5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoNow, that's Cloud computing in action.
- dualogy 17y agoWow, first time ever I got down to zero...
- mbrubeck 17y agoNewer 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 agoThanks 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 agoWhen I see what Flash does to my CPU on OS X I somehow doubt that it is more efficient.
- freddier 17y agoOf 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 agoFor me, on Mac OS X, flash is much more inefficient than JQuery animation, especially in Safari and Firefox.
- JBiserkov 17y agoNo spikes here... 0-3% in IE 8 Windows 7 64bit Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.14 GHz
- jrockway 17y agoWhat'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.