Does quoting an embedded video that already appears on the page increase the strain on RAM/Bandwidth, or is it a case of "once it's loaded, you can post it as many times as you want"
RamiusJoined: July 19, 2000Administrator, ClubPAadmin
edited July 2008
I believe, but I'm not positive, that putting it in spoilers will conserve on resources. I know that youTube's implementation doesn't go to the server to fetch the preview image until the video is within the viewable area of the browser. It may also be that some browsers might not load the flash object itself when it is in a display:none element.
Is that why Firefox chokes harder in YouTube threads, the further you scroll down the page?
Well, like Ramius said, the videos don't load / preview until you scroll to them. My guess is that as this adds up, Firefox starts to choke because it's 1) Firefox and 2) Flash.
3 is certainly better than 2 imo, it's just the claim to have fixed the memory problems, but they have (in my experience) only mildly improved memory performance.
Yeah, I love how Firefox 3 was supposed to fix all of Firefox's ram issues, but it kinda just didn't.
Firefox is becoming a trainwreck of a browser, it's unfortunate.
This problem has nothing to do with Firefox and everything to do with Flash and YouTube
The YouTube player is very chunky as FLV players go, it's CPU intensive even when it's not playing a video.
The second problem is Flash because it runs as many concurrent instances of a SWF as you tell it to and there's no limit, which is why threads with 60+ videos start to get slow. Also, the logic involved in not initializing the SWF instance until it is visible is not applied to deconstructing the SWF, and for good reason. It was not intended to do that.
The third problem is that Flash does not cache video into the browser cache until the SWF is deconstructed. If you have a gajillion pixel tall page with hundreds of videos, Flash will sooner run out of memory than start telling the browser to cache video on the harddrive. So when you load 60 videos at up to 10MB a pop, you are going to start crashing older computers.
Posts
If I made a post with 10 copies of a 100kb image, the final bandwidth to display them would only be 100kb and not 1MB.
Well, like Ramius said, the videos don't load / preview until you scroll to them. My guess is that as this adds up, Firefox starts to choke because it's 1) Firefox and 2) Flash.
Firefox is becoming a trainwreck of a browser, it's unfortunate.
That seems to be how Firefox does it. Either that, or it just loads the basic framework but doesn't load the video preview image until it's visible.
This problem has nothing to do with Firefox and everything to do with Flash and YouTube
The YouTube player is very chunky as FLV players go, it's CPU intensive even when it's not playing a video.
The second problem is Flash because it runs as many concurrent instances of a SWF as you tell it to and there's no limit, which is why threads with 60+ videos start to get slow. Also, the logic involved in not initializing the SWF instance until it is visible is not applied to deconstructing the SWF, and for good reason. It was not intended to do that.
The third problem is that Flash does not cache video into the browser cache until the SWF is deconstructed. If you have a gajillion pixel tall page with hundreds of videos, Flash will sooner run out of memory than start telling the browser to cache video on the harddrive. So when you load 60 videos at up to 10MB a pop, you are going to start crashing older computers.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
What are you waiting for? goooooo
I was referring more to the browser in general.