Windows Phone 7 will have copy & paste! And more WP7 Defence.

Search This thread

rorytmeadows

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2008
2,408
222
Charleston, SC metro area
Are you kidding me?

Have you ever done ANY web design, at all?

It's bad enough that you have to develop for IE 5/6/7/8, Gecko, Presto, and Webkit (and possibly a plethora of mobile quirks), but now you want everything to be redeveloped HTML5 and Flash?

How about Steve Jobs stops being such a baby, and stops trying to tyrannically impose his viewpoints on his customers? He's a businessman, NOT an evangelist. It's not as though Flash on the iPhone would inconvenience him -- he wouldn't be developing it, Adobe would -- it would merely inconvenience his worldview...

...but that's not why people purportedly get into business...

...they get into business to get rich[er].

Let him be. He's obviously in brainwashed bliss.
 

MooGoo

Senior Member
Sep 24, 2007
229
0
HTML5 and Flash are NOTHING alike. When people compare the two, they are really only comparing HTML5's <video> element to video players programed in Flash (yes there is <canvas> but that is not what this debate is about).

Honestly the less Flash on the web the better. Most of the stupid animations that Flash is capable of can be handled easily by cross-browser Javascript libraries that are widely available these days. There is absolutely no reason to use Flash to implement website interface elements such as navbars, much less the entire site. The only sites that still seem to do this are ones that advertise new movies and music albums to easily impressed consumers. Good riddance.

Flash really is a slow, bloated, unstable mess of software and the sooner it is gone from the Internet the better. HOWEVER, that is no reason to not support something that is so wide spread. Yes it feels good to give Flash the shaft, but you know what else would feel pretty good? Dropping all support for every version of Internet Explorer below 8. This would be heaven for web designers, IE6-7 has been making their lives hell for almost 10 years now. But despite this, for any serious website dropping support for older versions of IE would be suicide (yes we can see the light at the end of the tunnel at least for IE6, one day, one day...).

So we keep supporting it, without making lame excuses about how it is not open or some such.

Speaking of which, coming from Apple, that statement is pretty rich. This is a company that has for years been pushing their proprietary QuickTime mov format that can only be played on what is probably the worst video player software in existence. If you had the misfortune of installing this horrendous piece of bloat/spamware, you will be pleasantly surprised to find a useless Q icon in your system tray always helpfully informing you that an update is available (yes a lot of software does this now, but Apple was one of the first, innovative as always). Hell, you'll be lucky to come away from the experience without Safari being installed and becoming your default browser. And even if you could stomach all that, the video player itself is absolutely terrible. Remember that for years Apple wanted you to buy the Pro version just so you could have the incredible ability to play your videos in fullscreen. FULLSCREEN. I'll give Steve Jobs one thing, he's got some serious balls.

Apple would just love it if the entire Internet was using mov files and QuickTime instead of Flash. I'm sure they would license it to no one so everyone would be required to use their innovative products to do trivial tasks.

No matter what Steve Jobs would like to think in his happy little bubble, Flash is still a significant part of the web, for better or worse. Not being able to watch 90% of the videos embeded in websites is a significant handicap for browsing with mobile phones. Up to this point it has not mattered much because even phones that have some form of Flash installed could barley play the videos anyway. Now that we see a lot of 1ghz phones coming out, and Adobe being more active in mobile flash development, this will change and Apple will get left behind unless Steve Jobs can swallow his pride just once.

Maybe I'm wrong though, seeing how happily the world would follow Apple right off a cliff. I mean...seriously, an underpowered keyboardless laptop, that still can't play Flash, and doesn't even have a single frickin USB port. ...this is considered innovative? This is what the world has been freaking out about?

