Vista / Flash performance problem

I have a well-patched / McAfee / Firewall Dell / Vista
Business laptop. 2Gb, plenty of horsepower. I have uninstalled
Flash, rebooted, reinstalled flash WIN 9,0,124,0, but I seem to
have a performance problem that other Vista workstations do not
have.
I have a flash application for quiz questions. Hovering the
mouse over the choices should highlight the choices instantly. On
my workstation, it takes about 2 seconds for the hover effect to
appear. On my other Windows XP and Vista desktops, it's an
immediate effect.
Any suggestions as to where the problem might be?

Luis,
Whenever I hear someone mention the words 'it takes 5 minutes', my mind always seems to think about DNS problems (since 300 seconds is a typical timeout for DNS related problems).
Would you mind having a look at the HTML sourcecode for your application and locating the part where the Flash chart is specified, it will look something like -
<param name="movie" value="/i/flashchart/2DColumn.swf?XMLFile=http://yourserver/pls/apex/apex_util.flash?p=1299:1:1265142206329375:FLOW_FLASH_CHART_R1760625855571144_en-us">
<param name="quality" value="high">
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain">
<param name="allowNetworking" value="all">
<param name="scale" value="noscale">
<param name="wmode" value="transparent">
<param name="FlashVars" value="waiting=Loading data. Please wait.&loading=Loading data...">Take a look at the URL that is used to retrieve the data for the Flash chart (the ?XMLFile parameter in my example).
Does the URL in your page use the same domain name as the URL you're using to access your application via the browser, or are they different?
I could be barking up the wrong tree entirely here, but it's one of those 'nagging thoughts' I often have ;)

Similar Messages

Performance problems with Leopard 10.5.1

Hello,
I use an iMac 24 Alu 2,8Ghz and upgraded to Leopard. There are some major performance problems and bugs in the recent version of Leopard:
1. While accessing USB devices, the display speed, windows moving, animations etc. slow down
2. Adobe CS3 Photoshop 10.01 and Flash CS3 are sometimes extremly slow. I tried the recent demo packages from Adobe:
2.1. The Photoshop dialogue "save for web" slows down the system completly, and this problem stays when quitting Photoshop. A restart is neccessary then.
2.2. Flash CS3 movie preview is very slow and stuttering. It's so slow you cannot imagine how the real movie flow will be.
2.3. Recent Flash Player 9,0,115,0 with hardware acceleration enabled doesn't really work with QuartzGL enabled Leopard: The movies slow down a lot. Try www.neave.tv for example.
3. Safari, Mail and other bundled software hang sometimes. You have to force quit them then. It doesn't matter whether QuartzGL is enabled or not. This especially happens to my system if it is online for some hours.
4. A lot of Apple applications doesn't seem to work with 2dextreme enabled. Why this? Apple supporters told me in Leopard there will be a much better 2dextreme support. Also Quartz2dExtreme in OSX 10.4 worked with all applications and i guess it's the same feature like "QuartzGL" in Leopard. So Leopard isn't finished here. It would be nice if Apple could make it's own software QuartzGL compatible.
5. Very often the desktop slows down or lags. This is the main reason I often still witch to Windows XP PC to do work in a faster, less annoying way.
6. Safari crashes randomly sometimes. It is unstable still. Also it crashes more often if you resize/move the window a lot, so I guess it is a graphics extension-related problem.
I hope you people from Apple will fix these annoying points and optimize your new system in the next update release.
Best regards

Thanks for you answer. I repaired in the way as described above. There were some errors, some file index was wrong (don't remember exactly the phrase), now the DU reports the partition was successfully repaired / the volume appears to be ok.
The crashes in Safari are gone, but all other described problems still exist. Adobe CS3 is not really usable for me.
By the way, in iMacSoftwareUpdate 1.3, which was replaced by OSX 10.5.1 update, there is one extension called AppleVADriver.kext that does not exist in the OSX 10.5.1 update. Is it an important extension?

3D performance problems after upgrading memory

I recently purchased an additional 2GB of memory to try and extend the life of my aging computer. I installed the memory yesterday and Windows seems to recognize it (reporting now 3.3GB) but when I dropped into WoW (pretty much the only game I have) the 3D performance was down from the usual 60FPS @ 1600x1080 to a bleak 20 (at best) and the CPU utilization went to about 80% on both cores (with ~20% kernel usages). Basically WoW was being software 3D rendered!!!
I went through the usual reinstall drivers, reboot, etc... and couldn't find a fix. I powered down, pulled out 2 of the memory sticks, booted up, and dropped into WoW - it ran at the full 60FPS and CPU utilization was very low (i.e. back to GPU Hardware 3D rendering). I powered down again, swapped the 2 sticks for the other 2 sticks, booted up, and dropped into WoW - again it ran 100% fine. So I powered down, put all four sticks in, booted back up, and when I dropped into WoW it was running in the software 3D rendering mode (20FPS at best and High CPU/Kernel usage).
I've tried the /PAE option in boot.ini - no joy. I've tried /MAXMEM = to 3300, 3072, 3000, and even 2048 - no joy in any of those cases. Has anyone seen anything like this before? Or have suggestions to fix (other than going to Win7-64)?
All info in signature is up to date.
Thanks in advance for any help!

Quote
Well his last post was a little over 6 hours ago so he was up pretty late.
Looks like nothing one does in here goes completely unnoticed.
Anyway, I am done sleeping now.
Quote
his 2 Pfennig's worth. I know, I know it's Euro's now.
Yeah, and what used to be "Pfennige" is now also called "Cents" and here are mine:
Quote
I've tried the /PAE option in boot.ini - no joy. I've tried /MAXMEM = to 3300, 3072, 3000, and even 2048 - no joy in any of those cases. Has anyone seen anything like this before? Or have suggestions to fix (other than going to Win7-64)?
PAE or Physical Memory Extension will not do anything as Microsoft has castrated this feature to such an extend that it has nothing to do with memory addressing anymore when in comes to Windows XP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Microsoft_Windows
Quote
Windows XP Service Pack 2 and later, by default, on processors with the no-execute (NX) or execute-disable (XD) feature, runs in PAE mode in order to allow NX. The NX (or XD) bit resides in bit 63 of the page table entry and, without PAE, page table entries only have 32 bits; therefore PAE mode is required if the NX feature is to be exploited. However, desktop versions of Windows (Windows XP, Windows Vista) limit physical address space to 4 GiB for driver compatibility reasons.
The feature is already automatically enabled. But since is original function (Address Extension) does no longer exist when it comes to the desktop versions of Windows XP, it won't really do anything you would ever notice.
About the /MAXMEM Switch: In Windows 32bit operating systems, every process is limited to 2GB of memory. The point of the switch is to allow certain applications (or their run-time process) to occupy a higher amount of system memory than 2GB. However, the culprit here is that only those applications are able to utilize this ability that have been programmed (or compiled) accordingly. A special flag (large memory aware) has to be implemented. Otherwise, these application will be restricted to 2GB even though the /MAXMEM Switch has been set to extend the 2GB limit to 3GB. Most 32bit applications come without the "large memory aware" flag and that is why usually, settings the switch won't change anything.
In any case, it is unlikely that /PAE (even if it would not be castrated) and /MAXMEM would have an impact on your actual issue because I doubt that it has much to do with either memory adressing or the memory limit of an indiviual Windows process.
Quote
the 3D performance was down from the usual 60FPS @ 1600x1080 to a bleak 20 (at best) and the CPU utilization went to about 80% on both cores (with ~20% kernel usages).
There are a couple of hardware based explanations to consider here. Let's start with the most obvious one:
1. 975X Memory Controller
The main reason that the system chooses to automatically set the Memory Speed to DDR2-667 even though DDR2-800 modules are installed, is that by design the memory controller of the Intel 975X Chipset does not natively support DDR2-800 modules, but
>>Intel® 975X Express Chipset Datasheet - For the Intel® 82975X Memory Controller Hub (MCH)<< [Page 20]
This means, that from the point of view of the memory controller, operating the memory @DDR2-800 actually means overclocking it (with all potential side effects).
Basically, if your initial problem disappears as soon as you reduce the memory speed to DDR2-667, the design limitation of the memory controller may explain your findings.
2. Different memory modules
If I read your signature correctly, you are actually mixing two different kits/models of RAM (CM2X1024-6400C4DHX and CM2X1024-6400C4). This can work of course, but in practice it not necessarely does under all circumstances.
This list (-> http://ramlist.i4memory.com/ddr2/) indicates that there are at least 14 different module types/revisions of Corsair DDR2-800 / CL4 modules that utilize a wide range of different memory chips (Elpida, ProMos, Micron, Infinion, Powerchip, Qimonda, Samsung, Infinion etc.). Even though the superficial specifications for these chips appear to be pretty similar (DDR2-800 / CL5 / CL4), this does not necessarely mean that the modules will respond to the same operating conditions in the same way. There may be small difference in sub-timings/sub-latencies and/or the general responsiveness of the ICs which may affect the operating behaviour of the memory controller (which by the way also includes the PCI-Express interface which your video card is hooked up to).
And again: If running the system @DDR2-667 solves your issue, the possible explanation is that higher clock speeds may amplify (or trigger) potential performance problems that could have to do with the use of non-identical memory modules.
Furthermore: It is also possible that the memory controller's design limitations and the potential compatibility problems that may be attributed to mixing different modules types may reinforce each other in terms of reduced system performance.
3. The BIOS may have an impact as well
There has been known issue with the use of certain video cards in conjunction with 4GB of system memory on this mainboard:
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=107301.0
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=105955.0
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=99818.msg798951#msg798951
What may have come out as graphics/display corruption in earlier BIOS Releases may come out as reduced system performance when using the latest BIOS Release. Of course, this is hard to prove, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. May I ask what amount of video memory your card has onboard?
Fortunately, there is a BIOS version that you could consider to try in this matter. It is not only the last BIOS Release that could be used in order to avoid the corruption issue, but it is (in my oppionion) the best BIOS Version that was ever released for the 975X Platinum PUE Mainboard: W7246IMS.716 [v7.1b6]. I have been using this mainboard for almost two years and have tested almost every BIOS Release that ever came out and I always went back to v7.1b6 as "ground zero".
It will properly support your E6600 (so you don't have to worry about that) and as far as I remember, there are no known compatibility issues with other components. So maybe, you want to give this a shot.
The bottom line is that in a worst case scenario, the problem you describe could be caused by all of the above things at the same time. You cannot really do anything about the 975X Chipset Specifications and the only way to rule out explanation #2 is to test modules that are actually identical (same model number, revision and memory chips). A test of the 7.1b6 BIOS Release is something you should consider. It may be the only way to test the BIOS Hypothesis.
This post turned out to be longer than I intended, but then again, I am well-rested after a good sleep and the wake-up coffee is kicking in pretty good.

1.1 performance problems related to system configuration?

It seems like a lot of people are having serious performance problems with Aperture 1.1 in areas were they didn't have any (or at least not so much) problems in the previous 1.01 release.
Most often these problems occur as slow behaviour of the application when switching views (especially into and out of full view), loading images into the viewer or doing image adjustments. In most cases Aperture works normal for some time and then starts to slow down gradually up to point were images are no longer refreshed correctly or the whole application crashes. Most of the time simply restarting Aperture doesn't help, one has to restart the OS.
Most of the time the problems occur in conjunction with CPU usage rates which are much higher than in 1.0.1.
For some people even other applications seem to be affected to a point where the whole system has to be restarted to get everything working up at full speed again. Also shutdown times seem to increase dramatically after such an Aperture slowdown.
My intention in this thread is to collect information from users who are experiencing such problems about their system configuration. At the moment it does not look like these problems are related to special configurations only, but maybe we can find a common point when we collect as much information as possible about system where Aperture 1.1 shows this behaviour.
Before I continue with my configuration, I would like to point out that this thread is not about general speed issues with Aperture. If you're not able to work smoothly with 16MPix RAW files on G5 systems with Radeon 9650 video cards or Aperture is generally slow on your iBook 14" system where you installed it with a hack, than this is not the right thread. I fully understand if you want to complain about these general speed issues, but please refrain from doing so in this thread.
Here I only want to collect information from people who either know that some things works considerably faster in the previous release or who notice that Aperture 1.1 really slows down after some time of use.
Enough said, here is my information:
- Powermac G5 Dualcore 2.0
- 2.5 GB RAM
- Nvidia 7800GT (flashed PC version)
- System disk: Software RAID0 (2 WD 10000rpm 74GB Raptor drives)
- Aperture library on a hardware RAID0 (2 Maxtor 160GB drives) connected to Highpoint RocketRAID 2320 PCIe adapter
- Displays: 17" and 15" TFT
I do not think, that we need more information, things like external drives (apart from ones used for the actual library), superdrive types, connected USB stuff like printers, scanners etc. shouldn't make any difference so no need to report that. Also it is self-evident that Mac OS 10.4.6 is used.
Of interest might be any internal cards (PCIe/PCI/PCI-X...) build into your system like my RAID adapter, Decklink cards (wasn't there a report about problems with them?), any other special video or audio cards or additional graphic cards.
Again, please only post here if you're experiencing any of the mentioned problems and please try to keep your information as condensed as possible. This thread is about collecting data, there are already enough other threads where the specific problems (or other general speed issues) are discussed.
Bye,
Carsten
BTW: Within the next week I will perform some tests which will include replacing my 7800GT with the original 6600 and removing as much extra stuff from my system as possible to see if that helps.

Yesterday i had my first decent run in 1.1 and was pleased i avoided a lot perfromance issues that seemed to affect others.
After i posted, i got hit by a big slow-down in system perfromance. I tried to quit Aperture but couldn't, it had no tasks in its activity window. However Activity Monitor showed Aperture as a 30 thread 1.4GB Virtual memory hairball soaking-up 80-90% of my 4 cpu's. Given the high cpu activity i suspected the reason was not my 2GB of RAM, althought its obviously better with more. So what caused the sudded decerease in system perfromance after 6 hours of relative trouble free editing/sorting with 1.1 ?
This morning i re-created the issue. Before i go further, when i ran 1.1 for the first time i did not migrate my whole library to the new raw algorithum (its not called the bleeding edge for nothing). So this morning i selected one project to migrate all its raw images to 1.1 and after the progress bar completed its work, the cpus ramped and system got bogged-down again.
So Aperture is doing a background task that is consuming large amounts of cpu power, shows nothing in its activity monitor and takes a very long time to complete. My project had 89 raw images migrated to the 1.1 algorithum and it took 4 minutes to complete those 'background processes' (more reconstituting of images?). I'm not sure what its doing, but it takes a long time and shows no obvious sign it is normal. If you leave it to complete its work, the system returns to normal. More of an issue is the system allows you to continue to work as the background processes crank, compounding the heavy workload.
Bit of a guess this, but is this what is causing people system's problems ? As i said if i left my quad alone for 4 minutes all returns as normal. Its just not normal to think it will ever end, so you do more and compound the slow-down ?
In the interests of research i did another project migrating 245 8MB raws to the 1.1 algorithum and it took 8 minutes. First 5mins consumed 1GB of virtual memory over 20 threads at average 250% CPU usage for Aperture alone. The last three minutes saw the cpus ramp higher to 350%, virtual memory increase to 1.2GB. After the 8 minutes all returned to nornal and fans slowed down (excellent fan/noise behaviour on these quads).
Is this what others are seeing ?
When you force quit Aperture during these system slow-downs what effect does this having on your images ? Do the uncompleted background processes restart when you go to try and view them ?
If i get time i'll try and compare to my MBP.

PCMCIA Performance problem on T61?

I use Compact Flash to PCMCIA card adapter to transfer the images onto my laptop. The transfer rate is around 1 mb/s. I tested the same on other laptops and I get 30Mb/s.
Is there anything wrong with T61 PCMCIA card slots? Please advise

I think if you wish to chase down your performance problem it will be helpful to post your exact machine type (4 digits on bottom sticker), OS, PC Card - Compact Flash adapter, and Compact Flash chip.
If the exact same adapter and CF chip are 30X faster in another laptop, it sounds like a Lenovo BIOS and/or OS driver update are needed.
Results of Your Ideal Business-Class Laptop survey, concluded 2009-07-29.
Did someone help you?
Say thanks! with a kudo.
Even better: Pay it forward, help someone else.

Flash performance inside mx:HTML in a Flex AIR app

Hi. I'm new to AIR development and after doing some basic tutorials I thought I'd make a little stream player app.
The amount of tutorials on the web made me choose Flex / Flash Builder over HTML & JavaScript. When I built the player in Flex I saw performance was terrible when out of focus, I would say it drops to 3 fps if not less. Surprisingly when I downloaded someone else's similar app, his didn't have that problem. On closer inspection - he made it in HTML & JavaScript and HTML AIR apps dont suffer from the same problem.
Is there a fix for this Flex performance problem?
I've made a video demonstrating the difference between Flex & HTML for your convenience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU2mfELhSC4.

Sure.
1.
Windows 7 Ultimate, 64bit, build 7600.
Adobe AIR 2.0.3.13070.
Unfortunately I only have machines with the exact same OS install at my disposal right now but I'll ask some people to test it on their boxes.
2. http://pastebin.com/AsdmD3Yb
When I point the mx:HTML to a youtube url instead of ustream.html the fps drops around to around 5 to 10. That's a lot more fps than when using ustream. Might be a clue to whats happening.

Strange flashing cursor problem

Hi,
I've just finished installing Vista 32bit on my Macbook Air (1.6) and its working fine apart from one small problem - when starting up it freezes on a black screen with a flashing cursor for 2-4 mins and then will start loading Vista fine. Once in there is no problem and its stable and what not. I have had a look at some on the articles on here and other forums and the flashing cursor problem usually refers to when people try to first install a MS OS and not once one has been installed successfully.
I only have to boot into Vista every now and then and only for a few minutes at a time so I usually spend as much time in Vista as it does loading.
Any help appreciated.

