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.
>
> --
>                                                           - 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