«

In article <k9u54n$qvt$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:

> | > You shouldn't believe things just because Apple
> | > marketing tells you so.
> |
> | they didn't. apple didn't tell me anything.
>
> No, you just happen to have adamant opinions
> that are always in accord with the Apple view.

not always, and if i do, it's not because they told me. it's because it
mirrors reality.

> Just as you push $300 SSDs over $50 HDDs as
> the *only* way to go. Pure Apple fan logic.

i don't push anything and you are also misrepresenting what i said.

what i said was that ssd is replacing hard drives, and it is.

a lot of computers now come with ssd standard. others offer it as an
option. this trend is going to continue. however, hard drives will
still be useful for large assets such as video, photo or music
libraries.

furthermore, your prices are wrong, but regardless, even though it is
more expensive for the same capacity, it's also worlds faster. in other
words, the extra money is a nice little upgrade in performance.

> | adobe themselves announced mobile flash is dead, and that was nearly a
> | *year* ago.
> |
> | flash is gone from android jelly bean
> | ....performance was usually very poor.
>
> Mobile? The discussion was about computers and
> the expected life of Flash, not just on mobile. All of
> your references are to mobile.

i said mobile flash is dead, which it is. adobe has ceased development
on it. it doesn't get any deader than that.

that's when you jumped in telling me how i am blindly following apple's
mantra, even though adobe themselves have killed it off.

i never said desktop flash is dead. desktop flash is not dead, *yet*.

it will be soon, however. desktop flash *is* going away, whether you
like it or not, and if you can't see that, then you are blind to what
is happening in the industry.

even adobe sees the writing on the wall, which is why they released
html5 tools.

<http://www.pcworld.com/article/23704...u_need_to_know.
html>
Edge is a new web development tool from Adobe that makes it easy to
create animations and interactive websites with HTML5, the latest
revision of HTML. HTML5 tries to add the interaction and multimedia
we've come to expect from the web without forcing users to download
plug-ins such as Microsoft Silverlight or Adobe Flash.

> Most video online uses Flash because it provides
> a way to obfuscate the file source so that people
> can't easily download the actual file.

no, most video *was* flash because of the availability of tools to
create flash content and to create flash based web sites.

that's changed. html5 tools are available, including from adobe!

it's also trivial to download a flash based video file. that's hardly a
reason. there are even plugins to make it *very* easy.

> IE 10 (Win
> even has it built in.

but only for windows desktop. metro doesn't, nor does windows phone.

> Flash is also used a lot in
> advertising animation.

which means that not having flash blocks annoying ads. that's a plus!

> Sites won't stop using Flash
> to stream video unless they can hide the file path.

i hate to break it to you but they *already* *have*, and started doing
that long ago.

> On mobile the situation is different. There's not only
> limited processing power; there's also limited access
> by the person using it, which will make it easier to
> prevent people from downloading video directly.

it's nowhere near as limited as you think. the cpus and gpus in mobile
devices can handle video quite well, including 1080p.

there are also numerous apps that can download videos on mobile devices.

you are very out of touch.

> | most sites these days offer an html5 version when
> | there is no flash installed
>
> Most sites? I'm running late-model Mozilla with no
> Flash. I can't see video unless someone offers the
> file download. I can get YouTube videos only because
> I have the DownloadHelper extension. I don't see
> any HTML5 VIDEO tags on their site.

then you're doing something wrong. youtube has supported html5 for a
couple of years.

youtube also works on iphones, ipod touches and ipads, from the very
first one iphone june, 2007 and none of them have flash.

> Maybe Flash will eventually be phased out. But it's
> been an insecure problem for many years now and it's
> still there. It seems rather glib to flaunt predictions
> about how soon it's going to die.

better tell adobe that. adobe has already ceased work on mobile flash
and they are slowly moving away from desktop flash. as i mentioned
above, they have their own html5 tools.

| > No, you just happen to have adamant opinions
| > that are always in accord with the Apple view.
|
| not always, and if i do, it's not because they told me. it's because it
| mirrors reality.
|

Spoken like a true Apple devotee.



| > Just as you push $300 SSDs over $50 HDDs as
| > the *only* way to go. Pure Apple fan logic.
|
| furthermore, your prices are wrong

From Tigerdirect today:

AT3-480G 480GB Solid State Drive
$329.99 (currently with a $40 rebate)

WD Blue WD5000AAKX 500GB Desktop Hard Drive
$79.99, discounted to $59.99

I'm sure there are other price ratios, but SSDs
are clearly far more expensive.

| even adobe sees the writing on the wall, which is why they released
| html5 tools.
|

Adobe is hedging their bets. Personally I'd love
to see Flash die. (For that matter, I'd love to see
Acrobat Reader die, too.) But the other factor at
play is that Adobe, Microsoft, Apple all do their best
to get the biggest possible market and lock it in.
Adobe has used both Flash and Acrobat Reader
to establish their products as norms. Both products
have been distributed so widely that it's allowed
Adobe to render them as Web standards. They'll give
that up if they have to, but only then. It was the
same with MS and ActiveX, with competing office
document formats, with competing audio/video formats,
etc. The big operators all talk about cross-compatibility,
but none really wants it.

Fortunately, at least, Microsoft's Silverlight and Adobe's
Air seem to be good and dead. Those were threatening
to turn web sites into fullscale software.

| > IE 10 (Win
| > even has it built in.
|
| but only for windows desktop. metro doesn't...

Actually, it does.
It's built in to both. On Win8, if necessary, a page
will be switched to the Win8 IE version instead of the
Metro IE version. On WinRT, where there's only the
Metro version, Flash is still there but sites have to
apply to be whitelisted. That's not because Flash
is irrelevant. It's because Flash is a threat to battery
life on tablets.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx

You have to see it in context. WinRT and tablets
in general are running with limited processors and
limited power. WinRT doesn't allow any compiled
software at all. Windows Store "apps" are browser-
based trinkets running with limited functionality in
a sandbox. The fact that MS arranged to make an
exception for Flash on WinRT is an indicator of just
how disruptive it would be to remove it.

| which means that not having flash blocks annoying ads. that's a plus!
|

As I said, I agree and I would never install Flash
myself. But what will happen in the future is not
subject to my opinion... or even yours.

On 07/12/2012 23:03, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
> Windows is about once every two weeks on the average.
>
> Then there is Adobe with updates for PDF
>
> McAfee anti-virus.
>
> Firefox
>
> Java
>
> iTunes
>
> ... the list goes on.
[]

Here, Windows is monthly. It's unusual to have updates between the
monthly patch Tuesdays. My MSE anti-virus and Firefox updates happen
transparently and don't require reboots.

Sounds like you need software which is more update friendly!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 08/12/2012 08:33, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
>> Here, Windows is monthly.
>
> It seems to depend on what version you have got. Come to think of it,
> MS has been very quiet lately. Maybe they have been too busy with 8.
>
>> It's unusual to have updates between the
>> monthly patch Tuesdays. My MSE anti-virus and Firefox updates happen
>> transparently and don't require reboots.
>>
>> Sounds like you need software which is more update friendly!
>
> Don't we all?
>
> Last night I found there had been a new version of iTunes downloaded.
> Not only did I have to install it but I had to work out how it worked.

Yes, as we said before, Apple forces you to work its way. We already
discussed this in relation to deleting multiple photo albums.

What an awful piece of software iTunes is! I like the new interface
even less than the old - too much is hidden - and the poor core
functionality remains unchanged.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor <david-> wrote:
>On 07/12/2012 13:39, Anthony Polson wrote:
>[]
>> The one that really annoys me is Adobe Flash. Updates seem to come in
>> clusters over a few days with a longer gap to the next cluster.
>>
>> I guess that the second and subsequent updates in each cluster are to
>> fix bugs in the first. The bugs seem to be many and Flash has to be
>> the least stable piece of code that I have ever used.
>
>You will be pleased that HTML5 is gradually replacing Flash, then!


Yes and no. Yes, because HTML5 will be more stable. No, because
there are so many sites out there that still rely on Flash. I am glad
that my smartphone runs Android OS because I can enjoy Flash sites
that my partner's iPhone 4 will not display.

In article <k9ufdu$ajt$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:

> | > Just as you push $300 SSDs over $50 HDDs as
> | > the *only* way to go. Pure Apple fan logic.
> |
> | furthermore, your prices are wrong
>
> From Tigerdirect today:
>
> AT3-480G 480GB Solid State Drive
> $329.99 (currently with a $40 rebate)
>
> WD Blue WD5000AAKX 500GB Desktop Hard Drive
> $79.99, discounted to $59.99
>
> I'm sure there are other price ratios, but SSDs
> are clearly far more expensive.

you are picking one of the most expensive ssds.

try a more common size, such as 128 gig, which is probably the current
sweet spot. i also included 256 gig because it's not that much more
money.

don't forget you get *significantly* better performance with ssd. it
boils down to speed versus capacity.

from tiger direct:
128 ssd, $114
<http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...details.asp?Ed
pNo=2192690&Sku=S153-0121>
256 gig ssd, $189
<http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...details.asp?Ed
pNo=2983951&CatId=5300>

160 gig hard drive, $54
<http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...details.asp?Ed
pNo=1896551&CatId=2681>

> | even adobe sees the writing on the wall, which is why they released
> | html5 tools.
>
> Adobe is hedging their bets.

no they're not. adobe knows flash is going away and that html5 is the
future.

