Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jun 2010 22:59 UTC
Multimedia, AV It's been a very long wait, but the release is finally here: Adobe has released Flash Player 10.1. Since Flash has come under increasing scrutiny, there's a lot at stake here for Adobe. This release is supposed to use far less resources while still being faster, more stable, and more secure. Update: No 64bit Flash player for now - on any platform. The Linux beta has been axed.
Order by: Score:
Vp8/WebM?
by VistaUser on Thu 10th Jun 2010 23:24 UTC
VistaUser
Member since:
2008-03-08

Does this version of Flash support Vp8/WebM, or will that be arriving in a later version?

Reply Score: 1

While I hate flash,
by Kalessin on Thu 10th Jun 2010 23:24 UTC
Kalessin
Member since:
2007-01-18

I welcome any improvements to it which reduce the number of resources that it uses up. I keep having to run "killall nspluginviewer" on my linux box to stop it from needlessly using up resources. I'd prefer not to have to worry about it than I do any other plugin.

Reply Score: 2

Found my first 10.1 flash bug!
by malxau on Thu 10th Jun 2010 23:25 UTC
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

Flash 10.0 will exit gracefully when hosted from a GTK1 (Linux) browser. Flash 10.1 crashes the browser. I keep multiple browsers (GTK1 Firefox 2 + GTK2 FireFox 3.6) so that I have a 'stable' browser to run that flash won't touch and hence it won't crash and misbehave.

Sigh. Now I'll need to move the plugin into the browser dir (rather than home dir) to keep one browser flash-free.

It never ceases to amaze me how browsers can be solid (and big!) and the much smaller flash causes so much trouble. There's definitely a quality gap between Adobe and the rest of the industry.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Found my first 10.1 flash bug!
by molnarcs on Fri 11th Jun 2010 08:00 UTC in reply to "Found my first 10.1 flash bug!"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

There might be a quality gap between linux distributions as well - I remember having to do the same manual copying, killing nspluginviewer, etc before (mainly on kubuntu). Since I've been on Arch linux, I never had a problem with flash. I use chromium now (6.0.420.0 (48484)) - didn't have to do anything, flash worked automatically once I installed it. I also use Firefox from time to time, no problems there either. The only hurdle I had was initial setup, for I wanted flash not to block the sound system (hence I needed pulseaudio, then setting up a pulse enabled xine engine for KDE, and mplayer-pulse). But that was a one time job, I did it in October last year. Since then, I repeat, I never had a single problem with flash on either Firefox or Chromium.

Reply Score: 2

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Well, I also use Flash on Arch Linux. It has major problems. Often it just gets stuck on video playing because of sound issues. And after every suspend/resume it is almost certain I will have to kill my browser and restart it because Flash otherwise blocks Alsa...

But it's good to know that at least one person on the planet can use Flash on Linux without any trouble.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, with Flash 10, I never got a crash on Ubuntu 9.04 and various releases of Pardus. My gripe with flash remains essentially the awful performance.

Installing the beta of 10.1 reduced stability but enhanced performance by far. However, now that 10.1 is released, I think that I'm screwed, as someone who does not use Deb nor Rpm...

Reply Score: 2

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Note that setting up the sound system was crucial to have a painless flash experience. I don't particularly care for pulse-audio, but apparently you need it to have not only simultaneous playback but stability as well. It was a hassle, because then you need to have mplayer-pulse form aur as well, plus bin32-skype-pulse, libao-pulse (basically pulse versions of the major libraries). But you only have to do it ONCE!

That's why I think that problems with flash on linux are not necessarily Adobe's fault - it is possible to set up the system correctly. Unfortunately, very few distributions do it for you (I think mandriva was OK, but kubuntu wasn't). Arch doesn't set up anything for you (that's why we love it ;) ) but my experience shows that it is possible to do it without any extra patches and tinkering (arch is as vanilla as it can get) - just proper configuration.

Reply Score: 2

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Interesting. Everybody knows that Alsa sucks. Some people claim pulseaudio would suck even more.

I guess I have to go with the time then and install pulseaudio as you have outlined. Thank you for the pointers.

Reply Score: 2

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

You're welcome - I hope it works out for you! You need to set up a few things (/etc/asound.conf, add your user to pulse-access and pulse-rt groups, etc.) plus you'll probably need to replace a few libs. On my system, this is what I have:

[molinari@Helios etc]$ pacman -Q | grep pulse
bin32-skype-pulse 0.1-1
lib32-pulseaudio 0.9.21-7
libao-pulse 1.0.0-1
mplayer-pulse 31347-1
pulseaudio 0.9.21-6
sdl-pulse 1.2.14-2

Although as I said there are no crashes, sometimes (very rarely) pulse breaks, and when you play a sound you hear a jingling/cackling noise instead. /etc/rc.d/pulseaudio restart solves this instantly. That's the only problem I still couldn't solve, but it doesn't happen very often ;)

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Interesting. Everybody knows that Alsa sucks. Some people claim pulseaudio would suck even more.

ALSA is pretty basic and handles some things rather poorly. PulseAudio is just a rather shaky layer on top of another shaky layer so the result can't obviously be top-notch. I know ALSA devs disagree with me, but I still think that most of the functionality that PulseAudio does should be at ALSA level instead.

