Not quite. It wasn't an original component of Windows 98; it was introduced starting with Windows 2000. Then they backported it to Windows 98 in a free update because it was still the "active" consumer version of Windows at the time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Enables Mac Hardware-Accelerated Decoding in Updated Flash Player 10.1
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1080 Flash Videos on OS X vs Win 7 and HW Utilization
Seems to run better, stronger, and faster on Win7 64 Ultimate / 8 Core MacPro with ATI 4870. However, I was wondering if someone could shed some light on processor percentage utilization as reported by Task Manager vs Activity Monitor since TM reports for all cores combined % out of 100 and AM reports up to 1600% for 16 cores if I'm not mistaken.
Google Chrome on Win7 playing 1080 Youtube vid: 1% - 3% out of a possible 100%
-
Flash Plugin for Safari on OS X 10.6.4 playing same 1080 vid: 49% - 54% out of a possible 1600%?
How do these figures compare / relate for utilization with and without hardware acceleration on win / without on 10.6.4. Is this really as simple as well...simple math? TYIA
Seems to run better, stronger, and faster on Win7 64 Ultimate / 8 Core MacPro with ATI 4870. However, I was wondering if someone could shed some light on processor percentage utilization as reported by Task Manager vs Activity Monitor since TM reports for all cores combined % out of 100 and AM reports up to 1600% for 16 cores if I'm not mistaken.
Google Chrome on Win7 playing 1080 Youtube vid: 1% - 3% out of a possible 100%
-
Flash Plugin for Safari on OS X 10.6.4 playing same 1080 vid: 49% - 54% out of a possible 1600%?
How do these figures compare / relate for utilization with and without hardware acceleration on win / without on 10.6.4. Is this really as simple as well...simple math? TYIA
You're right.. I forgot MS does things like that.
What? Does things like "adding value to a product that's in the field"?
Whereas the Apple stance is usually "you need to toss your current Apple into the toxic waste bin, and buy a new Apple with a graphics chip that we choose to support¹".
...
¹ Disclaimer: Check the Apple support pages, don't assume that any currently or recently shipping GPU is on the list of supported GPUs.
People are complaining about Adobe but they should complain about Apple.
We have the year 2010 and just three GPUs have hardware acceleration: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M GPUs.
Video acceleration is also limited.
- AFAIK just H.264 acceleration (no other codecs)
- and:
"Video clips will a width of 864 fallback to software H264 decoding on the nVidia GeForce 9400M. This is a known limitation of the GeForce 9400M drivers. Unfortunately, YouTube Clips at 480p resolution often use a width of 864. Switch to 720p or 1080p to benefit from hardware acceleration for these clips. The hardware decoder will not be used for video with frame dimensions smaller than 480×320. For video smaller than that size, the cpu/speed improvements for using the GPU rather than the CPU are negligible."
http://www.bytearray.org/?p=1957#comment-340315
(second comment)
We have the year 2010 and just three GPUs have hardware acceleration: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M GPUs.
Video acceleration is also limited.
- AFAIK just H.264 acceleration (no other codecs)
- and:
"Video clips will a width of 864 fallback to software H264 decoding on the nVidia GeForce 9400M. This is a known limitation of the GeForce 9400M drivers. Unfortunately, YouTube Clips at 480p resolution often use a width of 864. Switch to 720p or 1080p to benefit from hardware acceleration for these clips. The hardware decoder will not be used for video with frame dimensions smaller than 480×320. For video smaller than that size, the cpu/speed improvements for using the GPU rather than the CPU are negligible."
http://www.bytearray.org/?p=1957#comment-340315
(second comment)
Bollocks and you know it.
Oh, and I love how other companies try adding value to Windows by fixing the problems that Microsoft caused by "adding value".
I noticed Flash 10.1 doesn't trigger the 330M to override the integrated Intel GPU, so automatic graphics switching needs to be disabled for this to work. That's pretty lame.
Even with AGS off my CPU usage is in the 50% range for Flash video with the 330M versus 70% with the Intel GPU. That's compared to 20% CPU usage for HTML5 video, and I don't have to manually turn on or off anything.
The 330M draws 23 more watts than the integrated Intel GPU, so even if the CPU is working (slightly) less, the power hungry GPU needs to be active. This is suppose to save battery life how?
Even with AGS off my CPU usage is in the 50% range for Flash video with the 330M versus 70% with the Intel GPU. That's compared to 20% CPU usage for HTML5 video, and I don't have to manually turn on or off anything.
The 330M draws 23 more watts than the integrated Intel GPU, so even if the CPU is working (slightly) less, the power hungry GPU needs to be active. This is suppose to save battery life how?
why are you tired of flash and not Apple/OSX as that is where the blame actually lies..?
Funny thing is, that if you run Flash video files on a desktop using the Adobe's Media player, performance also sucks.
Just ran a little .flv clip using:
Adobe's Media player: CPU between 57%-59%
VLC: CPU between 17%-19%
That doesn't make me confident about Adobe's coding abilities....
Just ran a little .flv clip using:
Adobe's Media player: CPU between 57%-59%
VLC: CPU between 17%-19%
That doesn't make me confident about Adobe's coding abilities....
I don't care who's fault it is, I am using Mac OS X, and Flash doesn't work well
so I wish they would stop using it if possible or fix it, which doesn't look like its happening