dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Flash 6 Player - SLOWER ANIMATION??

  1. #21
    The differences are from the added overhead of the player -- it accesses a lot more stuff about your computer and keeps more state variables -- the performance hit is nominal - and I think Macromedia anticipated advances in hardware in time would make the performance differences moot.

    I personally have seen no differences in the players using multiple resolutions - running xp-os x-win2K-win98 -- if there is a difference, it's never more than maybe 1 FPS -- the big determining factor I found was CPU and ram just like always --

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    27
    Originally posted by SFANETTI
    and I think Macromedia anticipated advances in hardware in time would make the performance differences moot.
    Beefy hardware is no excuse for inefficient code. FlashPlayer 6 should be at least as fast as 5 when rendering the same instructions.

  3. #23
    Senior Front End Developper
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    568
    Originally posted by guro
    it's aviable
    http://www.macromedia.com/support/fl...layer_beta.htm

    Macromedia Flash Player 6 public beta.
    [/B]
    The link only offer the Netscape version for Windows, but it's still unvailable for Explorer. But maybe it's just me. Is it a cache problem ?

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    71
    Finally --

    At least one other pc person who sees the difference.

    For everyone out there, the version of the Flash 6 player I have is 6,0,0,4 . Not sure what build number the beta was but this is supposed to be final. Of course, I am hoping it isn't because it runs slow.


  5. #25
    Griffhiggins 2.2 clifgriffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Your Bathroom! Bwahahaha!
    Posts
    1,383
    I've been using it for 2 weeks now without a hitch. Everything is perfectly normal.

    Now I do have an Athlon XP 1800+ and 512 MB RAM.


  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    71
    After looking at a lot of different sites, I have to note that it doesn't seem as apparent in some sites as it does in others.

    Still, agreeing with a previous post, there is no reason why the Flash 6 player should not be as fast (if not faster) than the Flash 5 player.

    Also -- keep in mind that I only saw slowness within a browser that uses the ACTIVEX player. So basically, that is IE or Opera. Once I view a site in a browser that uses the Flash 6 plugin (Netscape or Mozilla), everything plays fine.

    So the big question is-- why does the ActiveX player for IE run flash SLOWER than the plugin version for Netscape?

    This needs to be examined...hopefully by Macromedia.

  7. #27
    Griffhiggins 2.2 clifgriffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Your Bathroom! Bwahahaha!
    Posts
    1,383
    Originally posted by jgordon
    After looking at a lot of different sites, I have to note that it doesn't seem as apparent in some sites as it does in others.

    Still, agreeing with a previous post, there is no reason why the Flash 6 player should not be as fast (if not faster) than the Flash 5 player.

    Also -- keep in mind that I only saw slowness within a browser that uses the ACTIVEX player. So basically, that is IE or Opera. Once I view a site in a browser that uses the Flash 6 plugin (Netscape or Mozilla), everything plays fine.

    So the big question is-- why does the ActiveX player for IE run flash SLOWER than the plugin version for Netscape?

    This needs to be examined...hopefully by Macromedia.
    I'm using IE 6.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center