Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Flash Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the less-frantic-scrambling dept.

Media 509

The lack of Flash in the new MacBook Air may annoy some users, but it has a big upside, too. According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader, "Having Flash installed can cut battery runtime considerably — as much as 33 percent in our testing. With a handful of websites loaded in Safari, Flash-based ads kept the CPU running far more than seemed necessary, and the best time I recorded with Flash installed was just 4 hours. After deleting Flash, however, the MacBook Air ran for 6:02 — with the exact same set of websites reloaded in Safari, and with static ads replacing the CPU-sucking Flash versions."

cancel ×

509 comments

No ABP in OSX? (0, Redundant)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131338)

Why would ANYONE use Safari on Mac when you have FF? ABP and NoScript for the win!

Re:No ABP in OSX? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131368)

Because Safari works far better than FF on OS X?

Re:No ABP in OSX? (0, Offtopic)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131372)

Why would ANYONE use Safari on Mac when you have FF? ABP and NoScript for the win!

Maybe because FF users pay more for car loans [slashdot.org] ?

Re:No ABP in OSX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131376)

because firefox is bloated shit.

chrome or opera are really the only options.

Re:No ABP in OSX? (5, Informative)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131424)

Why would ANYONE use Safari on Mac when you have FF? ABP and NoScript for the win!

Ummm, AdBlock is now available for Safari, and Click2Flash neatly dispenses with Flash.

But, the battery-sucking aspect of Flash is old news [macworld.com] .

I use that setup (2, Interesting)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131694)

Safari, adblock + click2flash, and I get 7 1/2 hours of run time on my Macbook pro with wifi. Pretty sweet ;)

Re:No ABP in OSX? (2, Informative)

Rewind (138843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131426)

You can get AB and a flash blocker for Safari, among other things. https://extensions.apple.com/ [apple.com]

Re:No ABP in OSX? (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131584)

Why would ANYONE use Safari on Mac when you have FF? ABP and NoScript for the win!

ClickToFlash [github.com] works very nicely and there are several other extensions that let you block stuff. It even replaces flash videos with the H.264 stream if it is available.

I'm really loving GlimmerBlocker [glimmerblocker.org] , which sets up a http proxy so any web browser you use will have ads blocked, you don't need to install an ad blocker extension on every browser you have. It'll even allow other computers on your network to use the proxy and gain the same benefits. Pretty nifty.

Re:No ABP in OSX? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131648)

Because firefox is slow and doesn't use the native interface.

"As you can see, it sucks as it cuts..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131340)

"It certainly does suck."

Why not install Flashblock by default (4, Insightful)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131344)

Block all flashes by default but allow user to enable one specifically. Problem solved.

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (0, Offtopic)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131438)

Why do you even need to install something to do that? That's a checkbox option on my Android phone and my Opera browser. When I discovered that on my phone it sped up the browser quite a bit, just leaving placeholders with push-to-activate buttons where all of the Flash content used to be.

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (0, Flamebait)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131636)

Because its not an option in firefox or safari by default. Its handled by plugins.

I really don't see what Android has to do with any of this.

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (1)

sirsnork (530512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131642)

PrefBar gives you this in FF for those that want something other than flashblock

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131686)

That's a checkbox option on my Android phone

Is this an option in the default browser? I'm currently using Dolphin HD for this reason alone.

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (1)

drougie (36782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131746)

yes, stock browser > settings > enable plugins > on demand

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (2, Informative)

iksbob (947407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131480)

There's a Safari plugin that does just that called ClickToFlash. It handles flash the way browsers handled images in ye olden days - they're replaced with a "flash" box that you click on to let the flash tidbit load and run.

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the makers of ClickToFlash, though I do use it.

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (-1, Flamebait)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131576)

And in other news, disabling DRM ends up saving 74% and disabling video ends up saving 52% of battery life, Wired author writes. My next step is to disable the entire bloody Mac OS, and see how much energy I can save just running everything from the shell. Wish me luck.

Re:Why not install Flashblock by default (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131854)

Because flashblock breaks a lot of sites out there including Hulu and CNN.com. It is not a good idea to including something that breaks sites by default.

Would've been first post... (4, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131346)

...but my computer ran out of batteries and I had to find an outlet.

Re:Would've been first post... (4, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131826)

...but my computer ran out of batteries and I had to find an outlet.

I have several outlets besides computers - cooking, swimming, yoga, masturbation to hairy milf porn, ....oh, you're talking power outlet! My bad.

Who would stand to benefit from such a study? (2, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131348)

It couldn't be Apple, who has been impartial to Flash, and welcoming of it on their platform... ...oh, wait.

Re:Who would stand to benefit from such a study? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131458)

Benefit? How about the desire of truth, for the benefit of collective knowledge? Oh wait, I forgot, everyone already knows Flash sucks. Doesn't matter which platform it's on; there's only scales of bad and worse. What's the point of TFA then?

Re:Who would stand to benefit from such a study? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131726)

News at 11 and all that. I don't understand why, though, they went with the wording that "having flash installed" causes battery drain instead of running flash objects. Merely having flash installed doesn't cause any noticeable battery drain over not having flash installed.

Re:Who would stand to benefit from such a study? (5, Funny)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131816)

There are many beneficiaries when flash eventually bites the dust and becomes a pariah like Java Applets. But I'd like to point out the biggest impact isn't the battery life, it's your crotch. Flash forces laptops to run extremely hot and it invariably burns your nads while you rewind Lady Gaga videos for the 20th time in a row.

The reason why male sack is situated in-between legs is because it needs to remain a certain temperature to function properly. Evolution never anticipated humans putting hot slabs of electronics on their privates for extended periods of time.

and i care (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131356)

why?

Re:and i care (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131736)

Yes here you are posting in this thread.

I think this should be read more like... (5, Insightful)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131358)

... web ads can rob 2 hours from a macbook air's life, the main reason why the battery lasts longer in the no-flash case is because the ads aren't loaded, once all ads move to HTML5 I don't think there'll be that much of a difference.

Re:I think this should be read more like... (0, Troll)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131406)

You're disturbing the distortion field. Stop it.

Re:I think this should be read more like... (-1, Flamebait)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131536)

... web ads can rob 2 hours from a macbook air's life, the main reason why the battery lasts longer in the no-flash case is because the ads aren't loaded, once all ads move to HTML5 I don't think there'll be that much of a difference.

Yes, because the display of the ads themselves are toe blame and not the runtime of flash. Oh... wait. No doubt that HTML 5 ads would consume some more resources but they would still be an order of magnitude less power hungry.

Re:I think this should be read more like... (-1, Flamebait)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131652)

Yes, because decoding H.264 is so much less CPU intensive...

Re:I think this should be read more like... (5, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131674)

Yes, because decoding H.264 is so much less CPU intensive...

You're trying to be facetious, but in my experience that's actually true - and that shows what a dog Flash is.

Re:I think this should be read more like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131784)

Chrome uses FFmpeg which even in software mode is one of the most efficient H.264 decoders (behind CoreAVC). It's MUCH faster than Flash's proprietary decoder. FFmpeg also has a multi-threaded implementation, again unlike Flash, and it also has DXVA support for GPU acceleration. IIRC Flash's GPU acceleration isn't regarded as particularly well either (if it's even working).

And that was only with Chrome. If IE9 uses the default Vista&7 H.264 hardware decoder, then IE9 is significantly faster as well.

Wait for CUDA support to appear in FFmpeg & Microsoft's decoder (this will happen before Flash pretty definitely) and H.264 decoding will take 0-1% CPU, like CoreAVC currently does.

Re:I think this should be read more like... (1)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131688)

No doubt that HTML 5 ads would consume some more resources but they would still be an order of magnitude less power hungry.

What makes you believe that? I'm sure advertisers will have no trouble finding ways to suck up power with HTML5. WebGL alone is likely to accelerate global warming by a couple of years...

Personally, I love Flash. I just install FlashBlock, and all those annoying ads go away, yet I still have easy access to Flash content when I actually want it. Once advertisers start moving to HTML5, it will become a lot harder to block only the irritating animations without also blocking the useful ones.

Re:I think this should be read more like... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131640)

At least two HTML5 implementations are now indirectly threaded, so it won't stall a core like Flash does when you open 5 heavy tabs.

Also the problem with Flash is its history of inefficiency for even simple operations. The problem here isn't the ads (that's another problem), the problem is their performance. WebGL is currently doing stuff Flash can't dream of, and that will only improve (unlike Flash).

Bad JavaScript sucks nearly as hard as bad ActionScript, but at least we have tools to debug and selectively disable JavaScript, because JS is implemented by the browser and not some external runtime.

There is no reason a browser can't implement actions to assist the user in this area, like to optionally shut down a JS script when it stalls the CPU for 5 seconds, or to disable selected animations by right-clicking on them. Will Adobe ever add assistance like the these examples? Fuck no they won't, they've had 10 years of complete inaction.

Re:I think this should be read more like... (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131646)

That depends on how efficent the HTML5 rendering is compared to Flash. Its not likely to be worse at least and I suspect it could be considerably better.

not really (3, Insightful)

SpiceWare (3438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131776)

once all ads move to HTML5 I don't think there'll be that much of a difference

unlike Flash, the browser makers can actually address HTML5 performance issues.

Ad block? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131822)

Well, then install an ad blocker. :P

Re:I think this should be read more like... (1)

mmj638 (905944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131836)

But with Flash, browser makers have no control over how CPU-hungry the plugin is.

With HTML5, browser makers have the ability to keep improving the efficiency of their engines for greater performance and lower CPU usage. They use it as a point of differentiation from their competitors (look at how it's fuelled improvements in Javascript engines over the last 4 years).

Re:I think this should be read more like... (3, Insightful)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131842)

... web ads can rob 2 hours from a macbook air's life, the main reason why the battery lasts longer in the no-flash case is because the ads aren't loaded, once all ads move to HTML5 I don't think there'll be that much of a difference.

Doubtful. The real problem is that Apple can't tweak the Flash runtime to be more CPU efficient. In contrast, they can do whatever they want to their Javascript and HTML engines.

This is also why I love Chrome. It buckets Flash into a separate process, so when Ads start hogging the CPU, I kill the Flash process.

Symptoms of poor design (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131846)

It sounds like it's more of a problem with the implementation of the Adobe Flash Player than anything. Let's put the blame where it belongs.

In other news... (4, Insightful)

JReykdal (637757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131360)

Using the computer might drain your battery!

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131556)

Using the computer might drain your battery!

Exactly! This is equivalent to saying "playing 3d games cuts battery life". Yeah. No shit. All battery life figures are basically generated by sitting on a workbench with word open until the thing turns off.

Re:In other news... (1)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131840)

I'm surprised they even open word!

This is why I use NoScript (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131364)

Flash is totally a suck monster.

Plus, the giant bug hole in it won't be patched until a week from now anyway.

Flash ads are CPU hogs. (5, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131366)

Wow, that's... news.

He said she said? (0, Offtopic)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131374)

"According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader," According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader who talked to his cousin who found out from his baby's mama who saw this girl at 7-11 talking to her brother who said...

Re:He said she said? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131416)

"According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader," According to Wired's report (citing Ars Technica) passed on by an anonymous reader who talked to his cousin who found out from his baby's mama who saw this girl at 7-11 talking to her brother who said...

You *almost* got it right. The girl at 7-11 talking to her brother who saw it in an ad on the internet - you know, one of those fancy moving ads that are all spiffy 'n stuff.

Not just the Air (4, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131378)

Flash will suck the life out of a battery charge on my MacBook Pro, too, as well as every non-Apple laptop that I've owned recently, too. Interestingly, I don't have that issue if I watch a "raw" mp4 via the QuickTime plugin.

Re:Not just the Air (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131452)

But then you have Quicktime installed, which means you have iTunes installed. No thanks. And people think Adobe software is bloated

Re:Not just the Air (5, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131532)

Quicktime/iTunes isn't bad when ran on OS X because its pretty much native. Its bloated on Windows because it seems to think that rather than using the things that are already there, you need to install half of OS X to run a program.

Re:Not just the Air (3, Informative)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131554)

But then you have Quicktime installed, which means you have iTunes installed. No thanks. And people think Adobe software is bloated

Quicktime is integrated into OS X. Neither Quicktime player or iTunes such on OS X. They are not that bad either on windows unless if you have a crap load of stuff installed and running in the background.

Re:Not just the Air (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131598)

On my laptop's Windows partition (Turion 64 x2, Windows XP pro installed, 2 GB of RAM) iTunes is nearly unusable and no, I don't have a lot of junk installed, the only thing other than essential Windows processes that was running was iTunes and it is close to unusable. VLC runs just fine on there, Foobar 2000 runs just fine on there, heck, Windows Media Player runs just fine on there but iTunes is a bloated piece of crap. The only reason I have it is that when I first bought my iPod touch it was the only way you could sync things to it. When you buy a song it takes longer to "process" the file than it does to download the song. And no, I'm not playing HD videos or anything through it, just syncing and playing some music. There is -no- excuse to why iTunes is such a piece of crap.

