11ryanc Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 So probably a long time debatable subject, but in the end which would most agree is the better runner for video playback. Advantages/disadvantages to either side? I know HTML doesn't have to be used with plugins, and it's better cross platform. But are there any significant advantages to the end user on a desktop setup performance and stability wise? I will point out YouTube playback for me has been running better using the optional HTNL5 video player (forced in Chrome).Just curious to see some view points on the matter
vinifera Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 err youre wrong in the start html5 playback does require plugin, but those come within browsersas browser has to have ability for playing certain files (ogg/vp-x264)in other words any browser that wasn't made fully to support html 5 won't be able to even play those videos to me flash is better, but older version as it seems everything above version 10 was simply bloatware cross-system, yup html5 is betterbut compatibility with older machines/browsers - flash is better
Guest Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 For me, HTML5 on YouTube won't show HD video in Firefox 35.0.1 on XPx64. In this instance, Flash is better.
vinifera Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 its not just youmany videos wont provide HD on "html5 mode"
terrypease Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 My vote goes for html5. Flash slows down the website and my browser keeps getting freezed because of this flash.
Tripredacus Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 My vote goes for html5. Flash slows down the website and my browser keeps getting freezed because of this flash. I haven't decided which is better, but have noticed a heat difference: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173843-windows-10-runs-hotter-than-windows-7/#entry1099467
11ryanc Posted June 20, 2015 Author Posted June 20, 2015 I say the fewer plugins, the better. It's hit or miss to actually be provided an option though, especially DRM protected content. Different services have different ways of providing the HTML video too, take Google depending on MSE to be in the browser for certain features.So Flash is very tightly wrapped around online streaming, none the less. But in the best case scenario, I do favor HTML5. YT's player has been quite unstable for me for the longest time.Anybody miss 2009 ?
vinifera Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) I say the fewer plugins, the better. and what is difference between internal and external plugin ?they're both plugins ... you can't watch "html5" video without browser internally supporting h264 Edited June 20, 2015 by vinifera
gulatti Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 For me Flash is much more better than HTML5. Because I can see lot's of videos in any format using Flash.
vinifera Posted December 15, 2016 Posted December 15, 2016 that goes to web dev's any video dependant on *flv or any variant within swf will need flash but they are not necessary anymore, as flash videos are low quality anyway just compare youtube flash "HD" and html5 HD (h264) the HTML5 is so much crispier and sharper
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now