5 ms·

Silverlight is even more unstable for me in Safari, and Flash is fine for me in non-Safari browsers. I don't know if this is everyone's experience, but on my pa

Silverlight is even more unstable for me in Safari, and Flash is fine for me in non-Safari browsers. I don't know if this is everyone's experience, but on my part I'm more inclined to blame Apple and Safari than Adobe. On the slowness front, maybe Flash is slower on Mac, but it's hard for me to fault Adobe on this either (even as a Mac user). If I had finite resources, I too would allocate more of those to the majority platform.

jrnkntl 17y ago
Silverlight is a breeze in Safari for me. It doesn't eat all of my CPU and the fans keep it down. When I watch a flash movie however on my Mac the fans kick in and it sounds like it's gonna take off or something. Click2Flash let's me load the m4v equivalent on youtube but that's unfortunately only for youtube.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  Interesting. I'm using Click2Flash and I had tried the m4v option, but I get consistently lower framerates for that than with Flash on Leopard.
  - puffythefish 17y ago
    I've noticed that either using Snow Leopard or using the "Play fullscreen in QuickTime" option cause better framerates. I think it has to do with support for the <video> tag.
- puffythefish 17y ago
  They support this for Vimeo now as well.
alextgordon 17y ago
I just did a very unscientific test, playing the same video in both Safari and Firefox. In both cases Flash used approximately 50% CPU. For comparison, playing a higher resolution video in Quicktime yielded about 15% CPU.
- jdowdell 17y ago
  Precisely. QuickTime on Macs can use hardware-based video decompression. If Apple allowed browser plugins to move video-decompression out of the CPU too, then that would be great.
  - htsh 17y ago
    Is 10.1 going to use hardware on the mac? I've read conflicting reports on this.
    - jdowdell 17y ago
      Sorry, I haven't heard of any progress on this yet... here's the best current guidance I've seen: <em>"In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under either Linux or Mac OS X. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs. The Flash Player team will continue to evaluate adding hardware acceleration to Linux and Mac OS X in future releases."</em> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/fplayer10.1_hardware_acceleration_print.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/fplayer10.1...
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    If Apple allowed browser plugins to move video-decompression out of the CPU too, then that would be great. What prevents the plugins from using hardware? They're binaries that can run anything they want, aren't they?
    - tensafefrogs 17y ago
      They can, but then they have to hand the result back to the browser to render, which can be slow. Check out the new stuff coming in flash player 10.1, which will have some hardware acceleration, BUT not on OS X because it requires updated video drivers. Since Apple controls the video drivers on OS X, we just have to wait for them to update them (and since they don't seem to like Flash much, it could be a while).

jrnkntl 17y ago

Silverlight is a breeze in Safari for me. It doesn't eat all of my CPU and the fans keep it down. When I watch a flash movie however on my Mac the fans kick in and it sounds like it's gonna take off or something. Click2Flash let's me load the m4v equivalent on youtube but that's unfortunately only for youtube.

houseabsolute 17y ago
Interesting. I'm using Click2Flash and I had tried the m4v option, but I get consistently lower framerates for that than with Flash on Leopard.
- puffythefish 17y ago
  I've noticed that either using Snow Leopard or using the "Play fullscreen in QuickTime" option cause better framerates. I think it has to do with support for the <video> tag.
puffythefish 17y ago
They support this for Vimeo now as well.

alextgordon 17y ago

I just did a very unscientific test, playing the same video in both Safari and Firefox. In both cases Flash used approximately 50% CPU. For comparison, playing a higher resolution video in Quicktime yielded about 15% CPU.

jdowdell 17y ago
Precisely. QuickTime on Macs can use hardware-based video decompression. If Apple allowed browser plugins to move video-decompression out of the CPU too, then that would be great.
- htsh 17y ago
  Is 10.1 going to use hardware on the mac? I've read conflicting reports on this.
  - jdowdell 17y ago
    Sorry, I haven't heard of any progress on this yet... here's the best current guidance I've seen: <em>"In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under either Linux or Mac OS X. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs. The Flash Player team will continue to evaluate adding hardware acceleration to Linux and Mac OS X in future releases."</em> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/fplayer10.1_hardware_acceleration_print.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/fplayer10.1...
- m_eiman 17y ago
  If Apple allowed browser plugins to move video-decompression out of the CPU too, then that would be great. What prevents the plugins from using hardware? They're binaries that can run anything they want, aren't they?
  - tensafefrogs 17y ago
    They can, but then they have to hand the result back to the browser to render, which can be slow. Check out the new stuff coming in flash player 10.1, which will have some hardware acceleration, BUT not on OS X because it requires updated video drivers. Since Apple controls the video drivers on OS X, we just have to wait for them to update them (and since they don't seem to like Flash much, it could be a while).