Anyhow, I haven't had much trouble with PulseAudio. Usually everything works fine. I just got a new server machine where PulseAudio for some reason refuses to acknowledge the presence of an audio card and thus refuses to play any sound. Had to disable PulseAudio to get working audio playback.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Found my first 10.1 flash bug!
by Timmmm on Fri 11th Jun 2010 09:03 UTC in reply to "Found my first 10.1 flash bug!"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

This happened for me with the 64-bit plugin, but not the 32-bit one.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Oliver
by Oliver on Thu 10th Jun 2010 23:41 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

And still no 64 bit player? Sigh.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Oliver
by Bringbackanonposting on Fri 11th Jun 2010 00:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by Oliver"
Bringbackanonposting Member since:
2005-11-16

32bit only folks. Nothing to see here.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Oliver
by bousozoku on Fri 11th Jun 2010 00:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Oliver"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

And still no 64 bit player? Sigh.


I wonder about the Mac OS X version since Safari runs as 64-bit, though Firefox, Chrome, and Opera do not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Oliver
by robojerk on Fri 11th Jun 2010 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Oliver"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

I wonder about the Mac OS X version since Safari runs as 64-bit

Are you sure about that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Oliver
by horatio on Fri 11th Jun 2010 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Oliver"
horatio Member since:
2007-08-09

Yes, since Snow Leopard Safari has been 64bit:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/06/12safari.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Oliver
by vodoomoth on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Oliver"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I'm bringing a second confirmation. Yes, the system monitor says "Intel (64-bit)" for Safari.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Oliver
by Neolander on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Oliver"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Firefox is 64-bit on mac or is going to become so, according to Mozilla's nightly build repository at :
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk...

...where I find this file :
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Oliver
by lemur2 on Fri 11th Jun 2010 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Oliver"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"And still no 64 bit player? Sigh.
I wonder about the Mac OS X version since Safari runs as 64-bit, though Firefox, Chrome, and Opera do not. "

Firefox and Chrome, and AFAIK Opera, all run 64-bit on 64-bit Linux systems.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Oliver
by chrish on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Oliver"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

64-bit Safari uses trickery to work with 32-bit plugins, so it'll still work.

The 64-bit Firefox builds won't, however, just like on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Oliver
by Ford Prefect on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Oliver"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Safari uses a seperate process for the plugins, which then can run in 32bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Oliver
by Brunis on Fri 11th Jun 2010 07:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Oliver"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

i read somewhere that after this 10.1 release they'll start focusing on 64bit builds.. even for Windows.. now how long can that take?

And Firefox nightlies have started to come with a 64 bit installer.. yummy..

Reply Score: 1

still no FreeBSD version?
by rhavenn on Fri 11th Jun 2010 00:00 UTC
rhavenn
Member since:
2006-05-12

still no FreeBSD, x86 or x64, version? *sigh*

Reply Score: 3

RE: still no FreeBSD version?
by umccullough on Fri 11th Jun 2010 00:31 UTC in reply to "still no FreeBSD version?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

still no FreeBSD, x86 or x64, version? *sigh*


Damn, where's the Haiku version? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: still no FreeBSD version?
by Lazarus on Fri 11th Jun 2010 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE: still no FreeBSD version?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"still no FreeBSD, x86 or x64, version? *sigh*


Damn, where's the Haiku version? ;)
"

Right behind the version for Contiki :-P

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: still no FreeBSD version?
by Brunis on Fri 11th Jun 2010 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: still no FreeBSD version?"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

"[q]still no FreeBSD, x86 or x64, version? *sigh*


Damn, where's the Haiku version? ;)
"

Right behind the version for Contiki :-P [/q]

hah! by the time R1 is final, Flash has faded to a niche market and you'll be watching VP8 material on YouTube in WebPositive (actually you'll be doing that way before R1 final and way before Flash fades ;)

Reply Score: 2

Flush Flopped
by ramasubbu_sk on Fri 11th Jun 2010 02:26 UTC
ramasubbu_sk
Member since:
2007-04-05

10.1 uses more CPU usage in my laptop than 10.0 in Youtube 1080p videos.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flush Flopped
by aliquis on Fri 11th Jun 2010 03:44 UTC in reply to "Flush Flopped"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Maybe it brings out better video quality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Flush Flopped
by Zifre on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Flush Flopped"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Maybe it brings out better video quality.

Nope. It is pretty much impossible to decode video and show a coherent picture unless you decode it perfectly. In most codecs, many frames are based on the frames before them. It's simply not possible to improve the quality of a video decoder.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Flush Flopped
by Neolander on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flush Flopped"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

True, but you can use some filters to give a better look to the decoded video, as an example by smoothing up the Jpeg-like "block" encoding artifacts if some are detected...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Flush Flopped
by vodoomoth on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flush Flopped"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

the visual or perceived quality.
But yes, I think you are right.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by zoinksbob
by zoinksbob on Fri 11th Jun 2010 02:36 UTC
zoinksbob
Member since:
2010-06-11

Yeah, I'm seeing zero performance improvement. It still takes 100% CPU time to play a Youtube vid, and the playback is still choppy. And this is on a Core2 Duo. Pathetic.

Edited 2010-06-11 02:36 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by zoinksbob
by aliquis on Fri 11th Jun 2010 03:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by zoinksbob"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

It's Apple/OS X which are pathetic. They recently added a framework which would make it possible to play H.264 videos through the GPU in flash on macs, but they only did it for the latest Nvidia chipsets and GPUs so no luck even if you have an older Intel, Nvidia eventually the latest ATI GPUs they used even if they got H.264 support in the chip.

Blame Apple for total lameness, as always. I to hated flash on my mac, now it's been resting on a shelf for 13 months, I should really be faster in mailing them but it's so f--king disturbing.

Try it in Windows on the same machine and I'm sure things will improve ..

Edited 2010-06-11 03:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by zoinksbob
by tyrione on Fri 11th Jun 2010 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by zoinksbob"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

It's Apple/OS X which are pathetic. They recently added a framework which would make it possible to play H.264 videos through the GPU in flash on macs, but they only did it for the latest Nvidia chipsets and GPUs so no luck even if you have an older Intel, Nvidia eventually the latest ATI GPUs they used even if they got H.264 support in the chip.

Blame Apple for total lameness, as always. I to hated flash on my mac, now it's been resting on a shelf for 13 months, I should really be faster in mailing them but it's so f--king disturbing.

Try it in Windows on the same machine and I'm sure things will improve ..


Hardware acceleration for Flash on Linux is non-existent. I've got VDPAU for Mplayer using Nvidia for my H.264 very recently, so spare me the Jobs is late to the ball game crap.

I don't have video players spanning multiple cores running OpenMP on Linux and seeing my cores barely being touched.

I'm seeing a single core still running VLC with Red Cliff II at 10% utilization.

Yet, if I have this in Flash it'll throttle my CPU.

Sorry, but Flash is a pig.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob
by bitwelder on Fri 11th Jun 2010 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by zoinksbob"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27


Hardware acceleration for Flash on Linux is non-existent. I've got VDPAU for Mplayer using Nvidia for my H.264 very recently, so spare me the Jobs is late to the ball game crap.


You're comparing a walled garden of apples to an open field of oranges.
Jobs is paid megabucks to provide above-average, bleeding-edge, psychedelic experience to his customers.

In the GNU/Linux development I don't see this kind of commitment (and you see it from industry attitude to Linux versions)

That said, yes Flash is still bloatware.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob
by molnarcs on Fri 11th Jun 2010 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by zoinksbob"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I dunno, flash has been working very well on my linux laptop since the new betas. Below you can see me playing a 720p youtube video. My CPU utilization is 66%, but they are not throttled - running at 800Mhz only!They can go up to 2500Mhz (I'm using ondemand cpu governor).

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/9y6k-s1Bj0aDHwCFqJdg6A?feat=di...

Flash version:

Name : flashplugin
Version : 10.0.45.2-1
URL : http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer
Licenses : custom
Groups : None
Provides : flashplayer
Depends On : mozilla-common libxt gtk2 nss curl
Optional Deps : None
Required By : None
Conflicts With : None
Replaces : flashplugin-beta
Installed Size : 11735.00 K
Packager : Giovanni Scafora <giovanni@archlinux.org>
Architecture : x86_64
Build Date : Fri 12 Feb 2010 04:21:50 AM ICT
Install Date : Sun 11 Apr 2010 02:53:34 PM ICT
Install Reason : Explicitly installed
Install Script : No
Description : Adobe Flash Player

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob
by _txf_ on Fri 11th Jun 2010 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by zoinksbob"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

H264 acceleration on osx IS a joke. It only supports the quicktime implementation (therefore practically anything encoded with x264 fails). VDPAU has been out for a fairly long time now and pretty much accelerates anything under the sun xvid,vc-1, and h264.

I imagine that is why video is still crappy (on osx) compared to something like vdpau.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by zoinksbob
by bousozoku on Fri 11th Jun 2010 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by zoinksbob"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

It's Apple/OS X which are pathetic. They recently added a framework which would make it possible to play H.264 videos through the GPU in flash on macs, but they only did it for the latest Nvidia chipsets and GPUs so no luck even if you have an older Intel, Nvidia eventually the latest ATI GPUs they used even if they got H.264 support in the chip.

Blame Apple for total lameness, as always. I to hated flash on my mac, now it's been resting on a shelf for 13 months, I should really be faster in mailing them but it's so f--king disturbing.

Try it in Windows on the same machine and I'm sure things will improve ..


Ummm, Flash has been horrible since before Macromedia had it.

If it's Apple's fault, why does Silverlight run so well?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob
by Manish on Fri 11th Jun 2010 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by zoinksbob"
Manish Member since:
2009-12-18

If it's Apple's fault, why does Silverlight run so well?


I suspect Microsoft has internal undocumented APIs which it uses for making Silverlight run faster on windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by zoinksbob
by Neolander on Fri 11th Jun 2010 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Actually, uses a large but close to perfectly documented set of APIs which are native on windows and not on other platforms. It explains very simply why it runs faster.

.Net, WPF... All of this is loaded at bootup and optimized on Windows, since parts of the system use them...

Edited 2010-06-11 09:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by zoinksbob
by darknexus on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"If it's Apple's fault, why does Silverlight run so well?


I suspect Microsoft has internal undocumented APIs which it uses for making Silverlight run faster on windows.
"
Except that we're talking about Silverlight for Mac here, not the Windows version at all. Sl on the Mac actually performs well, even when Flash doesn't. Perhaps try reading the entire thread first?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by zoinksbob
by Oliver on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by zoinksbob"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

That's nonsense, Flash is just a piece of crap. Flash operates on RGB data!

http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/05/flash_uses_the_gpu.html

"Unfortunately, the Flash Player can not easily make use of this since Sorenson, On2, or H.264 video data -- even though it is decoded as YUV -- has to be converted to RGB and possibly combined with other graphical elements."

Therefore it is slow like hell.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by zoinksbob
by Stratoukos on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

I'm guessing GP was talking about Silverlight on OS X which, although I've never used, I have heard it runs pretty well on OS X.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by zoinksbob
by apoclypse on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

He's talking about on OSX. Silverlight runs circles around Flash video on OSX. Without the overly heavy CPU usage.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by zoinksbob
by bousozoku on Fri 11th Jun 2010 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23


I suspect Microsoft has internal undocumented APIs which it uses for making Silverlight run faster on windows.


On Mac OS X?

You really have to give Microsoft credit. (I never thought I'd see myself writing that.) They've done something for Mac OS X that's positive.

What's that axiom about the enemy of my enemy being my friend?

Edited 2010-06-11 16:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by zoinksbob
by Nelson on Fri 11th Jun 2010 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by zoinksbob"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Besides the undocumented APIs spoken of (MILCore) is just a light wrapper around DirectX to make it easier for WPF to talk to DX (And I'm not even sure if SL uses it at all, traditionally SL shuns some of the more obscure features like BAML, a compiled form of XAML. It actually just parses it really fast, which explains why SL apps are more sensitive to a heavy visual tree especially on startup perf.)

And things like .NET (In the Desktop sense) and the WPF font cache (which is optimized on startup) have nothing to do with Silverlight because SL doesnt actually use any of them. The Plugin itself is a reimplementation of the CLR.

So no, Silverlight just runs better than Flash. Period. On Windows, on OSX, on Windows Phone, on Symbian, and using Moonlight, on Linux.

Reply Score: 3

What a conflict of terms...
by SuperDaveOsbourne on Fri 11th Jun 2010 02:45 UTC
SuperDaveOsbourne
Member since:
2007-06-24

To use these terms...

Faster, More Secure, Less Resources, More Stable

in reference to anything Flash related is retarded. It just ain't so.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What a conflict of terms...
by lemur2 on Fri 11th Jun 2010 04:23 UTC in reply to "What a conflict of terms..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

To use these terms... Faster, More Secure, Less Resources, More Stable in reference to anything Flash related is retarded. It just ain't so.


Well the CPU does have 'Less Resources' left over when running Flash. It is therefore, as you correctly point out, retarded.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+retarded&meta=
retard - cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate


Seems to me like at least some of those terms are applicable then.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What a conflict of terms...
by WorknMan on Fri 11th Jun 2010 04:30 UTC in reply to "What a conflict of terms..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

To use these terms...

Faster, More Secure, Less Resources, More Stable

in reference to anything Flash related is retarded. It just ain't so.


Yeah, and many of these are also bullet points on a lot of new versions of software, from anti virus packages to media players and everything in between. Problem is, how the hell does an end user quantify this, especially the more secure and more stable parts ...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 11th Jun 2010 07:07 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

And here I am bucking the status quo with my positive experience with Flash 10.1. I've for Safari 5.0 installed and Flash 10.1 Final - everything is working nicely, for CPU utilisation it is jumping between 20-30% which is only marginally worse than Windows 7, Internet Explorer 8 and Flash 10.1 which is jumping between 17-28% even with hardware acceleration when watching the same video. The gap between Windows and Mac OS X when it comes to Flash is gradually closing - the ability for plugins to access Core Animation via the NPAPI is resulting in a video software decoding by the rendering going down the OpenGL path which is what CSS3 animation is using via Core Animation.

The old system used Quartz2D which isn't apparently suited for animation/video but Core Animation is which should result in a smoother experience. Hopefully with more optimisation, Webkit2 keeps developing, that the over all experience with Flash on Mac OS X will improve.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by tyrione on Fri 11th Jun 2010 19:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

And here I am bucking the status quo with my positive experience with Flash 10.1. I've for Safari 5.0 installed and Flash 10.1 Final - everything is working nicely, for CPU utilisation it is jumping between 20-30% which is only marginally worse than Windows 7, Internet Explorer 8 and Flash 10.1 which is jumping between 17-28% even with hardware acceleration when watching the same video. The gap between Windows and Mac OS X when it comes to Flash is gradually closing - the ability for plugins to access Core Animation via the NPAPI is resulting in a video software decoding by the rendering going down the OpenGL path which is what CSS3 animation is using via Core Animation.

The old system used Quartz2D which isn't apparently suited for animation/video but Core Animation is which should result in a smoother experience. Hopefully with more optimisation, Webkit2 keeps developing, that the over all experience with Flash on Mac OS X will improve.


PowerPC Powerbook 15"

Safari 5 on Leopard 10.5.8

Safari before entering YouTube to watch the World Cup ad: 4% CPU utilization.

Hitting that Flash:

80% CPU utilization.

Me thinks they haven't optimized for PowerPC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 12th Jun 2010 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

PowerPC Powerbook 15"

Safari 5 on Leopard 10.5.8

Safari before entering YouTube to watch the World Cup ad: 4% CPU utilization.

