Re: ITV gives Silverlight the heave ho
- From: zoara <me18@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Sep 2009 13:47:16 GMT
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
zoara <me18@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[snip]
wrote:
R <me32@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes. Like I say elsewhere, a BBC HD stream takes 60%-70% of
one of
my
2.5GHz G5's CPUs, and it's got the one-up-from-base graphics
card.
I'm not sure if Flash is using GPU assisted decoding under OS X.
Actually, I'm not sure if it's using it under Windows either.
But it
must be doing something different to use the CPU so little
there.
If it's not using the CPU or graphics card, what *is* it using?
Fairy
dust? Scotch mist? The keyboard controller?
Allow me to clarify:
Clarify? Is that what you call it? I think you ought to have written
`Allow me to get it completely wrong'.
I think we'll have to leave it to R to make that judgement call, don't
you? At least my interpretation removes the fairy dust requirement.
Statement 1: R is unsure that Flash makes use of the GPU on Macs. He
is
also unsure that Flash makes use of the GPU on Windows.
Statement 2: R believes that the Windows version is doing 'something
different' which makes it use a lot less CPU than the Mac version
does.
That is not how I read his words.
I see him saying that it takes ~2% CPU on Macs and 0-1% CPU on
Windoze.
Compare that to 100%-30% CPU load on PPC Macs when I've looked at CPU
load (depending on the Mac and the stream).
R is reporting about the same sort of CPU load on Windoze or on Macs -
a
CPU load that corresponds to `the CPU not doing any video decoding' in
/both/ cases.
*shrug* I'm not making any interpretation of the figures; I was just
commenting on the bit you were slagging off.
My understanding of his statement tallies with my experience on both
Windows and the Mac. I could have misunderstood what he said, but so
could you.
And RM (me) is sure that Flash is using the graphics card for decoding
in the cases that R's looked at, on account of it's gotta be using
*something*, it ain't using the CPU for that job, and there's nothing
else in the frame.
I wasn't arguing the correctness of R's words.
I think 'bad port' accounts for the difference in CPU usage between
Mac
and Windows. I reckon Flash was written (and optimised) for Windows,
then lazily ported to the Mac. With fewer Mac optimisations, it's
bound
to use more CPU cycles.
That argument is not backed up by the evidence presented.
It's backed up by Adobe's statements though. I guess they might be
fairly well acquainted with the relative performance of Flash on Macs
and PCs, but perhaps you know better than them.
Personally I think the difference is enough to be embarrassing; even
one
of the Big Guys at Adobe recommends using a Flash blocker to avoid
having the fans running at full whack the whole time.
I shut down a lot of Web pages rather than let the Flash play. It's a
great way of driving people away from your Web site, is Flash.
Seems like cutting your nose of to spite your face, that one, especially
when ClickToFlash is free.
Roll on HTML5, I say.
How's that going to help?
It includes video support without requiring plugins. It means that
optimisation of this sort of thing is in the hands of the people writing
web browsers rather than in the hands of plugin developers like Adobe
who are too lazy or incompetent to do a decent port to the Mac.
I think WMP must be using GPU based decoding for playing back
locally stored H.264 movies. The CPU usage is more often than
not shown as 0% when doing so.
WMP?
Windows Media Player
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wmp
Ah. That's only going to be obvious to Windoze users.
The sixth search result on that page begs to differ. Despite the name,
WMP runs on Macs, too. Think "Windows Media" Player rather than Windows
"Media Player".
Yes, they've got a long way to go before Flash video works out
as
smooth
and trouble-free as QuickTime manages.
Can we be sure Flash isn't using Quicktime?
Who's this `we'?
I've never seen QuickTime Player need to use anything like 70% CPU
on
my 4G5 for full screen video - not of any quality, and that does
include
H.264 full screen-converted-from-DVD-at-high-quality.
Sure, but that disproves nothing.
It is evidence that if Flash *does* use QT for decoding, it adds
inefficiency.
Yes, of course it is. But it still neither proves nor disproves
anything.
I doubt it does use Quicktime,
however; that's just not Adobe's style.
Aye indeed. But I know nothing about the details of Flash - is Flash
incapable of calling external code?
*shrug*
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
.
- References:
- Re: ITV gives Silverlight the heave ho
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: ITV gives Silverlight the heave ho
- Prev by Date: Re: 'Open with . . .' in SL Finder
- Next by Date: Re: 'Open with . . .' in SL Finder
- Previous by thread: Re: ITV gives Silverlight the heave ho
- Next by thread: Re: ITV gives Silverlight the heave ho
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
