Jump to content

Youtube on win7/32 + IE10 - no video?


Nomen

Recommended Posts

I rarely browse youtube directly (I usually play youtube video's embedded on/from other websites) but I've been browsing youtube tonight and (unless it's my laptop) I can hear the audio just fine but I'm not seeing any video.  The overlays and buttons for ads (like skip-ad) are there but I'm getting just a black screen.  This is IE10.  I see all the other content on the page (like comments and the list to the right of up-next videos with cover-image).  FF 39 was worse in terms of seeing much on the site.  Same with the current version of sea monkey.  Do I need to reboot my laptop, or is known behavior?  (I'm typing this on FF39 with IE10 playing in the background and msfn seems fine).  I refuse to install / run Chrome if that's what you're thinking...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


IE11 works on my win7 x86 desktop. FF39 may have trouble, I am not sure now at what point Google has stopped video playback on FF but if you have the audio then perhaps it should work. My FF is up to 65.01 now, I think 52esr9 or there abouts may have been last available for XP? Maxton 3 in retro mode works and IE8 and probably 9 works if GoogleChromeframeStandaloneEnterprise.msi is installed which has possibilities for Vista and other OSs. I have seen this happen when my video card was not quite right perhaps try some videos on a couple of players using different rendering, KMplayer has a wide range of rendering types to test. Could you try GPU-Z to see the GPUs temperature.

Edited by Goodmaneuver
corrected
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Could you try GPU-Z to see the GPUs temperature.

This is a Dell Latitude 6420 with I7 cpu.  It has Intel HD Graphics 3000 and Nvidia NVS 4200M (I'm not exactly sure what it means to have 2 GPU systems or how I know when either one is in use).  CPUZ says the nvidia gpu is 45C, the intel is 53C (same as the cpu).  Both IE10 an FF39 are playing youtube video's just fine tonight (I just checked) but I've rebooted and restarted IE10 / FF since my post.  I guess you can't leave browsers open for days on end on win-7/32 systems with 4 gb ram without some having some resource / stability issues cropping up.  Does having win-7/64 with 8 gb ram work any better?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you select screen resolution the advanced settings link should bring up the adapter in use. Perhaps the other adapter works through the external VGA port or you have a choice in BIOS settings? Remember original Vista 32 bit could only access 3GB of ram. SP1 showed 4GB or more but did anything really change? I put 3GB of ram in a Pentium 3 with 3 x 1G sticks ECC. Vista sp1 said I had 6GB of ram installed. There is a lot of talk about 32bit accessing 4GB but this assumes all bits are used solely for access, no error correction? I try to use just 3GB with 32bit in case some ram is inaccessible and I am using this in the Win7 E6500 HD4600 x86 system. I have over 40 tabs open with Opera and TV Center TV running and have 1.2GB ram free. If I also run YouTube @720p I have 850MB free. If you look in resource monitor memory section there should not be many memory hard errors on a healthy machine. I have no hard errors with TV and browser running. The hard errors seem to happen mostly when opening new programs. Reinstalling a new OS may help but if there is hardware problems they will show up more with 64 bit. All private purchases I made on Ebay of AMD 754 processors worked on 32 bit but all failed on 64 bit, one worked but only if 256MB of ram was installed. Media Center would test out your NVcard but check the temperatures and do not proceed if GPU temperature runs high.

Edited by Goodmaneuver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no GPU settings in screen resolution section.  The only settings for graphics processor are found by running Nvidia control panel, and they seem to pertain to "3D settings" and are set based on the application.  For all browsers I can set the GPU to be Integrated Graphics or Nvidia high-performance GPU.  How that helps the browser performance, I don't know.  For all media players (VLC, MP Classic, Windows Media player) the ability to select Nvidia GPU is removed.  So if the Nvidia GPU has high performance video stream decoding, I can't see how I can put it to use.  If, on the other hand, the Nvidia GPU is mostly for game playing, then that is of no use to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right click on desktop and select Screen resolution. There should be a text to the right lower section of window, mine is blue and says advanced settings. If you click on this it brings up the old style desktop properties (similar). My graphics is AMD but this should not make any difference? You might be able to disable the integrated graphics in BIOS? You may not have Media Center depends on what product you have, mine is Win7 Professional and perhaps this is the difference? If your browser is using DirectX acceleration you can install Fraps and see the frame rate, seems to only show with IE.

 

Edited by Goodmaneuver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.dell.com/community/Laptops-General-Read-Only/E6420-Lists-Both-Intel-GPU-and-nVidia-GPU-in-the-Device-Manager/td-p/5162478

=============

Google "NVIDIA Optimus".  Basically, the system defaults to the Intel GPU in order to save battery life when there is no graphic-intensive work going on that would be enhanced by having the NVIDIA GPU active.  In many systems it's also the only GPU physically wired to the display outputs.  When the performance demand increases, e.g .when playing a game, then the NVIDIA GPU is activated and acts as a render-only device, doing the heavy lifting and then passing completed frames to the Intel GPU for output to the displays themselves.  In general, this system works well (and it continues to get better with newer drivers), but there are times when the automatic mechanism does not select the desired GPU.  In those cases, as ejn63 said, you can use the NVIDIA Control Panel to force a particular GPU to be used when a certain application is executed.  You may also notice that if you right-click an application shortcut (at least on the desktop, not sure about the Start menu), you'll see an option that says "Run with graphics processor" and then allows you to select the Intel or NVIDIA GPU.  That is a handy way to choose a specific GPU on a faster, per-execution basis as compared to storing a persistent profile in NVIDIA Control Panel.

=============

I used to ask here, in the win-98 forum, if any video card higher than a 6200 would have better ability to decode or stream movie files on a win-98 system.  I don't recall getting any concrete answers as to whether or not higher video cards (6800, 7xxx, etc) had any inherent hardware enhancements to do video-stream decoding, or if the hardware enhancements of those cards was only for video-game rendering.  In this current situation, the Nvidia control panel does not offer the Nvidia GPU as the default choice for apps such as VLC, MP-Classic or Windows media player, so again I'm assuming that the Nvidia GPU has NOTHING built-in to enhance the decoding of video files (mp4, h264, h265, etc).

Under the screen resolution advanced options, it shows only Intel HD 3000 graphics adapter.  There is no Nvidia choice.  This is consistent with the information posted above.

Right now, resource monitor says I have 2763 mb in use, 221 available, 4096 installed. 1111 mb hardware reserved.

I closed a IE10 (with 2 tabs open), a pdf viewer, VLC, Thunderbird, and now I have 2310 mb in use, 677 available.

FF with 32 tabs is using 780 mb.  Seamonkey (1 tab) is using 377 mb.  dwm.exe is using 112 mb.  These numbers are the "working set" column.

 

 

 

Edited by Nomen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hardware reserved amount could be the sly way of saying inaccessible RAM. Mine has 1MB of hardware reserved RAM and it does not vary. I got the unused (free) RAM amount from Process Monitor. About the 98 video card, webgl is based on opengl vs 2 my 7900 has full support up to vs 2 but my 6600 did not. I used Everest Ultimate which checks the system to get the results. A more modern graphics card usually has a better video output so the fonts etcetera on a high resolution large screen look better. Just to display the full screen uses up some VRAM. In the old days of 4MB graphics, a good driver would give the operator a choice of 24 bit color so that a higher resolution could be used. Moderner graphics cards should load the VRAM faster. I believe that the encoding/decoding is done by the CPU though and chips can be made dedicated to do certain decoding functions. A PCI hardware DVD decoder was available in the old days to play DVDs if the CPU was not quite powerful enough. Some encoders use anti-aliasing like Rududu which looks like it uses 4 x anti-aliasing, possibly 2 x during encoding and 2 x during decoding. KMP uses anti-aliasing, 384p looks better, tried the other players but they do not anti-aliasize. I think there would be no discernible difference with video playback by using the 6200. My DWM is using about 4.6MB, I do not use/view icons on the desktop and the machine has only 1 user, (administrator). In the Desktop I have the usual folders and some program shortcuts. FF if added all memory up looks good at 780MB it will depend on what sites are visited in the tabs.

Edited by Goodmaneuver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@erpdude8, @Nomen, I am running IE11, auto updates on. I made a mistake saying IE10, I did not realize until erpdude8 pointed it out, I forgot I was using 11. In the nVidia control panel there is a box to tick to disable hardware overlay. I remember the TV programs asking for hardware accelerated render or not. Windows has got DX, DD, WM and OGL rendering ectetera. The 7900 and probably the 6200 is capable of CUDA rendering but the Win9x drivers do not have it. I have taken a quote from chaosgroup.com

"GPU cores vs. CPU cores

While V-Ray Hybrid can render on CPUs and GPUs simultaneously, CPU cores and GPU cores are not the same. For example, a GPU with 2560 cores is not simply 320 times faster than an 8 core CPU. To determine the actual speed difference, real-world benchmark tests are required."

Although Win9x driver does not have CUDA the older 2009 files may work? The player would probably need to integrate into the files? It probably would be best experimenting on Win7 first to see if it is worth using and to see if video viewing quality is OK at lower resolutions. Some games have CUDA integration files but say not supported. When I put the windowscodecpack (definitely not recommended) on, I did the experiment of enabling CUVID. It took the anti-aliasing away on playback and it was configured by the codecs pack utility to use single core. Everest Ultimate shows the second processor under the computer DMI but the name is Processor # 2 not E4700.

Edited by Goodmaneuver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Internet Explorer now has issues on YouTube, I remember running IE10 on Windows 8.0 and the player was breaking down (play button misaligned, etc), but that was early-2018. I also have memories of YouTube's player breaking down in IE8 (buttons invisible) all the way back in 2014.

 

I think it's possible to use YouTube's classic theme on IE12, as the material theme just doesn't work that well, as far as i know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just visited youtube using ie10 and after dismissing a screen that told me my browser was depreciated, I got the usual youtube front-end video selection screen and I did a search for a jazz group and I'm now playing / listening to a video in the background as I type this using FF.  This is on a win7-32bit OS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...