The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your laptop/netbook. I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your > laptop/netbook. > I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every > single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and > there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor > CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the > article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it > really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
> I really HATE this type of misleading article.
Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, and not Flash.
I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the golden calf you think it is...
I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be more to this than meets the eye.
Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >> laptop/netbook. >> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it >> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>> I really HATE this type of misleading article.
> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is > possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox > (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, > and not Flash.
> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the > golden calf you think it is...
> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original > owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it > to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always > notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. > Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be > more to this than meets the eye.
> Terry R.
A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>> laptop/netbook. >>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it >>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, >> and not Flash.
>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >> golden calf you think it is...
>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >> more to this than meets the eye.
>> Terry R. > A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% > indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied > message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T > match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell > netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since > my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. A "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after reading it).
Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>>> laptop/netbook. >>>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it >>>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >>> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >>> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >>> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, >>> and not Flash.
>>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >>> golden calf you think it is...
>>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >>> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >>> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >>> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >>> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >>> more to this than meets the eye.
>>> Terry R. >> A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% >> indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied >> message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T >> match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell >> netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since >> my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
> I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. A > "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
> You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" > relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after reading > it).
Guys, if this is just a continuation of your debate in mozilla.general, then take it to mozilla.general.
>>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>>> laptop/netbook. >>>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it >>>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >>> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >>> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >>> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, >>> and not Flash.
>>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >>> golden calf you think it is...
>>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >>> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >>> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >>> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >>> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >>> more to this than meets the eye.
>>> Terry R. >> A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% >> indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied >> message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T >> match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell >> netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since >> my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
> I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. A > "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
> You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" > relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after reading > it).
> Terry R.
There has to be some CAUSE for the high CPU usage experienced by some users. I have no doubt that this happens, but many of us don't seem to have the problem, even though we use the same hardware, and software, and OS. Surely someone can discover just what causes this, so it can be fixed. My bet is on an extension, or plugin.
>>>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>>>> laptop/netbook. >>>>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>>>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>>>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>>>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>>>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it >>>>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >>>> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >>>> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >>>> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, >>>> and not Flash.
>>>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >>>> golden calf you think it is...
>>>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >>>> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >>>> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >>>> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >>>> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >>>> more to this than meets the eye.
>>>> Terry R. >>> A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% >>> indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied >>> message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T >>> match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell >>> netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since >>> my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
>> I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. A >> "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
>> You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" >> relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after reading >> it).
> Guys, if this is just a continuation of your debate in mozilla.general, > then take it to mozilla.general.
Chris,
Far from it.
That was a cheap trick changing the newsgroup to general when it doesn't warrant it.
Please don't change the newsgroup just because you think it belongs there. This is specific to FF and should stay here, regardless of what you think.
Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>>> laptop/netbook. >>>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it >>>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >>> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >>> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >>> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, >>> and not Flash.
>>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >>> golden calf you think it is...
>>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >>> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >>> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >>> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >>> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >>> more to this than meets the eye.
>>> Terry R. >> A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% >> indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied >> message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T >> match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell >> netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since >> my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
> I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. A > "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
> You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" > relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after reading > it).
> Terry R.
I guess I must be a "perfect designer" because every one of my homemade computers from this antique Pentium 4 Shuttle SFF to my current newest Q6600 HTPC run at 100% CPU usage 24 X 7 with no problems (four in all). The machines are running the BOINC client with World Community Grid; despite this I've never had a heat-related problem with any of them and that is saying something since the P4 Shuttles had marginal cooling and the HTPC is a super-low-profile Antec case with space for no sort of special cooling.
I don't abuse my notebook in this way but it has not shown any detectable heat changes even running FF with 26 tabs open as is my normal habit. The CPU usage figures on the note book do not come close to hitting those noted in the article and I suspect that something totally different is going on. I suspect that, based on the original article, that nobody is experiencing thermal shutdowns which would be a sure symptom of a truly overheated computer.
>>>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>>>> laptop/netbook. >>>>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>>>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>>>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>>>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>>>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but is it >>>>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >>>> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >>>> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >>>> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with FF, >>>> and not Flash.
>>>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >>>> golden calf you think it is...
>>>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >>>> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >>>> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >>>> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >>>> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >>>> more to this than meets the eye.
>>>> Terry R. >>> A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% >>> indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied >>> message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T >>> match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell >>> netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since >>> my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
>> I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. A >> "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
>> You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" >> relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after reading >> it).
>> Terry R.
> I guess I must be a "perfect designer" because every one of my homemade > computers from this antique Pentium 4 Shuttle SFF to my current newest > Q6600 HTPC run at 100% CPU usage 24 X 7 with no problems (four in all). The > machines are running the BOINC client with World Community Grid; despite > this I've never had a heat-related problem with any of them and that is > saying something since the P4 Shuttles had marginal cooling and the HTPC is > a super-low-profile Antec case with space for no sort of special cooling.
> I don't abuse my notebook in this way but it has not shown any detectable > heat changes even running FF with 26 tabs open as is my normal habit. The > CPU usage figures on the note book do not come close to hitting those noted > in the article and I suspect that something totally different is going on. > I suspect that, based on the original article, that nobody is experiencing > thermal shutdowns which would be a sure symptom of a truly overheated computer.
