In case you missed it, the link you offered describes how the FSF hates h.264 also.
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's Flash Player 10.2 to Offer Up to Ten-Fold Improvement in CPU Efficiency
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Flash 10.1 was a step in the right direction it looks like Flash 10.2 will finally be useable for video. It's still not my ideal solution but it is a hell of a lot better than it used to be.
Just tried it on my computer (specs below) and my CPU usage when from 65% to ~15% for Flash on a 1080p video YouTube File. Obviously not a 10x drop but a 4-5x drop is nothing to sneeze at. Can't wait for this to come out of beta and more websites to start adopting it.
Just tried it on my computer (specs below) and my CPU usage when from 65% to ~15% for Flash on a 1080p video YouTube File. Obviously not a 10x drop but a 4-5x drop is nothing to sneeze at. Can't wait for this to come out of beta and more websites to start adopting it.
The group that actually governs the HTML5 standard says otherwise:
W3C: Hold off on deploying HTML5 in websites
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/w3c-hold-html5-in-websites-041
HTML5 is not a codec.
h.264 is a codec, but it's also proprietary and requires licensing fees.
What benchmarks can you share comparing the efficiency of Flash's Actionscript bytecode to HTML5's translation from raw XML for similar actions?
HTML5 - Roughly 40% CPU usage
Flash 10.2 (10.2.151.49) - Roughly 80% CPU usage
Tested on an iMac with a 4850 that doesn't have hardware acceleration in either HTML5 or Flash on the following video running in 1080p: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6_MkIvKOo
Try harder, Adobe.
Flash 10.2 (10.2.151.49) - Roughly 80% CPU usage
Tested on an iMac with a 4850 that doesn't have hardware acceleration in either HTML5 or Flash on the following video running in 1080p: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6_MkIvKOo
Try harder, Adobe.
Well, HTML5 only specifies the <video></video> tag, so the codec has nothing to do with HTML5. FYI, H.264 is nowadays royalty free.
It is not proprietary. It is an open standard that requires licensing fees.
It is only royalty free for certain uses. For example, you still have to pay royalties for encoders and decoders and most non-web video.
Last edited:
So basically you say that an embed plugin decoding a file on the fly is theoretically faster than a native solution... Mmm interesting concept...
No (not even close).
I'm saying Adobe has updated FlashPlayer faster (more frequently, and with more significant updated capabilities) than W3C updates HTML/CSS (whose new features only find their way into browsers at the pace the various browser makers implement them).
That's the way plug-ins were intended to work: giving end users the ability to instantly update their own browsers with the added features they want, independent of the browser makers.
ROFL
at least adobe is trying desperately to mend things/flash, there is and always will be a legacy of stuff on the www that are and will remain embedded in flash format, whether flash was the norm then
it is important that the information be retrieved now and in future
even if flash will not be the future
Looks to me that they've been working on it all this time everyone has been bitching.
HAH, maybe you don't boot up Windows 7, it can't crash unless you get to the desktop.
. Well I have an office with W7 PC's plus my own bootcamp partition which I hardly use, it's just "there" and the times I've booted up to tinker around and play a YouTube video Flash ends up crashing the system where it just hangs and I can't even move the cursor and this goes for some of the other PC's in the office that we dare to play any Flash video's on. I end up having to do a hard reboot. This forum is no more hilarious than the people that come here flaming it daily. Hmm, what was the name of that hawaiian cartoon, Something and Stitch??? 
HAH, maybe you don't boot up Windows 7, it can't crash unless you get to the desktop.
I've never had this issue.
If it's "open" then why does it require licensing fees?
Are there not patents for proprietary technology involved in h.264?
Exactly. That was the point of my reply to fishmoose, that there is no relationship between HTML5 and Flash when it comes to playing video.
You can't play video without a codec, and the only truly free codec is the one few people use, Ogg.
True, the licensing fees involved are not called "royalty" fees per se, but aside from that legalistic sleight of hand there are indeed licensing fees, and from what I hear they aren't cheap.
I'm more impressed by Flash using over 120% of the CPU.
How do I get my other CPU intensive apps to do that??? Go check for your self with those examples:
http://dev.sencha.com/deploy/css3-ads/
The flash ECMA interpreter look like Netscape Navigator or IE6 in terms of efficiency. All modern browser now got more efficient javascript interpreter than Flash.
It's not proprietary, and requires fees only for who making encoder and decoder. On a Mac, Apple is paying those fee for every quicktime user and since you already bought your Adobe software for making Flash stuff, Adobe is paying for you the licensing fee for encoding h.264 video with Adobe Media Encoder. So this is a complete none issue made up by h.264 detractor.
Last edited:
Hmmm well my Mac flash crashes all the time but my windows version i have only had it crash on me 2 times in the 3 months i have been using it.
Well I don't think most of the people here are denying that Adobe has done a poor job on the Mac version. I refuse to believe it has anything to do with OS X, especially now that they are showing such vast improvement on this latest 10.2 build. Adobe is fulla crap.
Because the codec uses patented technology. It is "open" in the sense that it is openly licensed and controlled by a standards committee rather than a single company.
You said h.264 is proprietary. Proprietary requires ownership. No one owns h.264. They own patents utilized in h.264. These patents were contributed to h.264 in exchange for licensing fees.
Sure. But containing proprietary technology is not the same as being proprietary. For example, most Linux distributions likely contain patented technology.