 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's just a fact of life that the vast majority of companies develop
primarily for Windows, and a few of them *might* port their product
to Linux as a side project, if there's enough demand. Since the main
line of development happens in and for Windows, the thing will obviously
always work best and most efficiently there; if there even is a Linux
port, it often tends to be an "as long as it works..." version, without
much care about efficiency. Most companies don't even bother with Linux,
so if the thing is important there, it's up to third-party developers
to create it (sometimes requiring reverse-engineering, like in the case
of hardware drivers and proprietary file formats.)
In the past Flash on Linux was notoriously inefficient. It was the
prime example of the Linux version being just a poorly-supported side
project, with Windows being the main target. There's even an XKCD strip
parodying the situation: http://xkcd.com/619/
This has become much better in later years. No Flash, eg. the YouTube
player, works just fine even when fullscreen.
Much to my surprise, however, that does *not* seem to be the case on
Windows, at least not on my machine. The YouTube player seems to have
hard time playing videos smoothly. The larger the window, the laggier
the video becomes. It's not *horribly* laggy, and the videos are watchable,
but you can see that the playback is not completely smooth...
It's strange.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> It's just a fact of life that the vast majority of companies develop
> primarily for Windows, and a few of them *might* port their product
> to Linux as a side project, if there's enough demand. Since the main
> line of development happens in and for Windows, the thing will obviously
> always work best and most efficiently there; if there even is a Linux
> port, it often tends to be an "as long as it works..." version, without
> much care about efficiency. Most companies don't even bother with Linux,
> so if the thing is important there, it's up to third-party developers
> to create it (sometimes requiring reverse-engineering, like in the case
> of hardware drivers and proprietary file formats.)
>
> In the past Flash on Linux was notoriously inefficient. It was the
> prime example of the Linux version being just a poorly-supported side
> project, with Windows being the main target. There's even an XKCD strip
> parodying the situation: http://xkcd.com/619/
>
> This has become much better in later years. No Flash, eg. the YouTube
> player, works just fine even when fullscreen.
>
> Much to my surprise, however, that does *not* seem to be the case on
> Windows, at least not on my machine. The YouTube player seems to have
> hard time playing videos smoothly. The larger the window, the laggier
> the video becomes. It's not *horribly* laggy, and the videos are watchable,
> but you can see that the playback is not completely smooth...
>
> It's strange.
>
> --
> - Warp
Isn't Youtube owned by Google? Do you watch in Chrome?
I tried http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QNdx2hs0n4 in both Chrome and IE and
couldn't see the difference, but my work machine is a 4 core, and the bandwidth
is pretty good.
I usually think of clunky video being bandwidth related, rather than codec
speed.
JimT
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I tried http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QNdx2hs0n4 in both Chrome and IE and
> couldn't see the difference, but my work machine is a 4 core, and the bandwidth
> is pretty good.
>
> I usually think of clunky video being bandwidth related, rather than codec
> speed.
IME it's the other way round with YouTube, you need a fast-ish machine
to playback full-screen smoothly. If you've got slow bandwidth then it
just takes a long time to start, then stops randomly or just plays in a
low resolution, but when it does play it's smooth if you've got a fast
machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/20/2014 8:54 AM, scott wrote:
>> I tried http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QNdx2hs0n4 in both Chrome and
>> IE and
>> couldn't see the difference, but my work machine is a 4 core, and the
>> bandwidth
>> is pretty good.
>>
>> I usually think of clunky video being bandwidth related, rather than
>> codec
>> speed.
>
> IME it's the other way round with YouTube, you need a fast-ish machine
> to playback full-screen smoothly. If you've got slow bandwidth then it
> just takes a long time to start, then stops randomly or just plays in a
> low resolution, but when it does play it's smooth if you've got a fast
> machine.
I just hate flash in general. Youtube refuses to use anything else, and
now.. they banned the SL viewer for playback, which is using flash, and
it using the same base code as Chrome? or, what's the other one? In any
case, no reason for it, except that its not listed in their "compatible"
list.
But, that is just a stupid issue. Then we get into how Firefox hates it
(too much Flash pushed through for video and it starts going unstable).
You can't use it on android devices with the "built in" browsers either.
You can install a different one, then install the flash, but then the
launcher gets all F-ed up when trying to work out what to open links,
video, etc. in. Flash has been the bane of my existence for a while, and
not just because it uses a codec that is, again, a pain to play back, if
you save it to your machine, since there is no "stand alone" player that
supports it, and, again, trying to convince the bloody OS, especially
Windows, to behavior in a sensible manner and load certain things where
they are supposed to be is a disaster, though, I admit, this is just
because video playback in general, where it relies on plugins and 2-3
different things trying to work out what the frak to actually do with
the file, is a mess. (Tried tweaking a bunch of stuff of video from a CG
site a while back, and either it failed to play, gave errors, or
insisted on giving me a save dialog, even when the file in question
"used to" play fine, before I tried to make the changes.
Well, OK, maybe I should adjust that.. I hate almost everything having
to do with video playback in browsers. Its just, flash adds its own
idiot quirks into the whole bloody mess. :p
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I just hate flash in general. Youtube refuses to use anything else,
I didn't think YouTube used Flash anymore?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:18:03 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> It's just a fact of life that the vast majority of companies develop
> primarily for Windows, and a few of them *might* port their product
> to Linux as a side project, if there's enough demand. Since the main
> line of development happens in and for Windows, the thing will obviously
> always work best and most efficiently there; if there even is a Linux
> port, it often tends to be an "as long as it works..." version, without
> much care about efficiency. Most companies don't even bother with Linux,
> so if the thing is important there, it's up to third-party developers
> to create it (sometimes requiring reverse-engineering, like in the case
> of hardware drivers and proprietary file formats.)
>
> In the past Flash on Linux was notoriously inefficient. It was the
> prime example of the Linux version being just a poorly-supported side
> project, with Windows being the main target. There's even an XKCD strip
> parodying the situation: http://xkcd.com/619/
>
> This has become much better in later years. No Flash, eg. the YouTube
> player, works just fine even when fullscreen.
>
> Much to my surprise, however, that does *not* seem to be the case on
> Windows, at least not on my machine. The YouTube player seems to have
> hard time playing videos smoothly. The larger the window, the laggier
> the video becomes. It's not *horribly* laggy, and the videos are
> watchable,
> but you can see that the playback is not completely smooth...
>
> It's strange.
>
How does this one work?
https://www.youtube.com/html5
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JimT <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Isn't Youtube owned by Google? Do you watch in Chrome?
What does that have to do with anything?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How does this one work?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/html5
Indeed, on mine it gives it away when you right click on a video that is
playing - there used to be an option saying "About Flash player blah
blah blah" now it says "About the HTML5 player". Also the YouTube
website works fine on my phone, which doesn't have flash.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/21/2014 12:02 AM, scott wrote:
>> I just hate flash in general. Youtube refuses to use anything else,
>
> I didn't think YouTube used Flash anymore?
>
>
Hmm. You might be right, for all I know, but what ever it does use, they
decided to limit which browsers it supports, entirely arbitrarily.
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
