Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Targets 3D Gaming with Flash Player 11 and AIR 3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Netflix uses Silverlight. Last I checked (few days ago) on my Core i7 MBP with 8GB RAM - Silverlight/Netflix used 130% CPU. For the same movie on my i7 ThinkPad, IE/Silverlight uses 12-20% CPU.
Why yes - here is the proof! Mac is using GT330 GPU, Windows is using Intel HD 3000 GPU for extra sadness
130% huh?
----------
Butbutbut... its made by MSFT. How can it not be fail?
----------
The metro version of iexp will not support plug-ins. The desktop version will*. Of course they could just offer flash support natively, but i'd guess they reserve that baby for their own things (e.g. silverlight) instead.
* flash is a plug-in.
addendum: after googling, people seem to think that metro ie will not support silverlight either. I am not, however, sure they are correct in their analysis. Yes, we know there will be no plug-ins, but native support is not a plug-in, so the point in itself is quite moot given that MSFT has control over the entire platform. Since the platform will have to support silverlight anyway, why leave it out of the browser? It cant be that resource intensive, can it? If it is, they would run into **** anyway basing other parts of their platform on it.
Further, one of the reasons for ditching plug-in support accordingly to news reports is the transition to WinRT. Wel, once more... silverlight support IS there regardless. Thus, there is no (extra) need to rewrite anything - or am i missing something here?
addendum 2: minor correction. silverlight as such may be dead. XAML is not however. porting is as easy as changing a few lines of code. same goes for porting your W8 Metro app to Wp7.
point still remains. why would not msft support a non-plugin plugin in their browser if the tech. is there already? ok, they may want to avoid DOJ for a little while now that they are in the clear, but still.
Last edited:
130% huh?
Frame of reference issue.
It depends on how system utilities display CPU utilization.
If you have a quad logical core system with two threads completely CPU bound, the choices are:
- 200% (two cores at 100% each)
- 50% (two of the four available cores busy, so 50% of potential computes being consumed)
I prefer the former - a dual logical core system should hit 200% max, a quad logical core 400% max, an octo logical core 800%.
The latter makes less sense to me. If my system is running at 12.5% utilization, that seems low. Unless I do the math that says that since I have eight logical cores - I have one thread that's maxed out and I have a potential for optimization.
This would, in my opinion, only make sense if a single app were restricted to running in one core. Granted, 2 cores are not equivalent of twice the power (despite what marketing has us believe), but i still frown upon non-visual (or otherwise per-core) representations stating the cpu-use is above 100%.
Oh well, who cares : -)
Only the IE that ships with Win 8 Metro for "tablets," will not support plug-ins. So just as their newer phones don't support any plug-ins.
Win 8 for desktops will be just like any current version of Windows and its IE will support all plug-ins.
But like this will matter, since the vast majority are still on XP and if MS's tablet sell like their phones, which aren't doing that well, things aren't changing anytime soon.
And if Metro base tablets do sell well, Adobe is bringing AIR to it.
I don't understand what if any reasonable point you wanted to make but if you were alluding to the 130% number being wrong, well the fans don't lie
I don't understand what if any reasonable point you wanted to make but if you were alluding to the 130% number being wrong, well the fans don't lie
Is the attached picture of a system that's 74% busy, or is it 296% busy?
To me, "296% busy" seems more natural and useful.
Attachments
Depends on how you look at it. If you consider total CPU capacity to be 100% then 74% busy makes sense. If you consider each CPU to be its own 100% then 296% makes sense.
I always looked at it from a total CPU capacity == 100% - that's more natural. You quickly get to how much is remaining CPU capacity and you don't have to know how many total CPUs you got. If I am looking at 296% utilization I don't know if that's out of 800% or 400% unless I know how many CPUs I got.
I deal with hot plug CPUs at work and there too I find it more easy to deal with 100% as the maximum - 80% utilization tells me I am too busy and I might add a CPU or two. If I was dealing with 2080% I have to first have current CPU count and then arrive at the spare capacity anyways.
That's reasonable, but on the other hand as a software developer I look for evidence that threads are compute-bound. If I see 25% or 50% utilization, I'd at first glance assume that there is an IO limit or other constraint. If I see 100% or 200% utilization, I'd look for an opportunity to improve multi-threading.
If everything were perfectly multi-threaded, I'd be with you.
But the world is not perfectly multi-threaded, and never will be. Either way the tools pick to display the info, sometimes you'll have to check the logical core count to understand what the tools are telling you - and you'll end up multiplying or dividing by the logical core count.
I'm in the "total CPU power == 100%" camp.
Might be how I've always seen it though. I suppose if you dealt with Macs a lot/exclusively you'd be a fan of the "each core has up to 100% capacity" way of seeing it.
Might be how I've always seen it though. I suppose if you dealt with Macs a lot/exclusively you'd be a fan of the "each core has up to 100% capacity" way of seeing it.
Just curious. Anyone actually use Flash 11 player yet? It's available for download. RC version. Went to ESPN and watched some Flash video. My MBP did not completely catch on fire. Just curious if anyone is seeing an improvement.
Every time I say to myself, OK now Flash is irrelevant, they come out with a new feature or set that makes them relevant again. It's still endlessly buggy on Macs.
Typical Adobe. Sit around and do nothing and take your money, then when there is competition they start producing stuff with new features - or buy the competition.
Click2Flash
You're confusing things (which is understandable).
Win 8 Metro for tablets supports flash as long as you have access to the desktop ie (which you do for sure on x86, but perhaps may not on ARM).
Same goes for desktop computers. While using Metro version - no plugins (but "almost-silverlight" may be there natively), while using desktop version - all plugins.
Also, the vast majority is not on xp. W7 is the fastest growing OS of all times, with half a billion licenses sold by now. Those who have yet to migrate, will. Guess MSFT is somewhat stuck with it until W8 sp1 though.
I don't understand what if any reasonable point you wanted to make but if you were alluding to the 130% number being wrong, well the fans don't lie
Not sure either, now that i re-read it, 'cept for being a traditionalist who likes things to max out at 100% of its capacity :- )
----------
You kidding? 296 is still just mean-load times number of cores. How on earth could that ever be more natural or useful? Adding complexity to things rarely are.
p.s. would you say that the temperature is 240 degrees too? :- )
----------
exactly...
----------
ok, now you make a bit more sense... :- )
Yeah, sure. That certainly explains the YouTube video embedded in this very article...
While you kids are still waiting for HTML 5 to be an accepted, implemented and working standard, other people are shipping real products with Flash.
The only reason why Steve Jobs didn't want to give you Flash in his iToys is that he wanted to lock you into his App Store. True multi-platform solutions like Flash are not in Apple's best interest, and HTML 5 is still VERY FAR away from becoming a real solution.
Whenever you see something like this it was either a bug, or something like "we emulated the hardware in software, but now we use the hardware". We had something similar at MS in the late 80's with multiplan (spreadsheet before excel), when 4.0 went out without the math-coprocessor turned on in the build, and got to claim a 100x increase in floating point performance, when we release 4.1 with that compiler flag turned back on...
Because they realise just really HOW BAD it currently runs on OS X... So 1,000 fold probably means it runs now on-par with non OS X systems.
So from "woefully crap" to "oh okay it works" is a HUGE improvement
I can't wait. Tired of hearing about Flash. It's like talking about VHS tapes.
until Adobe buys Unity
Unity is a world-class tool that will be creating flash games soon enough, Unity export-to-flash has been in beta for quite sometime.
ETA till when Unity is bought by Adobe? 6 months?
Unity is a world-class tool that will be creating flash games soon enough, Unity export-to-flash has been in beta for quite sometime.
ETA till when Unity is bought by Adobe? 6 months?