Prev: OS X firewall - how to make it actually work
Next: How to remount a USB drive
From: Rowland McDonnell on 22 Jan 2010 06:29
Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a reference to the fact that Flash is very cpu-intensive.
> >> >
> >> > CPU inefficient, you mean.
> >>
> >> No, I mean it's cpu-intensive. I don't personally know why it is, but your
> >> assumption of it being ineficient seems likely.
> >
> > My observations - not assumptions, as you insultingly state - prove CPU
> > inefficiency.
>
> All I can see is high cpu-usage during Flash operations, I can't see if the
> codec is ineficient or not. I'd need to see the source code for that, and it
> seems unlikely that Adobe are going to let me see it. From that point on I'm
> simply assuming poor code.

Indeed - thus, your assumption agrees with my evaluation: inefficiency.

It is proven inefficient on a systemic basis, regardless of the state of
optimization of the particular executable code in question, which matter
is a total red herring.

Please do not reply, because I know that if you do it'll just be to
reject my explanation on invalid grounds carefully ignoring my detailled
points - and you'll stuff your post with yet more insults.

I'm sick of your insults and your bone-headedness.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 22 Jan 2010 06:38
On 2010-01-22, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > CPU inefficient, you mean.
>> >>
>> >> No, I mean it's cpu-intensive. I don't personally know why it is, but your
>> >> assumption of it being ineficient seems likely.
>> >
>> > My observations - not assumptions, as you insultingly state - prove CPU
>> > inefficiency.
>>
>> All I can see is high cpu-usage during Flash operations, I can't see if the
>> codec is ineficient or not. I'd need to see the source code for that, and it
>> seems unlikely that Adobe are going to let me see it. From that point on I'm
>> simply assuming poor code.
>
> Indeed - thus, your assumption agrees with my evaluation: inefficiency.

Yes. I'm just not personally drawing any conclusions from it as there are
(to my mind) too many hidden factors.

Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK

"Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers
and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
From: zoara on 22 Jan 2010 19:23
Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> On 2010-01-21, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > SM <info(a)that.sundog.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> There's a trial of HTML5 video here:
> >>
> >> <http://www.youtube.com/testtube>
> >>
> >> It's great to see video without the fan-spinning of Flash on Macs.
> >
> > Dont notice it being any faster, but if its not using flash I would
> > hope
> > it may be more reliable.
> >
>
> Haven't had a chance to play with this yet. What's the cpu usage like
> in
> comparison to Flash?

I tweeted about this. Um, random video was down from 85% CPU to 18% on
Safari. Omniweb not so noticeable - but (shocking even myself) I'm
abandoning that browser as it's just not keeping up with modern
advances; it's always been slow but Safari is now leaps and bounds
ahead. This HTML5 thing just hammers the point home.

-z-



--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Jim on 23 Jan 2010 02:27
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote:

> I tweeted about this. Um, random video was down from 85% CPU to 18% on
> Safari. Omniweb not so noticeable - but (shocking even myself) I'm
> abandoning that browser as it's just not keeping up with modern
> advances; it's always been slow but Safari is now leaps and bounds
> ahead. This HTML5 thing just hammers the point home.

Ooooh. Now that's a significant drop.

Jim
--
"Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good
product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious
understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some
slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Jan 2010 03:01
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote:

[snip]

> I tweeted about this. Um, random video was down from 85% CPU to 18% on
> Safari.

Wha?

A BBC HD stream on my old 2.5GHz 4G5 used 70% of one CPU - how come
you're using 85% CPU for `random video' on an Intel Mac?

> Omniweb not so noticeable - but (shocking even myself) I'm
> abandoning that browser as it's just not keeping up with modern
> advances; it's always been slow but Safari is now leaps and bounds
> ahead. This HTML5 thing just hammers the point home.

I like OmniWeb because for what I've used it for, it's /incredibly/
quick.

I'm keeping all six browsers installed here, because at any given
moment, any one of them might be sulking and refusing to access a
particular Website, so I need to be able have others I can try.

OmniWeb gets used a lot for that because it starts up so much more
quickly than the rest.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: OS X firewall - how to make it actually work
Next: How to remount a USB drive