On Aug 7, 10:38 pm, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 14:32 -0700, Fx wrote: > > I definitely feel that alternatives need to be considered for Chrome > > OS, especially for netbooks. You and I have dual-core AMD processors > > running at 2 GHz, with a Nvidia GPU, and even then Flash seems to > > require 50% CPU or more. A netbook might have an Atom running at 1.6 > > GHz with an embedded Intel GPU (Pine Trail) or an off-chip Intel > > graphics chip, or an ARM A8 running around 1 GHz with its embedded > > GPU... on those less-powerful platforms, a YouTube or Hulu experience > > could be a lot less than optimal using the current version of Adobe > > Flash for Linux (compared to the WinXP/Win7 experience), and that > > alone could sink Chrome OS. jmho > > Completely agree with you about Flash on netbooks. Even though that's > not really their main purpose, the ability to watch Flash movies (or any > videos, for that matter) online can be extremely useful, no matter what > your work is. I hear Adobe is working on a version of Flash for embedded > (ARM?) computers, but it would still be nice to have a lighter-weight > alternative.
The thing is, while you or I may agree that netbooks aren't meant to be used to watch Flash, they have been marketed/touted as devices for web-browsing and light word-processing, capable of running for 5+ hours on a single battery charge, and for better or worse, watching videos on YouTube, Hulu, etc. is considered to be part of the web- browsing experience by most people. They are not going to be very understanding about or accepting of Chrome-OS-based netbooks if they choke when playing Flash, particularly if Windows7-based ones (or failing that, XP-based ones) are able to handle Flash videos reasonably well. That would be a black eye for Chrome OS from the very start, one from which it might never recover, and that could mean Microsoft would then win the netbook OS race by default. ***** That's why I believe addressing Flash playback performance and resource use is (or should be) part of Google's Chrome OS strategy. ***** Personally, my gut feeling is that a 1.6 GHz single-core Atom should be sufficient for smooth video playback of 480p or less.... after all, VIA successfully sold many ITX motherboards to hobbyists who used them to build low-power/low-noise SFF Media PCs. Those were able to play a variety of video formats, and the processor on them was a less- powerful 1 GHz VIA CPU. In other words, I think the processor is fast enough for good video playback.... it's just that there's either something about the Flash format itself or the Linux implementation of Adobe's plug-in that is causing excessive consumption of CPU cycles and/or RAM resources. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
