example (worth the Dload, though)
Dick
On Apr 7, 2004, at 9:15 PM, Dick Applebaum wrote:
> Of course, I had to do it -- compare the XUL tree menu with the
> FlexFlash equivalent (the best I can do with limited knowledge of
> both).
>
> Here's the XUL:
>
> �����http://67.124.145.42/XUL/XULSampleTreeMenu.xul
>
> CPU 0.5%��Real Mem 54.38 MB
>
> and the FlexFlash:
>
> �����http://67.124.145.42:8100/Flex/myTree.mxml
>
> CPU��6.50%��Real MEM 64.98 MB
>
> The FlexFlash:
>
> 1) takes longer to load
> 2) Takes longer to render
> 3) performs slower with noticeable delays (shudders)
> 4) consumes over 10 times the CPU cycles (when inactive)
> 5) consumes 20% more real mem when inactive.
> 6) has a significant impact on other RIAs on the desktop
>
> I will say this, however, the XML that defines the Flash tree is much
> more concise (and easy to write) than the XUL equivalent.
>
> AFAIK, there is no animation in the Flash example (unless it is there
> by default)
>
> Dick
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
