It's the age old cycle. Manufacturers increase processing power and bandwidth and developers find way to hog every last drop of resources so that the overall speed never really increases
Why does Amiga STILL not have flash playing capability in Web Browsers!
- Thread starter Tejekion
- Start date
- Replies 33
- Views 1525
It's the age old cycle. Manufacturers increase processing power and bandwidth and developers find way to hog every last drop of resources so that the overall speed never really increases
Yes it is
, plain CPU is not enough to handle it. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/adobe-flash-10.1-performance-hardware-acceleration,review-32096-4.html
This is why I find Firefox add-ons like Flashblock and NoScript to be very handy. Obnoxious Flash nonsense (on the machines I have that even have Flash available to them; Thankfully it completely ignores my ARM gear) and auto-playing videos never get a chance, with those in town.
Last edited:
I think that the reason why Flash doesn't exist for the Amiga is because the Amiga runs fine as it is.
I would probably agree that the Amiga could do with an online blog document structure similar to the internet, which offers online shopping, videos, games and services, but it could probably do with being designed with the Amiga and Amiga users in mind.
Aminet+?
I would probably agree that the Amiga could do with an online blog document structure similar to the internet, which offers online shopping, videos, games and services, but it could probably do with being designed with the Amiga and Amiga users in mind.
Aminet+?
Last edited by a moderator:
i think some amiga sites years ago did used to do that,but it was painful to use because it was mainly dialup at the time.using avi's or mov's i think.
memory is a bit vague on that though..
i think amiga format and cu amiga tried something along those lines every month or so on the cd's
and added a few browsers to try out as well.via the cd's to use offline.
some interesting stuff.
Last edited:
I used to love getting the monthly Amiga magazine CDs so I could play around with the latest Amiga browsers and look through all the website content they had archived onto the CD for readers to look at offline. At the time not that many people were online and I definitely wasn't at home until 1998. All I had was access to the fast internet at university at the time (1MB/s in 1998 was amazing and still faster than many people's broadband today).
Regarding Flash, I have been a Flash developer since the first Macromedia Flash 3 came out and loved the software in its early days, and on to version 4 and the birth of Actionscript. At the time I was a Multimedia Director developer, mostly making quite heavyweight CD based interactive presentations for business to business presentations, and Flash was the first platform to truly offer similar capabilities as Director, but online in a browser. This was quite amazing at the time. The difference is that back in the 90's when Flash was launched most people had 56K dialup internet and good developers become very good at optimising their code and graphics to load quickly on low bandwidth. Flash workd well in these early days on 68K Macs and Pentium 2 PCs. The bad press Flash received came later when Macs and PCs started to get more powerful with the P4 and PPC processors. A lot of developers got very lazy or just didn't have a clue about optimising their code and graphics, because they had broadband and a faster CPU so didn't care or realise than many didn't have these and their Flash files were bringing webpages to their knees on home users computers trying to load the SWF files.
And this is the whole problem more recently. Most people are clueless, lazy or both! They don't optimise graphics, they don't optimise and test code. The make something and if it works locally on their computer they consider it done and just throw it online. This isn't Adobe's problem, it is those developing on the software and creating bad code and bloated assets within the flash files that crash or slow down the Flash player on any platform trying to run the files. Sadly this has backfired onto Adobe with everyone blaming them, instead of the lazy people creating the bloated unoptimised flash files.
And no. HTML 5 is not a replacement for Flash.. it can only currently achieve about 5% of the features and abilities of Flash. But for the majority of things most people actually used Flash for HTML 5 can be used as a replacement. But I bet they still don't optimise their projects and even that ends up a bloated mess.
My biggest hate online is people's lack of consideration for the content they upload. Everyone needs to optimise. Even if you are just uploading an image to a forum please don't try to attach the image directly from your camera. This will be 3000+ pixels wide and 10+MB in size. Even most people's broadband can't cope with these very well, and most monitors can't display more than a 1000 pixel image fullscreen so why bother? Reduce and optimise your images people. 800 pixels wide and 300KB should be the limit. It drives me mad.
As for the Amiga running Flash.. forget it. It was never fast enough to play an SWF flash file. The Amiga just doesn't have the processing power to do it. Flash never ran smoothly on anything less than a 400MHz P2 or 333MHz PPC Mac back in the 90's so thinking you could run it on a 50MHz 030 Amiga is never going to happen. The hardware on the Amiga was already years out of date before Flash arrived.
- - - Updated - - -
That isn't 100% true. FLA is closed source, so software developers can't see how the actual FLA files used during the development of a project work (and hence how Flash itself works), but the resulting SWF files have not been closed source for some years now. Adobe made the SWF format opensource a long time ago so that other software developers could add the ability to output/save their projects as SWF files. The release of SWF was the reason sites like Youtube suddenly appeared, using the SWF filetype to run their videos.
Alternative players exist.
Firstly look at the open source library gameswf http://tulrich.com/textweb.pl?path=geekstuff/gameswf.txt
And then some of the alternative players such as:
Gnash; http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/
LightSpark; http://lightspark.github.io/
Unity Web Player (I think this has now evolved from an alternative content player into a games development platform utilising flash technology); http://unity3d.com/webplayer/
Regarding Flash, I have been a Flash developer since the first Macromedia Flash 3 came out and loved the software in its early days, and on to version 4 and the birth of Actionscript. At the time I was a Multimedia Director developer, mostly making quite heavyweight CD based interactive presentations for business to business presentations, and Flash was the first platform to truly offer similar capabilities as Director, but online in a browser. This was quite amazing at the time. The difference is that back in the 90's when Flash was launched most people had 56K dialup internet and good developers become very good at optimising their code and graphics to load quickly on low bandwidth. Flash workd well in these early days on 68K Macs and Pentium 2 PCs. The bad press Flash received came later when Macs and PCs started to get more powerful with the P4 and PPC processors. A lot of developers got very lazy or just didn't have a clue about optimising their code and graphics, because they had broadband and a faster CPU so didn't care or realise than many didn't have these and their Flash files were bringing webpages to their knees on home users computers trying to load the SWF files.
And this is the whole problem more recently. Most people are clueless, lazy or both! They don't optimise graphics, they don't optimise and test code. The make something and if it works locally on their computer they consider it done and just throw it online. This isn't Adobe's problem, it is those developing on the software and creating bad code and bloated assets within the flash files that crash or slow down the Flash player on any platform trying to run the files. Sadly this has backfired onto Adobe with everyone blaming them, instead of the lazy people creating the bloated unoptimised flash files.
And no. HTML 5 is not a replacement for Flash.. it can only currently achieve about 5% of the features and abilities of Flash. But for the majority of things most people actually used Flash for HTML 5 can be used as a replacement. But I bet they still don't optimise their projects and even that ends up a bloated mess.
My biggest hate online is people's lack of consideration for the content they upload. Everyone needs to optimise. Even if you are just uploading an image to a forum please don't try to attach the image directly from your camera. This will be 3000+ pixels wide and 10+MB in size. Even most people's broadband can't cope with these very well, and most monitors can't display more than a 1000 pixel image fullscreen so why bother? Reduce and optimise your images people. 800 pixels wide and 300KB should be the limit. It drives me mad.
As for the Amiga running Flash.. forget it. It was never fast enough to play an SWF flash file. The Amiga just doesn't have the processing power to do it. Flash never ran smoothly on anything less than a 400MHz P2 or 333MHz PPC Mac back in the 90's so thinking you could run it on a 50MHz 030 Amiga is never going to happen. The hardware on the Amiga was already years out of date before Flash arrived.
- - - Updated - - -
That isn't 100% true. FLA is closed source, so software developers can't see how the actual FLA files used during the development of a project work (and hence how Flash itself works), but the resulting SWF files have not been closed source for some years now. Adobe made the SWF format opensource a long time ago so that other software developers could add the ability to output/save their projects as SWF files. The release of SWF was the reason sites like Youtube suddenly appeared, using the SWF filetype to run their videos.
Alternative players exist.
Firstly look at the open source library gameswf http://tulrich.com/textweb.pl?path=geekstuff/gameswf.txt
And then some of the alternative players such as:
Gnash; http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/
LightSpark; http://lightspark.github.io/
Unity Web Player (I think this has now evolved from an alternative content player into a games development platform utilising flash technology); http://unity3d.com/webplayer/
Well that is true about absolutely everything about every computer featured on this board. You are aware this place is not dedicated to duel core Pentium PCs running W8, aren't you? This board is for the sort of person who is still struggling to make yesterday's technology work in tomorrow's world.
--------------------------
Gee, I like those last sixteen words, I'm not usually that linguistically clever. I think I'll copyright them and make them my motto or mission statement, or something!
Ah yes, Flash... I resent Youtube the most for becoming such a hog. You could easily play YT videos on a 2GHz Athlon XP 5-6 years ago. That and forced commercials which are really ****ing me off so much that I'm considering abandoning YT all together.
Use AdBlockPlus and NoScript, i've never seen an ad on Facebook or Youtube yet.
Does that block the ads which are shown right before your chosen video?
Sent from my GT-I9082 using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-I9082 using Tapatalk
Yes, it does. I actually didn't know that they even existed, until recently. 
Last edited:
commodorejohn
Shameless recidivist
With almost 100% success, yes. I didn't even realize how bad YouTube ads had gotten until I saw my coworker watching stuff on a box without NoScript and AdBlock.
There is a simple answer to main question and no matter how I love Amiga and maybe it will hurt but it is true: because Amiga is old piece of .... and there are much better computers for this purpose, like PC for example 
.
.