On Aug 14, 7:13 pm, S D Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Fx<[email protected]> wrote:
> > One area that's been of particular concern to me recently is the
> > performance and resource-consumption of Linux-based netbooks playing
> > Flash videos using Adobe's Flash for Linux plugin. I wonder, have you
> > had any experiences using your P3 laptop to play YouTube or Hulu
> > videos with the plug-in, with either XP or Linux?
>
> No I haven't attempted it yet on this Lenny install. It dropped too many
> frames in XP so I've been a little timid to try it on Lenny. I thought Flash
> didn't work yet out of the box on the builds. I'm beginning to lose favour
> with Flash; what with it hogging many CPUs at 100% usage and with the
> frequent "security issues" with Adobe products lately.
Hmmmm... I had presumed that Adobe Flash worked well on Windows XP
systems; your experience with dropped frames makes me think I should
revisit that assumption sometime. Of course it depends on the
processor, it's possible that a sub-1GHz P3 isn't enough to play
YouTube vids, regardless of the OS.... otoh, Adobe's min. requirements
for Flash Player 10 are a 450MHz Pentium II and 128M RAM (for
Windows). INTERESTINGLY, the requirements jump up to a 'modern
processor' (800MHz or faster) and 512MB of RAM, 128MB of graphics
memory for Linux. I wonder why the huge disparity.....
It is possible to install the Flash plugin from Adobe's website,
though I'm regretting the decision to do so... I may drop it and give
Gnash a try (http://gnashdev.org) next OS upgrade. There is no .deb
for Lenny, though there is one for Ubuntu Hardy... there is an .rpm
which I suppose you could convert, or there's always the option to
compile from source. :)
I agree with you about Flash. It's a resource hog and my system lags
noticeably if one of the browser tabs I have open in the background
has a Flash vid -- usually an ad !$(*&*!! -- playing.
> I hope the planned
> WebGL<http://insidehpc.com/2009/08/04/khronos-group-details-webgl-for-hardw...>takes
> off !
I hope so too, but it's difficult to get things changed quickly with a
committee approach. Flash is so ubiquitous these days that I can't
imagine WebGL or any alternative replacing it within a year (i.e., in
time for the ChromeOS release), even if it were defined already.
But I'm fairly sure that the clever lads and lasses (and gnomes) at
Google know about the problems/challenges Flash poses for so-called
'low-performance' PCs, and I'd expect (hope?) they're investigating
solutions on multiple fronts: working with Adobe to improve Flash for
Linux, new formats like WebGL, alternative Flash plugins or players
like Gnash or even VLC, etc.
> > Thanks for your original post.... I'm usually uncomfortable trying new
> > programs before they reach beta-testing, but your positive comments
> > encourage me to try out Chrome on Linux very soon! :)
>
> I've read and I happen to agree with the opinion that; Google labels for
> beta/alpha aren't what we're used
to in the traditional sense. GMail just
> arrived to release status recently. ;)
You're right, I should consider a 'Google alpha' to be more like a
'beta' than an 'alpha' in the traditional sense. :)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected]
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
