOVERS, which can not be blocked. Anyways, much respect to Ars for this experiment.
No it can not. If anything it's a throwback to earlier versions of Flash in terms of its capabilities and performance -- as in it's slower.
HTML 5 still has the same cross browser limitations as HTML 4 and even if every browser conformed to one standard, it would still be lacking when compared to plug-ins like Flash and SilverLight, which will only benefit from HTML 5 and will continue to evolve and offer capabilities that browsers can not. So nothing will really change, it will just get better for all of us.
Re:Not groundbreaking at all, System Shock 2 clone
on
BioShock 2 Released
·
· Score: 1
I could not finish BioShuck do to my prior expectations based on the first Shock and SS2. BioShuck was a HUGE let down for me.
You wouldn't call Java JavaScript. The same can be said about ActionScript 3, which is actually more like Java. What you say holds true for older version of AS though.
Yeah, their intentional crippling of the PC's controls was complete crap. I still loved the game once I got it all figured out, so their vsync issue which locked the game at 30 fps(WTF?) and of course what you mentioned about the mouse. I ended up buying a Logitech G9 just for this game.
Anyways, if not for RE4 on the Wii, which is a game that eventually grew on me, I would have never considered even buying Dead Space, let alone had the patients to to get it all working where I was happy with its controls. I really hope that Dead Space two won't suffer from the same BS and that they'll ramp up the difficulty for the PC, as it was way to easy, even on impossible, and I didn't use stasis on anything killable.
When did you build your PC? Even when I build a workstation, I'd be hard pressed to hit that price now days. When did you buy your 30"? I bought mine in 2004 when it was $3200 retail -- I only paid $2999, but now I can get a cheapo PC 30" for less than a $k.
I've never paid more than $1500 for a gaming PC and last year I paid less than $800 for a new rig that's way more powerful than any console. Consumer PCs are cheap, so if you paid that much for a consumer setup, I have to wonder which name-brand PC maker ripped you off?
Anyways, how about listing some components and when you bought them to help to clear things up.:)
I agree for the most part, as the Mac side does need some more work, but I can attest that this problem is more on the developer's back than Adobe and Apples. It's the inexperience of some of these Flash devs that create SWF that eat up way too much CPU. From my own experience, the projects I build, always idle back down between 1.5% and 2% -- unfortunately Flash will never idle down to 0%. I also test my projects on an old DP G4 along with my newer Macs and PC, and I make sure that my CPU peaks are always reasonable -- nothing bothers me more than viewing a simple banner animation eating up 100%+ of my CPU(s) time. Even most of these Flash videos players are crap, and use up way more CPU than needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap man, that's FUD you're spreading. It's nothing but lies from a pro-apple site.
You need ActionScript 3 in order to access new APIs like mult-touch for mobile devices. 10.1 mobile will playback all AS1/2 content, but to state the obvious, any developer that's concerned about their content working on a mobile platform should update it accordingly, which is true for any platform.
No, 10.1 mobile fully supports H.264 video and it's fully GPU accelerated. Flash adopted this format back in 2008 and it's here to stay.
But seriously, that chart is absolute BULLSHIT!
Flash wasn't built for mobile devices.
If you want it to suck cycles on your desktop or most laptops, that's not a problem, for your PC or Mac has them and electrical power to spare, generally.
But Flash sucks the electrical life out of mobile devices. This isn't theory, it's fact. Take your laptop off AC power and see it die after a few YouTube videos or Flash games.
Flash 10.1 is built for mobile devices, as was Flash Lite -- which was just a bit limited, but it's been around for about 9 years,. 10.1 takes full advantage of GPU acceleration for both video playback and drawing vectors, which helps out for both performance and battery life.
All the devices that are supporting 10.1 allow full access to the GPU, so battery life is no more an issue for Flash on them, than any other platform, it will come down to the competence of the developer, not the toolkit itself.
On this note, Apple deliberately held back the APIs that Flash needed to access the GPU on the Mac, so video playback could never be as efficient as Apple's Quicktime. So for Apple to call Flash a battery/CPU hog, is them speaking out of both sides as they're the ones that prevented my Macs from being as efficient as my PC for any video playback via Flash.
I'm not against Flash. I'm against it on devices that must be reliable and are built with limited processor and electrical power.
If that's true and you're not against Flash, then at least educate yourself, because the last half of your sentence is either ignorance of FUD; http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/mobile_demos_fp10.1.html
Flash is the Web standard of .NET. It's sloppy. It's developer hasn't made great inroads to optimize it or secure it. It is flexible, but some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen. And only Adobe makes it.-
Thanks for assuming all developers are the same. I'm going to apply your logic to the App Store. Because I've encountered more than a few crap apps, so according to you, all developers including my self that have worked in XCode via OBjective c are sloppy. Thanks for the assumption... What shall I assume about you?
On the touch-screen, like Apple's toolkit, Flash has evolved to support multi-touch, which is why 10.1 is a big deal for mobile devices. This whole point has been moot from the get go and only really an issue because most are really quite ignorant and don't care to look for the facts.
If Adobe wants to side with another platform for Flash AND make it work, great. But apparently Apple doesn't want to be Adobe's guinea pig and it has every reason not to.
Nice, do you always throw out passive aggressive insults?
Apple has already dealt before with competitors both inside and out who change their business plan and as a result, leave Apple twisting in the wind. It's good business practice not to let your business become overly dependent on others. Hell, Adobe was in that situation when Apple began to flounder. So why would Apple emulate Adobe in that regard?
To all their own... You know what bothers me about Apple's business model, it's that with their closed and limited devices, they're trying to dictate what should or not be allowed on the web in general. They don't want Flash, so they're taking the stance that no one should have it.
As for Flash on the Android? Let's see it, then. What doesn't kill your phone only makes it stronger.
Perhaps Apple will have Billy Dee Williams in for some endorsements, standing over a person with a locked, overheated phone.
" Problem with your Droid? "
Now you're just being a troll.
But console manufactures don't care which middleware tool you use to build games for their platform. This is the clear distinction. A developer can use something like Gamebryo to build a 360, PS3, and Wii game as an example, where as with Apple this is not allowed.
If Apple were actually consistent in which apps are excluded, that would be one thing, but they are not, so it's really hard to gauge what they'll allow one week from the next, especially when they change the language in their TOS.
Anyways, I agree on the efficiency no matter what toolset is used. Let the customer decide if they like or dislike something and crap will always get flushed out. I certainly learned to not trust most content from the App Store as it's battery-hogging-crap, much of which was coded with Objective C.
Flash 10.1 for mobile devices, which is in BETA -- and will be available shortly for your Android phone -- is actually further along than the desktop plug-in. It supports full vector and video acceleration via the GPU on devices like the Nexus one. Adobe has been working on this for sometime, so instead of telling them to shut-up, use your search engine. :)
Anyways, I don't like Flash-Lite either, but that excuse is really nothing more than one now, since Apple is clearly blocking Flash 10.1, which is tailored for mobile devices, not because it's as he says, but because it's a viable threat to his business plan.
And I am an Apple guy, a long time Mac user from the System 7 days. I'm pretty sure most other Mac guys have drank way too much of Job's koolaid in recent years, because much what he says really doesn't add up when checked against reality.
I do have Bootcamp installed on my main Mac(Unibody 17" 10.6.3) and I also have an i7 920 that I pieced together last year -- I've been using PCs longer than Macs, since the eighties.. My bootcamp partition is running Windows 7 64bit, my PC is running XP64. I also own a copy of Parallels 5 on my Mac.
The difference now days with Flash performance, between both platforms is marginal. I don't get the ghastly part, but I'd be interested in trying out of some of your links though? I recall when G4s and G3s ran Flash atrociously when compared to the Pentium 3s, but when Apple switched the G4 to DDR memory, the difference one the Mac side increased substantially. My G4 DP 1.25Ghz from 2002 still does a great job with Flash considering its age -- Flash runs way better on it than HTML 5's canvas, or SVG.
On the linked video at 480p, my 2.8Ghz 17" with the 9600m GT enabled hovers about 55% under both OSs. Windows says it's using less CPU percentage(about 20%), but the Task Manager graph shows that it's actually using about the same as OS X;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNiZhAUWcg&playnext_from=TL&videos=iC_Y4MbiZMQ&feature=featured
Same here, Flash has always ran fine on my Macs and I've been a Mac guy since the early nineties. I'm getting the impression that most of these Mac-Flash-haters are telling nothing but half-truths, or their luck with hardware is really bad, but I doubt it.
I couldn't agree more!
Bing is Microsoft's rebrand of 3 previous failures of trying to get into the search business.
The trouble is that instead of "reading" my post, you skimmed it and you missed something that throws your entire response out the door. I mentioned more than once that I own a Unibody MacBook Pro 17". I also mentioned that it gets about 100 fps faster on average with Flash vs the other examples.
And just for reference, there's also an Aluminum MacBook Pro 17" here and a PC( i7 920 + GTX 275) in my household.
Don't patronize me. You're the one that can't bother to read all of what was written. Also, you're the one that makes reference to a "pile of crap all around" and HTML 5, that comes from your thoughts buddy, not mine. I only pointed out that what GreatDrok stated doesn't add up with the realty of things and provided links to show that HTML 5 will not run better than Flash on a G4.
Once again, I was responding to another post and you didn't read the fact that I'm on a Unibody MBPro 17".
Anyways, plug-ins like Flash already deliver "MORE" now and it runs better on older and newer Macs. Your so-called new and promising stuff(FLUFF) is nothing more than a BIG step back for the majority. And this might come as a surprise, but plug-ins are optional.
They could, but that would limit export to basically ActionScript 2(Big step back from AS3) with a drawing API that's closer to what could be done with Flash 7(Which compared to the current AS3 Drawing API is quite limiting). But it would be a nice feature none the less, just like CS5's option to compile iPhone applications.
