Forum menu
still grumpy stoner? i'll take 20% on a G4 ibook which must be about 4 years old.
* i.e stuff I choose for it to do, not some web designer
ps. you have a choice to visit this site too*
* I hate the video ads too though.
I have a choice to turn flash ads off as well.
which leads to an interesting proposition:
"Is it more immoral to visit the site with flash ads off but viewing the remaining static ads OR to boycott the site alltogether (RSS feed permitted maybe? 🙂 ) so not viewing any adverts, Flash or static?"
"Is it more immoral to visit the site with flash ads off but viewing the remaining static ads OR to boycott the site alltogether (RSS feed permitted maybe? ) so not viewing any adverts, Flash or static?"
does 'morality' come into it ? I'm finding it hard not to read your 2nd option as being that it might be immoral not to view the adverts, even if you didn't consume any of the site's resouces, which seems bizarre. If we're talking morals, might one not ask is it moral to:
a) induce people to spend more than they can afford on things they don't actually [b]need[/b] ?
b) consume more extra electricity in their computer than the revenue incurred ?
A.C.Grayling I aint. 😉
I still want the CPU volume on these flash ads turning down before I turn them back on again.
Any nerdy types care to speculate on the cost of the extra CPU consumption on electricity costs etc 😉
ballpark figure for PC consumption 200W = ~2p/hour, so 50% usage would be 1p/hr
depending on clock speed and load differences it looks like the ads may be using anywhere between 50 and 100W
🙂
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/computer-power-consumption.html
down with flash
fight tha powah
How does one find out the consumption of an Intel mac using the site?
Get kill-a-watt or cheap knock off from aldi.
deadlydarcy, type activity monitor into finder and open the app. There should be something called Flashplayer for safari, probably using most of your CPU!!!!
Nope, safari not using anymore than 5% of my CPU
Safari on the macbook uses 10% of cpu without ads, 20% + with. The old ibook however just can't handle the ads at all.
4GB of ram helps the macbook somewhat.
kiwijohn, I figured you couldn't be right as when i checked yesterday on my old G4 ibook, 1.3GHz with 512MB RAM, STW uses just 20%. I just double checked and when i'm scrolled down (no flash visible on the page) its at about 20-30%, then if i scroll back up so that I can see the ads its at 60-70%. Still perfectly usable although This machine doesn't have much crap on it clogging things up, it just gets used for the internet. ps thats in firefox, haven't used safari in ages.
My ibook is an older 800MHz with 640MB of ram. It's also stripped back for just web surfing. Turning on the ads does make it more sluggish.
On the macbook, it drives the cpu temp into the 70's, sitting on 40 now. That can't be good.
Brill, somebody has fixed the laggy scrolling caused by the background image!
Thanks whoever did that! 🙂
woohoo...
hand't noticed...since it's turned off.
Anyway, back to the meat of it...are we going to end up with an impasse that says STW towers are happy with, say 20% of the average machine's CPU time being taken up with handling their flash ads and sodthelotofyoucozyou'lljustblockitifitsanissue...or will we ever see a sea change that moves STW ad styles away from flash and back to a benign forum environment that doesnt rape the planet?
Weird now mine is using about 6% for safari and 7% for flash palyer...could it be the new crc advert??
My laptop battery life has just seen a huge improvement - not saying why. 🙂
Is it just me or have a lot of the ads simply disappeared now? I never turn them off, they are useful links sometimes... 🙂
Oh, this is still rolling! So, my (latest) tuppence: "The Web" has been a request/response thang since the beginning (call it Web 1.0). You request a resource via a URL (a web page, ie some HTML) and it in turn includes some resources (images, later came javascript, later came CSS). This is rendered to be usable. And that's it. You read, scroll, click to the next page.
Then Web 2.0/AJAX/etc came along and we can do stuff on the page with little requests firing in the background, with useful results - also via HTML, JS, CSS but with XMLHTTPRequest. This is Flickr, Google Docs etc. This is basically an app and I'm happy to use CPU to power it.
And then there's entertainment media, such as last.fm, YouTube, iplayer etc. I get the page, it loads a flash player and streams media, I watch. Again, I am happy to use CPU.
And then there's STW. A basic Web 1.0 app but with blimmin useless media whose sole purpose is to attract/distract me. But seeing as it's a highly specialist site with many repeat visitors, flashy Flash ain't going to swing it. It has no advantage. It's just an overhead for the user. It puts people off.
So: Comments in this thread are either "my computer's fine, I'm happy and (by inference) wouldn't click on a low-CPU page version button in my preferences if it existed" and those who say "You either provide a low-CPU version I can select in my preferences when logged on, or I have to block ads - I have no choice you're eating my CPU".
Go on Go on Go on Go on Go on Go on Go on....
Cheers, al.
Dragging this up again, [url= http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/ ]Click to flash[/url] for safari, to just kill the evil flash. You can still click on the ads if you wish.
thanks Kiwijohn!! 🙂