Hitting that Flash:

80% CPU utilization.

Me thinks they haven't optimized for PowerPC.


Does your GPU support Core Animation? you'll probably find that the majority of the optimisation would have gone into Intel rather than PowerPC. At the end of the day, the PowerPC is dead and there is no use spending resources optimising for a dead platform - time to move on, upgrade and embrace the future.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by aliquis on Sun 13th Jun 2010 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

PPC isn't dead.
Just Apples support and use of it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sun 13th Jun 2010 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Does your GPU support Core Animation? you'll probably find that the majority of the optimisation would have gone into Intel rather than PowerPC. At the end of the day, the PowerPC is dead and there is no use spending resources optimising for a dead platform - time to move on, upgrade and embrace the future.


I forgot to mention that Core Animation support only exists in 10.6 so it is a Intel only piece of technology. So even if Flash were optimised one would be SOL in any case.

Reply Score: 2

No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by ggeldenhuys on Fri 11th Jun 2010 07:20 UTC
ggeldenhuys
Member since:
2006-11-13

Just downloaded 10.1 for Linux, and it didn't work. On closer inspection I noticed it's a 32-bit only release, no 64-bit versions available yet! WTF!!

Reply Score: 2

RE: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by Neolander on Fri 11th Jun 2010 07:54 UTC in reply to "No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?

Myself, I love the improvements in AMD64 as an architecture, but seriously, who really needs more than 4 GB of RAM on a desktop computer as of today, except for running a few overtaxed Windows/OSX programs like Adobe's CS ?

...

...

Understood !

Edited 2010-06-11 07:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?

Because we want to use all of our 4 GB RAM obviously. You generally don't want to buy new computers with less.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yes, but again what use has this large RAM for most desktop software ? Especially considering that it's extremely rare that one *single* process uses 4 GB RAM, and that if you just need to run several big processes at the same time, a 64-bit OS is sufficient.

Is this about "my RAM is bigger than yours", or is it actually useful ?

Edited 2010-06-11 08:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by l3v1 on Fri 11th Jun 2010 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Is this about "my RAM is bigger than yours", or is it actually useful ?


Well, if one only tweets, youtubes, facebooks, and whatnot, or develops simple database-frontend webapps, then obviously not.

Otherwise, give me all the memory and all the cores, and I have some fairly hungry algorithms that would be eager to eat it all ;)

Reply Score: 3

marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

[quote]
Yes, but again what use has this large RAM for most desktop software ? Especially considering that it's extremely rare that one *single* process uses 4 GB RAM, and that if you just need to run several big processes at the same time, a 64-bit OS is sufficient.

Is this about "my RAM is bigger than yours", or is it actually useful ? [/quote]

Oh let's see, people who do video editing, graphics work, etc. etc. etc.

Me, I use VMWare and make full use of my 8 Gig of RAM. Not to mention 64 bit is more efficient, especially when it comes to crunching numbers like with data base applications.

32 bit is outdated, has been for a long time. It's well paste the time for lazy coders to start coding for 64bit.

Edited 2010-06-11 19:14 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by renox on Fri 11th Jun 2010 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?


Probably because they want to use their CPU at their fullest: remember that with the new registers x86-64 can bring up to a 20% performance improvement, so it's not only the memory..

Sure, this happens only on very few applications, but it's still annoying to not be able to use your computer "efficiently" due to poor software.

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You're right, I forgot about the new registers. They surely help performance, compared to the previous EAX/EBX/ECX/EDX/ESP/EBP mess...

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Probably because they want to use their CPU at their fullest: remember that with the new registers x86-64 can bring up to a 20% performance improvement, so it's not only the memory..


20%? For what types of operations? Performance gains on the desktop are negligible and in some cases 32 bit is faster:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280812,00.asp

64 bit performance really depends on the type of workload:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlprogrammability/archive/2007/04/30/will-...

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

20%? For what types of operations? Performance gains on the desktop are negligible and in some cases 32 bit is faster:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280812,00.asp

64 bit performance really depends on the type of workload:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlprogrammability/archive/2007/04/30/will-...

You know, that's a mislead benchmark there. There's really rarely a case where your computer is otherwise idle but only plays music; no, usually the user is also doing some other things at the same time as playing music. The more processes you are running simultaneously the bigger the benefit you'll see in running 64-bit.

Also, web browsers et al do move around a lot of data and as such the extra bandwidth really benefits them. And the heavier the application in question the more benefit it gains; audio and video editing and processing applications, 3D modeling and CAD applications, photo manipulation, hell, even gaming.

Usually a user doesn't have only 1 single application open playing a single track and as such it's safe to say that 64-bit OS and applications stack DOES indeed provide worthy benefits over 32-bit ones.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


And the heavier the application in question the more benefit it gains; audio and video editing and processing applications, 3D modeling and CAD applications, photo manipulation, hell, even gaming.


I never said that there are no benefits with 64 bit computing. As I already said it depends on the type of operation. It's a FACT that some operations are faster on 32 bit processors. 64 bit cpus can slow a process by adding overhead, namely 64 bit pointers that take up twice as much cpu cache. Benefits related to video are more in intensive encoding, not a junky plug-in that streams video.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/11/is-it-time-for-64-bit-on-t...

