osx leopard reply
Of course is on old hardware. I'd ve REALLY upset if my Quad Core i7 iMac can't play a flash video. But the point is, if you try to play a video on a PowerPC mac, you can watch it at HD 720p* if you're opening it from the hard drive, but it becomes sluggish if you're trying to view it in at anything over 240p*. HTML works up to 480p*, not as high as local storage, but good enough. Obviously Flash is inefficient.
How does that prove anything? Are you saying that you can stream YT videos in flash at 720p and only play them from the hard drive in 320X240 resolution? While that would suggest that flash is efficient at playing videos, I'd argue that you're doing something wrong - flash isn't that good at playing videos (not that the alternatives are much better) and some lag at 720p is to be expected - I experience it on my Pentium4, my PentiumDuo, and my G5. I would think that would depend more on your video card.
You have missed the reason for this thread. Old Leopard on an old hardware (PowerPC Mac). Yes Flash is dog slow on an old hardware and unsecure, and yes we are using old hardware. If we are using the greatest and the latest I don't think that it would falter playing flash. That is why most of us don't use flash.
And I'm saying that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, there'll just be places from time to time that you won't be able to access and
flashgames that you won't be able to play because you're missing an important plugin. It's up to you.
Except where it's not, like mobile platforms. Adobe already killed Flash there. The most that will happen are bug fixes and security updates. No new Flash at all. It's dead there.
I don't use it very often, but it still works fine on my JellyBean phone, and that's a GalaxyS 1 series device.
You seem quite adamant in defending your view and telling me I'm wrong.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm
not saying that anyone's "wrong" and I'm sure not trying to change anyone's life over Flash player either
. The bottom line with flash is this: Your need for it solely depends on what you're going to do with your computer. If you're never going to browse a page that uses flash, you don't need to install it.
For example, I rarely use pages that require SilverLight or Java. Literally maybe 4-5 pages a year, and even though they're both annoying to install (and Java constantly pops up in the tray wanting to update), I hook 'em up as I need them them. I like to install only what's needed for how each particular system is going to be used.
I got out of rich media authoring some years ago, so I no longer feel forced to defend flash (which I hated from version 2).
P.S. Typing this on a PMG4, running 10.5.8, using flash version N/A.
RGDS,
I gotta say, I never got into it much myself. Flash will defend itself - it's not like the popular flash games front is going away anytime soon ("New Games, Every Thursday"), and even if they stop updating it, it's still fine because maybe they've reached a zenith and found nothing more to improve. Just like Windows 7, that was Microsoft's pinnacle - after that, they couldn't improve it anymore, and it totally died with the release of Windows 8. Microsoft could've stopped releasing new major versions, and at least it would've "finished strong". Perhaps if they stop doing major version updates to flash, it can avoid the same fate that Windows had (bad analogy, I know, but you see the point...
).
::
