[ild]

Fine. I cannot argue about _your_ experience. _My_ experience is different. One of my computers is really old Pentium M laptop (9y old) and HTML5 barely works at 240p. Not only that, it has limited set of resolutions at the first place. Flash works just fine 480p resolution. It looks also much better at lower bitrates (to _my_ taste) than HTML5 in Firefox

> make me think of some kind of adobe shills maybe

Delusions or paranoia may be?

[morphles]

It was far less personal than that, I generaly only lurk on HN, but your post one that struck a nerve finaly, after many similar posts here and in /..

Also 9 year old is quite a frac cry from your initial post of "(3y+) machines", 9 year old machine almost guaranteed has absolutely no support in hardware for modern codecs. So no wonder has strong limitations on resolution. Still flash working better than HTML5 players is still suspicious to me, I still believe with correct configuration reverse should be true, as flash is basically just another layer in between screen and bits on the net. Though possibly not applicable in all cases.

[ild]

9y old machines is what many people (not gamers, enthusiasts etc.) have; 3+ y old include underpowered Celeron 847, AMDs (way weaker than your monstrous Q6600) and even on these machines Flash works better. _My_ _actual_ observations.

> Still flash working better than HTML5 players is still suspicious to me,

Do you write programs for life or what? It is not a problem with HTML5 players, it a problem the way they are written. Flash is an older product, with better support of legacy or underpowered products.

> I still believe with correct configuration reverse should be true

Yes, the correct configuration is "more powerful CPU".