tensafefrogs

How's the performance?

The player doesn't let you change video size/quality, so you might be seeing the lower res versions.

> There are Javascript/CSS demos out there that are much more dynamic/interactive than the average Flash based ad that still use less CPU.

I don't agree with this in general, but let's say that I did: Of course native things will run faster than a sandboxed plugin. Unfortunately Flash still does WAY more than browsers do.

> In a similar vein, there are other Safari plugins out there that do much more than the average Flash based ad that use less CPU.

Oh, like what? Some specialized thing that does one thing only? Comparing other plugins to eachother won't work unless you are comparing the same code vs. each other. Actually, it would be nice to compare flash vs. silverlight in a pure performance test using "real life" situations like video and motion graphics.

> The Flash plugin uses more resources than people expect it to based on their experience with Flash in Windows, as well as their experience with other technologies on Safari/OS X. I don't think it is a collective hallucination.

So now we are back to Mac vs. Windows, and it's been covered enough in this thread that OS X is more limiting than windows when it comes to browser plugins, and it sounds to me like it's up to Apple to fix it, or for some other browser maker to come along and do it better, so we'll have to wait and see.

"Parallels does not have updated video drivers from Apple"

Parallels doesn't run in a browser.

Your first point doesn't make sense, considering jd said "if Apple allowed browser plugins to move video-decompression out of the CPU too, then that would be great." Flash can't use hardware acceleration until Apple adds support for it to their video drivers. Sure, it took adobe a long time to get to this point, but video online is still young compared to the lifetime of the Flash Plugin, so your argument that the plugin has been around "for years" also doesn't make much sense.

I also don't agree with your second point, considering the things you are complaining about "games, sites, ads" are generally created with Flash because the advertiser (or ad agency) wants to do something that HTML can't do. It's their choice to do it, so don't blame their poor choices (and often poor coding) on the technology.

Consider that in general games and rich interactive things take more CPU than static HTML and graphics, so of course it will take more CPU to render those things. If you don't like it, don't play Flash games and boycott sites that use excessive poorly coded Flash.

So you are suggesting the Flash plugin starts up an instance of windows so it can utilize the hardware acceleration?

The issue here (with the 10.1 hardware acceleration) is that it requires updated video drivers, and Apple controls those drivers on OS X, and Apple hates Flash. Maybe they will eventually add support, but why would they hurry if they don't like it in the first place?

You say that like "video" and "games" aren't a huge industry.

They can, but then they have to hand the result back to the browser to render, which can be slow.

Check out the new stuff coming in flash player 10.1, which will have some hardware acceleration, BUT not on OS X because it requires updated video drivers. Since Apple controls the video drivers on OS X, we just have to wait for them to update them (and since they don't seem to like Flash much, it could be a while).

It is clear: They are worried about "Submarine patents" popping up in the theora codec and being sued once they implement it.