Achtung Computer Geeks! I've Got a Question.
I've got an itsy-bitsy CPU -- a Celeron 566 running at 850 (Hey! Knock off the giggling! What with my 768MB of CL2 PC100 and my new HP LCD display and G550 I've got the hottest 1999c. system around). Anyhow ---
In the past I've never been affected or even particularly annoyed by internet ads. And then suddenly, there appeared the "Verizon FiOS" Flash ad. This ad regularly consumed whatever CPU resources were available (forcing my CPU to run at 100% and heating it up), but more importantly, it fought over the resources with my internet radio apps -- winamp and realplay. Thus ---
For the first time ever (going back to 1998) I installed blockers -- here, Adblock and Flashblock. And all for the purpose of blocking one objectionable ad.
I wonder how many others have done the same thing. And I wonder whether other internet advertisers should sue Verizon for incompetent coding since that single ad has resulted in my rejecting all Flash ads.
And too, what's the effect on owners of sites like Josh if his advertisers learn his visitors no longer accept Flash downloads.
The only reason I upgrade computers is because I need to be compatible with client applications, which often means Microsoft's latest upgrade. I do realistic things, like not using minimum memory (often the pacing factor for other than gamers or video editors), and I may yet need to increase my memory from 1 to 2 GB, but the Pentium 4 3GHz chip should be adequate for quite a while. Yes, I run lots of simulaneous appliations.
Ellen, what browser do you use? I find Firefox is usually much less prone to malware and the sort of rabid adware you describe. I use IE only when a site requires it, such as getting Microsoft updates.
A partial list of the security features I use are (free)Adblock Plus, and several non-free tools from PCTools. I've just become a reseller for PCTools and have a couple of security packages for their dealers only, plus some other freeware security from various sources. Yes, I do use crypto and file shredders where appropriate.
Incidentally, I have multiple LANs in the home/office with different security privileges. That isn't necessary for many users, but I am finding, more and more, that it's wise, in a house with several computers, to set up a separate LAN -- $10 Ethernet cards and a crossover cable is all you need for two computers, and a perhaps $50 switch if you have more than two. Things like backup file transfers, printer sharing, and other typically vulnerable Microsoft things are on a LAN physically separate from Internet access and with different firewall rules.
Adblock Plus -- I don't know if there's an IE version -- did take a lot of twiddling to make TPMcafe work. It turns out that a fair number of the buttons and such needed for navigation here are implemented as popups and other things that had to be explicitly whitelisted.
Have I helped or not? My bottom line is that you may want to look at alternate browsers if you are using IE.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I use Firefox -- sometimes on XP Home, sometimes on Debian Linux. And because I'm a chicken (my computer's overclocked), I keep Motherboard Monitor and Task Manager on my screen to monitor temperatures and usage. Running these utilities I saw immediately what the "Verizon FiOS" ad was doing to my computer.
From my perspective the "Verizon FiOS" Flash ad was unusual inasmuch as it commandeered such extensive computer resources -- and perhaps, others with faster, more up to date computers, did not notice the demands Verizon's Flash code writer was putting on the CPU.
If they did not, then, as a consumer of ads I'm an irrelevant outlier. If they did and took my action -- blocking all Flash ads -- then, other Flash ad writers who can now expect to see their audience diminish should have a bone to pick with that code writer.
September 19, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This might be worth passing on to the tech support folk for Flash. Macromedia might be able to yell more efficiently at Verizon, the latter being an organization that I have called the employer of last resort for colorblind cable splicers. Flash is known for being very gentle in its CPU and memory size, which is why it commands such a high price/
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
About.com reserves the right to reject [Flash] creative if it requires a higher than normal percentage of CPU resources and would, as a result of this, cause other page elements to slow down.
Apparently, I'm not completely alone.
September 19, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flash can be a little tricky sometimes, especially in IE. It does not embed correctly, nor does it play nice with Java.
It took me almost a full year to find a solid workaround problem with my site (I'm too cheap to hire a programmer/designer, so I do all my site myself). Even then, it's a poor workaround.
Which sucks, because Flash usually works great and effortlessly in Firefox.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
September 19, 2007 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That must be one hell of an ad. I've had Flash disabled for years, so I've never seen it, but it sounds like they're really pushing the envelope. Personally, I think advertisers who use Flash already understand the risks involved, and I can't imagine anyone blaming users for disabling it. It's obnoxious. Lawsuits on the horizon? Prolly not.
March 21, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: A couple of links you might be interested in:
http://www.timeinc.net/sponsors3/adspecs/flash.html
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/resource_management.html
March 21, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink