Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In other words, Apple threw them a bone, sparing them the need to either update their runtime to use Quicktime's hardware acceleration or continue to lie about the reason there was no acceleration of video playback (Adobe saying, "Apple doesn't let us hardware accelerate our Carbon frankencode that we were told was deprecated six years ago and haven't bothered to fix" doesn't have quite the rhetorical zing of "Apple doesn't give us APIs").
In case you didn't know, the latest Flash plugin is Cocoa and takes advantage of Core Animation in Safari 4.0 and Snow Leopard. The previous hold up appears to be again Apple, since Safari 3.x and Leopard did not expose Core Animation to browser plugins even for Cocoa applications. Currently neither Firefox or Chrome support Core Animation on any OS X version.

Anybody know why Apple doesn't implement this using Open CL (supporting the broad range of compatible GPUs) but this proprietary, limited way instead?
Because Apple wants to implement H.264 acceleration the smarter, faster, more power efficient way seeing that all modern GPUs come with dedicated video decode hardware. There is no reason to try to emulate this using shaders. The limited GPU support is largely a framework/driver limitation since virtually all DX10 hardware has H.264 acceleration hardware.
 
Well, if you are comparing JUST HTML5 to Flash then that is a stupid argument.

If you are comparing HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and Canvas (all internet standards) then Flash starts looking like a dinosaur from the 90's that needs to be rewritten or just completely taken out of the picture.

HTML5 + CSS + Javascript etc - Flash is *still* more capable than these. Additionally, Flash, at the moment, is more compatible across desktop platforms , and therefore has more reach since IE does not support HTML5. When targeting, multiple OS environments, Flash will still be #1 choice, until all major browsers support HTML5.
 
Last time I used a flash beta it crashed at least once an hour. Never again subjecting myself to that.

Actually, this one seems to be stable. I believe its close to the 10.1 release candidate with h.264 HW support slapped on to it.
 
HTML5 + CSS + Javascript etc - Flash is *still* more capable than these. Additionally, Flash, at the moment, is more compatible across desktop platforms - i.e., no HTML5 on IE.

No, Flash really isn't more capable than those internet standards. Also you should watch Microsoft's latest presentation for IE9, they are really pushing for internet standards with their next release.
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/
 
Only if you're naive enough to believe hiding a problem is the same as solving a problem.

Fact is although good, hardware acceleration shouldn't be a requirement to get minimal CPU usage for watching a video on modern hardware.
VLC without hardware acceleration plays the same flv videos with significantly less CPU usage.

Quite possibly the stupidest statement I have ever read.

You probably think everything should play 1080p videos without using a GPU.
 
Wait a minute, I have a question.

The list said only NVidia are supported, but I got the current iMac core i7 with the ATI Radeon HD 4850.

This card is supported or not?

it's confusing, they said all the iMac after the first quarter of 2009 and only NVidia.

Did my big 27 iinch core i7 is supported or not?
 
Im on a late 2008 macbook 13in unibody with 9400m

Pre install running same video
safari 40-43% CPU
Flash 36-40% CPU

After

safari 3-6% CPU (no joke)
Flash 29-33% CPU

But I don't have the white square. Am I just fooling my self?
 
In order words, Apple only had itself to blame for poor flash performance all along.

Go figure.

What the hell? That's spurious logic. Flash is poorly performing on ANY Flash file, not just taxing HD videos. Running a Flash-based chat app, or a Flash ad shouldn't require hardware acceleration. Why is it that an app like VLC Media Player can handle HD video with aplomb, yet Flash Player pounds up to 100% CPU usage on a 480x360 clip on YouTube. That's, like, QuickTime 4 resolution, circa 1999.

This update in 10.6.3 might help make Flash better behaved, but it's so poorly developed to begin with, that it's like driving the same Trabant for 20 years, then in 2010 sticking a supercharger in it, and then saying "Finally! It's clearly the fault of the supercharger manufacturers - why didn't they make a Trabant supercharger years ago?" A Trabant with a supercharger is still a POS. Why the hell not fix or scrap the damn thing long ago?
 
Personally, I think it's everyone involved's fault. Apple for not making the APIs and whatever available, & Adobe for not taking advantage of it & writing clean, efficient code.

Also, I'll add my discontent about the lack of Mac Pro support. Unless I read the article wrong (which is entirely possible.)
 
hm.. if the 9400m is able to decode youtube videos even when the 9600mgt is on... thats good. but it sucks for the current i5, i7 macbooks cause you have be on the 330mgt to make use of it, the intel HD just doesnt work with it
 
No, Flash really isn't more capable than those internet standards. Also you should watch Microsoft's latest presentation for IE9, they are really pushing for internet standards with their next release.
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/

Problem is, IE9 won't run on the tons of WinPCs, particularly in businesses, still running XP. Those of us who do business-friendly, video-using, U.S.-centric Web sites for a living won't be able to count on HTML 5 for a very long time. What we will have to do is make pages that use Flash and HTML 5. The coding isn't that hard once you find the time; but getting optimized video content in three different forms (.FLV for pre-HTML-5 browsers, .OGV for Firefox, and .MP4 for Chrome and Safari) almost certainly will cost more, even for those lucky enough to be able to produce their own content.
 
Some youtube videos don't play smoothly on a 9400M card, like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuNIsY6JdUw . Can anyone confirm this? I can see a weird stuttering during playback. Happens in all browsers.

360p -> white square -> all stuttery
480p -> no white square -> no stutter
both -> couldn't stand watching it for more than a few seconds

Also, get out of Apple Reality Distortion Field, Flash isn't going ANYWHERE anytime soon. I use a mac because:
1. I can use both Win7 and OSX on the same computer
2. Apple makes great hardware
3. For someone like me who buys a new laptop on every other refresh, the resale value of macs is phenomenal, it's actually cheaper than buying PC's.
 
Problem is, IE9 won't run on the tons of WinPCs, particularly in businesses, still running XP. Those of us who do business-friendly, video-using, U.S.-centric Web sites for a living won't be able to count on HTML 5 for a very long time. What we will have to do is make pages that use Flash and HTML 5. The coding isn't that hard once you find the time; but getting optimized video content in three different forms (.FLV for pre-HTML-5 browsers, .OGV for Firefox, and .MP4 for Chrome and Safari) almost certainly will cost more, even for those lucky enough to be able to produce their own content.

XP is going to soon go under the "Unsupported" heading by Microsoft. All companies will be switching to Windows 7 soon enough.
 
Problem is, IE9 won't run on the tons of WinPCs, particularly in businesses, still running XP. Those of us who do business-friendly, video-using, U.S.-centric Web sites for a living won't be able to count on HTML 5 for a very long time. What we will have to do is make pages that use Flash and HTML 5. The coding isn't that hard once you find the time; but getting optimized video content in three different forms (.FLV for pre-HTML-5 browsers, .OGV for Firefox, and .MP4 for Chrome and Safari) almost certainly will cost more, even for those lucky enough to be able to produce their own content.

All you have to do is set a fall back to Flash if HTML5 H.264 is not supported by the browser. It's pretty clear that H.264 will be the winner, Mozilla is just fighting a losing battle.
 
This is great news for battery life if you got an Apple laptop that is less than 18 months old. Other than that support is limited at least for now. No PowerPC support may be understandable, but only supporting the most current laptops? I would be happy if Adobe updated Flash for all macs built within the last 5 years, they owe us as much for making us suffer with piss poor performance for so long. But then again hopefully we will be able to live without flash in another year or two.
 
This is great news for battery life if you got an Apple laptop that is less than 18 months old. Other than that support is limited at least for now. No PowerPC support may be understandable, but only supporting the most current laptops? I would be happy if Adobe updated Flash for all macs built within the last 5 years, they owe us as much for making us suffer with piss poor performance for so long. But then again hopefully we will be able to live without flash in another year or two.

Flash will still support PowerPC after 10.1 update goes out. It will just be the last update for G3 Processors. G4's and G5's will still get updates but no hardware acceleration as that requires 10.6.3 plus supported cards.
 
9600m GT is supported

My 9600m GT is hardware accelerating my youtube videos. Here is a screen shot. See in upper left corner of video the white square. Below I have it on higher performance setting (which means 9600m GT) and to the right side is System profiler showing 9600m used with external display.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-04-29 at 8.13.35 AM.png
    Screen shot 2010-04-29 at 8.13.35 AM.png
    340.3 KB · Views: 142
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.