http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/ Engadget Comments for Adobe's Flash Player 'Gala' OS X preview tested: results may vary http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
According to Apple (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_utilities/adobeflashplayer.html)

"The STANDARD for delivering high-impact, rich web content. Designs, animation and application user interfaces are deployed immediately across all browsers and platforms, attracting and engaging users with a rich web experience."

---

So, who are they kidding?! :)]]>Apr 29th 2010 8:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 9:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
Getting 20-30% CPU decrease on my MBP w/ 9400/9600m]]>Apr 29th 2010 1:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
From what I see, CPU utilization just went up.

They did blow it. ]]>Apr 28th 2010 11:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
The fact that flash needs to be benchmarked means they blew it!!!!]]>Apr 28th 2010 11:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
Damn! Adobe is lazy when it comes to Mac software. ClickToFlash FTW.]]>Apr 29th 2010 12:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
On my PC (XP, 2yr old 3Ghz C2D) I'm getting 20% CPU on YouTube Tron Legacy 1080p both on latest Firefox and Safari, and 50-60% on full screen, using Flash 10.1 RC2.

Adobe (or Apple) still long way to go.

I wonder how Mac runs with Windows Flash? Anyone?]]>Apr 29th 2010 12:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
If they are using the acceleration hardware in the GPU, video playback should be no more than 20% of a single core. These numbers are really truely and genuinely sad. They can't be using the Mac equivalent of vdpau or purevideo.

Something is very wrong here...]]>Apr 29th 2010 9:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/It's a BETA release...chill!
Obv. something is wrong, we can see that from the bench's.]]>Apr 29th 2010 9:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Windows had this years ago, why is apple always so far behind? Oh yeah, they are a small company that makes toys.]]>Apr 29th 2010 9:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
Safari on Windows is using 150mb of ram here, 7 tabs open including youtube and it is noticeably faster than Firefox. With 4 gigs of ram who gives a shit?]]>Apr 29th 2010 7:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 7:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
Because the macbook pro's never shipped with discreet ati gpu's. That's all this is doing, letting flash access the discreet gpu for video playback.]]>Apr 28th 2010 11:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
So what, efficiency only matters when battery power is involved? I'd rather use my CPU cycles elsewhere and use my GPU for something besides drawing a few pixels here and there.]]>Apr 28th 2010 11:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
also looking back, it did say supports gpu's such as..., so I guess it really isn't excluding it.
My first post was wrong, I do admit.]]>Apr 28th 2010 11:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
It's not really about the GPU itself, it's about the GPU having a H.264 hardware decoder. The NVIDIA chips have the H.264 decoder and the ATI ones don't.]]>Apr 29th 2010 6:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
every Ati Radeon HD GPU has a UVD/UVD2 and with that a decent H264 decoder. Ati was first with decent decoding capabilities, and their UVD2 can decode 2 FullHD Streams simultaniously and unlike the nVidia products has inbuild HD Audio too.

In Windows this works very well with Flash, so it might be Apples fault or even laziness not Adobes.]]>Apr 29th 2010 6:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
lrn2read

lower numbers are better]]>Apr 28th 2010 11:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
Did you read it? Flash with hardware acceleration (Gala) performs worse in Safari and better-to-wors in Firefox on Core i5.

]]>Apr 29th 2010 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 28th 2010 11:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
Did you check to see if the if Flash was using discrete graphics hardware on the 2.40GHz Core i5 mbp?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/21/macbook-pros-with-nvidia-geforce-gt-330m-silicon-making-question/]]>Apr 28th 2010 11:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/even the Intel HD is very capable of decoding FHD (Flash player under Windows supports it). In fact the Intel HD video capabilities are somewhat more advanced than nVidias. The switching of graphics in the new MBPs needs some rethinking, because there's absolutely no reason to switch for video playback or photos.]]>Apr 29th 2010 6:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
What's Linux...]]>Apr 29th 2010 2:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
I think Adobe and Flash are attacked to harshly, especially now that Apple has made pop-shots at Adobe.

I get that people might not like ads. Flash or not, advertisement is here to stay and if you know anything about ad production - they are build at the last minute, always rushed, and any code is often a hack job. Flash, Javascript, etc... it often isn't baked well.

And I could care less if the Flash player isn't open source or open standards. It is consistent because of that. The SWF format is open source and anyone could make their own player. But clearly no one wants to do the work to build a lightweight, robust player across multiple platforms for free.

And that is what bugs me most about the attacks on Adobe. Come on, Flash is free. You don't have to install it. I am sure some people claim they don't (what, all 2% of you). But it is not like you are paying for it.

You would think that a company that gives you something at no cost would get more support. Adobe will exist if Flash ever does die off. I can't imagine that they sell more of the Flash authoring tool than they do copies of Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, etc... Dreamweaver will be supporting more and more HTML5 quick authoring tools. If anything, if a real alternative to Flash would present itself and take over, Adobe would actually make more money because they wouldn't have to spend so much development costs in supporting a free plug-in and could just focus completely on their authoring tools.

]]>Apr 29th 2010 12:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Oh please. Attacked too harshly? Flash has been a disaster since Adobe bought Macromedia. Adobe just tacks more and more code on old and bloated software and hasn't bothered to develop powerful, efficient software in over a decade. There's no excuse.

Silverlight can play video at a fraction of the CPU usage--I watched the Olympics that way, and did so using the existing APIs available to Mac developers. Flash performance is terrible across the board, doubly so on OS X and Linux, and some hardware acceleration of video playback isn't going to change its performance in other areas.

As for Flash being "free", that's a load of crap. Adobe provides Flash player for free for one reason alone: because it enables them to make huge sums of money. IE is far from worthless to Microsoft for the same reason, and they do everything in their power to avoid losing market share on their "free" product that no one should complain about, according to you. Flash's dominance is a critical part of Adobe's business--if it weren't, Adobe wouldn't care about whether or not Flash is used frivolously for video playback or navigation instead of the one place where it has a legitimate function: games.

]]>Apr 29th 2010 2:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/flash support is only terrible on OSX/Linux. Under Windows with the new Flash player it's performing very well even @ low powered machines. So i believe it's a problem with the APIs and drivers under Apple and Linux and not Adobe's fault.]]>Apr 29th 2010 6:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 8:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/
It is true that Adobe makes income from the Flash authoring environment. Which is, in fact, not the only way one can generate a SWF. You don't even have to buy any Adobe products to produce SWF files for the Flash player to play.

Take a look at the Adobe product lineup. Flash is but one of dozens of applications. The big bread and butter is Photoshop. A program that has become a verb, "that image has been Photoshopped".

Adobe makes money selling content creation tools. Flash enabled them to sell tools that enabled artists to create rich media apps on the internet that would otherwise have been impossible within the limits of HTML. In the big picture, Flash has helped the browsing experience far more than it has hurt it. 98%+ adoption rate is clear proof of that. If it sucked so bad, why does almost everyone have it installed on their computer?]]>Apr 29th 2010 11:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/adobes-flash-player-gala-os-x-preview-tested-results-may-var/Apr 29th 2010 12:08AM