Flash 10 noticeably improved the performance on my old G4 DP 1.25. What you're saying honestly reads more like FUD, as it doesn't add up. Prior to my Intel MacBook Pros, I had Titanium 1Ghz Powerbooks and they ran Flash content -- like games - well enough for the most part.
Here, try a few HTML 5 examples, they runs MUCH slower on a Mac than the same type of demos done in Flash;
http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/
My G4 Gets about 27 fps on all "Flash" examples, including 500 particles with shadows. With HTML 5, it averages about 12 fps 'without' shadows and about 4fps with shadows. The Flash examples are about 2 - 7x faster on average with my "PPC" running Flash Player 10. My UniBody 17" averages about 100 fps faster on all examples for reference.
With "heavy" HTML 5 content -- the link below -- on my MBpro unibody 17" in Safari and Firefox, the browser becomes almost unresponsive and the animation is very choppy. With the same type of content in Flash, my browser responds without hesitation and the animation is smooth;
Flash: http://mrdoob.com/46/Depth_of_Field_Test_07
HTML 5: http://mrdoob.com/97/Depth_of_Field_HTML5
I won't attempt this HTML 5 example on my G4 as it gives newer Mac a heavy work out.
What you're saying is more inline with what Jobs wants the world to believe instead of what's actually a reality. Please, stop regurgitating his talking points. He's not spreading FUD about Flash because it's the right thing for us as consumers, but because it stands to benefit his closed off platforms if consumers are OK with using iTunes/Quicktime as a gateway to all entertainment instead of a popular alternative like Flash, or any plug-in for that matter.
According to lab tests(Apple), my Unibody MBPro 17" promises up to 7 hours when using my 9600m GPU. That would be great, but I've never got more than about 4 hours on a charge and I charge it 2 to 3 times a day. My iPod Touch's battery dies in about 2 hours, if I use it to view simple websites or play a game. So when Apple says their iPad lasts about 10 hours, I have my doubts.
Mac user?
I'm OK with adds. If they bother me too much, I'll simply size my browser window to cover them. The only thing that ticks me off, are those BUBBLE ROLLOVERS, which can not be blocked. Anyways, much respect to Ars for this experiment.
This is why plug-ins are good, they can be blocked. Do you have any recommendations on a way to block those advertising pop-up bubbles?
Sorry Adobe, for this guy's ignorance.
No it can not. If anything it's a throwback to earlier versions of Flash in terms of its capabilities and performance -- as in it's slower.
HTML 5 still has the same cross browser limitations as HTML 4 and even if every browser conformed to one standard, it would still be lacking when compared to plug-ins like Flash and SilverLight, which will only benefit from HTML 5 and will continue to evolve and offer capabilities that browsers can not. So nothing will really change, it will just get better for all of us.
I could not finish BioShuck do to my prior expectations based on the first Shock and SS2. BioShuck was a HUGE let down for me.
You wouldn't call Java JavaScript. The same can be said about ActionScript 3, which is actually more like Java. What you say holds true for older version of AS though.
You have to press "USB connected"? Why can't you just plug it in and then move the apps over?
Yeah, their intentional crippling of the PC's controls was complete crap. I still loved the game once I got it all figured out, so their vsync issue which locked the game at 30 fps(WTF?) and of course what you mentioned about the mouse. I ended up buying a Logitech G9 just for this game.
Anyways, if not for RE4 on the Wii, which is a game that eventually grew on me, I would have never considered even buying Dead Space, let alone had the patients to to get it all working where I was happy with its controls. I really hope that Dead Space two won't suffer from the same BS and that they'll ramp up the difficulty for the PC, as it was way to easy, even on impossible, and I didn't use stasis on anything killable.
When did you build your PC? Even when I build a workstation, I'd be hard pressed to hit that price now days. When did you buy your 30"? I bought mine in 2004 when it was $3200 retail -- I only paid $2999, but now I can get a cheapo PC 30" for less than a $k.
:)
I've never paid more than $1500 for a gaming PC and last year I paid less than $800 for a new rig that's way more powerful than any console. Consumer PCs are cheap, so if you paid that much for a consumer setup, I have to wonder which name-brand PC maker ripped you off?
Anyways, how about listing some components and when you bought them to help to clear things up.
I agree for the most part, as the Mac side does need some more work, but I can attest that this problem is more on the developer's back than Adobe and Apples. It's the inexperience of some of these Flash devs that create SWF that eat up way too much CPU. From my own experience, the projects I build, always idle back down between 1.5% and 2% -- unfortunately Flash will never idle down to 0%. I also test my projects on an old DP G4 along with my newer Macs and PC, and I make sure that my CPU peaks are always reasonable -- nothing bothers me more than viewing a simple banner animation eating up 100%+ of my CPU(s) time. Even most of these Flash videos players are crap, and use up way more CPU than needed.
Hurray...
Microsoft loves you!