Patrick Elliott schrieb:
> One thing I have a huge issue with is Flash. Seems to be a leak in there 
> some place, when playing movies, where it will *refuse* to close at all, 
> since it can't unload the fragmented mess created by playing too many of 
> them. It gets worse if I have a lot of tabs open. In fact, when ever I 
> get high CPU usage, or slow shut down, or even slow performance in other 
> applications, its almost *always* the result of playing several Youtube 
> videos, and the fact that I leave firefox open all the time.

Hum... so from all I hear - I guess I'd better ditch my idea of 
switching from IE8 to Firefox, huh?

After all, really the only thing that bothers me about IE8 is that for 
the 64-bit version (which I've made standard on my Windows XP x64 
system) Adobe hasn't released a Flash player yet (can it really be 
*that* much of a problem?), so I always need to explicitly launch the 
32-bit version.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott schrieb:
>> One thing I have a huge issue with is Flash. Seems to be a leak in
>> there some place, when playing movies, where it will *refuse* to close
>> at all, since it can't unload the fragmented mess created by playing
>> too many of them. It gets worse if I have a lot of tabs open. In fact,
>> when ever I get high CPU usage, or slow shut down, or even slow
>> performance in other applications, its almost *always* the result of
>> playing several Youtube videos, and the fact that I leave firefox open
>> all the time.

My laptop (C2D T5600, Linux x86_64) isn't fast enough to play most
flashvideos in the browser. If I download the video with eg. youtube-dl,
MPlayer plays the video with 1% CPU usage max.

That's just incredible piece of shit.

> After all, really the only thing that bothers me about IE8 is that for
> the 64-bit version (which I've made standard on my Windows XP x64
> system) Adobe hasn't released a Flash player yet (can it really be
> *that* much of a problem?), so I always need to explicitly launch the
> 32-bit version.

IIRC the Linux community waited 5 years (2004-2009 (I'm not perfectly
sure if they released it 2009 or 2008)) to get 64-bit Alpha-version of
Flash released. The quality is still incredibly low.

I wouldn't hold my breath...

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott schrieb:
>> One thing I have a huge issue with is Flash. Seems to be a leak in 
>> there some place, when playing movies, where it will *refuse* to close 
>> at all, since it can't unload the fragmented mess created by playing 
>> too many of them. It gets worse if I have a lot of tabs open. In fact, 
>> when ever I get high CPU usage, or slow shut down, or even slow 
>> performance in other applications, its almost *always* the result of 
>> playing several Youtube videos, and the fact that I leave firefox open 
>> all the time.
> 
> Hum... so from all I hear - I guess I'd better ditch my idea of 
> switching from IE8 to Firefox, huh?
> 
> After all, really the only thing that bothers me about IE8 is that for 
> the 64-bit version (which I've made standard on my Windows XP x64 
> system) Adobe hasn't released a Flash player yet (can it really be 
> *that* much of a problem?), so I always need to explicitly launch the 
> 32-bit version.
That's a bit like saying, "Guess I should forget about switching from 
the car which has a tendency to break gas lines and explode, to ones 
that needs its air filter changed too much.", isn't it?

IE, and I have to assume 8 is the same, had similar, and often far 
worse, issues with some plugins. Its just, when that breaks, it tends to 
be cataclysmic, not simply annoying.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 09/17/09 10:49, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> My laptop (C2D T5600, Linux x86_64) isn't fast enough to play most
> flashvideos in the browser. If I download the video with eg. youtube-dl,
> MPlayer plays the video with 1% CPU usage max.
>
> That's just incredible piece of shit.

	I believe that shouldn't be a problem in Windows. It's the Linux flash 
plugin that notoriously fails at using your video card.


-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> IIRC the Linux community waited 5 years (2004-2009 (I'm not perfectly
> sure if they released it 2009 or 2008)) to get 64-bit Alpha-version of
> Flash released. The quality is still incredibly low.

They didn't exactly wait.  They were developing their own OSS flash 
player, until Adobe noticed.  Around 2007, Adobe promised a native 64 
bit flash player, and that kind of killed development.  In 2008, they 
again said "real soon now."  Earlier this year, they got the alpha 
version released.

Personally, this is one thing I'd like to see an OSS version that I 
could use, since I'm trying to get as much software as possible in the 
64bit form.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
> They didn't exactly wait.  They were developing their own OSS flash
> player, until Adobe noticed.  

Well yes, that's true. I do still count is as waiting ie. the original
manufacturer isn't active.

Actually it wasn't even Adobe back then, it was still Macromedia :-).

Linux in general never got Flash 8 - Macromedia decided that it's not
needed. After Flash 6 the Flash 10 has been the first Linux -version
that I haven't found a memory leak from. Version 7 leaked big time at
first (something like half an hour -> 500MB oslt, doing nothing), which
was fixed pretty quickly, but smaller leaks was left behind. Also note
that the fact that I haven't found a memory leak from Flash 10 doesn't
100% surely mean there isn't one - it's possible that it just hasn't
occured to me.

> Around 2007, Adobe promised a native 64
> bit flash player, and that kind of killed development.  In 2008, they
> again said "real soon now."  Earlier this year, they got the alpha
> version released.

Yep. And that alpha version sucked big time, but that's normal for an
alpha version. The newest version now* is much better, but it's still buggy.

*) Newest from Portage - I haven't checked if Portage is lagging behind.

> Personally, this is one thing I'd like to see an OSS version that I
> could use, since I'm trying to get as much software as possible in the
> 64bit form.

I'd like to see an OSS version of some open flash-like technology for
multiple reasons. Especially I'd like to seen open technology (somehow I
don't fully trust on Silverlight, even though MS has given big promises
about it).

> ...Chambers

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> I'd like to see an OSS version of some open flash-like technology 

I think they're calling it HTML5. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> I'd like to see an OSS version of some open flash-like technology 
> 
> I think they're calling it HTML5. :-)
> 

Might be true and would sound great. I haven't even checked HTML5 yet.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message