Fitch, Tyler wrote: > > Imagine a e-commerce site in Flash and in HTML. > > A user comes in and compares multiple products, over and over again > because they can't make up their mind and because they don't care about > how much data they take in. > > In Flash, with every product page load the Flash player calls for a gets > the product description and a jpg. > > In HTML each click loads a whole page, header - footer and all. Over > and over again. > > In THIS case I see Flash taking less bandwidth.
And XUL + XMLHTTP even less :) > App #2 - a rich app with video and bells and whistles. You already know > you're going to be spending bandwidth. You pretty much have to use > Flash to do it nicely, or use Quicktime or something else less elegant. > But you're using video and you know it, so you have different bandwidth > concerns already. Not necessarily. Multicast could very well be the real bandwidth saver here (and Flash doesn't support it). > Flash applications add possibilities. One is saving bandwidth, another > is using bandwidth. Depends on each individual application. Very true. It is the application, together with the skills (and the imagination) of the people that work on it that decide what is the best option. Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