Re:Not just the Air (0, Redundant)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131758)

Nah, QuickTime doesn't suck battery life, it just sucks.

I don't think I've found a single build that didn't somehow bog down Windows or cause some sort of crash. Better to just leave QuickTime to the Macs.

What if you don't install anything?! (1)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131380)

Anyone has the saving when you just don't install any software on a Macbook Air? Come on! Either use flash or don't use flash - it's here, it will be so for some time to come - get over it.

Shroedinger's Laptop Battery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131802)

I've found that if I never turn on my laptop, I can never know whether or not it has any power capacity.

Having it installed cuts the Battery? (4, Informative)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131384)

Not blocking it selectively with noscript, flashblock etc. sucks the Battery.

news? (3, Informative)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131392)

Why is this news? Flash is actively drawn and persistent. It's also known that it is CPU intensive. It's like running a DVD or a videogame. It takes extra CPU cycles and possibly extra components(does Flash utilize a GPU/FPU?) to accomplish these types of things. In a word, duh.

Re:news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131578)

It's news because millions of people have Flash installed, and unlike watching a DVD or playing a videogame, they usually don't actively choose to run Flash -- it's installed, and it runs when companies decide to make extra-annoying ads on their website. The fact that you have to actively disable Flash on most machines means that, to risk putting it dramatically, Flash is wasting a lot of electricity among the many people who don't care or actively don't want it. If not for Hulu, I'd simply tear the fucking POS out of my machine. I have to admit, I didn't see an easy way of disabling Flash in Safari so it wastes cycles on my machine (although force quitting Flash provides some strange psychological sense of well-being).

Man, I can't believe I ever used to actually like Adobe and thought working there would be cool.

Re:news? (4, Insightful)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131670)

How about you blame the ad companies for using Flash rather than blame Adobe for making an interactive product meant to enhance web content(which you admit it does)? Or blame the browser companies for not giving the options and/or making it more obvious that dynamic content is being used? Smith and Wesson makes guns. Are they at fault when some gangbanger kills another with a S&W?

Re:news? (2, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131742)

I agree. Flash on Linux has never been a particularly pleasant experience either. If only the browser could tell the Flash engine to shut the fuck up if the tab isn't visible, things would be much better. Not fixed, mind you, but better.

Flash is CPU intensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131402)

...good to know?

Friends don't let friends run flash (5, Insightful)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131404)

It's great that someone is finally recognizing this sort of stuff. Think of the millions of kwh wasted all over the world every day running flash on laptops and desktops...not to mention the security issues involved with the 'active' content that the flash player brings to the system. All of this comes from an unlovely company that does not seem to shoulder any responsibility for the software that it looses upon the user community. Okay Adobe, mod this troll, but you can't stop everyone from eventually seeing the light.

And, predictably... (5, Funny)

colenski (552404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131422)

...viewing TFA caused a Flash popover ad to appear over the article text. Just sayin'.

Re:And, predictably... (5, Funny)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131864)

...viewing TFA caused a Flash popover ad to appear over the article text. Just sayin'.

Yeah, that's okay, I still have just enough battery left to fini

No flash here (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131446)

Almost a year on this pc with no flash loaded.

So far I couldn't see a menards ad since the online ad is flash only. So I went to Home Depot instead.

It's all about freedom ... (0, Troll)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131460)

So running CPU-intensive software reduces battery life. Who knew?

In other news, Apple is disabling playing games or movies on its new MacBook Air line. "People's batteries are suffering," an Apple spokesperson said today. "Clearly, when customers' batteries are being used, the customers are not free. We are now giving customers freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom."

The spokesperson further hinted that the next addition to the MacBook Air line will not be allowed to be turned on at all. "Our market research shows that people are happiest with an Apple product when it is turned off and on prominent display to their friends. The next MacBook Air will not only give the user freedom from software, but it will have a battery life measured in years."

Re:It's all about freedom ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131610)

In other news, Apple is disabling playing games or movies on its new MacBook Air line.

Because all movies and games, everywhere, for all time, are only available in flash. Yup. Got it.

"People's batteries are suffering," an Apple spokesperson said today. "Clearly, when customers' batteries are being used, the customers are not free. We are now giving customers freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom."

The spokesperson further hinted that the next addition to the MacBook Air line will not be allowed to be turned on at all.

I know you think you're being funny, but really you're just being dumb. Apple isn't prohibiting a single thing on the new MacBook Air. They don't ship it with Flash preinstalled, but you're completely free to install it should you desire to be bombarded with horrible popover ads and lose 1/3 of your battery life.

