back to article Google blames Flash for hobbling Chrome, says it sucks (too much power)

If you reckon Chrome is eating up your laptop's battery, you're not alone. Google is concerned, too, but it says it's not all its fault – Adobe's to blame. Specifically, the culprit is the Adobe Flash plugin that comes built into Chrome and which automatically displays any Flash content it finds on web pages, according to …

  1. Conor Turton

    Pot, kettle, black

    Are Google going to do anything about how much power and RAM Chrome sucks up?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pot, kettle, black

      With my deeply cynical hat on, I'd wonder whether Google are actually going to sneak out a fix for the Chrome memory issue at the same time as this release; then, when Chrome performance improves after this fix rolls out, they can let it be known 'off the record' that it was obviously the Flash issue was the real cause of Chrome's performance issues all along ...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Flashblock for android

    What's wrong with just allowing the user to click on the flash objects he/she wants to activate - oh, sorry, then the ads would not get clicked. Silly me...

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Flashblock for android

      I've been running Flashblock and NoScript (Firefox) for nearly a decade. Google have only just now cottoned on to this?

      On the other hand, I de-installed or disabled Flash on all my machines back in January. Can't say I've missed it so far.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Flashblock for android

        The option to not play Flash until you click on it has been available on Chromebooks for ages. The config option is not exactly obvious, but you can google for instructions. I searched for it when my daughter complained about Flash games not running smoothly, which was, of course, caused by all the Flash advertisement running on the same page.

  3. Kurt 4

    lol since when does google care?

    People seem to be forgetting that Google sat on a bug for years which consumed up to 20% more energy and only decided to fix it after it made headlines in the news.

  4. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    As long as the adverts are still shown

    I'm not sure I could take the interwebs without them.

  5. Mark Chapman

    Uninstalling Flash wouldn't be noticed, Chrome has its own Flash runtime so doesn't rely on it. I run Flashblock in chrome , it was one of the first extensions I installed, and Chrome is still a power and memory hog, so doubt it'll help. I read it's down to the code base not using native performance enhancements, so it grabs memory etc to do its stuff.

    So run on a Chromebook and it's great as it's built for it, (even my 2gb samsung does well). Worst machine was the developer work laptop I had, quad core i7, 16gb, 1tb ssd, running chrome would require me to bring up task manager to kill other tasks that had become zombie as chrome was using 12gb of memory to display gmail in 1 tab.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      REALLY? Can you PROVE your claim?

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. K

      Unfortunately, and I really hate this fact - I beg to differ.

      Many applications used by Sysadmin utilise Flash to provide a WebUI... sucks, but it would be noticed!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        OK, so Flash isn't exactly a saint, but come on! Max out an i7 with 16GB using just Gmail? Then there's no hope for my Core 2 Q9450 with only 8GB, then, is there (hint: I can access Gmail just fine).

        The first question one must ask of any "Throw It Out!" detractor MUST be, "And replace it with WHAT?" And tell them going without is NOT an option.

        So for those who say to abandon Flash, I ask: What can you replace it with that isn't as bulky, slow, and security-vulnerable? Silverlight's in the same boat, JavaScript has plenty of holes in it, and Java's not considered trustworthy in the browser anymore. Frankly, ANYTHING else you could use will be vulnerable for the very simple reason that it requires LOCAL operation. And ANYTHING local can be subverted, privilege-escalated, and used to pwn you.

  6. Cosmo

    I speak for everyone when I say

    Flash. Arrrrrrgggghhhhh! Pain in the arse of the universe

    1. LucreLout

      Re: I speak for everyone when I say

      Death to Biiiiiiiiing!!

  7. JimmyPage Silver badge

    Is Flash not dead yet ?

    Seriously ?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. AbelSoul

        Re: What's that smell ?

        There's an al-MIGHTY MING around here.

    2. Afernie

      Re: Is Flash not dead yet ?

      Despatch AJAX and JQuery to bring back the body... oh wait, I already did this gag. Sorry.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. wdmot

      Re: Is Flash not dead yet ?


      No, sadly it's not. And unfortunately for me, I can't uninstall it: the payroll company (paychex .com) that my company outsources to *REQUIRES* Flash to use its website. Without Flash, all that the website displays (after login) is a banner at the top with not so much as a link to anything. Perhaps using Flash means not having to test their website with more than their favourite browser.

  8. Moeluk

    Are they going to fix the really horrible stuttery issue with flash and chrome.

  9. Instinct46

    Already have this fix

    A better fix which people will have been using for ages will be a flash blocker, it also helps massively reduce the memory overhead for chrome (Which I imagine might still be a problem as the comment says they'll pause the flash, so it'll loading).

  10. Dodgy Dave

    Was Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" only five short years ago?

    1. Greg J Preece

      You mean Steve Jobs' astroturfing for his devices not having the same functionality as the rest of the industry?

    2. Bucky 2

      Thoughts on Flash

      I'm sure Jobs could have set all the other concerns easily aside if it weren't for the battery consumption problem.

      It's still true today. If I don't disable Flash on my old laptop at home, then the laptop will burn a hole in my leg.

      I suppose I COULD wear pants, but....

  11. Anonymous Coward


    All those complaining about Chrome being a resource hog....have you tried SRW Iron? I'm sat here with loads of tabs open and it seems OK to me.

    Maybe it's the phone home crap that's chewing up the resources?

  12. Doogie Howser MD
    Thumb Up

    Tommy Li, love your work

    Especially the 90's home videos with the missus ;-)

  13. artbristol

    Yet more cross-browser incompatibilities for web developers to keep track of

    I think the old setting of click-to-play was the best.

    Now if you're a developer you have to figure out whether chrome is going to relegate your flash to 'inessential'. This is the kind of thing Microsoft used to do with IE. 'Enhance' the user experience at the expense of standards.

  14. jelabarre59

    Now if IBM hadn't had it's collective head up it's collective a$$, we could have been using HotMedia (java-based) rather than Flash for all that media stuff. So then we'd only have to be dealing with Java's bloat and vulnerabilities rather than Java and Flash's bloat and vulnerabilities at the same time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I got rid of Java ages ago. Couple of years. Haven't noticed any downsides so far

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Except most people have ABANDONED Java at this point. Plenty have declared it to be hopelessly vulnerable at the browser and say if you're going to use it, use it for applications only.

      Which means either/or. We EITHER use Java's bloat and vulnerabilities OR Flash's bloat and vulnerabilities. OR we end up using something else that is necessarily vulnerable and gets bloated before long.

  15. CaptainBanjax weary...

    That is all.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just run plugins on demand

    You can set this option on Chrome as an advanced setting. It works well for me. Flash was an awful CPU hog before I did this, good riddance.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like