> Personally I'd love
> to see Flash die.

then you should be thanking apple for being one of the first to say no
to it and pushing for non-proprietary industry standards.

by the way, there was no flash for mobile when the iphone came out, so
apple couldn't have had flash on it even if they wanted to. mobile
flash came out in 2010. the iphone came out in 2007.

mobile flash was also 'shockingly bad' on a nexus one when it came out:
<http://gigaom.com/video/video-flash-on-android-is-startlingly-bad/>

> (For that matter, I'd love to see
> Acrobat Reader die, too.)

there's no need for acrobat reader. pdf is an open standard.

pdf is also a native format in os x and many apps can read and write it
directly. in fact, because it's a native format, it's trivial to add
pdf support to an os x or ios app.

> But the other factor at
> play is that Adobe, Microsoft, Apple all do their best
> to get the biggest possible market and lock it in.

apple pushes open standards such as html5, mpeg 4, h.264, etc.

compare that to microsoft and adobe, who push proprietary and closed
standards such as windows media and flash.

> Adobe has used both Flash and Acrobat Reader
> to establish their products as norms. Both products
> have been distributed so widely that it's allowed
> Adobe to render them as Web standards.

nope.

pdf is an industry standard and has been for years. acrobat reader is
not required.

on the other hand, flash *is* proprietary.

> They'll give
> that up if they have to, but only then. It was the
> same with MS and ActiveX, with competing office
> document formats, with competing audio/video formats,
> etc. The big operators all talk about cross-compatibility,
> but none really wants it.

see above.

> Fortunately, at least, Microsoft's Silverlight and Adobe's
> Air seem to be good and dead. Those were threatening
> to turn web sites into fullscale software.

silverlight is dead. air is not that dead but it is not exactly major
growth either.

> | > IE 10 (Win
> | > even has it built in.
> |
> | but only for windows desktop. metro doesn't...
>
> Actually, it does.
> It's built in to both. On Win8, if necessary, a page
> will be switched to the Win8 IE version instead of the
> Metro IE version. On WinRT, where there's only the
> Metro version, Flash is still there but sites have to
> apply to be whitelisted.

in other words, it doesn't do flash, but there are a few exceptions. if
a site isn't on the whitelist, you're stuck.

> That's not because Flash
> is irrelevant. It's because Flash is a threat to battery
> life on tablets.

that's not the only reason.

<http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...-browsing-and-
plug-in-free-html5.aspx>
For the web to move forward and for consumers to get the most out of
touch-first browsing, the Metro style browser in Windows 8 is as
HTML5-only as possible, and plug-in free. The experience that
plug-ins provide today is not a good match with Metro style browsing
and the modern HTML5 web.

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx
>
> You have to see it in context. WinRT and tablets
> in general are running with limited processors and
> limited power. WinRT doesn't allow any compiled
> software at all.

nonsense. it's compiled for arm, not x86.

> Windows Store "apps" are browser-
> based trinkets running with limited functionality in
> a sandbox.

nonsense. they are in a sandbox (a good thing) but they are not
'browser-based trinkets.'

> The fact that MS arranged to make an
> exception for Flash on WinRT is an indicator of just
> how disruptive it would be to remove it.

it's not disruptive at all.

> | which means that not having flash blocks annoying ads. that's a plus!
> |
>
> As I said, I agree and I would never install Flash
> myself. But what will happen in the future is not
> subject to my opinion... or even yours.

it's not opinion. flash is going away. that's the *reality*.

if you can't see that then i don't know what to tell you.

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> > Flash needs to be killed.
> > It hogs the CPU, poses security risks
>
> Why would HTML5 video not hog the CPU

because it uses industry standard codecs that have hardware support,
either by running on the gpu or with a hardware decoder.

> and not pose security risks?

because it's not proprietary and controlled by one company.

