7 ms·

I love to see that they're using jQuery for the animations. I'm anxious to see more people going this route over Flash. Not that there is anything wrong with Fl

I love to see that they're using jQuery for the animations. I'm anxious to see more people going this route over Flash. Not that there is anything wrong with Flash, and it may very well be better suited for this type of work, I just want to see the uses and plugins for jQuery continue to evolve.

sp332 17y ago
That's eager, not anxious ;)
- WesleyJohnson 17y ago
  You know, I almost used "eager" too. English was never a strong subject for me. Come to think of it, neither was math or science or history. ;)
bcl 17y ago
I sure hope not. Their simple animation spikes one of my cores just to animate some clouds. Not a very efficient way to animate things.
- dualogy 17y ago
  Now, that's Cloud computing in action.
  - dualogy 17y ago
    Wow, first time ever I got down to zero...
- mbrubeck 17y ago
  Newer WebKit browsers use the GPU to accelerate css-transform animations (giving your CPU a break). Check out the example on this page in the latest version of Chrome or Safari, for example: http://webkit.org/blog/324/css-animation-2/ http://webkit.org/blog/324/css-animation-2/
  - NathanKP 17y ago
    Thanks for the resource link. I can't wait until Firefox can do this. I want to use webkit animation in my website, but for now they would only work in Safari and Chrome.
- rimantas 17y ago
  When I see what Flash does to my CPU on OS X I somehow doubt that it is more efficient.
  - freddier 17y ago
    Of course, you're not comparing fair examples of SWF vs. jQuery. I guess it's ok to ignore the obvious advantages of Flash if you can bash a full features app or animation compared to the Google Wave error page.
- NathanKP 17y ago
  For me, on Mac OS X, flash is much more inefficient than JQuery animation, especially in Safari and Firefox.
- JBiserkov 17y ago
  No spikes here... 0-3% in IE 8 Windows 7 64bit Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.14 GHz
- jrockway 17y ago
  What's good about using JavaScript and known libraries is that you can just write a userscript to reduce the framerate. With Flash, it would be all or nothing.

sp332 17y ago

That's eager, not anxious ;)

WesleyJohnson 17y ago
You know, I almost used "eager" too. English was never a strong subject for me. Come to think of it, neither was math or science or history. ;)

bcl 17y ago

I sure hope not. Their simple animation spikes one of my cores just to animate some clouds. Not a very efficient way to animate things.

dualogy 17y ago
Now, that's Cloud computing in action.
- dualogy 17y ago
  Wow, first time ever I got down to zero...
mbrubeck 17y ago
Newer WebKit browsers use the GPU to accelerate css-transform animations (giving your CPU a break). Check out the example on this page in the latest version of Chrome or Safari, for example: http://webkit.org/blog/324/css-animation-2/ http://webkit.org/blog/324/css-animation-2/
- NathanKP 17y ago
  Thanks for the resource link. I can't wait until Firefox can do this. I want to use webkit animation in my website, but for now they would only work in Safari and Chrome.
rimantas 17y ago
When I see what Flash does to my CPU on OS X I somehow doubt that it is more efficient.
- freddier 17y ago
  Of course, you're not comparing fair examples of SWF vs. jQuery. I guess it's ok to ignore the obvious advantages of Flash if you can bash a full features app or animation compared to the Google Wave error page.
NathanKP 17y ago
For me, on Mac OS X, flash is much more inefficient than JQuery animation, especially in Safari and Firefox.
JBiserkov 17y ago
No spikes here... 0-3% in IE 8 Windows 7 64bit Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.14 GHz
jrockway 17y ago
What's good about using JavaScript and known libraries is that you can just write a userscript to reduce the framerate. With Flash, it would be all or nothing.