I have a new Macbook Pro. dual core 2.4Ghz. It's _not_ a lack of CPU power.
Also, not all flash players suck down an entire core, just most. Also, due to thread nicing, it doesn't actually impinge on my notebook's performance - only on other flash apps running. It does empty my battery, get the fans going, and heat the casing quite effectively. As to the topic of hardware decoding: Why _WONT_ flash use hardware decoding facilities? I have no idea if it does or not, but if you know for sure and it doesn't, and other apps like, say, VLC or even just quicktime does, then flash again just sucks ass. Does anyone know if putting an H.264 encoded video file on your own webservers (instead of, say, pointing at a youtube video as a fallback to a <video> tag with a locally hosted ogg source) requires you to have a licence? On Jul 7, 12:57 pm, Joe Data <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know a lot about Macs but this may not be Flash related, but > more of a problem that your Mac's CPU isn't powerful enough to decode > the video without assistence from the graphics card (it seems to be a > couple of years old, since it's not an Intel Mac). My Dell XPS M1710 > recently mostly died (September 2006, Core Duo 2 2.3 GHz, powerful > Nvidia graphics card), and that could display 1080 HD Quicktime movies > under Windows XP. My replacement laptop (2005, Pentium M 2 GHz, ATI > chipset graphics) hardly can dispay Quicktime movie trailes at > "Medium" and chokes at most regular Youtube videos. I think you > either need a powerful CPU (dual or quad core) or hardware decoding > assistance by the graphics card to show higher quality Youtube videos > or HD video, which is an advantage for H.264 (supported in hardware > broadly) over Ogg Theora. > > BTW: The Ars Technica article mentions that by the end of 2010, H.264 > gets a new licensing, and it's unclear what that will look like. > Maybe this is the "Unisys moment for H.264" - Unisys had a patent that > affected GIF and sued the world and their dog for royalties; this lead > many to just switch to PNG or JPG. With H.264 supported in hardware, > such a switch to a different video format will be much harder, so I > think there'll be a lot of pressure to keep licensing fees reasonable, > but you can't rule out that this will be H.264's downfall. > > On Jul 7, 4:08 am, [email protected] (Dominic Mitchell) wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 08:58:05PM -0700, Joe Data wrote: > > > - I don't have a Mac, but I doubt that Flash in general sucks on the > > > Mac - after all, most Flash designers probably use the Mac, so Adobe > > > has an incentive. > > > It doesn't suck per-se, but it does use a lot of CPU to display video. > > I think that's the main complaint. Certainly my iMac G5 grinds to a > > halt… > > > -Dom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