I think a lot of the mythos behind 64 bit comes from game consoles where you had a significant difference in performance between 16/32/64 bit systems. For the typical consumer the difference between 32 and 64 bit is negligible. I'm all for the move towards 64 bit but there is an unsubstantiated demand for all software to immediately move to 64 bit. Having a few 32 bit programs is not a big deal.

Reply Score: 3

JPowers27 Member since:
2008-07-30

Misleading to the max. It's a 32bit Vista vs 64bit Vista....

Windows doesn't run in 64bit mode on x86 systems. Microsoft uses the 32/64bit mode; this means that the CPU is running in 32bit mode and only the address is done in 64bit. Thus, they don't get the extra registers; and the only speed up you're seeing is caused by having a larger address space.

This also explains why 32bit mode can be faster then 64bit mode. Since the everything except addresses are the same, the size of pointers are doubled meaning extra processing and storage space for them.

The only true 64bit version of Windows is the Itanium version. Microsoft didn't want to create a Win64 API for the x86 processors.

Linux, FreeBSD, & Mac OS X all run in true 64bit mode and can use the extended register set.

I don't know if Linux supports running 32bit & 64bit applications on the 64bit kernel.

Mac OS supports both 32bit on 64bit kernels and 64bit on 32bit kernels. For some reason, they just want programs to work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by JrezIN on Sun 13th Jun 2010 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

(just trying to close a tag...)[/i]

Edited 2010-06-13 22:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by gilboa on Fri 11th Jun 2010 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Generic answers:

- Multi-tasking. The more tasks you keep in the background the more memory you need. Want to keep browser full of open tabs, 6-7 copies of (Open)Office, a couple of PDF's, email client, listen to music and edit a huge image in GIMP - you need memory and lots of it. Doing it with 2GB of RAM is simply not enough. Trying to use more than 2GB of RAM on a 32bit machine, even with a 4G/4G kernel is anything but efficient.

- Disk caching. The more memory you have, the more memory OS can use for caching. Try reopening (again and again) a 200MB file in 1GB 32bit and on 4GB 64bit machine you'll understand what I mean.

- Gaming. While I usually play Linux games (and rarely do the same under Window) games tend to want a lot of memory. E.g. X3/Linux can easily take 2-2.3GB of RAM once your empire grows. I can only assume that recent 32bit Windows game are coming close to overflowing their memory space (2-3GB) making 64bit a must. Try running a recent game on a heavily multi-tasking 32bit machine (Item I) without closing applications and you'll start swapping pages, badly.

- Virtualization. Doing virtualization, with or without hardware virt support on a 32bit machine is plain stupid. (Virtualization cares less about CPU power and -far- more about memory)

- Performance (Added registers, additional instructions). x86_64 has twice the GP registers as i686 and by default has access to large number of additional instructions (E.g. an i686 binary cannot relay on having SSE and SSE2). If you ever looked at the assembly dump of an -optimized- x86_64 application compared to its i686 port, you'll understand why a well optimized x86_64 can actually be 2x as fast as it's i686 counterpart (And even more).
Heck, under certain conditions, I saw a 5/1 performance increase in one of my own applications (That was partially written in assembly).

So, if your usage case is low-end desktop or Internet only usage, 2GB/32bit is more than enough.
If you are doing anything else, 64bit is a -must-.

Given the years it takes to get a 64bit port out, I can only assume that Adobe devs cared little about times (E.g. mixing long, int and native Windows types) making a 64bit port far harder then a platform port (Read: Windows to Linux/MAC).

Just to put this in perspective:
My dual Xeon 55xx workstation has 12GB RAM and Fedora 13/x86_64.
I'm currently running two CentOS VM's (testing my code), couple of VI's editing the code, browser full of tabs, a couple of copies of OpenOffice calc (Excel), evolution mail client, amarok (Feature full music player), ktorrent (torrent client) downloading Linux ISO's, KDE (desktop environment) 4.4.4 with all the bells and whistles, and yum (package manager) is downloading updates in the background.
My machine uses ~8GB for applications (~6GB goes to the VM's), 3GB for caching and 1GB free.

- Gilboa

Edited 2010-06-11 10:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

As _xmv said, except for the performance thing, couldn't most of this be achieved by using 64-bit in the OS and in high-performance apps, while keeping low-end apps 32-bit ? I mean, things like Flash Player won't ever eat up more than 2GB...

Edited 2010-06-11 11:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by gilboa on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

As _xmv said, except for the performance thing, couldn't most of this be achieved by using 64-bit in the OS and in high-performance apps, while keeping low-end apps 32-bit ? I mean, things like Flash Player won't ever eat up more than 2GB...


I believe you failed to understand the importance of the "performance" thing.
When you target i686, most compilers assume that you have a Pentium or above - which means MXX only.
When you target x86_64, most compilers assume that you have an AMD Athlon64 or above - which means MMX, SSE and SSE2.
Now add the additional GP registers to the mix, and you can have far better -application- performance.

Another issue: I use a number of 32bit applications on my main workstation: A couple of native games, flash w/ nspluginwrapper and skype. In-order to support them, more than 10% of all my root file-system is "wasted" on 32bit libraries.
It might not sound like much, but the same 10% is wasted everytime I update my Fedora or switch to new Fedora release.

