4 ms·

At least for background blur the latency there is enough to make it almost unusable: easily over 100ms. This is with latest stable Chrome on a relatively recent

by madars 6y ago

At least for background blur the latency there is enough to make it almost unusable: easily over 100ms. This is with latest stable Chrome on a relatively recent Ryzen/Nvidia system. Maybe background replacement will do better once it rolls down to regular Google Meet (too lazy to log into my Google <del>Apps</del> <del>Suite</del> Workspace) :-) However, everything else about Google Meet is great and I wish I could make all my Zoom friends switch.

riffraff 6y ago
> However, everything else about Google Meet is great and I wish I could make all my Zoom friends switch. is it _better_ than zoom tho? I my experience, I don't see much of an improvement worth switching.
- deelowe 6y ago
  Try using meet, teams and zoom on high latency and/or low bandwidth connections.
  - loosescrews 6y ago
    Meet seems to work better on poor connections, but it does it with a significantly more CPU intensive codec (VP9?). As a result, it only seems to work well if you have a powerful CPU. If you have a weak CPU, Zoom seems to work much better.
    - jvdvegt 6y ago
      On my 2010 Macbook Pro, Meet uses about half the CPU resources as Zoom. Also, audio-lag is much worse in Zoom. Background blur doesn't seem available in Firefox on Ubuntu unfortunately :(
      - MarkyC4 6y ago
        not just Ubuntu, Firefox 82.0.2 on Mac doesn't show the option
    - tssva 6y ago
      My only experience with Meet on a weak CPU is my daughter using it for remote learning on her school supplied Chromebook which uses a Mediatek processor from 2015 which has 2 A-53 and 2 A-72 cores. Meet performs fine on the platform.
- gundmc 6y ago
  In my experience, Meet is far far better than the Zoom webclient. And I refuse to install the zoom desktop application.
  - dhimes 6y ago
    I have a pretty modest machine and zoom wins hands-down. It also "just works." I've had trouble getting non-technical people on hangouts/meet/whatever they call it today. Zoom "just works," and they've been responsive to peoples' concerns. Zoom is the verb now.
    - qmarchi 6y ago
      I've had the complete opposite experience, getting someone to use Meet is easy, send them a link and they open it in their browser. Done. Zoom it's "Download this, install it, wait for it to come up...", and forget trying to get someone to use the web version. Disclosure: I work in Google Cloud, but not in Meet.
- izacus 6y ago
  I think the main benefit is not having to install a desktop app of questionable quality just to make a call.
  - mr_mitm 6y ago
    You can use Zoom in the browser. They "just" discourage it by using a dark pattern. The link for the web client is small and gray and the browser tries to open the desktop app automatically. You can also join by phone, at least in some circumstances.
    - izacus 6y ago
      Yeah, which makes it a pretty annoying barrier if you want to make an ad-hoc call to someone. Sending a Meet link is more convenient. Plus, Zoom is pretty crippled on the web in the feature department.
    - amf12 6y ago
      > You can use Zoom in the browser. You can't change the layout in browser though.

by madars 6y ago

riffraff 6y ago

> However, everything else about Google Meet is great and I wish I could make all my Zoom friends switch. is it _better_ than zoom tho? I my experience, I don't see much of an improvement worth switching.

deelowe 6y ago
Try using meet, teams and zoom on high latency and/or low bandwidth connections.
- loosescrews 6y ago
  Meet seems to work better on poor connections, but it does it with a significantly more CPU intensive codec (VP9?). As a result, it only seems to work well if you have a powerful CPU. If you have a weak CPU, Zoom seems to work much better.
  - jvdvegt 6y ago
    On my 2010 Macbook Pro, Meet uses about half the CPU resources as Zoom. Also, audio-lag is much worse in Zoom. Background blur doesn't seem available in Firefox on Ubuntu unfortunately :(
    - MarkyC4 6y ago
      not just Ubuntu, Firefox 82.0.2 on Mac doesn't show the option
  - tssva 6y ago
    My only experience with Meet on a weak CPU is my daughter using it for remote learning on her school supplied Chromebook which uses a Mediatek processor from 2015 which has 2 A-53 and 2 A-72 cores. Meet performs fine on the platform.
gundmc 6y ago
In my experience, Meet is far far better than the Zoom webclient. And I refuse to install the zoom desktop application.
- dhimes 6y ago
  I have a pretty modest machine and zoom wins hands-down. It also "just works." I've had trouble getting non-technical people on hangouts/meet/whatever they call it today. Zoom "just works," and they've been responsive to peoples' concerns. Zoom is the verb now.
  - qmarchi 6y ago
    I've had the complete opposite experience, getting someone to use Meet is easy, send them a link and they open it in their browser. Done. Zoom it's "Download this, install it, wait for it to come up...", and forget trying to get someone to use the web version. Disclosure: I work in Google Cloud, but not in Meet.
izacus 6y ago
I think the main benefit is not having to install a desktop app of questionable quality just to make a call.
- mr_mitm 6y ago
  You can use Zoom in the browser. They "just" discourage it by using a dark pattern. The link for the web client is small and gray and the browser tries to open the desktop app automatically. You can also join by phone, at least in some circumstances.
  - izacus 6y ago
    Yeah, which makes it a pretty annoying barrier if you want to make an ad-hoc call to someone. Sending a Meet link is more convenient. Plus, Zoom is pretty crippled on the web in the feature department.
  - amf12 6y ago
    > You can use Zoom in the browser. You can't change the layout in browser though.