Ugh....I'd give the last 5 minutes of your life back if I could.
 

cellphoneuser

Member
Aug 31, 2009
14
0
OnePlus One
OnePlus 2
iphone clone fail

the whole reason for us having windows and android on phones is so that we can enjoy a bit of freedom in our locked down world.
do you think i want a phone with a ui that looks identical to all the rest?
honestly, i use win phones and android phone for the ultimate reason which is so that i can modify it to me liking.

a phone that works like the iPhone is not what at least 90% of xda members want.
i want to be able to run any pgm including my own w/o having to upload it to a "app store" where it will need to be verified before i have permission to use my own program??

windows phones have all this until now of course...up to the minuscule point of c&p!!! and multitasking? even apple is using mtasking in their 4.0OS sure they acted like they invented mtasking but even a piece of **** apple phone has it.
so why would msft decide that it is a waste?

they are planning to implement it later on?? it should be there to being with.

I've been using ce 4.0 all the way to mobile2003 and wm6 in all of them they had mtasking c&p and pgms to my liking.
sure apple is faster or "sexier" but apple is for idiots who need "geniuses" to hook up a printer or transfer files. not to even get started on hw. do they know how to open up the computer?? cause thats all things which cause me to buy pc and unlocked hw. because not only is it more practical but i also don't have to worry about paying 10x more for a worse computer or phone.
not to mention apple phones have a VERY high sar.
so i would rather msft not steer their boat of supporters into the iceburg that is winmobile7
 

Spike15

Senior Member
Nov 1, 2009
520
3
even apple is using mtasking in their 4.0OS sure they acted like they invented mtasking but even a piece of **** apple phone has it.
so why would msft decide that it is a waste?

As much as I hate Microsoft for this "no multi-tasking" move, I should point out that Apple iPhone OS 4.0 does not have the level of multi-tasking that Windows Mobile and (I believe) Android do.

In iPhone OS 4.0, programs themselves actually are not allowed to run in the background, indeed, iPhone OS 4.0 uses the same "background" method WP7 does -- the program is kept in RAM until the RAM is needed, but it's barred from using CPU cycles.

In iPhone OS 4.0, what programs can do is access APIs that allow some of the programs' functionality to run in the background, which is much different.

To be totally honest, the whole "no multi-tasking" thing, given the reasons they've given, is a total wash.

Here's the low-down, if anyone cares:

They've said that there will be no multi-tasking for battery life's sake.
They've said that there will be no multi-tasking because it hogs system resources.

As for the first one, you'll need to understand some basic CPU/process mechanics to understand why it's so overwhelmingly stupid.

Basically, a process can be in one of three states:

1. Running
2. Runnable
3. Blocked


If a process is running, it is actively using the CPU to execute instructions. The CPU is active, battery power and system resources are being consumed.

If a process is runnable, it isn't actively using the CPU, but it wants to. That is, the task scheduler just hasn't gotten around to giving the process the CPU, or the CPU still wants more time. The process -- in this state -- is still causing the CPU to be active, battery power and system resources are being consumed, because another process is using the CPU.

If a process is blocked, it's waiting for something. In computing, there are basically two major ways to figure out of something has happened. You can take the five-year-old-in-a-car-on-a-long-trip route, and continually poll for the event-in-question, by asking "Has it happened yet?". This is called polling, and consumes system resources while it is occurring.

Alternatively -- and much more enlightened -- is interrupting. Under this scheme, when something happens, it can raise an interrupt. This causes the CPU to either stop what it's doing and handle the event, or to wake up and handle the event, passing the event to the corresponding process, which was waiting for the event.

Therefore, when processes are blocked, they are not contributing to CPU use, they are not using system resources (other than, of course, their RAM), and they are not draining battery power.

In fact, if you have a program that's totally GUI-driven, it will never consume CPU cycles unless there's a GUI event! And if it's in the background, where the user can't interact with it to raise any GUI events, it will consumer no CPU cycles!

When you think about it, the vast majority of applications are GUI-driven in this way, and therefore, when sent to the background, consume no CPU cycles and do not reduce battery life, that's why Windows Mobile and Android devices don't have terrible battery life.

The problem here isn't evil multi-tasking, the problem is developers. Developers write shoddy code, which uses CPU cycles for basically no reason, and therefore drains the battery.

Which makes you ask yourself: Isn't Microsoft auditing all the programs that are going into the Marketplace anyway?

So, couldn't they just allow for real multi-tasking, and use their Big Brother Marketplace control powers to ensure evil CPU-hogging code doesn't get into the Marketplace?