If -all- my applications were 32bit, I can only guess that I'll lose an additional 20-30%. (I would still require a lot of 64bit libraries for basic OS functionality and -full- 32bit library stack for all my applications)

Both disk and bandwidth wise, a pure 32bit or 64bit is the best option.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Thanks, now I understand better.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Now add the additional GP registers to the mix, and you can have far better -application- performance.


That's only if the code can be optimized to make use of those additional registers. And even then you have cases where the heavy 64 bit pointers negate that benefit and slow down the process.

64 bit is nice for the memory boost but performance benefits are overrated, especially in the context of typical software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by gilboa on Sat 12th Jun 2010 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

That's only if the code can be optimized to make use of those additional registers. And even then you have cases where the heavy 64 bit pointers negate that benefit and slow down the process.

64 bit is nice for the memory boost but performance benefits are overrated, especially in the context of typical software.


Notice the "can".


Now add the additional GP registers to the mix, and you can have far better -application- performance.


Sure, some application can even be slower, hence, usage case comparison in my original post.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by Tuxie on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

Because.

I have 8 GB RAM in my desktop machine and I run lots of things at the same time, including several virtual machines for development and sandboxing risky stuff like P2P. I wouldn't settle for much less.

I somewhat agree with you, though. It would be enough in almost all cases to have a 64-bit kernel with a 32-bit userland. For some weird reason non of the distributions offer the option to use a 64-bit kernel for their 32-bit versions, AFAIK.

Reply Score: 1

ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?

I think everybody else gave pretty much all the answers. I am a developer by trade and use VirtualBox sessions a lot, and often run 2 or more VM session while testing on various platforms.

Not to mention that I find leaving application open and simply switching to them much faster that start them up over and over. So with 6 virtual desktops available, I run 10-20 applications simultaneously very often. So being able to use the full 4GB or more is great - after all, I paid for it.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by _xmv
by _xmv on Fri 11th Jun 2010 11:06 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

Sooooo many inaccurate comments today!

First of all, when your system runs 64 bit, and flash 32bits.. ONLY FLASH has 2gb limitation. You run it into a wrapper until FF 3.6.4 (which has its own wrapper).
Now show me a flash animation taking 2GB please :p (that would be an abomination from hell, also)
It does not affect any 64bit app.

There's no magic 64bit register that makes flash go slower or faster, especially when most CPU extensions are not used by flash anyway.

1080p flash videos on *Windows* take 5% cpu on my 2 years old desktop (C2D E6750/HD3780)

720p flash videos on *Windows* take more cpu but run at 25fps on my 5 years old laptop (P-M ULV 1.1ghz/855GM)

I think that's actually very very good.


On Linux, it's another story.. full of various bugs mainly. I don't have OSX, but I bet it's similarly bad.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by _xmv
by ggeldenhuys on Fri 11th Jun 2010 22:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by _xmv"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

Sooooo many inaccurate comments today!

Yes, including yours. :-)

First of all, when your system runs 64 bit, and flash 32bits.. ONLY FLASH has 2gb limitation. You run it into a wrapper until FF 3.6.4 (which has its own wrapper).

On my Ubuntu 10.04 (64-bit) system, if I copy the 32bit flash plugin (*.so file) into Firefox's plugin folder, it doesn't show up at all in the about:plugins page - flash is completely disabled.

So back to the older v10.0 64-bit flash plugin.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by _xmv
by aliquis on Sun 13th Jun 2010 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by _xmv"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Maybe this are two solutions:

"The reason for this is that NSPluginWrapper 'wraps' 32bit plugins in such a way that other 64bit browsers can use 32bit plugins. It does this by creating a 64bit executable named 'npwrapper.originalpluginname' for each 32bit plugin and this in term runs the real 32bit executable. This works very nicely for Firefox, which cannot handle plugins of a different architecture itself.

Opera however, doesn't need NSPluginWrapper and indeed all it does is serve to cause our own wrapper (which performs the same purpose) to get confused, since we detect the architecture of the NSPluginWrapper (64bit) instead of the actual plugin (32bit). What we need to do is ignore all NSPluginWrapper wrapped plugins by default and indeed there is a bug filed suggesting we do exactly that. In the mean time we do have a system for setting certain plugins to be ignored."

Reply Score: 3

Mozilla plugin updates?
by darknexus on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:22 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I thought Mozilla was going to make sure their plugin updater service found new Flash versions? All I get is "plugin finder service error." I can wait though, I don't use flash enough to actually go to Adobe's page and get it.

Reply Score: 2

future
by broken_symlink on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:45 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

Now that adobe has gotten flash 10.1 out will they start working on flash for arm so we can finally have our mythical flood of arm netbooks?

Reply Score: 2

There's more to Flash than video
by phoenix on Fri 11th Jun 2010 17:31 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

And 10.1 is no better than 10.0 for the non-video uses.

You can still bring a multi-core, 3+ GHz system with 4 GB of RAM to its knees when running Flash games like Farmville. Even on 64-bit Windows 7, with a recent graphics chipset with over 512 MB of video RAM.

My wife complains daily about how crappy her new laptop is because all her Facebook games are just as slow as they were on her P3 1 GHz laptop with 768 MB of RAM and Windows XP.

Reply Score: 2

No 64bit flash player
by jabbotts on Fri 11th Jun 2010 18:37 UTC
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

Thanks Adobe, for a moment I'd almost forgotten why you suck. What's-a-matter.. your developers having trouble compiling against the 64bit libraries? Maybe you need to look to your source code and figure out why it's such a mess.

