Adobe to Fix Flash Battery Life Issue

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course Flash eats up batteries, since Flash eats up CPU cycles. Vector graphics are not exactly a trivial workload, you know...
 
I think flash should have a "battery saving" mode: to disable some fancy graphic effects, or limit the CPU usage. While the "Full mode" will enable everything.
 
Anybody else think that Steve will start blabbing that he was right all along as soon as this news hits his screen? I mean an optimized version had to be specially made for OS X just to fix a battery problem? Sounds like a problem unique to MacBooks to me.
 
[citation][nom]mister g[/nom]Anybody else think that Steve will start blabbing that he was right all along as soon as this news hits his screen? I mean an optimized version had to be specially made for OS X just to fix a battery problem? Sounds like a problem unique to MacBooks to me.[/citation]
All laptops suffer from Flash, but MacBooks suffer more because the Flash implementation for Mac OS is just second rate.

Now all Apple (or Adobe) has to do is educated users that they have to download a new Flash version. Used to be distributed by Apple through the automatic software update, but not anymore.
 
Err, the battery life issue affects all computers that run Flash that are battery powered.

If the MacBook Air has it's "own special" issue on top of this, then that is news to me.

They (Adobe) should address both.

I miss Macromedia, they cared about the end users.
 
- The code in question has very little to do with the Apple platform.

- Flash is 'meant to' be using their GPU's as of version 10.1 that is what all the hooha is about.

- Watching a HD movie should be possible using a standard battery on most Mac's as they tend to have longer battery life than typical laptops.

 
should Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, Lenovo, ... each send a notebook to Adobe so they can each have an optimized version of Flash? funny guy the CEO.
 
- Watching a HD movie should be possible using a standard battery on most Mac's as they tend to have longer battery life than typical laptops.
Click to expand...
FALSE
Like QuickTime totally drop quality/fraterate when you use High Quality h.264.
It's normal if you drop quality, the battery will be typicaly longer.
(When you buy a new Mac, you already buy an old hardware. Why did you think your Mac still look cool? Software optimization for look like your old hardware is still new (drop framerate/drop quality))

Apple do this in his application and he ask Adobe to do the same.
 
[citation][nom]Scott2010au[/nom]Err, the battery life issue affects all computers that run Flash that are battery powered.If the MacBook Air has it's "own special" issue on top of this, then that is news to me.They (Adobe) should address both.I miss Macromedia, they cared about the end users.[/citation]
No it doesn't. Flash doesn't significantly affect battery life on non Apple laptops. It also has zero effect on battery life on phones running Android 2.2. My old Nexus One phone's battery lasted 10 hours regardless of whether Flash was installed or not. This problem is exclusive to Apple and their Mac OS X operating system.
 
So the question I have is. Is Flash really that bad on batteries? Or is the Macbook Air really that bad? I have used Flash video for long periods on other Laptops with reduced battery life. But not crazy reduced life. Its funny how the Apple freaks never blame Apple for anything.
 
[citation]an "optimized" version of Flash for the Macbook Air[/citation]

It would be nice if Adobe got their act together and simply made an optimized version of Flash for all computer platforms. I hate Flash on my quad-core desktop with 8GB of RAM because it's a ridiculously slow, inefficiently designed piece of donkey spunk.
 
WTH ? only for CrApple's and not in general for all internet devices how retarded is this Shantanu Narayen, what is he working for the government or NASA ?
 
Why is he blaming Adobe for this? I mean Flash Player isn't the problem graphics card drivers are if they are having trouble with Flash eating up battery life. If the graphics card drivers doesn't support Adobe's Flash player H.264 codec correctly or if at all for example and you are viewing a flash video in HD, then obv the CPU's resources is going to take a hit.
 
[citation][nom]cpburns[/nom][citation]an "optimized" version of Flash for the Macbook Air[/citation]It would be nice if Adobe got their act together and simply made an optimized version of Flash for all computer platforms. I hate Flash on my quad-core desktop with 8GB of RAM because it's a ridiculously slow, inefficiently designed piece of donkey spunk.[/citation]

- Exactly, it's utter crap, to the point where Mozilla now force it to run in a plugincontainer.exe process under Windows. So it doesn't crash the entire browser.

- Honestly, I would love to see Flash just die and have VP8 or something *far* better take its place on all platforms. (Adobe have lost the plot in recent years).
 
[citation][nom]lejay[/nom]Just wait until ads come to html5... That'll drain the battery just as bad. Blaming flash is silly.[/citation]

- Actually they'll run about 40 times more efficiently and be far less invasive.

- They will also have to be designed for Smart TV's which will only have a fraction of the processing power of today's machines and probably be limited to 4 to 8 'tabs' for browsing.
 
40x more efficiently? You're obviously one of those people who gets $5 and tells their buddies $100. No offense but being a fanboy or hater almost always comes with bloated examples. Invasive? lol, ok James bond.

p.s. If people actually were educated on the proper programming of any gpu/cpu intensive GUI IDE, there would be less problems. Properly written flash for the right platform per use is the right way to do things, otherwise noob idiots will program 40x the cycles they need to get something done because that's "all they know how to do in flash one ripped tutorial way".

ftw.
 
[citation][nom]Scott2010au[/nom]- Actually they'll run about 40 times more efficiently and be far less invasive. - They will also have to be designed for Smart TV's which will only have a fraction of the processing power of today's machines and probably be limited to 4 to 8 'tabs' for browsing.[/citation]
Actually benchmarks made till this day give flash the crown in terms of efficient in rendering vector graphics and dynamic content on the web.

HTML5 will be more invasive because we cannot turn it off. If a website was bull of ads all that was needed was to disable flash, with html5 that won't be possible.

Then there's the compatibility issue. I've developed a few website and sometimes is a nightmare having to test the site in many browsers. with Flash at least the animation I won't need to test it in different browsers.

I don't like flash but there's still no real alternative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom