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.
Next Version Of Flash Player To See Performance Leap
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Adobe writes crap
Let me give you another example: making Blu-ray graphics and titles. Acceptable graphics, according to Sony's book, are 32-bit (24-bit RGB plus 8-bit alpha channel) or 8-bit (indexed) with a 1-bit transparency on the 256th bit, or 8-bit with an 8-bit alpha channel -- all of these formatted as pngs, the successor to gifs.
Problem is, every post house or DVD maker tests with Photoshop. And Photoshop can't show an 8-bit png with 8-bit alpha correctly. It always comes back, they jump and yell and say something is wrong, because Photoshop tells them something is wrong. But Photoshop is full of it. GIMP shows everything's ok. The two main Blu-ray mastering standards, Scenarist and Blu-print, show them fine. It's a much better-looking file than what Photoshop can understand. So, if you have Blu-ray, and you notice the subtitles looking shoddy, blame Photoshop. If you're the industry standard, you have a duty to be "standard."
Let me give you another example: making Blu-ray graphics and titles. Acceptable graphics, according to Sony's book, are 32-bit (24-bit RGB plus 8-bit alpha channel) or 8-bit (indexed) with a 1-bit transparency on the 256th bit, or 8-bit with an 8-bit alpha channel -- all of these formatted as pngs, the successor to gifs.
Problem is, every post house or DVD maker tests with Photoshop. And Photoshop can't show an 8-bit png with 8-bit alpha correctly. It always comes back, they jump and yell and say something is wrong, because Photoshop tells them something is wrong. But Photoshop is full of it. GIMP shows everything's ok. The two main Blu-ray mastering standards, Scenarist and Blu-print, show them fine. It's a much better-looking file than what Photoshop can understand. So, if you have Blu-ray, and you notice the subtitles looking shoddy, blame Photoshop. If you're the industry standard, you have a duty to be "standard."
I can't remember where I read this, but the implication is that Adobe never once ran the Mac OS X Flash plugin under a performance-measuring tool. This is inexcusable. And with this and all of their other inept behavior, Adobe is dead to me. I'm a graphic designer and they won't see another red cent from my wallet.
Adobe pushed out a broken beta that doesn't run well on half the computers it's tested on. Flash is a gross and annoying technology. What's the point of your post?
My point is people should give credit when its due.
Its empty talking when some people attacking flash and adobe, try petition apple to release flash free OSX 10.6, if they really dislike adobe flash so much. Lets see who lose more.
The point is Flash doesn't have to be such a bad technology. Since Adobe has made it a standard they should have better supported the Mac platform from the beginning and made it run at least half decently a long time ago.
well, better late than never. flash 10 increases performance on OSX by 2-3x, that should be applauded.
frame rate is hardly performance. If the picture is unrecognizable, as many have stated, or it still makes your CPU go crazy and your fans bump up then there's no preformance increase.
well, thats not my experience so far.
Of course there will be bugs, its beta 2 only, its fine to bring up complaints, but there is no need to suggest adobe getting out of OSX business.
Thanks for the link ... I just installed the v10 beta, ran that test and get 33 frames per second on an iMac 3.06 GHz with 4GB RAM. Looks great to me ...
Also, YouTube works perfectly.
iMac 2.16 GHz, 3GB RAM.
FireFOX 3 23 frames/sec
OmniWEB 5.7 27 frames/sec
All sites, including YouTUBE play just fine.
Just so everyone knows: Flash 10 requires OS 10.4 or higher. Adobe seems really reluctant to let anyone know that beforehand.
With Firefox 3 and Flash 10 going the 10.4+ route, looks like it'll soon be time for a Panther-online moment of silence.
That is how the market works, since they cannot force you to upgrade/update your hardware and software they make the minimum requirements for the application you use tighter to newer hardware or OS.
I call it sloppy coding on Adobe's part and nothing more.
Not quite sure what all the fuss is about Flash. Every version I've ever had on my old Powerbook G4 ran smoothly, and the 10 beta I have right now on my brand new MacBook runs great.
The web wouldn't be quite as cool as it is without Flash.
The web wouldn't be quite as cool as it is without Flash.
I wouldn't install this version, my video now looks exactly some of the screenshots people have posted already. I'd like to say, at least they are working on it, but if the results are going to be anything like this... work a little harder before giving out a version to download. Overall though, normal web pages are loading a little bit faster.
Just uninstalled Flash 9 and Installed Flash 10 beta 2.
I love it. Much Much more improvement for me. CNN and ESPN Videos are broke now, probably because the site does not recoginze my version of Flash but small price to pay right now for much improved Flash Performance in Ads and YouTube Videos.
I love it. Much Much more improvement for me. CNN and ESPN Videos are broke now, probably because the site does not recoginze my version of Flash but small price to pay right now for much improved Flash Performance in Ads and YouTube Videos.
Hope it fixes major audio problem
Flash Player versions 9,0,115,0 and 9,0,124,0 (yes, Adobe uses commas in its official version designations for this product) have a serious problem with the synchronization of MP3-encoded audio which has rendered quite a few Web pages either broken or near-broken since last fall. So far, the beta of FP10 doesn't have this flaw; hope it stays that way in production. Many of us are waiting eagerly for the day when we can tell our complaining customers, "Yes, finally, Adobe did get its [insert manure-related obscenity of your choice here] together and now has issued a Flash Player version that plays your Web pages' audio correctly." So far, Adobe's attitude on this has been, "Well, um, if you encoded it this-and-so way in the first place, there'd have been no problem." However, versions prior to 9,0,115,0 didn't have this bug, so clearly it was Adobe's fault in breaking the capability, not that of the many content producers who simply coded to what was working at the time.
Flash Player versions 9,0,115,0 and 9,0,124,0 (yes, Adobe uses commas in its official version designations for this product) have a serious problem with the synchronization of MP3-encoded audio which has rendered quite a few Web pages either broken or near-broken since last fall. So far, the beta of FP10 doesn't have this flaw; hope it stays that way in production. Many of us are waiting eagerly for the day when we can tell our complaining customers, "Yes, finally, Adobe did get its [insert manure-related obscenity of your choice here] together and now has issued a Flash Player version that plays your Web pages' audio correctly." So far, Adobe's attitude on this has been, "Well, um, if you encoded it this-and-so way in the first place, there'd have been no problem." However, versions prior to 9,0,115,0 didn't have this bug, so clearly it was Adobe's fault in breaking the capability, not that of the many content producers who simply coded to what was working at the time.
I won't hold my breath
I can't tell you how many times we've been promised improvements in performance for Flash when all we've seen is the same SLOW plugin at the finish line.
Windows runs loops around OSX when it comes to Flash. I blame poor programming. I hope the acquisition of Adobe finally makes this promise a reality.
I can't tell you how many times we've been promised improvements in performance for Flash when all we've seen is the same SLOW plugin at the finish line.
Windows runs loops around OSX when it comes to Flash. I blame poor programming. I hope the acquisition of Adobe finally makes this promise a reality.
Can I borrow your time machine so I can try out the finalized version of Flash 10?
It's a beta dude, what did you think was going to happen?
I Installed Beta 10 and went from 8fps to 28-30fps on MBP 2.4 with 4GB of RAM. Not bad but still could be better. But the first step is there
23/FPS on a MBP 2.16 3GB RAM....
it always has been? who's mac has this person been using? flash on the mac has sucked super duper big time donkey nards for years now compared to a windows machine. it's seriously wayyyy past time that they worked on the mac version. it's been terrible forever. if there is a single mac user that disagrees, you need to be shot.