Reply Score: 4

RE: No 64bit flash player
by gilboa on Sat 12th Jun 2010 06:25 UTC in reply to "No 64bit flash player"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

..your developers having trouble compiling against the 64bit libraries? Maybe you need to look to your source code and figure out why it's such a mess.


I doubt it.
Most likely the original developers randomly scattered int/long/DWORD/etc without thinking that one day the may have different meaning under once you 64bit.
Another option is poorly written assembly code that cannot be easily ported to 64bit.

In order to developer a cross-arch / cross-platform code that can easily be ported from one environment to another one needs to design the system as such from day one. Most likely Adobe only targeted a single 32bit platform and developed the code accordingly.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 3

Die Flash Die!
by BrendaEM on Fri 11th Jun 2010 18:45 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

For it's original stated purpose--rendering animation Flash was nice.

I think it a foolish choice to save the records of our changing world in propriety formats, and require special players to view them. Own your data; own your videos, as if the future of the world may depend on it.

Most people do not like sites with Flash navigation Flash navigation and content is subversive to the ideas of openness and accessibility. Who wants to learn some new "clever" scheme to navigate for the same things that almost every site has? Who wants to browse in a fixed resolution system--the size of a credit card--on a 24" monitor.

Adobe's cutting of Linux support aside, the user options and security problems aside--privacy and usability settings are hidden from the user in such a way that the user must go to a website to change their settings; what a stupid security habit to instill in people. Others have not even heard of the security settings in Flash.

If you are doing anything other than making content animations with flash, then you are part of the problem.

Flash had promise for animations; but because of its misuse, and I want it to die. For the good of the Internet--Die Flash Die!

Edited 2010-06-11 18:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Die Flash Die!
by darknexus on Fri 11th Jun 2010 21:36 UTC in reply to "Die Flash Die!"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

+100! I'd mod you up but I've already posted in this thread. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Die Flash Die!
by ggeldenhuys on Fri 11th Jun 2010 22:32 UTC in reply to "Die Flash Die!"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

I think it a foolish choice to save the records of our changing world in propriety formats, and require special players to view them. Own your data; own your videos, as if the future of the world may depend on it.

+1
I can't agree more!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Die Flash Die!
by Neolander on Sat 12th Jun 2010 05:37 UTC in reply to "Die Flash Die!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think it a foolish choice to save the records of our changing world in propriety formats, and require special players to view them. Own your data; own your videos, as if the future of the world may depend on it.

Well, it's just as foolish to store those record on the servers of one single company which, like all companies, has "making more money" as a #1 goal.

Yet people somehow manage to get excited about the various forms of cloud computing (from Youtube and streaming to ChromeOS)

And it sounds equally foolish to store those precious records on supports which hardly last 5 years.

Yet hard drive manufacturers, who have to make a density/transfer rate/durability compromise when designing platters, have always chosen to optimize density over durability, even though a lot of people would prefer a 120 GB hard drive which lasts 15 years over a 1TB hard drive which lasts 5 years. Contrast with the durability of an average book (even though heavy use of chlorine to make paper whiter tends to it age less good than older paper).

It seems to me that the digital world does not care that much about its memory...

Edited 2010-06-12 05:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Major pain in the *** !
by torturedutopian on Sat 12th Jun 2010 11:31 UTC
torturedutopian
Member since:
2010-04-24

Well, I'm pretty sure this is a major update.

Still, Flash is the only piece of software that ruins (IMHO) my Linux user experience.

- extremely slow (particularly in fullscreen with HD video, I have to wait for several seconds before the GUI reacts... And my setup is pretty recent)

- the 64 bits alpha was even slower !

- the 10.1 version doesn't work properly with ndiswrapper (64 bits linux version) and there's no more 64 bits version

I'm really completely fed up with this piece of software. Apart from that, my Linux experience is really smooth and pleasant, but this tends to ruin it all.

Not to mention the fact that flash is the single piece of software that prevents me from using some other alternative OS'es with being dumbly stuck. (I could switch to Haiku for instance, or I could still own a PPC machine, and so on, if flash wasn't a blocker)

And no, the OS / setup is not at fault. I can run state of the art games through wine, plays videos with a very small cpu usage with VLC + video acceleration / VDPAU support etc. But flash gives the feeling my computer is 10 years older.

Edited 2010-06-12 11:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ok got it
by ari-free on Sun 13th Jun 2010 08:26 UTC
ari-free
Member since:
2007-01-22

now, on to play Whizzball on discoverykids.com
Seriously, you should all try it ;)

Reply Score: 2

What in the name of God's Green Hell
by Phloptical on Sun 13th Jun 2010 16:49 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

...is the f'ing problem with Adobe? Seriously? 64 bit is a problem? Really? The fact that the architecture has been commercially available for, oh I don't know, 6+ years apparently makes no difference to them?

I mean, of all the laggy, crappy, feature-bloated applications their team of programmers seems to usher out of the pig-trough year after year, you'd think THIS software house would have been the first to jump on the 64 bit bandwagon. Simply amazing.

Maybe Jobs is right in giving these guys the double-barreled middle finger, with a twist. Maybe the entire industry should take a moment to reflect on the whole "Adobe Situation" and then move on to potentially greener pastures elsewhere.

</end rant>

Reply Score: 2