Using Flash is like only using Microsoft OSs. They are both resource hogs, legacy programs, non-open source and susceptible to security problems. Flash reminds me of the way people first used fonts in the first Mac. "Wow, Martha, look at all the fonts and 'styles' we can use in just one sentence?! I'll bet our friends will be impressed with those Christmas letters, now!" I don't think it quite worked out that well...
Flash does have some valid uses, just like dynamite. But, similarly to dynamite, one should know how and when to use it. Yes, one
can 'fish' with dynamite, but it is not an extremely good choice when there are several boats around...Oops!
That's what
Paddy is seeing and many others would too, if they just tried some of the many Flash blockers, even temporarily.
But you
can open Activity Monitor and then visit a site using Flash and see how much more work your Mac has to do. Flash is basically a programmable animation graphics program. Graphics take more computer power than plain text. And this extra work required by your computer is used by the Flash plug-in that every single computer must have in order to see anything from it. That plug-in is like having a whole web browser running just to show the Flash and not a very well designed browser, at that. Now, if you have a fast machine, a fast connection and plenty of RAM or disk space, you may not ever see the performance degradation on you screen. If you don't have the latest and greatest or a slower connection, sit back and relax...
Lastly, Flash is proprietary. There is no other source for Flash 'technology' than Adobe. Adobe has never had much of a pristine character for many years. They seem oblivious to what users want, expecting everyone to just sit back and accept what is offered.
The most promising alternative to Flash, at the present, seems to be html5. Unfortunately, the group that sets the standards for html (and many other open source media methods) is sometimes blown off the track by passing turtles!
Obviously the epitome of committee "performance" speed. When they finally publish something, it is usually excellently thought out and extremely flexible, but it just doesn't happen over night.
Personally, I think the real push for replacing Flash with something more modern, widely useable and less demanding of the hardware, is the fact that Apple has refused to allow any implementation of Flash on the iPhone/Touch or the iPad. YouTube doesn't want to miss that platform, nor do an ever increasing number of businesses that want eyeballs on their sites. As in much of nature, these businesses couldn't care less about the advantages or problems with any particular programming method, all they care about is survival. And they see many of Apple's mobile products as necessary for that. If Adobe has to die along the way, so be it.
I think the mere name of Flash pretty much tells the whole story. "It's all flash and no substance."
