From: Eric on 2 Apr 2010 09:24 In article <4bb48d20$0$1227$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-7FD916.20210931032010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > Not to mention (and more importantly) Flash is proprietary, rather than > > open like HTML5. > Since when has .h264 been open? Show your work. What has H.264 to do with HTML5? Apart from being one of the two video codecs allowed. H.264 is not open, but it is a standard. Part 10 of the MPEG 4 standard, which is ISO standard 14496-10
From: Warren Oates on 2 Apr 2010 10:32 In article <eric-6358DE.23245702042010(a)news.iinet.net.au>, Eric <eric(a)ericlindsay.com> wrote: > What has H.264 to do with HTML5? Apart from being one of the two video > codecs allowed. H.264 is not open, but it is a standard. So is Flash. > What has H.264 to do with HTML5? Apart from being one of the two video > codecs allowed. Exactly. Look up "submarine patents." -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 4 Apr 2010 22:48 Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <1jg9waq.ntusbq1vxzminN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz>, > jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > If you actually think Flash isn't a CPU hog and buggy, or that most > > other Adobe apps don't have annoying UI issues you're living in a > > fantasy land :-) > > I think Newswatcher is a cpu hog and buggy, with annoying UI issues, but > I use it exclusively and I don't carry on a religious crusade against > it. What? You just don't like big corporations? > > I don't, actually, find Adobe apps any more "annoying" in terms of UI > than any other. And I don't find Flash any more of a "CPU hog" than > anything else. And I develop open-source Flash. What rubbish. Flash is not anywhere nearly as easily avoided as one single Usenet client. Flash is unfortunately on a great many websites - restaurant sites being a classic example (urrrgh) :-\ Plus I simply do not believe someone working with Flash as much as you say can fail to notice what a CPU hog it is on Macs. To be blunt, you'd have to deaf, dumb and blind to fail to notice Flash's massive shortcomings on the Mac side. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: dorayme on 5 Apr 2010 01:24 In article <1jghel0.7bkr2z1sd706eN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz>, jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > To be blunt, you'd have to deaf, dumb and blind to fail to notice > Flash's massive shortcomings on the Mac side. Is it so great on Windows? -- dorayme
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 5 Apr 2010 00:40
dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <1jghel0.7bkr2z1sd706eN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz>, > jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > To be blunt, you'd have to deaf, dumb and blind to fail to notice > > Flash's massive shortcomings on the Mac side. > > Is it so great on Windows? Faster, more responsive, and less of a CPU hog. But far from great. It just doesn't suck on Windows like it does on the Mac. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |