requires adobe flash player 10.1 or higher error

I also firmly believe that any benchmark testing rendering performance should stick to sub 60 fps numbers. Developers tend to focus primarily on the speed of the programming language itself, when in reality, most of your cpu time is spent inside internal rendering APIs. I still believe that by completely saturating the rendering pipeline, we can get a better idea of which technologies are best suited for running interactive content on the web.

Like the first GUIMark, this new benchmark is designed for one sole purpose, to burn a hole in your CPU.

It’s undeniable that a new anchor technology is taking root in the web space, and needless to say I’ve got a new itch to scratch. Create something fun and silly in HTML5 and you’ll have hundreds of thousands of visitors pounding down the front door of your blog to speculate on the death of Flash. Attempt to shine a positive light on a plugin technology and you will be booed off the stage. Evolutionįast forward to today and the web is a different beast. Secondly, the test was too artificial and developers have a tendency of resisting optimizing apis against unrecognizable test cases. I was barely engaging the the vector and bitmap side of the rendering engines. First, the test was relying too heavily on text layout performance. There were however two serious flaws in the test that immediately stood out. After releasing it I got a good response from both the tech community as well as several platform engineers interested in resolving problems. I developed the first version of GUIMark to not only get a good understanding of the respective technologies, but also to give my clients through EffectiveUI and everyone else something to actively gauge the rendering performance of the different runtimes. “RIA” was the future of the web and every major company seemed to have a solution to get us there. Two years ago I had an itch that needed scratching.

Requires adobe flash player 10.1 or higher error