Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adobe Is Finally Ending Flash Support... In 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by grok View Post

    Indeed QEMU/KVM should be very much worth trying . There is a bit of naming confusion with QEMU being known as an emulator, KVM known for more than one thing.
    But well thus I can understand what I'm looking for. Should I try "gnome-boxes" maybe?, as it's also mainly about lazyness of devising and launching from terminal a very long command that looks lik "kvm --switch --this --that --dev0 --garble --gargle (...) -blah (...) --/path/to/diskimage.xyz --force --warping --forward"
    Virtualbox has been incredibly simple to use for years, very cross-platform. With just a bit sillyness about "extension pack", updating, and bashing on the USB 2.0 passthrough feature until it works.

    that's off-topic, maybe. but your post makes me confident I can at least get GL forwarding from linux guest to linux host running with kvm. (heck getting OpenGL working and nothing else in XP or 98 would be awesome if that's possible)
    Hey yeah, I think gnome-boxes is meant to give a much nicer user experience / interface. I haven't really tried it yet myself, I use another popular one which I think is more configurable, virt-manager.

    Linux host and guest should have the best results, for windows guests you don't have too many options. SPICE instead of VNC can provide some accel, but I've heard it's not any/much better than the other hypervisors(I think VMWare might be the best in that case). There is also GPU passthrough, plenty of information on reddits r/VFIO sub. This lets you give direct hardware access to a GPU on the system to the VM, usually you want another GPU like iGPU on the host to see it's display(guests using a GPU directly for display output to connected monitors not a window like you might be used to).

    You will find best performance usually with VIRTIO VM hardware choices(network, disk, etc), audio probably ICH9, Windows will need virtio drivers, on any distro with access to AUR this is a nice virtio-win package where you can mount the ISO and install, otherwise Fedora provides files, if using SPICE same deal, windows will need drivers, I've not personally done that myself.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      My very first computer was a 25mhz 486SX, no FPU, and it was not able to play mp3.
      There are integer only versions of some codecs. Might be the case that 486SX-25 is too slow, but I had 486DX-33 and it could easily play 112kbps MP3 CBR @ 22 kHz. There used to be some mp3 players for DOS.

      My next computer after that was 166mhz 486DX, with FPU
      Probably 66DX. No 80486 models with freq of over 150 MHz were ever published.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by caligula View Post
        There are integer only versions of some codecs. Might be the case that 486SX-25 is too slow, but I had 486DX-33 and it could easily play 112kbps MP3 CBR @ 22 kHz. There used to be some mp3 players for DOS.


        Probably 66DX. No 80486 models with freq of over 150 MHz were ever published.
        Yeah, you're right, it was this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentiu...ve#486_sockets, on a 486 board. Now that I'm thinking back, I remember buying that exact processor at a computer electronics expo. I think it cost like 140 bucks Which was cheap really, RAM cost more than that.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          My very first computer was a 25mhz 486SX, no FPU, and it was not able to play mp3.
          From what I could remember, 486DX@100MHz barely handled MP3s in real time. But it had way slower RAM (not even of SDRAM kind) and Cortex A normally comes with VFP (FPU) and Neon (SIMD instructions). Overall it adds up, so overall combo is far more efficient.

          My next computer after that was 166mhz 486DX, with FPU, and it played everything including MPEG and MPEG2. It was the first machine I could watch video on. Later on I bought a ATi TV Wonder card and I could even watch cable TV on it.
          IIRC there was no original 486 DX running 166MHz, its probably some "overdrive" or similar kind of thing. As for MPEG1/2 it has been relatively simple but to get decent looking picture one have to throw so many bits networked video has been out of equation and only became anyhow feasible when more advanced and complicated designs like early MP4 flavours and other similar techs have appeared. And speaking for myself, it's not even ability to watch video on computers have changed the world. But fundamental change in ways it happens. I mean ppl could enter e.g. youtube and watch whatever they would like when it convenient for them. Something "usual" TVs can't afford. Somehow it makes "classic" TV and derivatives very inconvenient. But I have to admit computers proven to be so good in this "foreign" domain they even changed way TV sets are manufactured. So many TVs these days are no longer look like bunch of electronic components, synthesizing complicated analog signals. Instead there is just some embedded computer and receiver peripheral, much like what you've described, just embedded, "dumbed down" and "user friendly". So user do not have to set up Linux, etc - its ready for use straight out of the factory. So many TVs no longer "warm up" but rather "boot up" instead. Still many users hate that like they always did. So these days fast boot time of Linux is quite popular demand .

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
            From what I could remember, 486DX@100MHz barely handled MP3s in real time. But it had way slower RAM (not even of SDRAM kind) and Cortex A normally comes with VFP (FPU) and Neon (SIMD instructions). Overall it adds up, so overall combo is far more efficient.
            386 stress test (test 2, playin MP2 [email protected] single) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAKlv16hL5I

            Not sure how much slower Mp3 would be. I recall playing 112 kbps mono CBR @ 22.05kHz with 486DX. Without any issues. On DOS.

            The last comment here claims that should work on DOS with 486DX33. http://www.vcfed.org/forum/archive/i...p/t-22777.html
            Last edited by caligula; 27 July 2017, 09:11 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
              From what I could remember, 486DX@100MHz barely handled MP3s in real time. But it had way slower RAM (not even of SDRAM kind) and Cortex A normally comes with VFP (FPU) and Neon (SIMD instructions). Overall it adds up, so overall combo is far more efficient.

              IIRC there was no original 486 DX running 166MHz, its probably some "overdrive" or similar kind of thing. As for MPEG1/2 it has been relatively simple but to get decent looking picture one have to throw so many bits networked video has been out of equation and only became anyhow feasible when more advanced and complicated designs like early MP4 flavours and other similar techs have appeared. And speaking for myself, it's not even ability to watch video on computers have changed the world. But fundamental change in ways it happens. I mean ppl could enter e.g. youtube and watch whatever they would like when it convenient for them. Something "usual" TVs can't afford. Somehow it makes "classic" TV and derivatives very inconvenient. But I have to admit computers proven to be so good in this "foreign" domain they even changed way TV sets are manufactured. So many TVs these days are no longer look like bunch of electronic components, synthesizing complicated analog signals. Instead there is just some embedded computer and receiver peripheral, much like what you've described, just embedded, "dumbed down" and "user friendly". So user do not have to set up Linux, etc - its ready for use straight out of the factory. So many TVs no longer "warm up" but rather "boot up" instead. Still many users hate that like they always did. So these days fast boot time of Linux is quite popular demand .
              We can all thank split memory architectures for that. If applications ran from storage an it was the speed of the CPU, then you could have true instant on capability. But unfortunately technology hasn't allowed that to happen and storage is still much slower than RAM, and that's much slower than the CPU. Without some kind of caching and loading process I don't see how true instant on capabilities are even possible. I don't think they really are.

              EDIT: The closest thing I could think of that could simulate an instant on experience would be from a computed environment. It could have a few interfaces, but overall it would probably be pretty limited, otherwise it would take to much time computing the environment.
              Last edited by duby229; 27 July 2017, 09:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by duby229 View Post

                We can all thank split memory architectures for that. If applications ran from storage an it was the speed of the CPU, then you could have true instant on capability. But unfortunately technology hasn't allowed that to happen and storage is still much slower than RAM, and that's much slower than the CPU. Without some kind of caching and loading process I don't see how true instant on capabilities are even possible. I don't think they really are.

                EDIT: The closest thing I could think of that could simulate an instant on experience would be from a computed environment.
                It's not the storage, initializing hardware takes time. Modern smart TVs have fast eMMC inside with close to 100 MB/s read throughput. Still they might boot for 10 seconds. the OS image is less than 100 MB.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by caligula View Post

                  It's not the storage, initializing hardware takes time. Modern smart TVs have fast eMMC inside with close to 100 MB/s read throughput. Still they might boot for 10 seconds. the OS image is less than 100 MB.
                  That's because RAM is not storage and storage is not CPU speed. I know it sounds awkward, but that's why.

                  EDIT: A lot of boot time is all the latency it takes for information to move around a systems memory hierarchy.

                  EDIT: If RAM was storage and storage was CPU speed, then you would never have to "load" anything There would be no start time. The whole latency would be in reading storage and it's CPU speed.
                  Last edited by duby229; 27 July 2017, 09:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Apopas View Post

                    Most porn websites keep using it.
                    no they do not... just visit then without flash and you will see
                    most sites DO work without flash, and those that do not work are mostly old and forgotten or simple games that the devs still didn't catch up (Disney and a few kids sites)
                    porn always used best and cheapest tech, that is why VHS won over BETA and why flash grow so much (videos), but now we all can use w3c standard videos, so flash is just the fallback tech, remove it and you will see a the same, without using flash

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
                      I guess someone have to get Shumway into working state.
                      gnash, swfdec, lightpeak, shumway... Any of these projects still alive?
                      I think read somewhere that mozilla stopped the shumway project.
                      Last edited by Zucca; 30 July 2017, 01:46 PM. Reason: Typofixin'

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X