Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3D CSS Effects in Snow Leopard Safari, And More on Future of Video and Flash?

ryrock77 said:
No it's not Adobes problem. It's Apples problem. They are running the same cpu's now and your Mac Book can't keep up. Grow up Mac fan boys. Same code
for Mac and Windows.

Who's problem is it? Anyone build a programm that can replace Photoshop? No.

Flash can do so much and is never going away.
Click to expand...

How about, we come up with a standard, which can do just as much as flash, without using plug-ins that have a high failure rate (On all Operating Systems, my FF on Windows crashes just as much as Safari on OSX) and take advantage of your hardware via hardware acceleration, and best of all, an open-standard.

OT: I would recommend any web-developer with a Mac to try out Coda by Panic. Amazing for CSS.
 
What standard? Flash has been around for 10 years or more. If you want to use it fine...if not fine. Apple is looking for a way to pull people from Windows and they can't do flash better than windows. So they push H.264 and quicktime.

If you want a visual big impact site like Nike then flash is the way to go. HTML type site then go ahead and build and design forever.

Old school coders can't design so they hate flash. What is Nike's store built on?
 
Colrath said:
How about, we come up with a standard, which can do just as much as flash, without using plug-ins that have a high failure rate (On all Operating Systems, my FF on Windows crashes just as much as Safari on OSX) and take advantage of your hardware via hardware acceleration, and best of all, an open-standard.

OT: I would recommend any web-developer with a Mac to try out Coda by Panic. Amazing for CSS.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think the problem is that Adobe's code is all closed-shop kinda stuff. Adobe owns it, and we bow down to Adobe to optimise its code for the Mac!!!

If Apple's stuff goes through then it'll simply be part of CSS. The code will be open-source, and one would assume that a plugin-free version that's finely optimised for MacOS, Windows and Linux would become available pretty quickly for Safari, Firefox and Opera... maybe IE in a few years time?

ryrock77 said:
What standard? Flash has been around for 10 years or more. If you want to use it fine...if not fine. Apple is looking for a way to pull people from Windows and they can't do flash better than windows. So they push H.264 and quicktime.

If you want a visual big impact site like Nike then flash is the way to go. HTML type site then go ahead and build and design forever.

Old school coders can't design so they hate flash. What is Nike's store built on?
Click to expand...

No... php/sql represents good coding and design when used well, and requires great skill. I don't think anybody's mentioning HTML here?

Nike's site? I dunno... is it a good site? Whatever... if you don't have super-fast broadband then it won't even load! (It's over 20MB so would take over an hour on slow broadband.)

Apple's site for example uses no flash, however is very beautiful and loads really quickly.

---

Also flash video... what are we talking about? Flash video WORKS but is large, and low-quality. You'll find that generally flash sites use Windows Media Video... when this happens, the sites rarely look good on Macs (if they even load at all.)

CSS/PHP however... you can get amazing looking flashy sites (yes with animation... apple's proposing 3d animation as well!!) That looks the same and loads the same in every browser.

---

I would suggest that lazy designers use flash... they just drag and drop the elements (rather than coding anything) then drag and drop some Windows Media Video file into the page. Add some effects (probably packaged, not house-made) then upload it to a web page with no database...etc. They also usually fail to test it on anything except the latest Internet Explorer... so it looks like garbage on approximately 50% of the browsers out there and won't load on anything except a lightning fast broadband connection (which even if you have one... why waste bandwidth?)

Flash is responsible for many rubbish pages that are made by "graphics designers" (high school kids) rather than real web programmers who can code in database links, use CSS/PHP (in a text editor rather than Adobe Flash/Adobe Dreamweaver) and bother testing their pages on 99.9999% of the browsers out there rather than just the latest IE.
 
djgamble dude you don't have a clue. Flash video are FLV files and I have converted high definition video that is better than Apples H.264 and is not a large file size.

I'm not talking about You Tube video standards either. Flash sites look the same on every browser except for the text on Macs and Safari.

You proved my point about uncreative, cannot design, code hacks that are pissed that flash has taken over the web.

And Nike is losing lots of sale with the bloated site they have. Nothing load dynamicly on Nike's site....what a shame.

Apple.com wants to look and act like flash.

Also don't go to the rubbish flash sites.
 
ryrock77 said:
No it's not Adobes problem. It's Apples problem. They are running the same cpu's now and your Mac Book can't keep up. Grow up Mac fan boys. Same code
for Mac and Windows.
Click to expand...

You plainly don't know what you're talking about. Mac OS and Windows use different "code," assuming you even know what that means. The poor performance of Flash on the Mac is Adobe's problem, not Apple's.

Do you think that Mac programs not running on Windows is Microsoft's problem?
 
Flash runs on both Window and Mac so use a better example. The code in flash is the same.

Every time a program works be Window the fan boys say it was built for Windows. Put some blame on Apple for once for not optimizing the OS. What you don't get is that PC / Window user's don't cry for Flash to go away. Why is that? How many millions of Windows are fine with the how flash websites work and they don't care what it's built in.

Stop crying for Flash to go away because it won't. Learn how the design.

Even Pixar uses PC's and not Macs. What does that tell you about Apple and the over priced Mac's.
 
It already been said once in this thread and I'll make no apologies for repeating it - why will so many people cut off their own nose to spite their face?

I don't think anyone disagrees that Flash is a poor, dated, inefficient solution, but to stubbornly refuse to use it for that reason alone? You're the only one who loses out:

"Hey, I had an amazing life-enriching experience last night when I discovered this web site - you should give it a go"

"Thanks but no, I refuse to visit sites that use Flash".

And the "If we all stop using it, it'll die" approach doesn't work - because the tech-savvy users make up such as small % of the overall users who just want to be able to visit web sites on their iPhones like they can on their computers. Or their friends can on their smartphones.

Just give us Flash and an option to turn it off for those who don't want it. Heck, if you want have it turned off by default and give an option to turn it on the first time you visit a Flash site with a "Using Flash may decrease your battery life" warning.
 
Why wouldn't Jobs use Mac's at Pixar if they are so great?

Why does flash run slow on Mac's? anyone?
 
NightFox said:
Just give us Flash and an option to turn it off for those who don't want it. Heck, if you want have it turned off by default and give an option to turn it on the first time you visit a Flash site with a "Using Flash may decrease your battery life" warning.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Would it be so terrible to at least give us the OPTION to use Flash?! Everyone here who's against Flash seems to assume that once something better comes along and is adopted as a standard, the internet will cease to contain any Flash content at all. This, of course, is completely false. Even if something better is made the standard, there will still be sites that use Flash, and thus there will still be people who want a Flash plug-in.
 
ryrock77 said:
Flash runs on both Window and Mac so use a better example. The code in flash is the same.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see, you're even more clueless than you first appeared - you think that the code Flash uses - ActionScript - is in any way tied to the platform on which Flash is running. Fail. Try trolling somewhere else.

ryrock77 said:
Why wouldn't Jobs use Mac's at Pixar if they are so great?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Why does flash run slow on Mac's? anyone?
Click to expand...

It's already been explained to you - because the Mac version of Flash is badly-written.
 
ryrock77 said:
I'm not talking about You Tube video standards either. Flash sites look the same on every browser except for the text on Macs and Safari.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

ryrock77 said:
You proved my point about uncreative, cannot design, code hacks that are pissed that flash has taken over the web.
Click to expand...

Funny, I said nothing along those lines. Most coders are VERY creative and know a damn site more about design than high school students who pump up their ego's by calling themselves "graphics designers" because they can mock up some okay graphics using a pirated copy of photoshop/illustrator and then make everything move in a l3370 pattern, and add bloated movies/sounds using a pirated copy of Flash.

Flash has not taken over the web and never will, here's a list of BIG sites that don't rely on it:
- Google (all clever, light-weight PHP/CSS that's why its been so popular, it doesn't have all these dodgy flash ads popping up!!!)
- Major news sites (CNN, NYT, BBC, SMH...etc)
- Twitter
- Facebook
- All forums that I know of

That covers 95% of the sites I visit on a daily basis.

Most sites don't use Flash, or "Flash video" (which refers to a number of different video formats) PHP and CSS are web standards, which the majority of "web developers" will go by. Any big company hiring a guy to do serious web design will ask for a "web developer" not some joker who knows nothing about coding and can't even debug a web page (the type who panics when they make a site using Dreamweaver, and it doesn't look the same on every web browser.)

TBH that's 1/2 the job of a web developer... getting their site to be FAST and look good on EVERY web browser (the latest versions of IE, firefox, safari and opera is the bare minimum) the other 1/2 is designing. Trust me... developers generally aren't "code hacks" who know code but not design. They are usually good at both... whereas designers can't code/debug for *****. They're the guys responsible for the web being cluttered with big Flash-based web pages (usually using an old, pirated copy of Flash, Photoshop and Dreamweaver) that are slow, bulky and have inconsistent designs that generally only look good on the version of IE the guy used to build the site...
 
djgamble said:
Nonsense.



Funny, I said nothing along those lines. Most coders are VERY creative and know a damn site more about design than high school students who pump up their ego's by calling themselves "graphics designers" because they can mock up some okay graphics using a pirated copy of photoshop/illustrator and then make everything move in a l3370 pattern, and add bloated movies/sounds using a pirated copy of Flash.

Flash has not taken over the web and never will, here's a list of BIG sites that don't rely on it:
- Google (all clever, light-weight PHP/CSS that's why its been so popular, it doesn't have all these dodgy flash ads popping up!!!)
- Major news sites (CNN, NYT, BBC, SMH...etc)
- Twitter
- Facebook
- All forums that I know of

That covers 95% of the sites I visit on a daily basis.

Most sites don't use Flash, or "Flash video" (which refers to a number of different video formats) PHP and CSS are web standards, which the majority of "web developers" will go by. Any big company hiring a guy to do serious web design will ask for a "web developer" not some joker who knows nothing about coding and can't even debug a web page (the type who panics when they make a site using Dreamweaver, and it doesn't look the same on every web browser.)

TBH that's 1/2 the job of a web developer... getting their site to be FAST and look good on EVERY web browser (the latest versions of IE, firefox, safari and opera is the bare minimum) the other 1/2 is designing. Trust me... developers generally aren't "code hacks" who know code but not design. They are usually good at both... whereas designers can't code/debug for *****. They're the guys responsible for the web being cluttered with big Flash-based web pages (usually using an old, pirated copy of Flash, Photoshop and Dreamweaver) that are slow, bulky and have inconsistent designs that generally only look good on the version of IE the guy used to build the site...
Click to expand...

+1
 
ryrock77 said:
No it's not Adobes problem. It's Apples problem. They are running the same cpu's now and your Mac Book can't keep up. Grow up Mac fan boys. Same code
for Mac and Windows.

Who's problem is it? Anyone build a programm that can replace Photoshop? No.

Flash can do so much and is never going away.
Click to expand...

What does the CPU have to do with Coding?:confused: C Languages are CPU independent. The problem of flash comes from the APIs. Flash on windows uses the Win32 API. Flash (And friends) on Mac OSX STILL uses CARBON for some strange reason. So no its not Apple or the CPU's fault. Its Adobe's fault for not utilizing Cocoa. Apple have provided both APIs and still Adobe refuses to change anything. I suppose its Apple's fault for Adobe not making a 64-bit version as well? I suppose its Mozilla's fault Adobe still uses the NSPluginwrapper on Linux?

Don't criticize things you do not understand!!!

Adobe is a dinosaur!!! From the Floppy days. None of their programs have been earth shaking since their conception. (Well except for Photoshop :eek:) They refuse to adopt new technologies (In a reasonable time frame, slower than IE), they have sloppy and bloated coding. :mad: Adobe can't/refuse to keep up. UNIX IS the web standard yet Adobe refuse to acknowledge its presence. Mac OSX has a Modern API. Windows has a Modern API. Linux has a Modern OpenSource API. Yet no programs in the Adobe suites utilize these.