There was a time when no Mac shipped with Flash preinstalled. It wasn't even that long ago. Was Apple curtailing customers' freedoms back then?

Flash blocking (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131462)

That's why I'm gonna go install ClickToFlash [clicktoflash.com] so I don't have it running when I don't want it to.

Sigh (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131466)

If you're going to report one uptime as being "6:02", don't just report the other as being "4 hours". Tell us if it was 4:01 or 4:00 or whatever.

When your difference is on the order of 120 minutes, 1 or 2 minutes difference either way is indeed notable.

And if this test was done over wireless, I wonder how much the browser cache played a role. No need to refetch content, right? Did he even make sure all pages served him the same ads?

This is Mythbusters-levels of bad science.

Re:Sigh (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131664)

How about the "handful" of websites? I can fit a nearly infinite number of websites in my hand.

Flash isn't the problem... (5, Insightful)

Zouden (232738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131504)

Reinstall Flash and install adblock. Then the story changes to "Ads Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life". But not many ad-supported websites would run with that title, would they?

This is a complete non-story. It's no surprise that replacing animated content with a static image improves battery life. I would prefer more websites used static content for their ads rather than Flash content. Then maybe I wouldn't block them so much. With AdBlock, having Flash installed makes no difference to how long my battery lasts - but it does make a difference to what I can do on the web.

Re:Flash isn't the problem... (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131820)

Yeah, I certainly don't want to defend Flash, but wouldn't animated GIFs have much the same effect?

With cane in hand... (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131508)

"I've be trying to stop Flash for years!" - The Shade

Ads coming in html5? (1)

Grubar (1087865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131510)

I think we should keep quiet about this. Soon the ad companies will move to html5 to get past our no-flash motion adblock method.

No surprise here. (0, Redundant)

clawhammer (1671506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131512)

I needed a review to tell me this? Flash totally hikes the processor usage and thus increases heat, decreases battery life. I run ClickToFlash to block all the annoying ads, etc, but watching youtube or other video sites totally drains the battery. Rather annoying, and I can see why Steve Jobs hates flash. /fanboyism.

Wow (4, Insightful)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131520)

You mean running animations in the background on multiple pages eats CPU cycles??? Oh noes! Geez, I wonder how Jobs' little darling, HTML5, will manage to do animations without using any CPU power?

I swear every day it's another retarded "report" about something equally as retarded.

Branding (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131524)

Wonder how much battery life is wasted by the stupid glowing apple logo on the lid?

Re:Branding (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131562)

I would think they are just letting some of the light leak through from the panel backlight, if not then a tiny amount as it would just be an LED or two.

Re:Branding (3, Funny)

LSDelirious (1569065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131588)

Everyone knows the glowing Apple logo is powered by a Mac user's smug sense of superiority!

Rick Romero here with Breaking News (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131544)

Rick Romero here with Breaking News:
Water is wet, Flash eats CPU power and bears do in fact shit in the woods.

Kill Manually (5, Interesting)

crf00 (1048098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131592)

Every time I have used Flash on my Ubuntu, mostly for playing videos, I must manually use the `top` and `kill` command or Chrome's task manager to manually kill the npviewer.bin process. Flash always eats more than 50% of my CPU even long after I have closed all web pages using Flash, only killing it will bring my CPU back to idle and shuts off the noisy laptop fan. There is huge difference in power consumption between an idle CPU and running CPU, that's why for laptop it is best to keep the CPU idle most of the time to save power.

Now having to kill the Flash process manually is not user friendly at all. I'd imagine that average joes can't do anything on it and have no idea that Flash is the one that causing their laptop fan spinning, heating up, and soaking battery powers.

Re:Kill Manually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131760)

This isn't too dissimilar to windows or mac, where MANY MAAANY flash applications can quite easily cause crashes/deadlocks in the plugin process, which the browser tends to attempt to kill and dispose of - however quite often the process lingers until you kill it (or in some cases, have to reboot in Vista/Win7).

After an up-time of a measly 3 days, I often see 5-6 plugin-container.exe's (or equivalents if I'm using chrome, or mac) just hanging around taking up ~20mb of ram (and unless it's quicktime or Java - the only other culprit is flash (far more likely)).

Re:Kill Manually (2, Interesting)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131772)

Yes! Flash on Linux sucks beyond belief! Beyond measure! Beyond any reasonable criterion of practicality! Sucks, sucks, SUCKS!

Surely at least one Adobe geek is reading this. Please tell someone at Adobe, please! I know your development cycles are about 40 years long, but please, at least get it on the change request list! Please!

Re:Kill Manually (2, Informative)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131774)

That's similar to FF's new 'IPC Plugin Container' thing. It launches a second process to run Flash, Silverlight, and other web-media. It's poorly implemented, so it was a relief that you can disable it entirely in about:config. I haven't seen any performance or battery issues on my PC since.

I know I'm going to get "Flamebait" .... (0, Flamebait)

Quixotic Raindrop (443129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131606)

But this is a no-brainer. Seriously, the only people who think having Flash installed *at all* is a good idea are people who have no brains, namely Adobe and a handful of lazy web developers. Flash is just, exactly, precisely, no-doubt-about-it as retarded as Steve Jobs said ... only I've been saying it since a long time ago, he's just got a bigger platform than I do to evangelize against that steaming pile of crap that is Flash.

Re:I know I'm going to get "Flamebait" .... (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131730)

Seriously, the only people who think having Flash installed *at all* is a good idea are people who have no brains, namely Adobe and a handful of lazy web developers.

Well of course that's flamebait. There's a huge number of lazy web developers who think Flash is a good idea.

Re:I know I'm going to get "Flamebait" .... (1)

Quixotic Raindrop (443129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131806)

Touché.

Re:I know I'm going to get "Flamebait" .... (2, Insightful)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131752)

You think saying the people who have the software installed that is necessary to view half the video on the web have no brains might be flamebait?

Gee, really?

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/html5_video_market_penetration.php [readwriteweb.com]

and you've been saying it since a long time ago?

So you just don't believe in online video at all, then.

Re:I know I'm going to get "Flamebait" .... (1)

Quixotic Raindrop (443129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131798)

QuickTime, H.264, WMV, all work fine without flash. Why is flash necessary for online video, exactly?

Re:I know I'm going to get "Flamebait" .... (1, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131818)

Those who have it are the majority, those who don't are the minority. I'm sorry Big Steve was so butthurt that he couldn't get an agreement working with Adobe for his iToys and Flash. The fact is that if you want to reach the most people possible with rich web content, Flash is the current solution. HTML5 is iffy and buggy, and JavaScript is slow and old.

Jobs and Apple want to decry Flash and say "It's a hog, it's inferior!" but they have yet to propose one acceptable substitute. "Turn it off and browse with static images only, 90s-style!" is not the answer I'm looking for.

Those savages (0, Redundant)

alangerow (610060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131630)

And how much battery life does the LCD screen rob? I bet OSX robs the battery of quite a bit of life, too. In fact, the entire laptop is a savage murderer of battery life!

Re:Those savages (1)

LSDelirious (1569065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131644)

Seriously imagine how much thinner the Macbook Air could be without a screen!

Re:Those savages (2, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131684)

Introducing:
The Macbook Shuffle: This Changes Everything Including the Magic!

Re:Those savages (2, Funny)

LSDelirious (1569065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131710)

thinner than air.... Introducing the MacBook Vacuum

Just blame apple (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131682)

Its what all the kids are doing.

I don't even have it installed on my laptop, i don't miss it a bit.

Flash is past its sell by date (2, Insightful)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131728)

Flash was fine back in the days when users kept only one or two browser windows open but now that everyone has tens or hundreds of tabs/windows open at any one time the CPU cost for Flash is too much to pay. Partly this is a problem with the way browsers work where every tab/window executes all plugins whether or not the tab/window has focus, but partly this is a design problem because even though the day of one or two windows/tabs are long gone, web designers still populate every page with as much bouncy, blinky annoying bullshit as possible as if they and only they had any right to my CPU.

Just another good reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131740)

to get a PC. :) The battery life on my laptop when running flash seems to be great.

Life without walls.

In other news... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131744)

I've written a program that constantly finds different permutations of Steve Jobs experiencing self-awareness. However, while running the program, my Macbook Air's battery life drops by nearly 50%. So I suppose I should write an article titled "Steve Jobs cuts Macbook Air battery by half." or some such drivel.

Or I could just turn off the program when I don't need it. But then I couldn't make inflammatory headlines, and that wouldn't be nearly as fun.

FYI: Updated Flash released today. (4, Informative)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131866)

V10.1.102.64 to fix security bugs and not the battery life and CPU issue. ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...