Flash Presentation Problem on My GW 700x

Discussion in 'Gateway' started by Scott, May 5, 2009.

  1. Scott

    Scott Guest

    My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a fairly
    good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing web videos.
    However, when I go to this link to play a Flash presentation...

    http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green

    ....the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox 2.0
    webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.

    What is the likely problem here?

    Thanks!
    Scott
     
    1. Advertising

  2. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    Scott typed on Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:08 -0500:
    > My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    > fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing
    > web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    > presentation...
    >
    > http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >
    > ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
    > 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >
    > What is the likely problem here?
    >
    > Thanks!
    > Scott


    Hi Scott! That site won't even let me in. As it wants me to upgrade my
    IE6 (it is really Maxthon) browser first.

    http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/4687/20090505063209.gif

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    1. Advertising

  3. Ben Myers

    Ben Myers Guest

    Scott wrote:
    > My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a fairly
    > good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing web videos.
    > However, when I go to this link to play a Flash presentation...
    >
    > http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >
    > ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox 2.0
    > webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >
    > What is the likely problem here?
    >
    > Thanks!
    > Scott


    Scott,

    You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system does
    not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push all the bits
    needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very little processing
    power compared to all those bits being rapidly shoveled out onto the
    screen by Flash.

    Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
    memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount of
    memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all that much
    to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the CPU is around
    1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the motherboard, but it
    may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If so,
    then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and expensive)
    or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4). These
    would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth the time and
    effort to install... Ben Myers
     
  4. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:gtpkdp$132$,
    Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
    > Scott wrote:
    >> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    >> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
    >> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    >> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >>
    >> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
    >> 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >>
    >> What is the likely problem here?
    >>
    >> Thanks!
    >> Scott

    >
    > Scott,
    >
    > You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system does
    > not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push all the
    > bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very little
    > processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly shoveled
    > out onto the screen by Flash.
    >
    > Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
    > memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount of
    > memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all that much
    > to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the CPU is
    > around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
    > motherboard, but
    > it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
    > so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
    > expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
    > a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
    > the time and effort to install... Ben Myers


    Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time with
    very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a 600MHz
    Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook for example
    has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it plays videos just
    fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I rarely need too.

    During a recent test to help someone on another newsgroup. I found the
    worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe Flash
    Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps 640x400 video
    on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with Adobe Flash Player.
    Although using any other player with the codec installed (like WMP or
    Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to 20% with the same video.

    I also tried different browsers like IE6 and Firefox 3 and the results
    were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the browser doesn't
    change this at all. And everything points to Adobe Flash Player as being
    a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer still should play the video
    even with Adobe Flash Player without any hardware upgrades. If my
    Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99 era) with 2.5MB of video RAM
    and with 192MB of RAM can, so can yours. Although I am sure I have an
    older Adobe Flash Player version installed on it. <grin>

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
  5. Ben Myers

    Ben Myers Guest

    BillW50 wrote:
    > In news:gtpkdp$132$,
    > Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
    >> Scott wrote:
    >>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    >>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
    >>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    >>> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >>>
    >>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
    >>> 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >>>
    >>> What is the likely problem here?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks!
    >>> Scott

    >> Scott,
    >>
    >> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system does
    >> not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push all the
    >> bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very little
    >> processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly shoveled
    >> out onto the screen by Flash.
    >>
    >> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
    >> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount of
    >> memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all that much
    >> to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the CPU is
    >> around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
    >> motherboard, but
    >> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
    >> so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
    >> expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
    >> a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
    >> the time and effort to install... Ben Myers

    >
    > Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time with
    > very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a 600MHz
    > Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook for example
    > has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it plays videos just
    > fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I rarely need too.
    >
    > During a recent test to help someone on another newsgroup. I found the
    > worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe Flash
    > Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps 640x400 video
    > on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with Adobe Flash Player.
    > Although using any other player with the codec installed (like WMP or
    > Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to 20% with the same video.
    >
    > I also tried different browsers like IE6 and Firefox 3 and the results
    > were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the browser doesn't
    > change this at all. And everything points to Adobe Flash Player as being
    > a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer still should play the video
    > even with Adobe Flash Player without any hardware upgrades. If my
    > Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99 era) with 2.5MB of video RAM
    > and with 192MB of RAM can, so can yours. Although I am sure I have an
    > older Adobe Flash Player version installed on it. <grin>
    >


    BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about Celeron
    CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts, even.
    "cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a rational being
    possibly disagree with the facts?

    Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz Celeron
    (if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME improvement. The
    faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled out by its smaller
    cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some. Worth it? Maybe. Will
    the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.

    I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend, it
    is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest investment. But
    the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.

    .... Ben Myers
     
  6. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    Scott typed on Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:08 -0500:
    > My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    > fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing
    > web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    > presentation...
    >
    > http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >
    > ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
    > 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >
    > What is the likely problem here?
    >
    > Thanks!
    > Scott


    Hi Scott! Well I tried Firefox 3 Portable on my netbook and the website
    pops up ok. But the video won't download. I tried it on my Gateway
    MX6124 1.5GHz ('06 era) and it plays fine. Using Firefox it was pushing
    50% of the CPU time. The file can be found in your temp folder. You
    probably need the free Unlocker to make a copy of it if you want to play
    it outside of the browser (plays fine on the Gateway and this netbook).
    Here is the info about the video. Maybe it will help.

    General
    Complete name : D:\Videos\The Cosmetic Conspiracy.flv
    Format : Flash Video
    File size : 79.0 MiB
    Duration : 17mn 43s
    Overall bit rate : 623 Kbps

    Video
    Format : VP6
    Duration : 17mn 43s
    Bit rate : 500 Kbps
    Width : 720 pixels
    Height : 405 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16/9
    Frame rate : 23.976 fps
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.072

    Audio
    Format : MPEG Audio
    Format version : Version 1
    Format profile : Layer 3
    Duration : 17mn 43s
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Bit rate : 80.0 Kbps
    Channel(s) : 2 channels
    Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
    Resolution : 16 bits

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
  7. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:gtq2s5$8c0$,
    Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 15:08:51 -0400:
    > BillW50 wrote:
    >> In news:gtpkdp$132$,
    >> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
    >>> Scott wrote:
    >>>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    >>>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
    >>>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    >>>> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >>>>
    >>>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this
    >>>> Firefox 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >>>>
    >>>> What is the likely problem here?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks!
    >>>> Scott
    >>> Scott,
    >>>
    >>> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system
    >>> does not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push
    >>> all the bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very
    >>> little processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly
    >>> shoveled out onto the screen by Flash.
    >>>
    >>> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
    >>> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount
    >>> of memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all
    >>> that much to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the
    >>> CPU is around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
    >>> motherboard, but
    >>> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
    >>> so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
    >>> expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
    >>> a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
    >>> the time and effort to install... Ben Myers

    >>
    >> Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time
    >> with very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a
    >> 600MHz Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook
    >> for example has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it
    >> plays videos just fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I
    >> rarely need too. During a recent test to help someone on another
    >> newsgroup. I found
    >> the worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe
    >> Flash Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps
    >> 640x400 video on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with
    >> Adobe Flash Player. Although using any other player with the codec
    >> installed (like WMP or Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to
    >> 20% with the same video. I also tried different browsers like IE6 and
    >> Firefox 3 and the
    >> results were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the
    >> browser doesn't change this at all. And everything points to Adobe
    >> Flash Player as being a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer
    >> still should play the video even with Adobe Flash Player without any
    >> hardware upgrades. If my Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99
    >> era) with 2.5MB of video RAM and with 192MB of RAM can, so can
    >> yours. Although I am sure I have an older Adobe Flash Player version
    >> installed on it. <grin>

    >
    > BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about
    > Celeron CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts,
    > even. "cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a
    > rational being possibly disagree with the facts?
    >
    > Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz
    > Celeron (if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME
    > improvement. The faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled
    > out by its smaller cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some.
    > Worth it? Maybe. Will the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz
    > Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.
    > I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend, it
    > is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest investment. But
    > the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.
    >
    > ... Ben Myers


    Well I must say you are indeed a character Ben. <grin> But I stand by my
    statement that it isn't Scott's hardware, but something else. I just
    tried my Celeron 1.5GHz under Firefox 3 and it played fine at 50% CPU
    use.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
  8. Ben Myers

    Ben Myers Guest

    BillW50 wrote:
    > In news:gtq2s5$8c0$,
    > Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 15:08:51 -0400:
    >> BillW50 wrote:
    >>> In news:gtpkdp$132$,
    >>> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
    >>>> Scott wrote:
    >>>>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    >>>>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
    >>>>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    >>>>> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this
    >>>>> Firefox 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What is the likely problem here?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks!
    >>>>> Scott
    >>>> Scott,
    >>>>
    >>>> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system
    >>>> does not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push
    >>>> all the bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very
    >>>> little processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly
    >>>> shoveled out onto the screen by Flash.
    >>>>
    >>>> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
    >>>> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount
    >>>> of memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all
    >>>> that much to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the
    >>>> CPU is around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
    >>>> motherboard, but
    >>>> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
    >>>> so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
    >>>> expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
    >>>> a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
    >>>> the time and effort to install... Ben Myers
    >>> Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time
    >>> with very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a
    >>> 600MHz Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook
    >>> for example has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it
    >>> plays videos just fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I
    >>> rarely need too. During a recent test to help someone on another
    >>> newsgroup. I found
    >>> the worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe
    >>> Flash Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps
    >>> 640x400 video on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with
    >>> Adobe Flash Player. Although using any other player with the codec
    >>> installed (like WMP or Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to
    >>> 20% with the same video. I also tried different browsers like IE6 and
    >>> Firefox 3 and the
    >>> results were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the
    >>> browser doesn't change this at all. And everything points to Adobe
    >>> Flash Player as being a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer
    >>> still should play the video even with Adobe Flash Player without any
    >>> hardware upgrades. If my Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99
    >>> era) with 2.5MB of video RAM and with 192MB of RAM can, so can
    >>> yours. Although I am sure I have an older Adobe Flash Player version
    >>> installed on it. <grin>

    >> BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about
    >> Celeron CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts,
    >> even. "cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a
    >> rational being possibly disagree with the facts?
    >>
    >> Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz
    >> Celeron (if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME
    >> improvement. The faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled
    >> out by its smaller cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some.
    >> Worth it? Maybe. Will the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz
    >> Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.
    >> I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend, it
    >> is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest investment. But
    >> the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.
    >>
    >> ... Ben Myers

    >
    > Well I must say you are indeed a character Ben. <grin> But I stand by my
    > statement that it isn't Scott's hardware, but something else. I just
    > tried my Celeron 1.5GHz under Firefox 3 and it played fine at 50% CPU
    > use.
    >


    "something else", which is? I react to your statements because they are
    so damned vague. Same as your original statement that you disagreed
    with me. Did you bother to say why? No. For a self-proclaimed member
    of Mensa or whatever, you leave behind statements that exhibit a lack of
    critical thinking... Ben
     
  9. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:gtqtin$aj7$,
    Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 22:44:37 -0400:
    > BillW50 wrote:
    >> In news:gtq2s5$8c0$,
    >> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 15:08:51 -0400:
    >>> BillW50 wrote:
    >>>> In news:gtpkdp$132$,
    >>>> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
    >>>>> Scott wrote:
    >>>>>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    >>>>>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
    >>>>>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a
    >>>>>> Flash presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this
    >>>>>> Firefox 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What is the likely problem here?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks!
    >>>>>> Scott
    >>>>> Scott,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system
    >>>>> does not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push
    >>>>> all the bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very
    >>>>> little processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly
    >>>>> shoveled out onto the screen by Flash.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
    >>>>> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount
    >>>>> of memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all
    >>>>> that much to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that
    >>>>> the CPU is around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on
    >>>>> the motherboard, but
    >>>>> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus.
    >>>>> If so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce
    >>>>> and expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache
    >>>>> memory than a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the
    >>>>> buck to be worth the time and effort to install... Ben Myers
    >>>> Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time
    >>>> with very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a
    >>>> 600MHz Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook
    >>>> for example has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it
    >>>> plays videos just fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I
    >>>> rarely need too. During a recent test to help someone on another
    >>>> newsgroup. I found
    >>>> the worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe
    >>>> Flash Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps
    >>>> 640x400 video on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with
    >>>> Adobe Flash Player. Although using any other player with the codec
    >>>> installed (like WMP or Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to
    >>>> 20% with the same video. I also tried different browsers like IE6
    >>>> and Firefox 3 and the
    >>>> results were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the
    >>>> browser doesn't change this at all. And everything points to Adobe
    >>>> Flash Player as being a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer
    >>>> still should play the video even with Adobe Flash Player without
    >>>> any hardware upgrades. If my Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz
    >>>> Celeron ('99 era) with 2.5MB of video RAM and with 192MB of RAM
    >>>> can, so can yours. Although I am sure I have an older Adobe Flash
    >>>> Player version installed on it. <grin>
    >>> BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about
    >>> Celeron CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts,
    >>> even. "cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a
    >>> rational being possibly disagree with the facts?
    >>>
    >>> Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz
    >>> Celeron (if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME
    >>> improvement. The faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled
    >>> out by its smaller cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some.
    >>> Worth it? Maybe. Will the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz
    >>> Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.
    >>> I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend,
    >>> it is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest
    >>> investment. But the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.
    >>>
    >>> ... Ben Myers

    >>
    >> Well I must say you are indeed a character Ben. <grin> But I stand
    >> by my statement that it isn't Scott's hardware, but something else.
    >> I just tried my Celeron 1.5GHz under Firefox 3 and it played fine at
    >> 50% CPU use.
    >>

    >
    > "something else", which is? I react to your statements because they
    > are so damned vague. Same as your original statement that you
    > disagreed with me. Did you bother to say why? No. For a
    > self-proclaimed member of Mensa or whatever, you leave behind
    > statements that exhibit a lack of critical thinking... Ben


    Self-proclaimed member of Mensa? Vague? Critical thinking? Nonsense!
    There is nothing wrong with Scott's 2.8-GHz Pentium 4 processor. It
    clearly has enough horsepower to play this video. This something else? I
    already alluded too it. Adobe Flash Player 10 for one eats up 2½ times
    more processing power than other players for one.

    Since it can't be Scott's hardware lacking power enough to play the
    video. And I already proved it by playing the file on this netbook,
    which has far less CPU power and video capabilities than Scott's
    computer. It played using 50% of the CPU power (Celeron 900MHz running
    at 633MHz).

    So if it isn't the hardware being underpowered, what can it be? Well
    think Ben! Either the CPU is too busy doing something else from some
    background task (software problem). Or Scott's Internet bandwidth can't
    keep up. Which seems very unlikely from everything else I have heard so
    far. I can't think of anything else it could be.

    You on the other hand, keep insisting that Scott's hardware isn't fast
    enough to handle this video. That is pure nonsense. As my old Toshiba
    2595XDVD ('99) Celeron 400MHz should be able to just barely be able to
    play this video. And it only has 2.5MB of video RAM. This is the trip
    point IMHO of not having or having enough power to play it.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Guest

    BillW50 wrote:
    >
    > In news:,
    > Scott typed on Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:08 -0500:
    > > My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    > > fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing
    > > web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    > > presentation...
    > >
    > > http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    > >
    > > ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
    > > 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    > >
    > > What is the likely problem here?
    > >
    > > Thanks!
    > > Scott

    >
    > Hi Scott! Well I tried Firefox 3 Portable on my netbook and the website
    > pops up ok. But the video won't download. I tried it on my Gateway
    > MX6124 1.5GHz ('06 era) and it plays fine. Using Firefox it was pushing
    > 50% of the CPU time. The file can be found in your temp folder. You
    > probably need the free Unlocker to make a copy of it if you want to play
    > it outside of the browser (plays fine on the Gateway and this netbook).
    > Here is the info about the video. Maybe it will help.
    >
    > General
    > Complete name : D:\Videos\The Cosmetic Conspiracy.flv
    > Format : Flash Video
    > File size : 79.0 MiB
    > Duration : 17mn 43s
    > Overall bit rate : 623 Kbps
    >
    > Video
    > Format : VP6
    > Duration : 17mn 43s
    > Bit rate : 500 Kbps
    > Width : 720 pixels
    > Height : 405 pixels
    > Display aspect ratio : 16/9
    > Frame rate : 23.976 fps
    > Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.072
    >
    > Audio
    > Format : MPEG Audio
    > Format version : Version 1
    > Format profile : Layer 3
    > Duration : 17mn 43s
    > Bit rate mode : Constant
    > Bit rate : 80.0 Kbps
    > Channel(s) : 2 channels
    > Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
    > Resolution : 16 bits
    >
    > --
    > Bill
    > Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    > Windows XP SP2



    For whatever reason, the flash presentation plays okay no...using Firefox 2.0
    When it's playing, it's using 50-50% of the CPU time.

    There must have been something running in the background for awhile, but it's no
    longer a problem.

    Thanks for your help!

    Scott
     
  11. Frank

    Frank Guest

    Scott wrote:
    >
    > BillW50 wrote:
    >> In news:,
    >> Scott typed on Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:08 -0500:
    >>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
    >>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing
    >>> web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
    >>> presentation...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
    >>>
    >>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
    >>> 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
    >>>
    >>> What is the likely problem here?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks!
    >>> Scott

    >> Hi Scott! Well I tried Firefox 3 Portable on my netbook and the website
    >> pops up ok. But the video won't download. I tried it on my Gateway
    >> MX6124 1.5GHz ('06 era) and it plays fine. Using Firefox it was pushing
    >> 50% of the CPU time. The file can be found in your temp folder. You
    >> probably need the free Unlocker to make a copy of it if you want to play
    >> it outside of the browser (plays fine on the Gateway and this netbook).
    >> Here is the info about the video. Maybe it will help.
    >>
    >> General
    >> Complete name : D:\Videos\The Cosmetic Conspiracy.flv
    >> Format : Flash Video
    >> File size : 79.0 MiB
    >> Duration : 17mn 43s
    >> Overall bit rate : 623 Kbps
    >>
    >> Video
    >> Format : VP6
    >> Duration : 17mn 43s
    >> Bit rate : 500 Kbps
    >> Width : 720 pixels
    >> Height : 405 pixels
    >> Display aspect ratio : 16/9
    >> Frame rate : 23.976 fps
    >> Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.072
    >>
    >> Audio
    >> Format : MPEG Audio
    >> Format version : Version 1
    >> Format profile : Layer 3
    >> Duration : 17mn 43s
    >> Bit rate mode : Constant
    >> Bit rate : 80.0 Kbps
    >> Channel(s) : 2 channels
    >> Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
    >> Resolution : 16 bits
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bill
    >> Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    >> Windows XP SP2

    >
    >
    > For whatever reason, the flash presentation plays okay no...using Firefox 2.0
    > When it's playing, it's using 50-50% of the CPU time.
    >
    > There must have been something running in the background for awhile, but it's no
    > longer a problem.
    >
    > Thanks for your help!
    >
    > Scott


    Worked fine for me and guess you got it straightened out.
    I have to tell you though, as a retired chemist, I think the premise of
    the website is a crock.
     
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jp
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    445
  2. Dave Curtis
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,761
    Frank Fussenegger
    Oct 20, 2003
  3. Ablizz

    700X will not boot

    Ablizz, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Gateway
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    705
    Edward J. Neth
    Dec 28, 2003
  4. Bill Vorhies

    700X / Old LaserJet5L/AcrobatReader

    Bill Vorhies, Feb 2, 2004, in forum: Gateway
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    326
    Bill Vorhies
    Feb 3, 2004
  5. Jack Edmunds

    Network Port on 700X

    Jack Edmunds, Feb 19, 2004, in forum: Gateway
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    325
    Jack Edmunds
    Feb 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page