151–160 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check the browser settings. Set "Enable plug-ins" to "On demand". It's basically the same as Flashblock.
The one annoyance of it is to enable a single flash element on a page, it enables all flash elements on the page. Wish it was more granular.
Adobe is seriously doing it all wrong. They have to open-source the Flash Player and everything around it now. They can keep the IDE proprietary if that floats their boat, it's just a premium authoring tool, but the only way to save Flash is to open-source like NOW. HTML5 is still young enough that an open Flash Player and standard and protocol (RTMP) would effectively kill it. Open-sourcing would open so many doors.…
I think this goes 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Based on what I've heard, the real reason anyone uses flash anymore is because of the authoring tools, not the runtime. Instead of open-sourcing the flash player, build a development/authoring tool for HTML5 of equal or higher quality than the Adobe tools and open-source that...then watch this debate become irrelevant a year from now...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here ya go. Give this a try and let us know how it runs. http://xplsv.com/prods/demos/xplsv_orsotheysay/
I ran two three minute tests, one in Safari and the other Firefox on a 2.8GHz C2D w/ 4GB RAM and nothing else really open. In Safari 5.0.1 your link didn't render a single frame in three minutes. Firefox 4b3 did render, but the animation would not normally be watchable. The opening scene ran the best, probably around 15fps while during second and third scenes the galaxies would jump about an inch with each frame. I d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those comparisons really matter in this discussion, except Java, which is clearly out of the competition anyway. Why? Because unless you're suddenly running Ruby, Python, PHP, C or OCaml as a client-side script embedded in your browser, you're comparing apples to oranges. It would be interesting, though, if someone could point me (and everyone else) to a reasonable, credible comparison of HTML5+JS vs. Flash v…
I've been playing with Silverlight and am very well impressed. It is much faster than Flash (my tests where the RSA encryption algorithm), has a way more comprehensive library (specially for data manipulation) and "looks" way more secure than Flash (please take this last one with a grain of salt). Its acceptance is still lagging (I estimate something like 50%-60%), but growing fast. MS promised the new Windows 7 phon…
Silverlight will get a bit bigger but it's never going to matter in the long term, any more than Java applets ever will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Webcams? No, HTML5 will probably have support for that. "Advanced audio stuff"?! What do you mean? JavaScript (with HTML5) is a full programming language totally capable of "advanced audio stuff", whatever that means. What do you mean Flash has DRM but HTML5 doesn't? And yes, I do consider DRM a bad thing. Edit: Source for webcam comment: http://devworks.thinkdigit.com/Internet/Native-webcam-suppor...
The audio capabilities of HTML5 suck. They're not going to get better for a while, and in the time it takes them to catch up, Flash will have continued to build on their well established foundations. Okay, looking at HTML5 drum machines via Google. Here. Here's an one, http://www.randomthink.net/labs/html5drums/ - it's got all the basic trimmings, but the playback has tempo fluctuations, and the whole thing is slow.…
The reason HTML5 is the future is it doesn't have the Adobe bottleneck. Is sound bad right now? Then browser makers can fix it. Is Flash a CPU hog? Wait until Adobe cares enough and has enough resources to fix it. Get it?
Adobe is seriously doing it all wrong. They have to open-source the Flash Player and everything around it now. They can keep the IDE proprietary if that floats their boat, it's just a premium authoring tool, but the only way to save Flash is to open-source like NOW. HTML5 is still young enough that an open Flash Player and standard and protocol (RTMP) would effectively kill it. Open-sourcing would open so many doors.…
I think this goes 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Based on what I've heard, the real reason anyone uses flash anymore is because of the authoring tools, not the runtime. Instead of open-sourcing the flash player, build a development/authoring tool for HTML5 of equal or higher quality than the Adobe tools and open-source that...then watch this debate become irrelevant a year from now...
Adobe is seriously doing it all wrong. They have to open-source the Flash Player and everything around it now. They can keep the IDE proprietary if that floats their boat, it's just a premium authoring tool, but the only way to save Flash is to open-source like NOW. HTML5 is still young enough that an open Flash Player and standard and protocol (RTMP) would effectively kill it. Open-sourcing would open so many doors.…
I would give anything for someone to explain to me why the right move for Adobe wasn't to simply accept HTML5, pivot from Flash to making killer HTML5 authoring tools, and maybe even provide a way for people to take their existing Flash projects and repurpose them to HTML5? How would that have been worse then trying to wedge Flash where it doesn't belong?
The much glossed-over answer is that JavaScript and HTML just isn't a good environment for rich app development, for many reasons. One "elephant in the room" kind of issue is that JavaScript's object system is not acceptable to most programmers, and most programmers require classical OOP. Even prototype system fanatics probably would have to admit that the current state of JavaScript doesn't work very well, with its…
What should have happened is that they just define a (high level) VM that we can all compile to. The browsers could have certain languages they compile to this VM language their self (e.g. JavaScribt, VBScript, etc.) and the rest of us compile to a binary file and point to that in our HTML page (e.g. )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) his phone has a keyboard... it just doesn't have a full keyboard with CTRL key and everything; b) _that_ is exactly his point. That most games, and most content was built on Flash with the "PC" as the target system. Quote: "Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers." Hence even though Flash may have been ported to mobile phones now, most of its apps won't, because the developers we…
That's like saying that after the java run time has been ported to your mobile phone that you can't run open office on it because it was designed for a desktop. Of course it won't work, it never was meant to. But now that it is available the authors of the software will start to receive feedback from their users and will be able to fix those issues. It starts with platform availability, up to that point you can't do…
We are also not talking of small tweaks. If your program was created assuming a mouse pointer and a keyboard, the whole interface is wrong for a touchscreen. The amount of change to your code may very well be massive.