General purpose Mac troubleshooting guide:
Isolating issues in Mac OS X
Creating a temporary user to isolate user-specific problems:
Isolating an issue by using another user account
Identifying resource hogs and other tips:
Using Activity Monitor to read System Memory and determine how much RAM is being used
Starting the computer in "safe mode":
Mac OS X: What is Safe Boot, Safe Mode?
To identify potential hardware problems:
Apple Hardware Test
General Mac maintenance:
Tips to keep your Mac in top form
Direct you to the proper forum for MacBook :
MacBook Series Forums
https://discussions.apple.com/community/notebooks?view=discussions
http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro
Mac OS X Forum
https://discussions.apple.com/community/mac_os?view=discussions
This forum deals with a desktop/tower 65lb Mac Pro
http://www.apple.com/support/macpro
TimeMachine 101
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT1427
http://www.apple.com/support/timemachine
Mac OS X & Mountain Lion Community
https://discussions.apple.com/community/mac_os
https://discussions.apple.com/community/mac_os/os_x_mountain_lion?view=discussio ns
Recovery Mode
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4718
Unless you did a clean install, and I can't tell what your system maintenance is whether it is what I would do. Backup / clone your system, use ML RECOVERY and erase the system partition and update with just Apple updates, don't restore anything.
Run Apple Hardware Test.
Take it in for a free check and diagnosis.

Pixelation problems occurs in my videos when using adobe flash but using chromes pepper flash no problemes so its definitely adobe problems on my WIndows 8.1

pixelation problems occurs in my videos when using adobe flash but using chromes pepper flash no problemes so its definitely adobe problems on my WIndows 8.1

Problem is:
Flash Player for IE11 (which is the worst browser ever developed - BAR NONE) is a Microsoft product, when it comes right down to it.
Adobe writes the base code and yes, they do collaborate on updates for it, but the gang in Redmond alter the plug-in and add "proprietary" code before embedding it, and at that point it's "their baby".
There are two (2) registry keys - 1 for 32 bit IE and the other for 64 bit IE, as well as a KB patch that prevent all but the most experienced Windows users from ever touching the Flash Player plug-in for IE. So there's NO WAY you could have done a clean install of the ActiveX plug-in in Windows 8. Unless you're an uber-geek, you can only update it through Windows Update.
WIn 8 is an abomination and IE11 made it worse. IE has always been the "problem child" of browsers, failing to handle CSS, Javascript, some PHP and most design "tweaks" that good webmasters can use with other browsers, trouble free.
I have IE8 on XP, 9 on VIsta, 11 on 7, 10 on 8 and 11 on 8.1... but they're all for testing only. I'd have to be out of my mind to ever think of using IE as my primary browser. ActiveX controls have to be disabled formost stuff and that opens millions of security holes in IE.
You've got a good video card and a decent sound card. It's a shame to waste them on a pile of garbage like IE, just because it came with Windows.

Flash Performance

In all the test I've done, with Flash 9 and 10, it just seems that Flash videos just can't keep up as they can in Windows. Do you think it's a driver or flash problem? It's extremely discouraging, and making me think to give up Linux for Windows because of many example of poor drivers and support for Linux from big business

sam wrote:
Flash performance is dependent on the flash player and the video driver your computer uses. Flash player is generally slower in linux than in windows. This is probably due to adobe's priorities. Heck, for a long time linux only had flash 7 while windows had flash 9 and many sites used flash 8. It was a grim time in linux history... Having said that, the performance difference between windows and Linux versions should still allow for relatively smooth video animations, if it wasn't for the drivers.
I'm not sure if this is because flash now tries to use your video card to speed up rendering or it is because of bad video card drivers, but the drivers have an IMMENSE impact on video. I have an ati card, and ati has been undergoing a change of philosophy toward linux and this is impacting their drivers. This usually bring about good change, like AIGLX; however, it introduces many bugs that affect video performance. The current ati driver is 8.6, however I'm still using 8.4 because 8.5 and 8.6 make youtube videos UNWATCHABLE on my dual core. The 8.4 driver is slightly sluggish, but at least I can watch flash videos.
The performance of flash videos is indicative of the general performance of flash on the platform. If you dual boot and want to see this difference, you can try a simple video like youtube.com. Most likely this will work equally well in both OSs, where you will 'likely' find a difference is HD videos on dailymotion (unless you have a powerful video card).
The good news about all of this is that the future of flash looks very promising. Adobe finally treats linux with the same respect as windows, and is apparent by the simultaneous release of flash 10. Ati is breaking milestones with their video drivers, and the open source ati driver will eventually surpass the stability and performance of propriety drivers.
keep believing it then

Flash performance frustration

Listen,
I am a qualified technician, I have a GTX 560 Ti if you must know, I have provided support for PC Games in the past and help desk support to over 40,000 staff and experienced in QA of software.
If you read my post you would see, that I am talking about mutliple sites on multiple platforms with Flash causing problems over time, crashing my browsers, slowing down my systems and it's not just specific to the most recent update(s), which I have implemented.
If I try and use most games on Facebook, they really slow things down even more (and before you ask if I am running multiple games at once, no I am not, but my system can more than handle non flash applications in multiples.
My problem now is the way you are all trying to polish this over as if this my own system issue, this is much bigger than this.
What is normal flash content by the way ? Are you saying that applications on smart devices or facebook is not normal flash? because this issue is not limited to being specific, however when I have a flash game or a flash site in the background, my whole system starts to chug and it has always been that way no matter what update or system I am on more than 50% of the time.
If you want to blame developers for coding poor flash, then you should have a Flash certification program so people know which apps or websites are Adobe approved/certified to run smoothly.
Flash is very lucky that systems performance are increasing at increasingly fast rates, but the amount of resources shown by flash related content doesn't actually seem to be the real amount of resources it is using, I am wondering if this is hidden by how much resources it gains from Video or Graphics cards (and borrowed memory).
This most recent update, including being used with IE 9, Firefox 5 or the latest version of Safari is by no means an exception to the rule.
I should not have to troubleshoot so often my flash problems, this should have been done IN YOUR LABS properly, before being sent out to the public. I can of course choose not to use sites, not to have a playbook (which renders flash better than my PC funny enough, even though my PC is 10x as powerful)
You are trying to help and I am grateful for that, but I am putting this out there because I feel its very important to discuss further.

I branched this out to a new thread because it was off topic from the thread it was originally posted on (which was specific to IE9, 10.3 and Intel HD GPU's.)
I am a qualified technician, I have a GTX 560 Ti if you must know, I have provided support for PC Games in the past and help desk support to over 40,000 staff and experienced in QA of software.
As you know, there are an almost unlimited number of devices and drivers out there in the wild. We ask for the GPU hardware and driver details because the latest releases of Flash Player take advantage of them. To try and reproduce issues, we do our best to duplicate the environment that issues occurred on. We've also found that this information is critical to us reproducing the issue. Many times, older drivers/gpu's have bugs or don't support the hardware features we require for hardware acceleration. This can manifest itself in many different ways (black video, flashing graphics, crashes, etc.)
If you read my post you would see, that I am talking about mutliple sites on multiple platforms with Flash causing problems over time, crashing my browsers, slowing down my systems and it's not just specific to the most recent update(s), which I have implemented.
While I understand the frustration, it's difficult to approach this without specifics. If you run into a crash with Flash Player, please see this post for details on retrieving the crash log. We work constantly to improve the performance and quality of the player and we take customer reported issues with the highest priority. Maybe you could take some video of what you're experiencing so we could get a better reference to what's happening on your system.
If I try and use most games on Facebook, they really slow things down even more (and before you ask if I am running multiple games at once, no I am not, but my system can more than handle non flash applications in multiples.
Is there a particular game this occurs with? Does it happen right away? Is it only when there's heavy action on the screen? Again, video might help to understand what you're seeing.
My problem now is the way you are all trying to polish this over as if this my own system issue, this is much bigger than this.
I'd love to be able to reproduce this on my system, but I'm not being impacted like you are. I'm not trying to blame your system, I just need more info about what my system is missing that would allow me to experience what you are experiencing.
Again, I understand the frustration. I also understand if you don't want to help troubleshoot the problems. However, if you do, we're here to listen and help if we can.
Thanks,
Chris

Performance problems on non-Intel CPU's

Hello,
Recently I have been looking into tracking down a performance problem with Adobe Flash on a couple of different Linux platforms. I understand that there is limited hardware acceleration and that is actually important for my question. On multiple netbooks I tested similar Flash based content and found that content my EeePC 701 with a 600Mhz Intel Celeron could play, a netbook with a VIA processor running at 1Ghz couldn't even come close to playing. Running sysprof I see that 80+% of the time is spent within the libflashplayer library.
To my point, which you may or may not want to answer. Is it possible that Adobe uses Intel's compiler to produce their binaries? I only ask this because it has been documented that Intel's compiler explicitely disables certain optimizations for non-GenuineIntel processors, http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567108/intel-compiler-cripples-code-amd-via-chip s
. I have also examined the codepaths and see that libflashplayer.so does check /proc/cpuinfo for the vendor_id string in it's initialization logic.
I don't want to start conspiracy theories, but if any of this is valid at all, could it please be fixed? Thanks.

http://www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/
Only Intel when talking Macs, no PowerMacs or G4 etc.

Another Windows Vista flash player fix

Ok after pulling my hair out for a week trying everything
here to get youtube videos to play with vista
i found my problem its with kaspersky antivirus 6.0 v
6.0.2.614
First close internet explorer 7 open kaspersy then settings
then web antivirus then uncheck scan http traffic
I tryed this checked and unchecked and youtube videos only
play with scan http traffic unchecked. somthing with
kasperskys settings prevents this with adobe flash player
9

i have windows vista home premium, 32 bit. when download, all seeems to run just fine. takes about 20 oe 30 seconds. announces that the installation is complete. even get an opportunity to play some silly game. but it does not work and when called upon i get a message that i should download flahplayer 11 now. so i looked in the list of programs under uninstall, and i see that adobe flash player active x and the plugin are both listed. but niether shows any corresponding program length. that column entry is simply not there. any other info i can supply? i do really appreciate your response. herb dessner
"Carl E. Myers Jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
Carl E. Myers Jr. http://forums.adobe.com/people/Carl+E.+Myers+Jr. created the discussion
"Re: windows vista flash player"
To view the discussion, visit: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4101645#4101645

Poor Flash performance on G4 mac mini

Hi,
I've got a 1.25Ghz PPC G4 mini with 512mb running 10.4.11 that exhibits extremely poor Flash performance; jerky almost unwatchable video. I downgraded from Flash 10 to 9, and it only got slightly better, and most videos now require 10. I've heard the Flash drivers for Macs are awful; is this the problem?
Also, maybe possibly related, when I leave the computer on for awhile, the hard disk eventually, and magically, "fills up". After a restart, I have 1.55G of a 37.5G drive. When I leave it on for awhile, it'll get down to Zero KB, and become so slow that I have to restart it again, if it doesn't just crash outright? Is this a memory leak? Is the only way to cure it by wiping the HD and reinstalling the OS?

I think Boece has nailed it. Can you get more memory in your mini? I know it's a pain and the max quoted by Apple is only 1G, but I think a big part of your problem is just plain lack of memory. When the system does not have enough real memory to work with it will use virtual memory - use the hard drive as if it were memory. This really slows things down, especially when you have a hard drive that is way too full as yours is. You have very little ram to be running OS X and you've effectively blocked the system from the work around it wants to use to deal with this by having a hard drive so full. Add a resource hog like flash and the problem just gets worse. Every time I've added memory to a mac the page-outs have gone down and the system become more responsive. You have a lot of page outs. I've seen macs run all day and have zero - but that's with 4-6g ram. Still, the fewer the better. Here's a nice link to Apple's discussion of memory usage in OS X: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1342?viewlocale=en_US
Also, flash will never run great on the graphics sub-system in that unit. I have a MDD G4 1.25 with a similar graphics unit and flash isn't great on that either. But for security reasons I would never run less than the latest version of flash - it is one of the main conduits of malware these days and although I've never heard of problems on the mac it's still not good to leave gaping security holes. Hope this helps.

Internet explorer performance problem

Hi all
Steps to repro my problem
1. Create simple dot Sprite in flash
    dot.graphics.beginFill( color);
    dot.graphics.drawCircle( 0, 0, 2 );
    dot.graphics.endFill();
2. Draw dot to bitmap many times a frame
    bitmapData.draw( dot, null, null, "normal", null, _smoothing );
3. Test FrameRate in combination of browsers,flash plugin versions on Win32
Expect:
framerate to be close in most cases
Observed:
I am seeing a 25% decrease in framerate under IE7 using Flash10b.ocx(10.0.22) and 50% decrease in framerate using Flash10c.ocx(10.0.32). Plugins under firefox,safari and under OSX don't exhibit the same slowdown.
Help please:
I would like to get help/confirmation on a performance problem that I see in InternetExplorer. The Adobe and flash community is great on the Internet but I have been surprised to see no information on this, just a few reports about movie playback on 10.0.32 vs. 10.0.22.
My guess is that in IE Flash Plugin is passing the draw calls to Win32 and that is a slow operation.
My solution is:
Instead of drawing each time on the bitmap using draw, cache the draw calls to a bitmap and use CopyPixels. When I do this the perfomance is the same across browsers within 10%.
    bitmapData.copyPixels(dot.bitmapData,dot.bitmapData.rect,new Point(dot.x,dot.y),null,null,true);
Loop I am using
function enterFrame(e:Event) {
    bitmap.lock();
    for (var i:int=0;i<particles.length;i++) {
        draw(particle[i]);
    bitmap.unlock();
Notes about other possibly related "known" issues I would like to know more about.
Under IE the memory use for my application is reported to be much smaller (33MB typically in flashplayer, 16MB under IE).
Under IE the memory page faults are at over 10k/sec wherease in the flash player there are none.
Under IE the stage.invalidate seems to cause performance hitching problems.
Under IE putting a blur filter on the bitmap has bigger performance hit that in the flash player.

Hi,
As I know, recent browsets should use http 1.1, have you tried to force the http 1.1 via registry?
Open registry editor
Click Start, click Run, type regedit, and then click
OK.
Locate and then click the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings
On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click
DWORD Value.
Type EnableHTTP1_1, and then press ENTER.
Right-click EnableHTTP1_1, and then click Modify.
Type 1, and then click OK.
On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click
DWORD Value.
Type ProxyHttp1.1, and then press ENTER.
Right-click ProxyHttp1.1, and then click Modify.
Type 1, and then click OK. click F5 to refresh the registry.
Exit Registry Editor.
And the link you pasted above (answer.microsoft.com) mentioned that this issue could be related with Blue Coat proxy, as a test, I suggest you set IE to "Automatically detect settings" instead of the proxy, check if it is the culprit.
Yolanda Zhu
TechNet Community Support

PL/SQL Performance problem

I am facing a performance problem with my current application (PL/SQL packaged procedure)
My application takes data from 4 temporary tables, does a lot of validation and
puts them into permanent tables.(updates if present else inserts)
One of the temporary tables is parent table and can have 0 or more rows in
the other tables.
I have analyzed all my tables and indexes and checked all my SQLs
They all seem to be using the indexes correctly.
There are 1.6 million records combined in all 4 tables.
I am using Oracle 8i.
How do I determine what is causing the problem and which part is taking time.
Please help.
The skeleton of the code which we have written looks like this
MAIN LOOP ( 255308 records)-- Parent temporary table
-----lots of validation-----
update permanent_table1
if sql%rowcount = 0 then
insert into permanent_table1
Loop2 (0-5 records)-- child temporary table1
-----lots of validation-----
update permanent_table2
if sql%rowcount = 0 then
insert into permanent_table2
end loop2
Loop3 (0-5 records)-- child temporary table2
-----lots of validation-----
update permanent_table3
if sql%rowcount = 0 then
insert into permanent_table3
end loop3
Loop4 (0-5 records)-- child temporary table3
-----lots of validation-----
update permanent_table4
if sql%rowcount = 0 then
insert into permanent_table4
end loop4
-- COMMIT after every 3000 records
END MAIN LOOP
Thanks
Ashwin N.

Do this intead of ditching the PL/SQL.
DECLARE
TYPE NumTab IS TABLE OF NUMBER(4) INDEX BY BINARY_INTEGER;
TYPE NameTab IS TABLE OF CHAR(15) INDEX BY BINARY_INTEGER;
pnums NumTab;
pnames NameTab;
t1 NUMBER(5);
t2 NUMBER(5);
t3 NUMBER(5);
BEGIN
FOR j IN 1..5000 LOOP -- load index-by tables
pnums(j) := j;
pnames(j) := 'Part No. ' || TO_CHAR(j);
END LOOP;
t1 := dbms_utility.get_time;
FOR i IN 1..5000 LOOP -- use FOR loop
INSERT INTO parts VALUES (pnums(i), pnames(i));
END LOOP;
t2 := dbms_utility.get_time;
FORALL i IN 1..5000 -- use FORALL statement
INSERT INTO parts VALUES (pnums(i), pnames(i));
get_time(t3);
dbms_output.put_line('Execution Time (secs)');
dbms_output.put_line('---------------------');
dbms_output.put_line('FOR loop: ' || TO_CHAR(t2 - t1));
dbms_output.put_line('FORALL: ' || TO_CHAR(t3 - t2));
END;
Try this link, http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/appdev.920/a96624/05_colls.htm#23723

Vista / Flash performance problem

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for