With Firefox on Linux Flash can easily hog down the whole browser and it can get noticeable outside the browser, too. That's were Flashblock comes in even more handy -- I normally don't suffer from that problem thanks to that little extension. It also tends to avoid the bug with audio failing if multiple Flash videos are running (which I believe is fixed in Flash 10, but you still see older Flash instances around).
Peter Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
