ArcticFox vs TigerTUBE

Dronecatcher

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 17, 2014
3,066
2,511
Lincolnshire, UK
Thought I'd do some testing on my newly aquired 1.07Ghz G4 iBook with regards to Youtube, using the MenuMeters CPU gauge to compare and contrast.

TigerTUBE is quick to launch and navigate and in this example, the 360P video was running the CPU at 56% 17 seconds in.

ArcticFox, as a full browser, takes much longer to load up and navigate but the same video at 17 seconds in has slashed the CPU to 24%

The key difference here is that, with the Greasemonkey add-on, ArcticFox downloads the video prior to playback and in this case has the huge leverage of Coreplayer to ease the task of playback.
Where the video is movie length, the realtime playback of TigerTUBE would be preferable to waiting for the download.

TT.jpg

AF.jpg
 

netsrot39

macrumors regular
Feb 7, 2018
117
72
Austria
Is there any way to enter fullscreen mode in TigerTube or YewTube? I haven't been able to find such option ...
 

wicknix

macrumors 6502a
Jun 4, 2017
520
979
Wisconsin, USA
Correct. I haven't found much in the way of UA's that work well with Tigers old webkit engine. @Dronecatcher 's windows mobile UA worked the best. If anybody finds a UA that offers full screen ability in 360p i'd be more than happy to churn out another build.

On a side note: *IF* you use tenfourkit with the same windows mobile UA you can use full screen. You'll notice the icon on the progress bar, however it drops frames and gets choppy. It's too bad tenfourkit development stopped as Tiger could really benefit from a newer webkit backend.

Cheers