4 ms·

Soon you'll be able to get the same battery life drops just by having JavaScript turned on, as more advertisers move to HTML5.

by beej71 16y ago

ceejayoz 16y ago
Flash tends to be a bear on Macs - even some basic YouTubing makes my 8-core Mac Pro with 10 GB RAM turn all its fans on. JavaScript, on the other hand, has seen a huge emphasis on performance, with Google's work on V8 and the stuff Apple has been doing with Webkit. I strongly suspect it'll be better performance than Flash.
- riobard 16y ago
  until ads turn to JS+Canvas+whatever to ruin the whole thing again.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    I've loaded Canvas experiments and don't get the same chugging.
    - abstractbill 16y ago
      Canvas experiments are not written by the kind of programmer who usually works for an ad agency.
      - ceejayoz 16y ago
        Fair point.
- ergo98 16y ago
  I strongly suspect it'll be better performance than Flash. There is absolutely no empirical basis for assuming this. In actual comparisons between the two -- at least the tests that I've seen -- Flash take the lead. Removing Flash and being saved the overhead of endless and overbearing ads is good, but as has been said the advertisers will move to HTML5 (they already are), and they're going to do the same full motion video, moving dynamic multimedia, etc, that causes Flash to be such a beast. Worse, it won't be as easily segregatable because to the browser it will be no different than the rest of the web application.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > Worse, it won't be as easily segregatable because to > the browser it will be no different than the rest of > the web application. My hosts file begs to differ.
  - catch23 16y ago
    my adblock still works great on javascript ads!
  - sp4rki 16y ago
    I can have one non-ad flash object on a webpage and it immediately makes my fans spin like mad. What makes Flash be such a beast is not the advertisements with full motion video or moving dynamic multimedia, it's just that Flash completely and utterly sucks on a Mac. On the other point, any website that lets advertisers take over their content or more space than it should because there are no boundaries (as opposed to Flash) is a website I won't visit anymore, and I suspect a great amount of people think the same. We have great advertisement providers as Fusion and Google are which are non intrusive. If you wish to add banners and the such you as a content provider should very well be on top of your ad space and avoid shady advertisement companies.
  - chc 16y ago
    Are the tests you've seen usually done on a Mac?
- seanalltogether 16y ago
  Flash actionscript runs faster then javascript in pretty much any benchmark, javascript can only go so far before object typing is required to gain parity with other language. As for video, you're trading cpu power for gpu power when running flash vs quicktime, but I'm not sure the gpu will be any less of a drain on battery.
  - epochwolf 16y ago
    > As for video, you're trading cpu power for gpu power when running flash vs quicktime, but I'm not sure the gpu will be any less of a drain on battery. Except that using a cpu to emulate things gpu do natively requires far more power. A gpu is a specialized processor so the tradeoff isn't going to be 1 to 1.
  - Andrewski 16y ago
    Yes, runs faster, but while hogging more of the machine.
- frou_dh 16y ago
  Am I somehow immune from Flash on Mac being a complete hog? Sure, it uses a decent chunk of CPU, but I rarely if ever get my CPU pegged and fans ramped up as everyone seems to claim.
  - chc 16y ago
    Mac Pro?
    - frou_dh 16y ago
      Previous gen MBP: Core2Duo 2.8, 9400M. Not that I like Flash, but that's for different reasons.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    I'm always curious at what exactly the hell people are doing to their macs to make something like a single flash widget on a page bring their machine to its knees. My 4 year old MBP runs stuff just about as well as my 4 year old Windows laptop.
GHFigs 16y ago
A crucial difference is that browser vendors can actually do something about JavaScript performance.

Soon you'll be able to get the same battery life drops just by having JavaScript turned on, as more advertisers move to HTML5.

by beej71 16y ago

Soon you'll be able to get the same battery life drops just by having JavaScript turned on, as more advertisers move to HTML5.

ceejayoz 16y ago

Flash tends to be a bear on Macs - even some basic YouTubing makes my 8-core Mac Pro with 10 GB RAM turn all its fans on. JavaScript, on the other hand, has seen a huge emphasis on performance, with Google's work on V8 and the stuff Apple has been doing with Webkit. I strongly suspect it'll be better performance than Flash.

riobard 16y ago
until ads turn to JS+Canvas+whatever to ruin the whole thing again.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  I've loaded Canvas experiments and don't get the same chugging.
  - abstractbill 16y ago
    Canvas experiments are not written by the kind of programmer who usually works for an ad agency.
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      Fair point.
ergo98 16y ago
I strongly suspect it'll be better performance than Flash. There is absolutely no empirical basis for assuming this. In actual comparisons between the two -- at least the tests that I've seen -- Flash take the lead. Removing Flash and being saved the overhead of endless and overbearing ads is good, but as has been said the advertisers will move to HTML5 (they already are), and they're going to do the same full motion video, moving dynamic multimedia, etc, that causes Flash to be such a beast. Worse, it won't be as easily segregatable because to the browser it will be no different than the rest of the web application.
- pyre 16y ago
  > Worse, it won't be as easily segregatable because to > the browser it will be no different than the rest of > the web application. My hosts file begs to differ.
- catch23 16y ago
  my adblock still works great on javascript ads!
- sp4rki 16y ago
  I can have one non-ad flash object on a webpage and it immediately makes my fans spin like mad. What makes Flash be such a beast is not the advertisements with full motion video or moving dynamic multimedia, it's just that Flash completely and utterly sucks on a Mac. On the other point, any website that lets advertisers take over their content or more space than it should because there are no boundaries (as opposed to Flash) is a website I won't visit anymore, and I suspect a great amount of people think the same. We have great advertisement providers as Fusion and Google are which are non intrusive. If you wish to add banners and the such you as a content provider should very well be on top of your ad space and avoid shady advertisement companies.
- chc 16y ago
  Are the tests you've seen usually done on a Mac?
seanalltogether 16y ago
Flash actionscript runs faster then javascript in pretty much any benchmark, javascript can only go so far before object typing is required to gain parity with other language. As for video, you're trading cpu power for gpu power when running flash vs quicktime, but I'm not sure the gpu will be any less of a drain on battery.
- epochwolf 16y ago
  > As for video, you're trading cpu power for gpu power when running flash vs quicktime, but I'm not sure the gpu will be any less of a drain on battery. Except that using a cpu to emulate things gpu do natively requires far more power. A gpu is a specialized processor so the tradeoff isn't going to be 1 to 1.
- Andrewski 16y ago
  Yes, runs faster, but while hogging more of the machine.
frou_dh 16y ago
Am I somehow immune from Flash on Mac being a complete hog? Sure, it uses a decent chunk of CPU, but I rarely if ever get my CPU pegged and fans ramped up as everyone seems to claim.
- chc 16y ago
  Mac Pro?
  - frou_dh 16y ago
    Previous gen MBP: Core2Duo 2.8, 9400M. Not that I like Flash, but that's for different reasons.
- elblanco 16y ago
  I'm always curious at what exactly the hell people are doing to their macs to make something like a single flash widget on a page bring their machine to its knees. My 4 year old MBP runs stuff just about as well as my 4 year old Windows laptop.

GHFigs 16y ago

A crucial difference is that browser vendors can actually do something about JavaScript performance.