yay!
-adam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 06:16 PM
> To: 'CF-Talk'
> Subject: RE: Flex again!
>
> Memory usage *can* be an issue. Especially if the design doesn't respect
> it's usage.
>
> As for penetration, I think player 7 is at about 30-40% or
> higher...takes about a year I think to reach mid 90's.
>
>
>
> Stace
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 2:03 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Flex again!
>
>
>
> 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]
