Better question would be how many browsers are there that actually support HTML5 stuff without needing tons of hacks and workarounds. Technically IE6 supported CSS. In reality you didn't really want to even try making a site that would show equally well in that and other browsers.
Adobe stops developing Flash Player for Mobile Browsers
Dominik D
Regular
show me one link where I can try the most amazing flash demo that will blow my socks off (not a video or anything an actual flash app)
to use the phase thats popular atm, "show me the money" the ball is in your court
No, it isn't in my court. "Show me" or else what?
You're misinformed, not me. You're too lazy to type molehill into Google, not me. It's also the third time you change your mind on what you want to see. As I said before, I'm perfectly OK with you keeping your opinion and I don't even mind if you think it is The Truth. Good day! Is the situation that as bad for HTML5 on mobile browsers? They're all based off the same source tree, right? If you limit yourself to what's possible with iOS and Android, will you run into major compatibility obstacles?hoho said:
What version of Android would that be?
Also, there are other minor players around as well as Meego (I'm still hoping it or it's successor doesn't die) and WP7. Meego is using WebKit based browser, no clue what WP7 uses.
Though good thing with cellphones is that they are generally changed more often than PCs so upgrading is probably less of a problem there than on desktop.
It's IE9. Mobile IE9 uses the same engine as the desktop version.
Ok, just expand my earlier question. Are there major html5 differences between iOS and Android versions? I honestly don't know. I was hoping that those who are highly opinionated on the matter could clarify...hoho said:What version of Android would that be?
The last thing I worry about when developing a mobile website are WP7 and Meego. Too late to the market and no market share. Why should I bother? Yeah, that's taking the easy way out.
Dominik D
Regular
I hear Tanki Online is decent. It won't blow your head off (especially since I'm still unsure what you're looking for in tech) but it works. Also the aforementioned Q3 engine demo consumes 12-18% of one core on my 3 year old laptop (Samsung X460). Some performance problems may exist on your machine, dunno. :S (Compatibility is unfortunately a PITA when it comes to rendering in HTML5 as well) Memory consumption is around the same mark as it is for you.
Surprising Adobe killed it *that* fast - RIP.
As for the current discussion, I believe WebGL is the right solution. Yes, there are security concerns, but some of them would have existed with *any* GPU-accelerated solution with remote access, including any current handheld application that wasn't checked properly. And I don't think there is anything inherently unfixable about any of WebGL's problems although it may pose a variety of vulnerabilities in the short & medium terms.
Yes, you can do something decent-ish with CPU-based solutions today. It's also fundamentally unscalable. Yes, Flash's GPU acceleration might have been a viable solution, but Flash also has security (and privacy) vulnerabilities of its own and I doubt GPU acceleration didn't add a few. And yes, HTML5 implementations vary too much, but thankfully WebGL only uses a tiny bit of HTML5 functionality and a lot of JavaScript, which should be much more compatible.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think WebGL is a perfect solution, but I do feel that if implemented properly (which I'm confident it will be eventually), it's good enough. Just like I don't like JavaScript is very good but I think it's good enough for web computing - if you need more than WebGL or JavaScript, you can always leave the web and write a native application.
As for the current discussion, I believe WebGL is the right solution. Yes, there are security concerns, but some of them would have existed with *any* GPU-accelerated solution with remote access, including any current handheld application that wasn't checked properly. And I don't think there is anything inherently unfixable about any of WebGL's problems although it may pose a variety of vulnerabilities in the short & medium terms.
Yes, you can do something decent-ish with CPU-based solutions today. It's also fundamentally unscalable. Yes, Flash's GPU acceleration might have been a viable solution, but Flash also has security (and privacy) vulnerabilities of its own and I doubt GPU acceleration didn't add a few. And yes, HTML5 implementations vary too much, but thankfully WebGL only uses a tiny bit of HTML5 functionality and a lot of JavaScript, which should be much more compatible.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think WebGL is a perfect solution, but I do feel that if implemented properly (which I'm confident it will be eventually), it's good enough. Just like I don't like JavaScript is very good but I think it's good enough for web computing - if you need more than WebGL or JavaScript, you can always leave the web and write a native application.
perhaps youre not including whatever performance flash is taking up
http://anarchistsunited.com/crap/quake3.jpg
but cheers for the link, I couldnt get it to run here, only tried for 5 mins though.
BTW developers - try to put a progress bar (if the programs bigger than 1mb) so ppl know how long they have to wait
what I'ld like to see done is like flashblock, the user see's a symbol and they click on it if they want it to run or not.
I'ld like to see javascript die, or at least do what actionscript/flash do now & be strong typed
Im not implying that, Im pretty sure different browsers/OSs report different things eg some might ignore CPU taken up by plugins.Come on, just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm dumb.
I just looked at OSX activity monitor, & it saiz chrome ~8% CPU so its easy to think it uses bugger all CPU, but if you look at another thread you see shockwave = ~90%
I'll blame Adobe for an endless stream of exploits in Flash.
I won't blame Adobe for crippling performance in browsers. Action scripting is pretty fast.
When you see a simple layered graphics banner using 100% CPU you know that whoever created the banner is a complete moron. Replacing Flash with HTML5+JS is not going to solve this.
Cheers
I won't blame Adobe for crippling performance in browsers. Action scripting is pretty fast.
When you see a simple layered graphics banner using 100% CPU you know that whoever created the banner is a complete moron. Replacing Flash with HTML5+JS is not going to solve this.
Cheers
Certainly. The visual programming paradigm that Adobe's tools allows sometimes ends up with the same graphics being rendered multiple times, - and with 0 or 1ms between updates. No wonder Adobe capped update frequency to 60Hz.
Cheers
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
No Flash for Android 4.1, it simply won't work.
Isn't this going to limit web browsing too much? I still visit tens of webpages that are highly dependant on flash - and not only for ads.
For example, I always use my tablet to order online from pizzahut. The orders' website is completely flash-based.
It might have been fine if this happened in 2020 or something, but I don't want Android 4.1 if I can't have flash with it.
Okay, we get it: flash is bad, consumes power, is inefficient, etc etc. But it should be up to the end-user to decide either it runs on our devices or not. I don't want Google to decide either I can/can't use flash, that's ridiculous.
WTF is wrong with Google and Adobe?
I don't think it's a power question, but rather a security one. Adobe just aren't very good a secure programming. There has been a ton of exploits in both Flash player and Adobe Reader
IMO, power usage will go up as a result of this. Developers will just output HTML5+javascript in their Flex builder instead of Shockwave flash, which is going to use a lot more resources for the same effects.
Cheers
