Replacement for Flash player?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
11,282
Location
Spring HIll
I would like to replace the Adobe Flash player with something else that doesn't tax the CPU, especially on my Mac. Much like Foxit's PDF reader does a great job at replacing Adobe's PDF Reader, it would be great to replace Adobe's Flash player with something that isn't as such a hog.

Anything like this exist?
 
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
That's true. I get better playback quality using the Adobe product. With Gnash, the processor utilization is much lower, but the video can be choppy.


And video playback is relatively new to Flash - Flash started off as a 2D vector animation platform (at the time, I think it might have been the only cross-platform, cross-browser way to see vector illustrations) AND in the last few years, and over the last few versions, it's added *heaps* of features that involve database interactions, composting, raster manipulation, CSS and PHP support and scads of other stuff that Gnash, and SWFDEC just cannot come close to keeping up with; not to mention that the open source plugins' video support is usually a version or two behind Adobe.

I did a vanilla install of Debian Squeeze a few months ago, which comes stock w/ SWFDEC as part of the desktop install. I went to youtube just to see if there really was an open source Flash substitute that actually worked for video, which is Flash's main shtick these days. Both Iceweasel (Debian's Firefox) and Epiphany crashed *immediately* at youtube and most other Flash-based video sites; so not only didn't they work for the most popular purpose of Flash, they screwed the whole thing up!

The light at the end of the tunnel, here, is that the latest version of the HTML specification (version 5) includes support for video (although browser makers cannot agree on which codecs to support), and javascript can handle most of the animation and gee-whiz eye candy that Flash can do, so the whole Flash platform may soon be rendered obsolete. (Flash also has it's own scripting language to perform some of it's advanced functions. It's very similar to javascript, but it's yet *another* language that web developers have to learn, and it's a pain in the arse to keep up with.)
 
thank you for the replies. I guess I'll just stick with the Adobe product for now.

So how will HTML5 replace everything on Youtube since all the videos are in Flash format? Will all the videos need to be re-encoded for this new standard? Or is Flash support built-in...thus flash just becomes another way of presenting video like WMV, MPeg2, etc...
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
thank you for the replies. I guess I'll just stick with the Adobe product for now.

So how will HTML5 replace everything on Youtube since all the videos are in Flash format? Will all the videos need to be re-encoded for this new standard? Or is Flash support built-in...thus flash just becomes another way of presenting video like WMV, MPeg2, etc...


Youtube'll have to either re-encode, or keep the older videos in Flash format. Flash is not an open format, so browser makers cannot just build in Flash support without permission from, and licensing fees to, Adobe. It is precisely this problem that HTML v5 may well get around by using video formats that are *not* patent-encumbered. (There is much argument right now among browser makers on whether to support H264, which *is* patent-encumbered but is superior, or OGG Theora, which is free and open source, but not as good in any way as H264; I think there may be similar arguments about audio.)
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
greenaccord02 said:
The light at the end of the tunnel, here, is that the latest version of the HTML specification (version 5) includes support for video (although browser makers cannot agree on which codecs to support), and javascript can handle most of the animation and gee-whiz eye candy that Flash can do, so the whole Flash platform may soon be rendered obsolete.

I look forward to the end of flash!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom