bit-tech.net

Windows 8 tablets will support Flash

Windows 8 tablets will support Flash

Windows 8 was unveiled last week at the Build developers' conference in California.

Adobe has stated that it expects tablets and PCs running Microsoft's recently-unveiled Windows 8 operating system to support Flash 'just fine'.

On the Adobe Flash Platform Blog, the company revealed that the content supported by the new OS would include rich web based games and premium videos,' following Microsoft's earlier announcement that the Internet Explorer browser in the operating system's Metro interface wouldn't support plug-ins.

Microsoft said it had worked hard to make Metro rely as little as possible on older technologies. Instead it had concentrated on the latest version of web technology - HTML 5.

This is still the case, but Adobe has pointed out that you'll still be able to access Flash content if you go back the Windows desktop interface, rather than the flashy new Metro interface. As such, people using a standard computer to browse the Internet are unlikely to be affected, but viewing Flash content isn't going to be easy on tablets that take advantage of the Metro system.

Adobe says it hopes to get around this problem using its AIR platform, as it does with current tablets based on Android, iOS and the BlackBerry tablet OS. However, Apple's iPad, the best-selling tablet out there has still seen excellent sales without native Flash support.

Do you think tablets running Windows 8 will be a hit? Should Flash support be essential on tablets? Let us know in the forum.

30 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
yakyb 19th September 2011, 11:56 Quote
I will Be Getting one eventually (hopefully)
and hope that i can get by without Flash, its horrible.

we just need youtube to catchup and remove the requirement for flash
rollo 19th September 2011, 12:13 Quote
iPad does YouTube and has no flash
antiHero 19th September 2011, 12:22 Quote
Because youtube has a lot of its videos also in html5 but not all yet
GuilleAcoustic 19th September 2011, 12:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
iPad does YouTube and has no flash

Except that it is not in flash. I'd like to see a tablet on which you can install whatever OS you want (a linux ?)

Really Apple has nice product ... but I can't bear Apple and it politics (fat melon head ?).
SexyHyde 19th September 2011, 13:23 Quote
cant flash just die already.
Da_Rude_Baboon 19th September 2011, 13:29 Quote
Die flash, die!
GuilleAcoustic 19th September 2011, 13:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Rude_Baboon
Die flash, die!

shhhhh ... adobe could hear you :)
GoodBytes 19th September 2011, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Rude_Baboon
Die flash, die!

Why would it die? It's less CPU intensive than HTML5, and video playback uses the GPU, unlike HTML5. Plus HTML5 is limited compared to Flash.
xinaes 19th September 2011, 15:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Rude_Baboon
Die flash, die!

Why would it die? It's less CPU intensive than HTML5, and video playback uses the GPU, unlike HTML5. Plus HTML5 is limited compared to Flash.

It's not quite correct to state that HTML5 doesn't use the GPU for video playback. Of course the spec itself is somewhat orthogonal to browser implementations, but I believe development of GPU accelerated HTML5 is well underway for all of the major browsers.
fdbh96 19th September 2011, 15:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Why would it die? It's less CPU intensive than HTML5, and video playback uses the GPU, unlike HTML5. Plus HTML5 is limited compared to Flash.

But I can't use flash on my iPad :D
GoodBytes 19th September 2011, 16:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xinaes
It's not quite correct to state that HTML5 doesn't use the GPU for video playback. Of course the spec itself is somewhat orthogonal to browser implementations, but I believe development of GPU accelerated HTML5 is well underway for all of the major browsers.
Oh I agree, don't get me wrong... but the time it gets there.. it will take many years. While at the same time, obviously, Flash will continue to move forward. The day Flash will day, is when Flash development stop, and HTML5 surpasses it with some margin.

Already it looks like Flash 11 64-bit is coming along, plus 3D support with GPU acceleration, and uses even more the GPU to render graphics, dropping the work load of the CPU, which should help boost battery life. Flash 11 is still in beta, but sounds promising.

Ideally, Flash should be full GPU rendered (as it should have been since day 1), and that would solve a big problem. As all that is Flash is doing is really easy to go for any GPU, but killer for the CPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
But I can't use flash on my iPad :D
So don't buy products that doesn't fit your needs. :p
dyzophoria 19th September 2011, 16:14 Quote
unless html5 steps up more, you won't really see flash "die" anytime soon, on simple stuff, html5 excels at efficiency and especially low power usage compared to flash, but on sites (games even) that have complex stuff to do?, well sorry to burst your bubble but the sad truth is flash is faster , though html5 technologies continue to develop, but for now, its just a no brainer.
Oggyb 19th September 2011, 16:23 Quote
On a usability note, I'm looking forward to the day when my semi-pc-literate friends buy a new win8 machine and get hopelessly confused when confronted with two versions of the same browser that look different and one doesn't support plugins.

Ace.
thehippoz 19th September 2011, 16:35 Quote
adobe makes some crazy good stuff.. think the flash plugin gets updated so often though there's bugs that pop up

general public + bugs = steve jobs dancing around
Zurechial 19th September 2011, 18:44 Quote
Microsoft is making some really bold moves with Win8, from the inclusion of an ARM version to their insistence on using HTML5 instead of relying on Flash for Metro.

Bold moves, but also good moves I think; and ones which may actually benefit the user in the longer-term; not just Microsoft.
rogerrabbits 19th September 2011, 20:45 Quote
Well to me, the fact that it's Windows more importantly means that I can use DOSBOX!!!!!! Flash is just icing on the cake... So basically regardless of the performance of the device, I can play fun Flash games and reaaally fun DOS games. (As well as all the other stuff you can do on a tablet). That instantly makes the iPad worthless and obsolete, imo.
Guinevere 19th September 2011, 20:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb
we just need youtube to catchup and remove the requirement for flash

It doesn't have a requirement for flash though. I can browse youtube quite happily on my iPad and iPhone. Never encountered a video it couldn't play.
Guinevere 19th September 2011, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Why would it die? It's less CPU intensive than HTML5

LOL. I know where you're coming from but sheesh, you're the worst defence lawyer ever!

Yes, there are tasks where HTML 5 uses more CPU than Flash. But to side with flash based on it's low CPU usage! No, no and thrice no. It's a CPU hog, that is THE main user end issue with flash.

(The other big issue is web deliverable apps would remove the revenue stream of "app stores")

Edit:

Rep given to all fellow flash haters :)
GoodBytes 19th September 2011, 21:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
LOL. I know where you're coming from but sheesh, you're the worst defence lawyer ever!
Good thing I am not doing a degree in that field :D
Quote:

Yes, there are tasks where HTML 5 uses more CPU than Flash. But to side with flash based on it's low CPU usage! No, no and thrice no. It's a CPU hog, that is THE main user end issue with flash.
Yea you are right using HTML 5 like HTML1, simple basic formatting pages. HTML is faster.
I am obviously not talking about that. I am talking about video, audio, and animations.

Doing a website in full Flash and such, is plain idiotic. These are people who don't know how to use Flash. Same for Java, and Java-Script. There are proper way, and optimized ways to do things. When it's well programmed, and well used on both, is what I am comparing.

Quote:
Edit:
Rep given to all fellow flash haters :)
Congrads you broke the rep system.
IronDoc 19th September 2011, 21:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
Microsoft is making some really bold moves with Win8, from the inclusion of an ARM version to their insistence on using HTML5 instead of relying on Flash for Metro.

Bold moves, but also good moves I think; and ones which may actually benefit the user in the longer-term; not just Microsoft.
This is actually what I thought when Apple made a similar move. Never likely to buy any of their stuff, but I'm glad that some OS developers are backing HTML5 over flash. Even if it may be inferior right now, it's finally put some real pressure on Adobe to get flash up to scratch or get left behind.
Zurechial 19th September 2011, 22:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronDoc
This is actually what I thought when Apple made a similar move. Never likely to buy any of their stuff, but I'm glad that some OS developers are backing HTML5 over flash. Even if it may be inferior right now, it's finally put some real pressure on Adobe to get flash up to scratch or get left behind.

Same here. Like plenty of others I've cracked jokes about the lack of Flash on iPhones etc. but in reality it seemed like a move for the best to me, even if it just put some fire under Adobe to improve Flash.

I'd still rather see a plugin-less standard taking over, even with all of the controversy surrounding the implementation of HTML5.
rogerrabbits 20th September 2011, 01:46 Quote
I love my iphone but to be honest, if it had flash, I wouldn't have spent a single £ on the app store.
Tyinsar 20th September 2011, 05:20 Quote
A Partial History of Windows Versions:

"3.0" fixed in "3.11"
"95" fixed in "98"
"ME" fixed in "2000"/"XP"
"Vista" fixed in "7"
"8" fixed in ...

kind of like Intel's "Tick-Tock" schedule except MS has a "great new features" (/experimental) version followed by a "functional & stable features" version.
GoodBytes 20th September 2011, 05:34 Quote
Actually this is not true.
98 sucks, it took 98 SE.
2000/XP has no relation to Me. Windows 2000 is using the NT kernel, while Me used Win9x kernel (MSDOS embedded).

XP is the OS that merged Win9x for Home computers, with WinNT for business into 1 OS.
XP was awful OS at start, it took SP2 to actually make it good.

Vista was actually pretty good if you had all the drivers, and a modern PC.
itrush07 20th September 2011, 05:38 Quote
Very interesting.. can't we just all wait and see if these devices will use flash or html5.. can't wait to find out too..
Optimaximal 20th September 2011, 13:01 Quote
Congrats Tyinsar for getting it totally wrong and/or twisting the truth to suit your point. You win the internet for a day!
Guinevere 20th September 2011, 14:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Congrads you broke the rep system.

It was working?
wuyanxu 20th September 2011, 14:35 Quote
yay, now there's more reason to view the flash adverts that sucks away at your battery life.

yes, you can disable it. but why bother with it in the first place?

sorry, i much prefer my 10 hour ipad 2. ipad is the only device i have ever owned to allow me to use it without thinking about draining battery. no other devices had able to do that. they are either too powerful that drains battery in minutes (laptops), or too underpowered making them useless for any task. (netbooks, smartphone's tiny screen)
thehippoz 20th September 2011, 17:46 Quote
got a asus eee netbook.. does 9 hours and I can replace the battery with something bigger (9 cell) if wanted more.. it runs linux in a vm too

does way more than a ipad can do and is small- has a keyboard.. usb to connect my devices that are illegal to apple and a lot cheaper

it's just different strokes for different folks =] some people use their laptops for more than browsing the net.. like maybe they want to shock their balls through the usb portsy.. apple says no- your stuck.. same argument though- if browse the net, why do you need anything more
Tyinsar 20th September 2011, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Actually this is not true.
98 sucks, it took 98 SE.
2000/XP has no relation to Me. Windows 2000 is using the NT kernel, while Me used Win9x kernel (MSDOS embedded).

XP is the OS that merged Win9x for Home computers, with WinNT for business into 1 OS.
XP was awful OS at start, it took SP2 to actually make it good.

Vista was actually pretty good if you had all the drivers, and a modern PC.
True, it was rough and I suppose you could say 95 was fixed in OSR 2.5 but the basic idea was that MS tries a few big new things every so often then fixes them in the next "version".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimaximal
...
If we keep our comments constructive and informative we can have a nice community here - we like it that way.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums