Re: Flex again!

[Adrocknaphobia]

very true, but flash unleashes an entirely new issue to deal with... client system memory. i remember the intro app mm used for last years conference used close to 40MBs of memory. At one point I had MM's site open, dreameaver mx and intro, and my 512mb system was nearly out of memory. Hence the phrase "MM wants you memory" was born. You may be helping the people with slow connections, but now you have to make sure you keep flash's memory usage low.

On top of that you have to make sure they have the most up-to-date player installed. mm touts the +90% penetration, but that number is dramtically lower for the most recent player.

-adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 04:44 PM
> To: 'CF-Talk'
> Subject: RE: Flex again!
>
> Here's a simplified case I made in a recent meeting:
>
>  
>
> 1)      Goto Amazon.com, browse through their system and go through the
> purchase process. Each time measure the file size of the HTTP document
> and any images that are pulled down on the request.
>
> 2)      Compare that against the flex store example (ok not 100% fair
> considering it doesn't do as much as Amazon)
>
>  
>
> Point being is that after the initial download...all future
> communication is via service calls...and with each request (in
> comparison to HTTP version) the total bytes used by the flex app are
> lower than the overall browser experience.
>
>  
>
> Cheers!
>
>  
>
> Stace
>
>  
>
>   _____  
>
> From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:31 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Flex again!
>
>  
>
> I've been doing some research into Flex recently and one of the things
> that has put me off of it is that it seems to not be a viable option for
> non-broadband users.  From the swf's in my cache, it seems the smallest
> size is 100K and 150K isn't too uncommon for the sample apps on
> Macromedia.com.  I know that some of my very involved DHTML apps that
> use common libraries may be getting close to that size, but at least
> with _javascript_, it can be cached.  Maybe this is why is seems that
> Macromedia is targeting the big enterprise guys instead of the common
> developers.  
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice if the next version of the flash
> player would have the base classes built in, but that would probably
> make the player download quite large.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marlon Moyer, Sr. Internet Developer
>
> American Contractors Insurance Group
>
> phone: 972.687.9445
>
> fax: 972.687.0607
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> www.acig.com
>
>   _____  
>
>
>
>

---

[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

---