> I just ran that movie with very few jerks, but it took 33 %
> of the CPU cycles while it was running. By contrast, I ran
> a QuickTime movie at 720x480 millions of colors, 30
> fps, video and sound and it used 25-30% CPU.
Yes, that's possible. Consider what you're measuring, and how they differ.
> Would it be possible for you or someone at Macromedia to do a
> side-by-side test between a Mac and equivalent PC to see if there
> is, in fact, some problem with running Flash on the Mac.
First, we'd need to go through the arguments on how to compare a Mac and PC
to find "equivalent" models, which I hope would occur on some other mailing
list.... ;-)
Recap: The Macromedia Flash Player for Macintosh has received a large
amount of extra engineering resources already. If you're seeing something
different than what other Macintosh users see, though, then the situation
is usually amenable to troubleshooting.
At 1:12 PM 8/9/4, Damien McKenna wrote:
> a competitor's website uses Flash exclusively, with many iframes,
> and it chokes Firefox to the point of having to close it.
In case this comes to "What is a frequent difference that causes some sites
to choke some browsers?", then the most frequent cause I've seen, by far,
has been an excessively high framerate which seeks to commandeer all the
cycles of the processor. (Disney animation was 24fps two-up, for an
effective framerate of 12fps, for instance. YMMV.)
jd
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
