Isn't it obviously because it's playing content? Of course that's going to use CPU cycles and more RAM. I don't think he was suggesting that simply having Flash installed is going to slow down the browser when there is no Flash content on the pages.
Flash has always been, well, flashy! by nature. On every Windows O/S since 98 you wait and you wait to see if they can fine tune it to perform without gumming down CPU Cycles and since I worked with a ton of flash files over the years I have to say there is some truth to it's weight problem but in addition the maddening nature of rookie website owners (yes corporates mainstream) (like News Sites) gum up their entire layout with flash like laying a ton of bricks on them IMO. Thanks Lone Ranger for the article for whatever it's worth to some.
Yes I agree. I have to say that it also differs per site, on YouTube CPU usage is not really high, but on others it's unacceptable. I also hate the Flash Container used by Firefox, it's retarded.
BTW, what is the CPU usage that you guys get on this site? http://www.airpano.ru/files/Amsterdam-Netherlands/2-2
I've just tested the page with Process Lasso reporting CPU rate on an average of around 28% with min=13 and max=44 on perhaps a 60 seconds period. Note : HTML5 here, I kicked out Flash 2 weeks ago. EDIT : I returned to the page to view it rather than its CPU hungriness : lovely, technically well done with the expression of Dutch artistic skills included (Arts takes a great place in Dutch culture, not only coffee shops!) -- Beautiful A'dam -- Thanks for the link, favored.
I didn't even know that it also worked with HTML5. So apparently HTML5 is just as "heavy". But anyway, I'm getting different readings, Process Explorer says 45%, while System Explorer says 30%, there's something seriously wrong with CPU time measurement on multicore CPU's.
Those indications are punctual when the rates follow the stream. You need an average. 45% may have been a peek and 30% an intermediary value... I guess it must be somewhat the same with Flash and HTML5, around 28-30% -- In fact I never really noticed any difference in CPU requisition between the two.
Well, this is something that has always bothered me, CPU measuring tools all seem to give different readings on multicore CPU's, trust me I have tested this with quite a few tools. I'm not a big fan of my hometown Amsterdam, other cities look a lot better. But yes, it doesn't look too bad when seen from the sky.
The tools didn't measure the CPU at the same time, that's all. It's seldom that anyone is a fan of his hometown! I visited the place, spent two years living there, almost got married there as well... life (me included) decided differently and back I went to ... my hometown!
No you misunderstood, both Process Explorer and System Explorer give different readings, even when the system is idle, you can test it for yourself. Same goes for the Win Task Manager, so who to trust? I have no idea. I do like living here, but it's simply not as good looking, as other cities like Barcelona, Stockholm and New York for example. I think it's mostly about architecture.
Strange. I've ran again the Amsterdam page with both Sysinternal's Process Explorer and Windows' Task Manager side by side and results were in the same ranges at a same given time, even if Process Explorer has a "2 digit after comma" precision (don't know how to say that in English) and scans I believe with a shorter cycle (maybe every 0.5second as opposed to maybe every 1.00second for Task Manager. They retrieve the cpu rate from the same source as I understand it (PerfProc and PerfOS counters) but display the values with slightly different intervals ... I'm no specialist so if any are around : please correct me if applicable ... Anyway, we're not going to create a buzz on this, are we?
When I rotate an image, CPU jumps to between 40 - 65+ for a couple of seconds, then back to between 0 - 4. ---- rich
I'm getting between 30 and 45%, I guess it also depends on the CPU. Interesting article. I do hope that HTML5 video will be improved a lot, it's the only way to kill Flash. Here's an article about the death of the horrible Silverlight: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/microsoft_silverlight/
Not to my experience... not even close. I find it more responsive, convenient, light, and secure than Flash on XP Pro SP3.
firefox is running on my linux computer extremely well with no issues,but i am currently using v11.2 of the adobe flash with no updates in the forseeable future ,the only reason i still have flash installed is for flash games,.