> It would be nice if HTML5 was widespread because of all those additional
> things you can do with it, but at the moment (and this has been going on
> for years), browser support is very, very limited and the rate of
> progress is painfully slow.

it's not limited at all and browser support is very widespread. it has
been for years and progress is not slow.

according to this, all modern browsers support html5 video. that's
about as widespread as it gets. the only browsers that don't are older
versions of internet explorer (no surprise there).
<http://www.longtailvideo.com/html5/>

according to this, support for other aspects of html5 is also very good:
<http://speckycdn.sdm.netdna-cdn.com/...12/03/chart1.p
ng>

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> The problem with HTML5 is poor browser support. Different browsers
> supporting different, very limited HTML5 featuresets. No point adding
> HTML5 elements to web pages right now, because you'd have to make non-
> HTML5 alternatives available and check if the browser supports or not
> specific features. Quite complicated and probably not worth the effort.

completely wrong.

html5 support is very widespread. even internet explorer supports it.
see my other post for details.

In article <k9uv7j$8uk$>, David Taylor
<david-> wrote:

> > Last night I found there had been a new version of iTunes downloaded.
> > Not only did I have to install it but I had to work out how it worked.
>
> Yes, as we said before, Apple forces you to work its way.

releasing a new itunes update is not forcing anyone to work its way any
more than releasing a new update for any other app.

microsoft forces you to work their way with internet explorer, office,
etc.

| > Flash needs to be killed.
| > It hogs the CPU, poses security risks
|
| Why would HTML5 video not hog the CPU

I think he's talking about hogging the limited
power and battery life of tablets. But you make
a relevant point in general. I recently updated
Pale Moon, a "lightweight" version of Firefox. It's
using 60 MB of RAM just to sit there.

Extreme use of javascript in HTML for interactive
pages and online services has made webpage
rendering far more demanding than it used to be.
That's the "big new" change, more so than HTML 5.
HTML 5 is mainly the addition of tags to HTML for
multimedia and changes to adapt to highly interactive
pages:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html

If you view the source code of a webpage and see
this at the top: <!DOCTYPE html> then it's HTML 5.
It won't look so different from HTML 4.

There have been HTML methods to embed sound
and video in the past. HTML5 just tries to integrate
the whole thing better, with player plugins built into
the browser.

The big change, whether pre-HTML5 or post-HTML5
has been heavy use of javascript for extreme
interactiveness, with the ability to spy, track, display
targetted ads dynamically, respond smoothly to user
input without having to reload the page, etc. Commercial
online services are stretching script to its limits, while
browser makers continue to improve script parsing, in
an attempt to make pages highly interactive. Many pages
that used to be 40-60 KB might now be 200-300 KB.
Jquery, a popular javascript library, is about 100 KB by
itself. That is, the script has been getting so complex
that people are using pre-written scripts of 100 KB, outside
of the actual webpage, and then calling functions in those
external scripts. When you go to Google it looks like a
very simple webpage, but it's become closer to software.
The HTML is minimal compared to the amount of script
they're using.

| ...and not pose security risks?
|
HTML 5 does pose security risks. But it's not really
the HTML part that we're talking about. Flash, Acrobat Reader
and Java have all been common security risks. In HTML 5,
browser plugins provide video play. And as nospam pointed
out, even Adobe is working on trying to package script and
CSS functionality to mimic Flash cartoons, in case support
for Flash sours. All of that is high risk. It all boils down to
the same thing. Script is the main risk. Interactiveness is risky,
because it requires some kind of executable software.
Interactiveness almost always requires script. Flash just
provides additional "attack vectors".

No one wants to face those facts. Commercial websites
want to provide a highly functional software interface. They
want interactive-TV services that you'll pay for. Likewise,
people want to shop, set preferences, Facebook, watch
video in a webpage, etc. Security and privacy can *never*
be adequate in that scenario.

The original purpose of script was to do simple, dynamic
things like making a button glow when the mouse is over it.
(Much of that functionality is now possible with CSS.)
Webpages were originally designed for static display. HTML
has been stretched far beyond the original intention by
stretching javascript to do things *it* was never intended
to do.

Java, Flash (and ActiveX controls...Flash is ActiveX in IE)
were early attempts to embed software in webpages. People
are still trying to do that in one way or another. Not to defend
Flash, but it's been a problem for years and much of its use
is for annoying animations that no one wants to see in the
firs place. No one would be singling it out now if Steve Jobs
hadn't publicly added the issue to his official religious doctrine.