[www.macobserver.com]

"My results (Macbook Pro 13 inch):

Flash: 80-120% total CPU load (browser plus plugin)
HTML5: 7-8% CPU load"

Whoa...

I'm really curious how well this plays for Winston

Downloading now, gonna do some testing.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Mine was not as dramatic.

About 110% with Flash, about 30% with HTML5.

Safari 4.04, Mac Pro 8 core

What previous version of clicktoflash would work w/Panther (on an old iBook, which needs all the help it can get)?

Adobe Flash just Sucks

if i have to take a stab at it, i'd guess that html 5 video takes advantage of quicktime and GPU acceleration whereas flash video doesn't. flash is fixing that - on windows.

---

Quote
mattkime
if i have to take a stab at it, i'd guess that html 5 video takes advantage of quicktime and GPU acceleration whereas flash video doesn't. flash is fixing that - on windows.

That's one guess... but I'm working on another one. Have you been able to capture the HTML5 video? I can't seem to get it.

The Flash one is 1280x720. I'm curious if that's the same res as the HTML5 video. They both appear to be H.264 at first glance.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

He's comparing a SD Flash-embedded file with no hardware-acceleration vs a MP4/H.264 @1280x720.

Both have the CPUs peaking on my G4 DP1.6GHz, but the Flash video is the one that plays smoothly while the MP4 drops frames.

He's got GPU acceleration on the HD file. I don't.

I'm getting about 20-50% for Flash in SD mode, and the same for the HTML5 version in both HD and SD modes. That said, I can't verify if the HTML5 version has HD or not. Since they both have about the same CPU load, there either isn't an HD mode (I notice no quality difference) or it's really great.

If anyone can give me a tip on how to extract the HTML5 video, please do. Then we can verify if it's HD.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

I have a 5-year old PowerBook G4, 2 GB Ram, 1.5 GHz, 10.4.11, Safari 4.0.3

Flash: uses about 75-80% CPU, the video is choppy but I can still watch it.

HTML5: uses about 86-90% CPU, and the video is very very slow, like 1 frame every 2-3 seconds, basically useless.

OK, I'm really confused -- my Frakkintosh (MacPro 3,1) runs Flash in HD (SnoLeo 64-bit, Core2Duo, Nvidia GT220/1GB) at around 55-68% CPU, with Safari running at around 7% at the same time. Under HTML5 in HD, Safari runs around 90-105% CPU. This is while downloading and watching in Safari -- not sure how to download vimeo vids to the system and then watch...

---

You're rich, gas is cheap -- step on it!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2010 06:01PM by Dick Moore.

Here's the video that's in the Flash version. I've put it into a basic Flash player as well as an HTML5 player. I could have goofed something in either player, but I think they should both be about the same.

Test these:

Flash - [home.comcast.net]
HTML5 - [home.comcast.net]

Also post your system & Flash versions when you post your results.

On my 10.6.2 hackintosh i5, I'm seeing a fair difference between these two. The HTML5 version, <cough> does seem to use less CPU. <cough>

I'm using Flash 10.0.32.18 - you can use this to check yours easily - [kb2.adobe.com]

I'm going to upgrade to 10.1 and test again.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2010 06:06PM by M A V I C.

on my PM G5, the flash video is not watchable. Choppy.

The HTML5 plays perfectly without a hitch.

Definitely strike that. I thought it was just a slide show with music. Didn't realize it was an actual streaming movie. Just went to that page with my iPhone. Guess it played the HTML5 video and it played it perfectly.

So on my G5, neither presented the video very well. The HTML5 was better than the flash, but obviously on older hardware, neither is a great solution.

Both were using about 85% in Safari according to Activity Monitor

Latest version of flash


Turning off the HD option. The flash player was much better, but still a little choppy though you could actually watch it.

HTML5 with HD turned off was a little better than the flash.

Both used 80% of the CPU with HD turned off.

HTML5 still played better on my iPhone.

---

Mac Mini 2.4 ghz/4GB ram/OS 10.6.4
MacBook Pro (Early 2008 model) 2.4 ghz, 2 gig ram, 200 gb hard drive/ Mac OS 10.6.4 and XP SP3
iPhone 3Gs IOS 4 16 GB
Location: Cincinnati



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2010 06:21PM by Grumpyguy.