Down with Adobe!!! Up with W3C!!! Feed them to the Velociraptors. Give us* Browser level effects in a unified standard. Give us* XML layered Video. Give us* the Free Internet back (Free as in, we don't have to pay for software to make an animated website). *Us the web developers

BTW GIMP is looking pretty nice, now if only it could make vector movies like flash.

ryrock77 said:
Why wouldn't Jobs use Mac's at Pixar if they are so great?

Why does flash run slow on Mac's? anyone?
Click to expand...

It uses CARBON
It isnt optimized for UNIX (That includes Linux)
 
Sorry. I'm about to rip my hair out.

ryrock77 said:
I can design and build websites with out flash but my clients want what flash can do.
Click to expand...

I forgot who it was, but someone said that The People (as a collective) is an idiot. They don't know what they want. They'll take the first thing that comes along, and if nothing better is waved in their face soon, they'll stubbornly refuse to change. Since you can build websites without Flash, why not show them how much faster a non-Flash site will load while looking just as slick?

ryrock77 said:
No it's not Adobes problem. It's Apples problem. They are running the same cpu's now and your Mac Book can't keep up. Grow up Mac fan boys. Same code
for Mac and Windows.
Click to expand...

ryrock77 said:
The code in flash is the same.
Put some blame on Apple for once for not optimizing the OS.
Click to expand...

No. It's Adobe's problem. Macs and PCs may use the same CPUs, and read the same Flash ActionScript code, but they sure as hell don't use the same interpreter (aka plugin).
Oh, and who else is laughing that someone suggested Apple optimise their OS while comparing it to Windows?

ryrock77 said:
Why does flash run slow on Mac's? anyone?
Click to expand...

MorphingDragon said:
It uses CARBON
It isnt optimized for UNIX (That includes Linux)
Click to expand...

I think there's something ryrock's missing. There's ActionScript for coding the Flash animation, then there's code that makes the interpreter to interpret ActionScript on different OSes—that would be the plugin that everyone has to download prior to their Second Flash Experience™ (the First would be the "Missing plugins" message :p ). It's like Java. There's Java code, then there's the Java Virtual Machine to run it.
The issues we have with Adobe is that they can't seem to make an ActionScript interpreter for Macs that will run fast. So again, no. It's Adobe's problem, not Apple's.

You can use the highest octane fuel you want, but it ain't gona go anywhere fast (or smooth) if you used square wheels to build your car. :p
 
ewoods said:
Sorry, the world has spoken, and Flash is the prefered format for online video. And no amount of, "But...but...what about BATTERY LIFE?!" will change that.
Click to expand...

I can remember when you could have said the same thing substituting "RealMedia" for "Flash." It took about two years for the vast majority of RM sites to convert to either Flash or WMV. Which shows that if there is sufficient incentive, content producers will do it, and quickly. Most Web video content is not archival, so the transition does not involve re-encoding massive amounts of archival video.
 
djgamble said:
Good point...

I actually think PHP/SQL sites are the best (plain ones with no fancy jazz). When I look at such graphics I think... what if I'm not at home using my fibre optic connection?
?
Click to expand...

HTML5 and css3 should help cut down the size of many websites due to a number of reasons. This animation is nothing but code and tags just like your php sites. The rest of the required information will be in the browser rather than a flash file.

The use of images as text, div backgrounds and custom sable designs can also be replaced with css to reduce the total download size for the webpage.

People seem to be missing the point with this demo. It just demo's what css3 is capable of doing. It is not a rip of cooliris, it does not mean css3 is just eye candy. There will be numerous ways to improve usability combined with interactivity (and the two are in fact closely related) without installing bloated proprietary plugins.
 
Not CSS

Sorry, but irrespective of whether this is a rip off of Cooliris, this doesn't appear to be what it promises.

Does the page work with JS disabled? No. You get nothing. That's not how I understand CSS and JS trickery to work.

I see a shed load of Javascript on that page, I haven't looked into it in detail but I would expect at the very least that page to display a flat grid of images without JS enabled.

The CSS and JS should all be gravy, not getting in the way of people viewing the content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back