YouTube, Flash and HTML5

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by vasa1, Sep 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Windows 8 Update: The End of Adobe Flash?

    I've visited YouTube with the Flash plug-in disabled using Chrome 13 and Firefox 6 on Ubuntu 11.04 and using Firefox 7 on Win 7. I just get a message that I need to download the latest Flash from Adobe.

    Is there something that has to be done to get YouTube to serve HTML5 instead of Flash?

    Never mind! I found this: http://www.youtube.com/html5
     
  2. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    I signed up and am liking it so far. Can't say there's any visible difference. But it would be nice if someone compared CPU and RAM usage. HTML5 is supposed to boost battery times.
     
  3. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    855
    Last performance comparisons I saw actually put Adobe Flash in front of HTML 5 in speed which I found amusing :)
     
  4. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,856
    Flash is flash, resource usage *should* be the same across the board. However HTML5 depends more on the browser implementation and hardware acceleration. IE9's implementation, at least for the moment, is best at this. With time, all browsers should be better than flash.
     
  5. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Hmm. Okay, this time I viewed a YouTube video using HTML5 on Fx 6 / Ubuntu 11.04. I found CPU usage significantly higher than when viewing videos with Flash.

    I hope others provide their feedback specifying OS and browser.

    Edit: not much difference using Chrome 13 (stable) and Ubuntu 11.04.

    I better check the Fx 6 / Ubuntu 11.04 again !!!
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2011
  6. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,856
    Mmm I should have mentioned that the OS and the functionality it provides is a factor also.
     
  7. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Okay, I tried Fx 6 and Ubuntu 11.04 again:
    With Flash, playing a music video took about 30% CPU.
    With HTML5, ~50%.

    With Chrome 13 and Ubuntu 11.04, both Flash and HTML5 took about 30% CPU.

    This is just with one video (-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU4PndJ0vsc&feature=feedu-) and I'm not claiming it's statistically meaningful by any stretch :D

    Incidentally, a lot of music videos are being taken off
    !
     
  8. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Warner and Universal label videos get nailed pretty quick..but are quickly replaced, lol. It also of course depends on the artist. Anyway, I've seen no noticeable difference either, between the two. I'm not all that worried over resources either, I have plenty.
     
  9. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    I thought it would be the opposite, especially in Linux.
     
  10. Searching_ _ _

    Searching_ _ _ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    1,988
    Location:
    iAnywhere
    FYI, Firefox doesn't support the h.264 codec for video because it's patented and the cost of licensing is very high. $5,000,000 per year. :ouch:
    If your going to create content for youtube.com/html5 try using the WebM container, available with ffmpeg and Mplayer on Linux or DirectShow on Windows.

    I found this cool HTML5 test site that shows what can be done:
    http://beta.theexpressiveweb.com

    I wonder if anyone will recreate an html5 version of games like Asteroids, Centipede, Missile Command or Defender?
     
  11. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I had no idea licensing was that high, good lord. I really don't care if it's h.264, WebM, Flash, whatever. Just pick one and be done with it, so users (and devs) don't have to deal with support issues.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.