The flash 10.1 beta plugin seems to work much better... at least on this machine.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Flash 10.0.32.18

Video played smooth, 130% CPU, 130 MB memory usage

HTML5

Video very choppy, 150% CPU, 300 MB memory usage

MBP 2.4 GHz, 10.5.8, 4 GB RAM

On my MBP, see stats below, both flash and HTML5 ran perfectly, but here is what Activity Monitor said.

HTML5 used 40% of the processor and 140 mb of ram

Flash used 20% of the processor and 140MB of ram.

---

Mac Mini 2.4 ghz/4GB ram/OS 10.6.4
MacBook Pro (Early 2008 model) 2.4 ghz, 2 gig ram, 200 gb hard drive/ Mac OS 10.6.4 and XP SP3
iPhone 3Gs IOS 4 16 GB
Location: Cincinnati

Macbook core duo
Latest flash
Snow Leopard
Latest Safari

Flash 123%
HTML5 65%

So when you guys say "Latest Flash" are you saying you have the latest release, or the latest beta?

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Would not play properly on my 667 MHz TiBook. OS 10.4.11, Safari 4.0.4, Flash 10.0.32.18.

In Safari:
Flash: CPU ran at 85-90%, choppy sound, no image until about 1 min in, then a few still images.

HTML 5: CPU ran at 45-65%, playback similar to with Flash, just a bit better (slightly smoother sound, more images)

Downloaded file (from Flash URL), which was listed as an .mp4, not a .flv file:
QuickTime Player: CPU ran at up to 101%, typically 80-90%. Sound played, more still images than with Safari. Reducing window to 1/2 size and then 1/4 size did not help playback much, but did drop CPU usage by a little.

VLC: CPU 40-50%. Sound, but no images. Error messages (note: older version of VLC I think)

MPEG Streamclip: CPU 70-80%. Opened about 1/2 size. Playback a bit worse than QuickTime (also an older player I think)


As the video was too large or too high bit-rate or whatever to play on the TiBook, it really wasn't a test on this machine. Could we do the same test with a YouTube video? (pick one at random)


- Winston

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Winston, that's why I gave the wink, I knew i was too big

The test I setup use .mp4 because it's H.264 which is common format between HTML5 in Webkit and Flash.

Also, I would update to at least the latest release version of the Flash Player, if not the 10.1 beta.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2010 11:21PM by M A V I C.

Quote
M A V I C

Test these:

Flash - [home.comcast.net]
HTML5 - [home.comcast.net]

Also post your system & Flash versions when you post your results.

Flash: 280% CPU (Safari + Flash Plugin)
HTML5: 30% CPU (Safari only)

Safari 4.04, Flash 10.0.32.18

Video/audio plays smoothly on both without any dropped frames or degradation in quality.

Mac Pro 3.0GHz 8-core, 8GB RAM, Radeon X1900, RAID

Quote
M A V I C
Winston, that's why I gave the wink, I knew i was too big

The test I setup use .mp4 because it's H.264 which is common format between HTML5 in Webkit and Flash.

Also, I would update to at least the latest release version of the Flash Player, if not the 10.1 beta.

Old and tired, but I keep trying!

I thought I had the latest (non beta) version of Flash. It's the same one you and others list.

I may try the beta, but with the ClickToFlash workaround I may prefer to stay with the regular release and let Apple do my updates for me. But I appreciate the suggestion.


- W

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

According to [kb2.adobe.com] 10.0.42.34 is the latest release version.

Hey, maybe by the end of this you'll be able to watch Flash YouTube videos just fine

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

That would be great. I'll try to get an update.


- W

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Tried again with the downloads from MAVIC via Comcast. I'm running Flash 10.0.42.34 under 10.6.2/64-bit and Safari 4 latest. Nvidia GT220/1GB, E6750 C2D 2.67GHz, 4GB RAM. QE, CL OK in 64-bit.

Once again, the results are comparable, with both using about 85-90% CPU resources total.

With Flash, Safari runs 15-20% and Flash runs 65-75%, total 80-90%.
With HTML5, Safari runs 80-90%

No chop, no stutter, no probs. Great video.

---

You're rich, gas is cheap -- step on it!!

Quote
Dick Moore
Tried again with the downloads from MAVIC via Comcast. I'm running Flash 10.0.42.34 under 10.6.2/64-bit and Safari 4 latest. Nvidia GT220/1GB, E6750 C2D 2.67GHz, 4GB RAM. QE, CL OK in 64-bit.

...

No chop, no stutter, no probs. Great video.

Winston is complaining about the quality of streaming HD video on his Ti667 over 802.11b.

Anyone not using an ancient G4 with max 768MB RAM, a small, fragmented hard drive and a painfully slow network connection is not going to be making a fair comparison.

Quote
Doc

Quote
Dick Moore
Tried again with the downloads from MAVIC via Comcast. I'm running Flash 10.0.42.34 under 10.6.2/64-bit and Safari 4 latest. Nvidia GT220/1GB, E6750 C2D 2.67GHz, 4GB RAM. QE, CL OK in 64-bit.

...

No chop, no stutter, no probs. Great video.

Winston is complaining about the quality of streaming HD video on his Ti667 over 802.11b.

Anyone not using an ancient G4 with max 768MB RAM, a small, fragmented hard drive and a painfully slow network connection is not going to be making a fair comparison.

He also has the same issue with lower res video, FWIW. In the tests, he's playing the same video from the browser in both HTML5 and Flash, and the Flash version doesn't playback very well.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
Article Accelerator
[www.macobserver.com]

"My results (Macbook Pro 13 inch):

Flash: 80-120% total CPU load (browser plus plugin)
HTML5: 7-8% CPU load"

Whoa...

Flash (10.1 beta plugin) and HTML5 were both about the same, approx 24% for me. Both seemed to play well enough.

Quote
Doc

Winston is complaining about the quality of streaming HD video on his Ti667 over 802.11b.

That's a blatant mischaracterization. I am complaining that Flash doesn't play streaming video that QuickTime Player can play. I pointed out that YouTube is set for the lowest resolution, and I've even tried it with YouTube set for a slow network connection (I have a moderately fast DSL connection.)

Quote

Anyone not using an ancient G4 with max 768MB RAM, a small, fragmented hard drive and a painfully slow network connection is not going to be making a fair comparison.

I agree on ancient and relatively low RAM. But as I said, I have a relatively modern (about a year old 120 GB) drive.

I and others haver rebutted the network connection issue. If the network connection were the problem, it would affect streaming to QuickTime Player too, and it wouldn't affect playback once a stream had fully downloaded. Neither is the case.

If you are going to be critical, at least get the facts straight.


Thanks.

- Winston

p.s. In fairness, you should have also mentioned that I'm two generations back on Mac OS X. Although that's probably an advantage in this case.

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2010 12:23PM by Winston.

Quote
Winston
I and others haver rebutted the network connection issue.

No, you really haven't.

Your methods prefer the QuickTime Player. You're not streaming files to the QuickTime Player.

Quote
Doc

Quote
Winston
I and others haver rebutted the network connection issue.

No, you really haven't.

Your methods prefer the QuickTime Player. You're not streaming files to the QuickTime Player.

If I'm not, how does it start playing immediately when I give it a URL to a video? And why does it have a download progress bar in the window?


- W

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2010 12:37PM by Winston.

Quote
Doc

Quote
Winston
I and others haver rebutted the network connection issue.

No, you really haven't.

Your methods prefer the QuickTime Player. You're not streaming files to the QuickTime Player.

Doc, I've been PM'ing tests to Winston for him to run and isolate the issue. This is because, you're right, a lot of the explanations he was giving left too many variables to begin determining the cause. The tests I gave are simple. Assuming he's being honest (and I have no reason to doubt that), he is seeing extra overhead with Flash that isn't there with HTML5. Same video content, same host...

Now if that changed with the 10.1 beta, I'm not sure. Or if he reverted back to version 9, I'm not sure. Or if there's something else that perhaps a new user would fix, I'm not sure. But at this point, IMHO he has done enough to determine that at least on his system there is more overhead for Flash video.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
M A V I C
But at this point, IMHO he has done enough to determine that at least on his system there is more overhead for Flash video.

I'm not disputing that.

But the tests are ridiculous.

He hasn't eliminated QuickTime's HD and RAM cache as a factor and you don't know what changes you're making to the file when you encode it as Flash and you don't know what optimizations might be in Flash for Intel Macs vs PPC so even if you could perform adequate testing, the results wouldn't be applicable to a modern Mac.

And he's using a 9 year old computer with 802.11b and he's complaining about the speed.

How can you take that seriously?

Quote
Doc
And he's using a 9 year old computer with 802.11b and he's complaining about the speed.

How can you take that seriously?

Because it's one data point among many which indicate that Flash doesn't work as well as it could.


- W

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Quote
Winston
Because it's one data point among many which indicate that Flash doesn't work as well as it could.

On a 9 year old slow PPC running an old OS and with a lousy network connection.

Yes, that's a data point. What's it worth?

Quote
Doc
He hasn't eliminated QuickTime's HD and RAM cache as a factor

In some of the examples he's citied, that's correct. But in some of the tests I've had him run, and increasing the cache and any other optimization you can do with Flash, it's still sluggish. Plus we're talking HTML 5 so no QT involved.

Quote

you don't know what changes you're making to the file when you encode it as Flash and you don't know what optimizations might be in Flash for Intel Macs vs PPC so even if you could perform adequate testing, the results wouldn't be applicable to a modern Mac.

The tests between Flash and HTML5 use the same video. There's no transcoding taking place. It's the exact same file being played back. One just uses HTML5 to embed and another uses a swf wrapper (the one Flash provides.)

Yes, the results on his machine may not be applicable to a modern Mac, but I don't think that's what he's saying. Just that Flash does not work as well on his machine as HTML, for the exact same video content.

Quote

And he's using a 9 year old computer with 802.11b and he's complaining about the speed.

How can you take that seriously?

As a content creator, I create Flash videos often and will continue doing so. They probably wont play well on his machine. I realize he's not my target audience nor can I cause problems for a larger user base based on such an old machine. But for him, the complaint is serious.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
M A V I C
There's no transcoding taking place. It's the exact same file being played back. One just uses HTML5 to embed and another uses a swf wrapper (the one Flash provides.)

I don't think it just puts a "wrapper" on the file. You're using what... CS3... CS4... if you're encoding H.264 files. The only way to keep H.264 is to encode the file as an F4V and that does change the file embedding cue points and event-data. On an old G4, that stuff alone might add overhead that would be negligible on a new Intel Mac.

And then there's the possibility that AltiVec is screwing with the QuickTime-results... Oomph!

'Point is that the results are not rigorously tested, compelling, or broadly applicable.

Quote
M A V I C
for him, the complaint is serious.

Agreed.

But you're skirting around the real problem.

He's trying to milk a dry cow. 'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you! Let it rest in peace.

Time for a new Mac.

If money is tight, a cheap refurb Mini would do a great job. It can play HD streaming Flash (and QuickTime) video perfectly well. I know this because I have one hooked up to my TV and that's what I use it for.

Monitors can be had on the cheap at thrift shops.

Quote
Doc
I don't think it just puts a "wrapper" on the file. You're using what... CS3... CS4... if you're encoding H.264 files.

Trust me, it's just a wrapper. I'm not encoding anything. I pulled a .mp4 (H.264) off of youtube, created a new FLA and linked the video wrapper to the mp4.

Quote

The only way to keep H.264 is to encode the file as an F4V and that does change the file embedding cue points and event-data.

That's not true. You don't have to use a F4V file.

Just because his computer is slow doesn't mean Flash doesn't add extra overhead.

Here's a test for you. Check our CPU usage on both of these:
Flash: [home.comcast.net]
HTML5: [home.comcast.net]

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
Doc

Quote
Winston
Because it's one data point among many which indicate that Flash doesn't work as well as it could.

On a 9 year old slow PPC running an old OS and with a lousy network connection.

Yes, that's a data point. What's it worth?

And I thought it was only 8 years old. I'm doing even better than I expected!

I could connect my TiBook to ethernet, but why would that make any difference if QuickTime Player can play a streaming video and Flash can't?

Although you did insist that QuickTime Player can't play streaming video...

Never mind that a decent player would be able to work around a slow network connection.

This all started because I complained that a downloaded video played well in several players, but would not play in the Flash plugin in Safari. As a naive, wrong, user, I questioned that the result should be the same, and blamed Flash for the difference.

Testing has shown that, on my machine, the Flash plugin does not play streaming video as well as QuickTime Player, by a large margin.

I remain critical of Flash for that. It may not matter to anyone else, but I think the criticism is valid as far as my use of Flash is concerned.

(And I get similar results on our upgraded Cube, which has a 1.8 GHz processor, 256 MB nVidia video card, an ethernet connection, running OS 10.5.8. Still old, but not as old. Oh, and the Cube has an upgraded hard drive too.)


- Winston

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

PPC G4 DP 1.6GHz; Safari 4.0.4; Flash plugin 10.0.r32; OS 10.5.6; QuickTime 7.6.2; 1.5GB RAM; Radeon 9000 64MB; 8Mbps cable modem via Cisco router and D-Link Gigabit switch...

HTML 5 drops frames, but is acceptable. Hard disk churning. CPUs pegged at 100%.

Flash drops frames, but is acceptable. No discernible HD sounds; CPU usage fluctuates between 84% and 100%.

...

Intel C2D 2.4GHz MBP; Safari 4.04; Flash plugin 10.0.0 r32; OS 10.6.2; QuickTime X and 7.6.3; 2 GB RAM; 9400M (better battery) 256MB; 8Mbps cable modem via Cisco router over 802.11n...

HTML 5 plays smoothly. CPUs are hit unevenly, one peaking at around 20% and the second at 10%.

Flash plays smoothly. CPUs fluctuate between 55-84%.

...

Intel C2D 2.4GHz MBP; Safari 4.04; Flash plugin 10.0.0 r32; OS 10.6.2; QuickTime X and 7.6.3; 2 GB RAM; 9400GT (better performance) 256MB; 8Mbps cable modem via Cisco router over 802.11n...

HTML 5 plays smoothly. CPUs are hit unevenly, one peaking at around 21% and the second at 15%.

Flash plays smoothly. CPUs fluctuate between 55-68%.

...

Now what have I proven that we didn't already know?

I'm trying to help you Winston, but, uh...

Quote
Winston
I could connect my TiBook to ethernet, but why would that make any difference if QuickTime Player can play a streaming video and Flash can't?

Has to do with caching. QT may be a bit better at less reliable connections. One thing I've noticed about HTML 5 is that it takes a bit longer to get started than Flash. So I think it's relying more on the initial caching than a steady network connection.

Quote

Although you did insist that QuickTime Player can't play streaming video...

Technically the method you're using is not real streaming...

Quote

Never mind that a decent player would be able to work around a slow network connection.

Oy. That's a bag of worms. The players that can do that content creators don't use that much because it takes a fair amount of extra work and understanding. Plus cost. Again, a technical thing.

Quote

I remain critical of Flash for that. It may not matter to anyone else, but I think the criticism is valid as far as my use of Flash is concerned.

Yes, but you also have to recognize we're talking about business here. Based on results, if content creators can save costs by not fixing things for a small percentage of users, they do so.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
Winston
I could connect my TiBook to ethernet, but why would that make any difference

Flash doesn't cache the same way that QuickTime does and Ethernet has less system-overhead than 802.11b does. If you have a slow Mac and a slow connection then Flash will always be at a disadvantage.

Quote
Winston
Although you did insist that QuickTime Player can't play streaming video...

No. I'm saying that you're not streaming QuickTime video in your "tests." If you're not getting the file from a streaming media server then it's not streaming.

Quote
Winston
Never mind that a decent player would be able to work around a slow network connection.

Doctor: "Damn this river-rock!! Why doesn't it cut like a scalpel?!!"

Quote
Winston
(And I get similar results on our upgraded Cube

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGHH!!!!

Quote
Doc

Quote
Winston
I could connect my TiBook to ethernet, but why would that make any difference

Flash doesn't cache the same way that QuickTime does and Ethernet has less system-overhead than 802.11b does. If you have a slow Mac and a slow connection then Flash will always be at a disadvantage.

That sounds reasonable. But it still doesn't explain the difference with videos which have finished downloading. And it sounds like what you are saying is that QuickTime works better than Flash, in this instance, which is all I've been trying to say.

Quote

Quote
Winston
Although you did insist that QuickTime Player can't play streaming video...

No. I'm saying that you're not streaming QuickTime video in your "tests." If you're not getting the file from a streaming media server then it's not streaming.

In M A V I C's test, video is coming from the same server, using the same file M A V I C set up, but when it goes to Flash is streaming but when it goes to QuickTime it's not streaming?

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

Quote

Quote
Winston
Never mind that a decent player would be able to work around a slow network connection.

Doctor: "Damn this river-rock!! Why doesn't it cut like a scalpel?!!"

Don't see the analogy. More like damn this Flash, why doesn't it work as well as QuickTime Player for streaming the same video?

Quote

Quote
Winston
(And I get similar results on our upgraded Cube

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGHH!!!!

Glad to be making your day.


Doc -

I've said all along that if I could be given a decent reason why video should not play properly on my admittedly old machine, I'd grumble and accept it.

But my experience is that video, from YouTube in my examples, CAN play properly, via streaming, via 802.11b, if I use QuickTime Player, and can't with Flash.

That's not to say that every video can do that. M A V I C put up one example that was at too high a bit rate to play on my TiBook in by any method.

But if there is a way to play a given video which works, I think it is fair to criticize Flash for not being able to do it.


- W

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Quote
M A V I C
I'm trying to help you Winston, but, uh...

Take me as a proxy for the average internet user, and I think you're doing rather well.

Quote

Quote
Winston
I could connect my TiBook to ethernet, but why would that make any difference if QuickTime Player can play a streaming video and Flash can't?

Has to do with caching. QT may be a bit better at less reliable connections. One thing I've noticed about HTML 5 is that it takes a bit longer to get started than Flash. So I think it's relying more on the initial caching than a steady network connection.

And QuickTime has settings in System Preferences for how quickly it starts to play after a stream starts.

Quote

Quote

Although you did insist that QuickTime Player can't play streaming video...

Technically the method you're using is not real streaming...

It sure looks like streaming. There's that duck analogy...

Quote

Quote

Never mind that a decent player would be able to work around a slow network connection.

Oy. That's a bag of worms. The players that can do that content creators don't use that much because it takes a fair amount of extra work and understanding. Plus cost. Again, a technical thing.

Quote

I remain critical of Flash for that. It may not matter to anyone else, but I think the criticism is valid as far as my use of Flash is concerned.

Yes, but you also have to recognize we're talking about business here. Based on results, if content creators can save costs by not fixing things for a small percentage of users, they do so.

I recognize I'm a bit of an iconoclast. We don't have cable TV, for example (for a variety of reasons, including cost, poor customer service, and how we are raising our children).

I don't have the numbers on how many G4 Mac users are online daily, or Linux users, or even all Mac users. As I've said before, looking around online, I am far from being the only one complaining about Flash. I'd be interested to see how many people are using ClickToFlash. So I can't comment except anecdotally about whether poor performance by Flash is affecting a lot of people or a few. It seems like its a lot of people.

I would hope that Adobe is looking at this as a business. And no, I don't expect them to fix Flash for my TiBook any more than I expect the return of Classic for OS X or a new version of WordPerfect, both of which would be useful for me.

But that doesn't invalidate the complaint.


Again, thanks for sticking with me on this.

- Winston

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Quote
Winston
it sounds like what you are saying is that QuickTime works better than Flash, in this instance, which is all I've been trying to say.

I'm saying that you're a victim of circumstance. Yes.

Quote
Winston
when it goes to Flash is streaming but when it goes to QuickTime it's not streaming?

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

There are several different ways to deliver online video. What you're watching in QuickTime is a delayed picture from a download or progressive download, not a stream. In most cases, there's a full copy being saved to your hard drive.

Flash will generally be delivered as a stream, playing in real-time as discrete chunks of data are delivered to the plugin.

At some levels, streaming and downloading are hard to distinguish. For example, if you pause a Flash movie and let it fill up its cache then it will work similarly to what you're doing with QuickTime.

Quote
Winston
...this Flash, why doesn't it work as well as QuickTime Player for streaming the same video?

It's not the same video. It's not getting to you the same way and it's not being displayed in the same software.

...and it doesn't work as well on your ancient and practically crippled computer.

Quote
Winston
I've said all along that if I could be given a decent reason why video should not play properly on my admittedly old machine, I'd grumble and accept it.

But my experience is that video, from YouTube in my examples, CAN play properly, via streaming, via 802.11b, if I use QuickTime Player, and can't with Flash.

::IGH:::

You're not streaming it. You're downloading it. See above.

Quote
Winston
if there is a way to play a given video which works, I think it is fair to criticize Flash for not being able to do it.

It would be fair if you were not using obsolete equipment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2010 06:30PM by Doc.

Winston, I don't think the average internet user can figure out exactly where to place blame. A lot of people like to complain about Flash, that doesn't make them accurate. In another thread someone else was complaining about it but then it was pointed out his complaint wasn't valid. Although in the instances we've tested for, Flash does cause a little extra overhead for you and that is correct, most of the arguments I've heard against it from others are not accurate.

Many people said Apple was going to close up shop 10 years ago. Many people say lots of things that turn out not to be true. I know one company in this industry that was practically killed by people blasting them for stuff that wasn't true.

You know enough to be dangerous.

Doc, I think you must be the only other poster on this forum that knows the actual meaning of the terms streaming and progressive download. I fear it's a losing battle. Another technology will get killed off and replaced by an inferior product that everyone will rave about for five years, then complain about for no good reason and it will get replaced by another inferior product. I think that's going to be the saga of web video.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
M A V I C

You know enough to be dangerous.

Well, at least I've stuck with my questions enough to get some answers, which I think is more than most people do. And I try hard to give accurate answers, within the limits of what I understand, when I offer comments to others.

Quote

Doc, I think you must be the only other poster on this forum that knows the actual meaning of the terms streaming and progressive download.

From what you have said, from a user's point of view they are the same thing. I accept that there may be a technical distinction, but if one is better than the other then the better one should be the one being used. If Adobe is going to sell tools to do this, their job is to figure out the best way to make it work.

I do acknowledge, as I have before, that Adobe's first priority won't be my ancient Mac. But they do provide a version which installs on my Mac. Shouldn't it work properly?

Quote

I fear it's a losing battle. Another technology will get killed off and replaced by an inferior product that everyone will rave about for five years, then complain about for no good reason and it will get replaced by another inferior product. I think that's going to be the saga of web video.

I sure hope not. But I do think Flash has dug a bit of a hole for itself by, perhaps, being a bit too successful, as it over-used. As a result, it is mucking up web browsing for even fast computers. People have noticed that, and are complaining. They blame Flash, because that's what they see doing the mucking up.

Present company excepted, I think engineers, including web developers, have a tendency to design things which work great for them, on the latest equipment. This means it doesn't serve the general public as well as it could. There are going to be lots of people using older computers in various circumstances, from public libraries to hand-me-downs to the old iBook being used as a web surfing computer in the kitchen.

I heard the head of Ford North America talk last year. He cited an example of a group of engineers which came to him with a new engine design. They kept talking about how elegant the engineering was. His question, for which they did not have an answer, was, "what is the advantage for our customers?". The engine was not more efficient or lower weight than what it would replace, it was just a more elegant design.

I do have an engineering degree, as well as a business degree. So I can see both sides. I like elegant solutions to problems. That gets me into trouble sometimes. In the case of Flash, my question for designers is whether it is working for the most number of people it could, regardless of how elegant using Flash is.


Do y'all know of a source for information on what types of computers (hardware and software) are accessing the internet? I am sure Google knows really well, but I don't know if anyone else does.


- Winston

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Quote
Winston
Do y'all know of a source for information on what types of computers (hardware and software) are accessing the internet? I am sure Google knows really well, but I don't know if anyone else does.

The more I think about it, the more critical I think the answer to this question is. Do people who design web sites pay close attention to what types of computers are accessing their sites? I have read statistics from time to time on browser market share, and there are numbers on computer sales, but do people look at what combinations are actually trying to access their sites? Does anyone analyze whether people are being discouraged from certain sites because they are on older equipment?

If I had to guess, this is not being looked at closely enough.

It's like the assumption that DVRs would reduce ad viewership. Studies have shown it does the reverse, because they create a larger market for a show and most people don't bother to bleep out the commercials.

Or the one I read recently that doctors were taught that people with severe schizophrenia had high salt levels. Turns out it was because the kitchens in mental hospitals over-salt the food.


I am not saying that ignoring older computers is wrong as a commercial choice, just wondering about the evidence.

- W

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Quote
Winston
Do y'all know of a source for information on what types of computers (hardware and software) are accessing the internet?

Browsers report quite a bit of info about the software we use and yes, people keep track of that info. They do not report what specific models of computers are being used, but it can be extrapolated from unit-sales, browser and OS.

Quote
Winston
The more I think about it, the more critical I think the answer to this question is. Do people who design web sites pay close attention to what types of computers are accessing their sites?

Without a doubt.

But you don't need Google to tell you that people using TiBooks make up an infinitesimal minority.

The average lifespan of a laptop is about 3 years and they were last made in 2003.

In general computer manufacturers stop ordering replacement parts and move a computer into the "obsolete" category after 4 years.

Apple actually categorizes products first as "vintage" and then as "obsolete." Yes, your laptop is actually categorized as "obsolete" officially by Apple.

More info here:
[support.apple.com]