2 ms·
You're right, they don't. I'm still looking for where it is proven that a well-coded Flash site is inferior to a well-coded HTML5+JS site in terms of battery l
by tomlin 16y ago
You're right, they don't. I'm still looking for where it is proven that a well-coded Flash site is inferior to a well-coded HTML5+JS site in terms of battery life.
No one can seem to give a tangible, legible reason why Flash has the unreasonably holy authority to drain battery power.
- raganwald 16y agoAhh, the No True Scotsman fallacy again! Hamish: No Flash site is inferior to its HTML5 equivalent in terms of battery life. Angus: Youtube's Flash implementation uses more battery than their HTML5 equivalent on my machine. Hamish: No well-coded Flash site is inferior to its HTML5 equivalent in terms of battery life. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/No_true_Scots...
- tomlin 16y ago> Angus: Youtube's Flash implementation uses more battery than their HTML5 equivalent on my machine. Apologies for this, it seems to have evidence in it: http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html It's hard for me to compare HTML5 to Flash if the Flash version has a truckload of abilities being used that cannot be utilized in HTML5. What's so hard to understand about this? Does the MacBook fan only come on for Flash? It seems unlikely. Seems like it might engage for CPU-intensive processes that contain audio, video, Internet access (WiFi or 3G isn't cheap on the battery) and a mixture of other features. I'm not trying to get any one to agree to Flash being better. I just don't see an equal argument. Ever.