×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HTML 5 Canvas Experiment Hints At Things To Come

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the faux-phlash dept.

Graphics 321

An anonymous reader writes with an interesting and impressive demonstration of modern browsers' HTML 5 capabilities. "From the 9elements blog: 'HTML5 is getting a lot of love lately. With the arrival of Firefox 3.5, Safari 4 and the new 3.0 beta of Google Chrome, browsers support some great new features including canvas and the new audio/video tags. [...] We've created a little experiment which loads 100 tweets related to HTML 5 and displays them using a javascript-based particle engine.' The site warns "(beware: sophisticated browser needed)"; Firefox 3.5 seems to work fine.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

321 comments

Slideshow (1, Insightful)

slick_rick (193080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968279)

Is a slideshow on my old Dell D820 (core duo, 2 gigs of ram, FF 3.5, Ubuntu Hardy)

Re:Slideshow (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968429)

I'm guessing that could be graphics card or driver related? Try making the window really small - if that makes it fast, it's a fill rate issue and you're probably doing all the drawing in software.

I really, really want to start playing with this for casual game development now. I loved the old embedded Java Applet style but it grew too heavyweight and the Java API became too unstable and turdy. The same thing back with the original simplicity plus more speed and no runtime needed? Sign me up!

Re:Slideshow (-1, Troll)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968439)

Is a slideshow on my old Dell D820 (core duo, 2 gigs of ram, FF 3.5, Ubuntu Hardy)

You might want to reconsider your OS of choice. It is smooth as silk on my 24" iMac 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB ram running 10.5.8 in Safari 4.0.2

Alternatively, you could consider using a newer build of Firefox.

Re:Slideshow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968667)

It is smooth as silk on my 24" iMac 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB ram running 10.5.8 in Safari 4.0.2

You might want to tell us the screen resolution and frame rate, rather than the display size.
For example, a computer with a display set at 800x600 @30 fps is probably processing fewer pixels than a computer displaying 1600x1200 at 60 fps... In this context, the comment about a '24" iMac' tells us nothing except that the author has a penchant for big size.

As to the GP's point about a slideshow, it's most likely due to using generic video drivers with his linux installation.

Re:Slideshow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968515)

Well, you are using Linux.

Re:Slideshow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968881)

Javascript animation on linux is painfully slow compared to the same machine, with mac or windows. It's something to do with linux, graphics, drivers, gfx layer of firefox or some combination of.

Re:Slideshow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968983)

Seems to play fine on my openSuSE 11.1 install with FF 3.5 and KDE 3.5 with pre-compiled Nvidia bianry Resolution is 1600X1200. Quite Snappy in fact.

Re:Slideshow (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969117)

Gotta be something wrong with your machine then.. since it runs just fine on my Sempron 3500 laptop with a GeForce Go 6150, 1.5 gigs of ram, ff 3.0.13, ubuntu jaunty.

Awesome (1)

cprocjr (1237004) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968305)

I just played around with that for at least five minutes. I'm so hyped up for HTML 5 now! Could you do that solely with Javascript though?

Re:Awesome (4, Funny)

moredots (1613051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968331)

Regardless of what the answer is to this question, I am wondering if HTML 5 can provide most of the functionality of Javascript without posing as much of a security risk.

Re:Awesome (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968763)

I am wondering if HTML 5 can provide most of the functionality of Javascript without posing as much of a security risk.

What are the security risks of Javascript? I grant that different interpreters often have buffer overrun issues/string parsing shenanigans, but Javascript, taken as a thing independent of the different interpreters, really doesn't expose enough of the client's resources to the server to pose a "security risk," as that term is defined by prevailing consensus.

Re:Awesome (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968703)

Could you do that solely with Javascript though?

Only if your target browser supports the canvas tag. The canvas tag is only standardized in HTML5, but browsers starting with WebKit/Safari (around the time 10.4 came out -- Apple invented it for their Dashboard thing), and followed later by Opera, KHTML and FF, have suppported the tag ad hoc.

No audio here thank god (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968315)

Websites that (successfully) make noise at me are one of my pet hates.

The animationy stuff sure is purdy though.

Re:No audio here thank god (5, Insightful)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968789)

Websites that (successfully) make noise at me are one of my pet hates.

That's why I think it's awesome that HTML5 includes sound. You can't block the sound from a plugin that's executable code that does whatever it wants, however browser makers (and extension writers) can put settings options to let you opt-out for the sounds. Or prevent things from playing until you switch to the tab that wants to play them.

I just checked it out with Firefox 3.5.2 (4, Funny)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968319)

...And I see a lot of floating dots.

"HTML 5 Canvas Experiment Hints At Things To Come"

Seizures?

Re:I just checked it out with Firefox 3.5.2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968471)

I'm using firefox 2 and see about the same. Clicking brings up the twats too. With the benefit of no forced audio, and no awful bar!

Re:I just checked it out with Firefox 3.5.2 (5, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968651)

I was sort of thinking the same things.

Now I'm wondering if the things I hate about Flash wasn't the actual software but what people were doing with it.

Re:I just checked it out with Firefox 3.5.2 (1)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969033)

Well Firefox 3.5.2 running on an old 3GHz P4 had a seizure trying to show all these dots. I got about one frame a second.

No sound....? (1)

mountiealpha (731251) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968325)

I don't hear any sound. :(

Re:No sound....? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968483)

I heard some music at a volume level which is way louder than everything else on my machine and no way to adjust it. I'm wearing headphones so the page was closed after five seconds.

This is the future? Count me out.

Re:No sound....? (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968743)

Sound was fine for me. Volume was on par with everything else(Ventrilo, videos, games, etc.)

The only thing way too loud is the old "find failed" sound in Firefox 2.x. Man, that thing was like a bullet going off. Easily 8x the volume of everything else.

Re:No sound....? (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968507)

I don't hear any sound. :(

Sound?
There was sound?

>clickety..< >tap< >tap!<
>rustle< >tap!< >tap!<
#@$^!
>tap< >tap< >TAP!< >BASH!<
>BASH< >BASH!< >BASH!!!<
Shit. PulseAudio crashes again on my laptop.

Firefox 3.5.2 PowerBook G4 worked perfectly (1)

Unending (1164935) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968341)

The animation was smooth, the audio played without a hitch, it was great.

Awesomely CPU Hungry (4, Insightful)

The Real Nem (793299) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968347)

It was so awesome it pegged a whole core on my E8400. I expect to web to fuel larger hard drives, but faster CPUs? That's gettinga little out of hand.

Re:Awesomely CPU Hungry (1)

ender- (42944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968385)

It was so awesome it pegged a whole core on my E8400. I expect to web to fuel larger hard drives, but faster CPUs? That's gettinga little out of hand.

There's got to be something else going on. The site loads and runs great on my netbook and looks to only be using about 60% of the Atom's CPU [Windows XP w/Firefox 3.5]

Re:Awesomely CPU Hungry (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968945)

There's got to be something else going on.

You're right something must b.........all you computer are belong to us.................

Re:Awesomely CPU Hungry (2, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968395)

It's sad that it has to eat an entire core's worth of processing time, the whole time I was on the page I had an extremely powerful GPU sitting idle.

I think before anything like that can truly take off, they need a means of taking advantage of the hardware we have.

Re:Awesomely CPU Hungry (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968455)

Works fine on my 5-year-old PowerBook G4, so I'm guessing it's not really the CPU that's the problem...

Re:Awesomely CPU Hungry (2, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968505)

Weird. My iBook isn't fast enough to play YouTube videos, but handled this with no problem at all.

Re:Awesomely CPU Hungry (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968565)

Yep 60% total load on a core2duo 6400. 1080p video uses less than that so I don't know what the hell they are doing.

Re:Awesomely CPU Hungry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968689)

I think so :P I just got my Studio XPS 13 in.

P9600 with 4GB DDR3, Processor use was at 60% on Safari
Cool site though. Unless each little circle is it's own object (that's how it looks anyways), I'm sure HTML% Optimizations will follow soon!

Works great in Opera 10.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968353)

...you insensitive clod!!

Re:Works great in Opera 10.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968371)

Opera is still around? I thought they went out of business years ago. Have they finally gotten more than a 2% desktop user share yet??

Re:Works great in Opera 10.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968907)

[blockquote]Have they finally gotten more than a 2% desktop user share yet??[/blockquote] 2% is good. Probably why it is the most secure. Security through obscurity and all.

So, you're right, % of market share is direct correlation with how good and safe a browser is. Have fun with your IE. Hope that high % makes you feel secure! ;-)

Re:Works great in Opera 10.... (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968377)

Yeah it does. Even works in FF and Opera at the same time, but if you put one window over the other the background one slows to a crawl. Also, it won't resize properly unless you reload the window.

I stared at this thing much longer than any sane person should have.

Re:Works great in Opera 10.... (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968599)

I stared at this thing much longer than any sane person should have.

Programming is complete. Return to your normal activities. You will receive instructions when required.

How do I mute the audio? (3, Insightful)

ender- (42944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968357)

This is great, but it really needs a way to mute the audio. Or better yet, make the audio optional [opt-in] from the start.

And no, I don't want to just turn off my speakers. Maybe I'm listening to some music, now all of a sudden I've got some cheezy web-site music blaring in my headphones or out my speakers. Not cool...

Re:How do I mute the audio? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968391)

In Vista each application has a separate volume control. So you can mute your browser and turn up the volume on your media player.

Re:How do I mute the audio? (0)

ender- (42944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968409)

In Vista each application has a separate volume control. So you can mute your browser and turn up the volume on your media player.

And how does this help people using XP, or Linux or OSX?
And even if I'm using Vista, I'm often listening to the music through my browser anyway [Pandora, Rhapsody], so this still doesn't help me.

Re:How do I mute the audio? (1)

Jared555 (874152) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968469)

Any Linux distribution running pulseaudio (and I think others) allows per program control.

Re:How do I mute the audio? (1)

Balial (39889) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968479)

In Vista each application has a separate volume control. So you can mute your browser and turn up the volume on your media player.

And how does this help people using XP, or Linux or OSX? And even if I'm using Vista, I'm often listening to the music through my browser anyway [Pandora, Rhapsody], so this still doesn't help me.

I think you'll find this is the point of putting the audio and video tags in the browser instead of some dumb-arse embedded flash or other annoying extension. Expect the next dot-revision of your browser to have a mute button for each window :)

Re:How do I mute the audio? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968523)

For XP and Linux, there's PulseAudio which has the same feature.

When it works, you can control volumes individually. When it doesn't, you don't get sound at all. Either way, no cheesy music.

Re:How do I mute the audio? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968575)

How about the web pages where I *want* sound? Do I have to go to the volume control manager to restore the sound level every time I want to watch something on youtube?

If this thing happens, the very first plugin I want for firefox is one which disables web page sound by default.

Re:How do I mute the audio? (1)

infinityxi (266865) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968801)

I would probably send that suggestion to the noscript guy. (I know,I know everytime the OTHER n word is mentioned here there is a thread of people echoing what a total of 3 angry guys who had their feelings hurt when that plugin did something stupid.)

Re:How do I mute the audio? (1)

Fallen Seraph (808728) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968865)

One of the whole points of moving audio and video out of plugins like flash, and into native browser implementations is that it'll allow things like volume control or mute per tab, or a firefox setting/plugin which can adjust volume based on the site's domain, etc. It frees up the content for more potential control on the user's end.

Re:How do I mute the audio? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969093)

Yeah, point is, we're looking at a website with browsers that haven't implemented all the features neccesary to take advantage of the sites.

Re:How do I mute the audio? (2, Insightful)

Jared555 (874152) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968457)

It is even more fun if you are feeding sound into a stereo system playing music and a random sound comes on loud enough to deafen you. This is why I disable sound on any program possible.

Lost a speaker once because even with the volume controls on the stereo and computer turned to almost maximum whatever was playing was extremely quiet, all of a sudden either a program or website (I forget) started playing sound unexpectedly.

Yes windows allows per program control and pulse audio on linux probably allows control for every separate flash applet depending on the configuration but if you don't react fast enough you can still get hit with annoying/deafening sounds.

I dunno... (1, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968369)

Is compiling a bunch of "tweets" really the best use of all the great new HTML5 capabilities?

Re:I dunno... (3, Funny)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968467)

"Is compiling a bunch of "tweets" really the best use of all the great new HTML5 capabilities?"/em>

It's the only use for it.

Curious if JS/HTML5/Canvas could play SVG movies (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968389)

It might be interesting to setup an AJAX movie feed with streaming SVG data. Just have to preprocess the MPG to SVG.

Re:Curious if JS/HTML5/Canvas could play SVG movie (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968665)

Probably, but why? Unless it's a vector animation to begin with, converting video to SVG will just increase its size several times if you want to maintain any quality at all. Continuously fetching a JPEG frame would probably be faster/better quality (and in fact that is what some webcam sites do at the moment).

And then of course there's always the video element...

Usabiliteless awkwardness (2, Interesting)

Koookiemonster (1099467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968405)

This demo reminds me of fancy flash sites with horrible usability.

Re:Usabiliteless awkwardness (2, Interesting)

infinityxi (266865) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968585)

Well, remember the utility of Flash 10 years ago? It was basically a 400MB flash applet that loaded to play some crappy downloaded metal song while spinning some text 360 degrees. No doubt this will be abused to high hell before it gets some pretty useful utility. I prefer this demo rather than those stupid angelfire sites that crippled my computer because someone had a hardon for spinning text and Fear Factory.

Re:Usabiliteless awkwardness (1)

Koookiemonster (1099467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968759)

Good point, but the Slashdot topic could be less ironic; it says "hints at things to come" and shows a pretty useless-but-pretty site.

P.S. A performance pro-tip: make sure your zoom is set to 100%.

Dots? (5, Interesting)

Spikeles (972972) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968427)

How about some actual cool examples like this [myopera.com] instead?

Re:Dots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968625)

Only 15 years later I can finally play wolfenstein 3d at 30fps. Heh.

Re:Dots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968979)

Another collection of some impressive examples: http://www.chromeexperiments.com/

FPS? (3, Interesting)

SickLittleMonkey (135315) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969019)

Come now, that's merely a toy!
Explore the raw power of the canvas on an Apple II emulated in Javascript!

http://scripple-2.appspot.com/ [appspot.com]
Paste this in and press enter:
10 TEXT : HGR
20 HCOLOR=3
30 FOR I = 0 to 279 step 4
40 HPLOT I,0 TO 279-I,191
50 NEXT I
RUN

(Only hires is on the canvas.)

SLM

Chrome 3.0 beta? What the hell?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968529)

How about a freakin' Chrome 1.0 for the Mac!

Re:Chrome 3.0 beta? What the hell?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969157)

shut the fuck up. You got safari and it does webkit too. What would a whiny fan boy like you want with Chrome on OSX? So you can complain about how it doesn't complete the apple experience of some bullshit. Perhaps Google is tired of Apple and their fan's shit. Your precious religion bans Google Voice from the iphone and you expect them to whip up a browser for you guys? If you guys weren't eunichs i'd swear you guys had brass balls.

BAD real bad all of it (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968553)

a 3ghz with 1 gig oof ram now lags so bad its awful
if this is next gen forget it , bad enough that gf cards are 400+ dollars you know want to make us spend money like htat to view fraking webpages.
FORGET IT this push to have 5 richest left on the net using it is done and over with, and what the hell is up wiht latest firefox and slshdot i cant edit shit right , seems i have to go back 7 words befor eht ecursor is allowed to be there? Great for editing

One particle, one tweet? (2)

vidnet (580068) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968573)

Each particle represents a tweet - click on one of them and it'll appear on the screen.

Is it just me or does it seem to pick a random one regardless of where you click?

Re:One particle, one tweet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968699)

The Emperor, he wears no clothes!

Compared to flash... (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968635)

..what are the advantages of doing this in HTML? If HTML 5 can obviate a bunch of complex, unrelated web technologies that make programming for the Web today such a mess, then great... but if it just adds to the pile, and doesn't build on expertise in "classical" HTML, then it's just adding to the problem.

Re:Compared to flash... (2, Interesting)

dyefade (735994) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968711)

The demo uses processing.js - essentially a Java library. Whether this has any more utility than Flash (remembering that the flash of today is not the monstrosity most of /. seems to remember and think it still is) could be debated, but it's definitely more in line with standards compliance.

Re:Compared to flash... (0)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968765)

Java != JavaScript

Re:Compared to flash... (1)

dyefade (735994) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969103)

Wow. Great contribution, yes I know what Java and JavaScript are, Processing.js renders Processing.org based code, a Java based library.

Re:Compared to flash... (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968911)

RTFS FFS.

and displays them using a javascript-based particle engine.

Re:Compared to flash... (1)

dyefade (735994) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969121)

I did read it, the difference between you and I is that I understood what I was reading.

The original particle engine was ported from a Flex/AS3 project that weâ(TM)ve created to javascript. Weâ(TM)re using processing.js for particle rendering on canvas which is a very useful graphics library created by John Resig.

Processing.js is used to render Processing code, a subset of Java, not JavaScript. FFS, if you're going to accuse someone of not RTFM, at least be sure you did so yourself.

Re:Compared to flash... (5, Insightful)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968717)

Is eliminating Flash not enough? HTML5 is open and (being) standardised; anyone is free to implement it. (And you can see there are already several competing implementations in progress) Flash is a proprietary platform and you are solely dependant on the whims of Adobe. If even just for the lack of choice, Flash is a worse platform. Nothing's forcing Adobe to fix their player, while the HTML5 browsers definitely have some competition going on and are improving at an amazing rate - and in fact when HTML5 starts to pick up, Adobe will be forced to do something, as HTML5 itself will be competition to Flash.

Some people complain about how fast that thing runs (or how much CPU usage it takes), but I bet a flash version would not be even twice as fast, and Flash has existed for how long compared to browser support for HTML5 technologies?

Re:Compared to flash... (4, Interesting)

Fallen Seraph (808728) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968959)

More control for one. Flash is essentially a self contained program running in your browser. HTML5 will allow things like audio volume per tab, or per domain, more interaction between the page itself, the content, and the user.

Here's a fantastic example of the sorts of things this'll make possible, which simply can't be done with flash:
http://www.double.co.nz/video_test/video.svg [double.co.nz]

I actually think this is a better HTML5 example than the article. There you have video transparency, which can be a variable, you can selective audio based on the last thing you clicked, it can be moved, rotated, and resized freely by dragging the corners, etc. You can pause, play, mute, and adjust volume to each one completely independently of the other (though the volume control is blocked by the draggable corners, remember you can right click the video and click Show Controls in firefox). I once even saw a demo where the edges of video were distortable, allowing you to skew it, etc, and it was smoothly done too, better than most compiled applications I've seen. Not to mention effects like reflecting video content below the video in real-time (like it's on a glassy surface).

What'll be really impressive is when SVG is finally fully implemented, because that'll give us an open standard for filters and many other things (you can alter colors in a video on the fly, generate images, gradients, and effects dynamically, etc, as well as animations without any javascript at all.

What it comes down to is changing the notion of what's possible with just a browser... If you think that AJAX webapps are impressive now, just you wait...

To my very pleasant surprise... (5, Interesting)

SilasMortimer (1612867) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968649)

KDE4's Konqueror handled the page for me much better than did Firefox. I have Firefox 3.5.1 and Konqueror 4.2.98. While Konqueror gave me no sound and Firefox did, when I tried it with Firefox, it ate up so many resources that I couldn't even get my key combo for xkill to work. Fortunately, I was able to get to a virtual terminal and kill it, but it wound up crashing my window manager. Konqueror did much better. I need to try it with Opera (which I understand is supposed to be very good).

Anyway, it's pretty neat. I think I'll start making some pages for the heck of it and put it on my local network.

Re:To my very pleasant surprise... (4, Informative)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969097)

Opera too. No sound, but smooth animations and low resource usages. I wonder why these browsers were not mentioned in the summary. ;-)

WOOT! 74 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968783)

Uesenet is roughly

Sophisticated browser huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968811)

Firefox 3.0.13 works fine as well in that perspective.

Canvas as Video Codec? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969009)

Canvas can't play video directly. The video tag is currently halted in the HTML 5 spec. Is there a way to deliver video in canvas anyway? Is there anything like a "video to SVG" converter that could give canvas some SVG to play instead? Or some other actual canvas feature that could be used (without resorting to ASCII art animation)?

CPU hungry (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969047)

For what looks like a demo that people did on 8 bit computers with 4MHz processors, Safari uses 80% CPU on a 1.3GHz PowerBook G4 (although the animation is smooth) to run this. Trying to draw stuff on the screen with fragments of HTML and JavaScript, HTML5 or not, seems to be enormously inefficient, setting us back to 80s levels of performance.

I also note that recently the YouTube flash player has become a lot less efficient, even in standard definition mode. It used to run completely smoothly on my PowerBook, but now drops frames and really struggles. The BBC iPlayer is the same - that used to run fine in high quality mode full screen on a 1.3GHz PowerBook, but now is unwatchable except in low quality mode - this all happened after a recent upgrade done to Flash...

Canvas wasn't in HTML 5 originally (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969145)

The canvas tag was something that Safari put in their browser, before it was specified in HTML 5. So don't think HTML 5 invented it, they just embraced and extended it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...