Flash MX 2004 - RAM vs. Processor

cooknwitha

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 5, 2005
562
0
London
This is a fairly basic question but my lack of real computer knowledge is why I don't know the answer.

Last year I made an animation with Flash but the more that was going (20+ layers) in each .swf meant it would play a lot slower (and understandably so). My question is, by increasing the RAM would that help speed things up or is this a processor issue?
 

neut

macrumors 68000
Nov 27, 2001
1,843
0
here (for now)
cooknwitha said:
This is a fairly basic question but my lack of real computer knowledge is why I don't know the answer.

Last year I made an animation with Flash but the more that was going (20+ layers) in each .swf meant it would play a lot slower (and understandably so). My question is, by increasing the RAM would that help speed things up or is this a processor issue?
RAM couldn't hurt, the processor is what makes your SWFs wizz ... that and optimal compression, clean code, appropriate frame rates, dynamic loading (if appropriate) and proper use of graphics/movie clips/scenes. There are many visual elements that can be achieved with less processor taxing SFX as well ...

if you're running power apps (like Flash) you should get some more RAM anyways. you're 800Mhz G4 can only go so fast.

Flash 2004 sucks on the mac ... i hope the next version works correctly; to many little things that make productivity difficult.


peace | neut
 

cooknwitha

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 5, 2005
562
0
London
neut said:
if you're running power apps (like Flash) you should get some more RAM anyways. you're 800Mhz G4 can only go so fast.
Well, once I get an iBook, I plan on maxing out the RAM which would already make the machine a lot faster than my current system - 800MHz, 512MB RAM vs 1.2GHz, 1.25GB RAM.

But thanks for answering my question. I found what I had to do last time was use a friend's Pentium machine to get the timing correct and then transfer the fla files back to the Mac to export as AVI. All very time consuming! Hopefully my planned new set-up will help improve the situtation.
 

neut

macrumors 68000
Nov 27, 2001
1,843
0
here (for now)
cooknwitha said:
Well, once I get an iBook, I plan on maxing out the RAM which would already make the machine a lot faster than my current system - 800MHz, 512MB RAM vs 1.2GHz, 1.25GB RAM.

But thanks for answering my question. I found what I had to do last time was use a friend's Pentium machine to get the timing correct and then transfer the fla files back to the Mac to export as AVI. All very time consuming! Hopefully my planned new set-up will help improve the situtation.
Not sure you will see all that much improvement over your current setup; i would go for the Powerbook if you're running apps like Flash, but that's just me ... a PowerMac is best suited for 'animation'.

*you seem to have noticed that (compressed) video will playback better than your SWFs ... that's because your SWF is rendering in realtime where-as the video has been pre-rendered.

I would expect that the video card in the iBook is also holding you back.


peace | neut
 

decksnap

macrumors 68040
Apr 11, 2003
3,070
70
Flash playback sucks on the Mac anyway. Don't ask me why. It's my #1 peave. Playback on the lowliest PCs seems to be faster.
 

cooknwitha

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 5, 2005
562
0
London
neut said:
Not sure you will see all that much improvement over your current setup; i would go for the Powerbook if you're running apps like Flash, but that's just me ... a PowerMac is best suited for 'animation'.
Hmmm. I don't use Flash a great deal but do enjoy making the odd animation. The Powerbook option has been playing around in my head lately. I'll have to think about it a little longer and wait to see what the iBook updates hold. One of the main draw-cards for the iBook though is its robust casing. I don't trust myself not accidentally dropping it. :eek: