-
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 --
-
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.
-
Senior Front End Developper
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 ?
-
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.
-
Griffhiggins 2.2
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.
-
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.
-
Griffhiggins 2.2
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
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|