As for part 2, you can see from the above that well-programmed programs do not consume CPU cycles in the background. They can, however, cause the system to be sluggish by consuming available RAM. In a real computer, this is offset by "paging", i.e. moving unused blocks of RAM to the harddrive and thereby freeing up RAM for things that will use it. Alternatively, you can just close programs that are unused and which are consuming RAM...

...which is what Windows Phone 7 does anyway...

...

...
 

MooGoo

Senior Member
Sep 24, 2007
229
0
^^ All very true.

I can easily open one of any number of task managers on WinMo to see a sorted list of applications chewing up CPU time.

There is no good reason why Microsoft cannot make a simple version of this that even the most brain dead iPhone user would comprehend.

Something like a notification that says "This POS software is burning away precious battery life that you could be using to check your Facebook account, do you want to kill it???". Then they could put a really big shiny YES button (scratch that, WP7 has no shiny) next to a a tiny little grey x so that the drooling idiot always makes the "right" choice and the rest of us still get to decide how our own phones run.
 

shaundalglish

Senior Member
May 6, 2010
217
1
True, Flash is not going anywhere and this is good.

Flash for video makes little sense, but for lots of other stuff, Flash is useful and good (and there's no alternatives).

I should point out that Apple iPhone OS 4.0 does not have the level of multi-tasking that Windows Mobile and (I believe) Android do.
Here's an Android Developers Blog post that explains how multitasking works on Android: Multitasking the Android Way

Essentially it works the same as in Windows Mobile (with the difference that Android seems to handle multitasking better, thus running much more stable than Windows Mobile):
A key to how Android handles applications in this way is that processes don't shut down cleanly. When the user leaves an application, its process is kept around in the background, allowing it to continue working (for example downloading web pages) if needed, and come immediately to the foreground if the user returns to it. If a device never runs out of memory, then Android will keep all of these processes around, truly leaving all applications "running" all of the time.

But what's important, it chooses 'wisely' which processes to kill, instead of simply killing the 'oldest' ones. This ensures that applications that the user wants to be running do not get killed:
Of course, there is a limited amount of memory, and to accommodate this Android must decide when to get rid of processes that are not needed. This leads to Android's process lifecycle, the rules it uses to decide how important each process is and thus the next one that should be dropped. These rules are based on both how important a process is for the user's current experience, as well as how long it has been since the process was last needed by the user.

Additionally, applications can run as services or tell the OS "I want to do stuff in the background, don't kill me":
A Service allows an application to implement longer-running background operations. There are actually a lot of other functions that services provide, but for the discussion here their fundamental purpose is for an application to say "hey I would like to continue running even while in the background, until I say I am done." An application controls when its service runs by explicitly starting and stopping the service.

IMO, that's the way it should be. And yes, it works perfectly fine. ;)
 
Last edited:

rorytmeadows

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2008
2,408
222
Charleston, SC metro area
True, Flash is not going anywhere and this is good.

Flash for video makes little sense, but for lots of other stuff, Flash is useful and good (and there's no alternatives).


Here's an Android Developers Blog post that explains how multitasking works on Android: Multitasking the Android Way
(and yes, it works perfectly fine ;))

Yeah flash is not the best choice when it comes to embedded video, but it's the best choice for many many things around the web. It will never be replaced by anything! I'm so glad Microsoft has at least promised to keep with flash for these reasons.
 

MooGoo

Senior Member
Sep 24, 2007
229
0
Admittedly I've probably been a little hard on Flash. I think this is probably because outside of embedded videos most uses of Flash I witness on the Internet are for annoying advertisements.

Flash really is a powerful vector graphics programming platform. The problem is that despite its capability, it is still very slow. I have yet to see a single Flash game that rivals even the Super Nintendo in the graphics department. And what is the framerate that most Flash apps run at...12, sometimes 24? That's pathetic. The SNES and almost all 2D consoles ran at a steady 60fps, modern 3D consoles like the Xbox 360 and PS3 average around 30fps.

Flash might be capable of higher framerates on more powerful computers, but I've never seen this adaptation. I believe it is a design flaw, or some kind of limitation forced upon it when being run as a browser plugin. Either way it does not reflect well on Flash. My Intel Atom powered media computer can perfectly emulate at full speed the Playstation 1 and N64, yet it stalls up completely when trying to run a moderately complex Flash game, and many embedded videos.
 

shaundalglish

Senior Member
May 6, 2010
217
1
outside of embedded videos most uses of Flash I witness on the Internet are for annoying advertisements.
At least you can block them. HTML5 allows for ads that you can not (yet) block.

The problem is that despite its capability, it is still very slow.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archive...eat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php
Admittedly, this is only a video test, but still it shows one thing: With hardware acceleration, Flash is actually very effective and does not consume more power than HTML5. Flash being slow is, IMO, a myth - mostly spread by Apple fans, who are annoyed by the 'slow' Flash on their Macs, which is actually Apple's fault, not Adobe's.
 

rorytmeadows

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2008
2,408
222
Charleston, SC metro area
At least you can block them. HTML5 allows for ads that you can not (yet) block.


http://www.readwriteweb.com/archive...eat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php
Admittedly, this is only a video test, but still it shows one thing: With hardware acceleration, Flash is actually very effective and does not consume more power than HTML5. Flash being slow is, IMO, a myth - mostly spread by Apple fans, who are annoyed by the 'slow' Flash on their Macs, which is actually Apple's fault, not Adobe's.

I agree completely. I would post a link to the thread where I discussed this, but it was closed because some whiny iPod user didn't like all my Apple bashing...
 

MooGoo

Senior Member
Sep 24, 2007
229
0
When it comes to playing any videos above SD, hardware acceleration will be the defining factor, with or without Flash.

Still I've not yet seen anything to convince me that Flash is not slow. Oh I'm sure there would be no issue with running several flash animations and videos at the same time on a brand new Core i7 CPU. In my experience, it is on older and lower powered CPU's where Flash really begins to struggle. And it really shouldn't. I've seen my Atom powered mini-computer run all sorts of videos < 720p without hardware acceleration at full speed. Yet it constantly lags and drops frames even on the lowest quality YouTube clip.

And I have yet to see any game programmed in Flash that looks as good or runs as fast as your average SNES game from nearly 20 years ago! Maybe I have not been looking in the right place. Please someone link me something that will change my world view. If it looks better than Super Mario World (I'm not asking much), I will gladly purchase an Adobe teeshirt and go hang out in the local Mac Store.
 

shaundalglish

Senior Member
May 6, 2010
217
1
Sorry, I really can not comment on this, cause I've never seen Flash running slow. I've also never used a Netbook... :D

I won't say Flash is perfect, or anywhere near perfect, but it certainly doesn't deserve the bashing - especially from Apple.
(Flash is bad cause it's slow? Then what is iTunes?? Flash is bad cause it's proprietary? Then what about Quicktime and just about any other Apple product??)
 

shaundalglish

Senior Member
May 6, 2010
217
1
Hilarious. :D
And extra funny how the same stuff works much better on the Nexus One :D:D

From the comments:
You're absolutely right. These experiences are not initially designed for mobile devices, but I can tell you from first hand experience as a Flash developer with access to Flash on mobile devices, the user experience is much cleaner across devices. The point is, the assumption that Steve Jobs was making, that Flash wasn't ready for mobile, and that HTML5 was the way to go, is just plain wrong. I applaud your development efforts, your game is one of the better HTML5 examples out there.
 

XaaR_

Member
Oct 14, 2008
32
0
Maybe this is a bad idea, but I thought that I would write a serious post in this flamewar.

http://bolingconsulting.com/blog/?p=46

The system suspends the main threads while the other threads are free to run (at lower priority, I suppose) until the phone runs out of resources. I would guess that they have some system limiting available resources to the background threads, to save battery life.

At least the current system seems to work like this.

And to you that is raging about that Microsoft is trying to reach out to the casual and wider mass, can you just face that it is a minority that want to flash ROMs and similar stuff?

I don't think that the platform is flawless, there is more to do, e.g. Sockets access.