No one said "perfect". I build all mine also, since that's what I do. I have to doubt your machines are running 100% all the time.
So your notebook doesn't, and mine does. That would lend you not to believe it and I have to give it some merit.
And do machines really have to experience a "thermal shutdown" in order for Mozilla to take notice?
follow-up set to mozilla.general
Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>>>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>>>> laptop/netbook. >>>>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>>>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>>>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>>>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>>>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but >>>>> is it >>>>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >>>> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >>>> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >>>> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with >>>> FF, >>>> and not Flash.
>>>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >>>> golden calf you think it is...
>>>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >>>> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >>>> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >>>> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >>>> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >>>> more to this than meets the eye.
>>>> Terry R. >>> A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% >>> indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied >>> message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T >>> match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell >>> netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since >>> my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
>> I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. A >> "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
>> You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" >> relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after >> reading it).
>> Terry R.
> I guess I must be a "perfect designer" because every one of my homemade > computers from this antique Pentium 4 Shuttle SFF to my current newest > Q6600 HTPC run at 100% CPU usage 24 X 7 with no problems (four in all). > The machines are running the BOINC client with World Community Grid; > despite this I've never had a heat-related problem with any of them and > that is saying something since the P4 Shuttles had marginal cooling and > the HTPC is a super-low-profile Antec case with space for no sort of > special cooling.
> I don't abuse my notebook in this way but it has not shown any > detectable heat changes even running FF with 26 tabs open as is my > normal habit. The CPU usage figures on the note book do not come close > to hitting those noted in the article and I suspect that something > totally different is going on. I suspect that, based on the original > article, that nobody is experiencing thermal shutdowns which would be a > sure symptom of a truly overheated computer.
I just tried FF 3.6b3 on my desktop machine, where I can monitor case, and processor temps. I opened FF, went to the HarryPotter.com site, which is almost completely Flash driven, opened 10 tabs, and let it run the movie trailer in each one for 10 minutes. The case temp rose 2 degrees C, and the processors stayed at their normal temps, even though both were about 50% busy. I think it is safe to say, whatever is causing the problem with high CPU usage, and temperature increases, isn't present on my system. BTW, I run about 25 add-ons.
>>>>> The writer seems to imply that Firefox will burn up the CPU in your >>>>> laptop/netbook. >>>>> I can say that I run my netbook (Dell Mini 10) for several hours every >>>>> single day with Firefox, and one or two other applications active, and >>>>> there is no temperature difference noticed at any time, and I monitor >>>>> CPU usage constantly, and have NOT seen the symptoms mentioned in the >>>>> article. It might be because I don't allow much Flash to run, but >>>>> is it >>>>> really fair to bash Firefox because Flash consumes CPU cycles?
>>>>> I really HATE this type of misleading article. >>>> Why is it misleading? If a moz support person "suggests" Safari is >>>> possibly better at optimizing Flash-based sites compared to Firefox >>>> (30-60% for FF, 2-10% for Safari), it would appear the issue IS with >>>> FF, >>>> and not Flash.
>>>> I think the comments are pretty telling also. If anything, FF isn't the >>>> golden calf you think it is...
>>>> I have an older laptop that has always had heat issues. The original >>>> owner went through 2 hard drives that failed due to heat. They gave it >>>> to me and I installed a 7,200 rpm drive (which runs hotter). I always >>>> notice that whenever I open FF and do some work, the fan kicks on high. >>>> Working on other apps doesn't have the same effect though. There may be >>>> more to this than meets the eye.
>>>> Terry R. >>> A properly designed computer should be able to run the CPU at 100% >>> indefinitely without overheating. I am more concerned with the implied >>> message than the specific facts, even though those definitely DON'T >>> match with my experience, first with an HP laptop, and now with a Dell >>> netbook. I suspect other factors may be at work here, especially since >>> my observations of CPU usage don't seem to match those in the article.
>> I don't believe a "properly designed" one can run 100% indefinitely. >> A "specially designed" one to focus on heat, possibly.
>> You don't experience it, and it appears I do. The "implied message" >> relates to my experience on a laptop (as the light went on after >> reading it).
>> Terry R.
> I guess I must be a "perfect designer" because every one of my homemade > computers from this antique Pentium 4 Shuttle SFF to my current newest > Q6600 HTPC run at 100% CPU usage 24 X 7 with no problems (four in all). > The machines are running the BOINC client with World Community Grid; > despite this I've never had a heat-related problem with any of them and > that is saying something since the P4 Shuttles had marginal cooling and > the HTPC is a super-low-profile Antec case with space for no sort of > special cooling.
> I don't abuse my notebook in this way but it has not shown any > detectable heat changes even running FF with 26 tabs open as is my > normal habit. The CPU usage figures on the note book do not come close > to hitting those noted in the article and I suspect that something > totally different is going on. I suspect that, based on the original > article, that nobody is experiencing thermal shutdowns which would be a > sure symptom of a truly overheated computer.
Speaking stricly of Firefox - ON Topic - I have never had any computer/notebook shut down because of overheating caused by excessive CPU useage in Firefox, any version to date.
If the discussion escalates to general CPU useage, etc. please set a followup to mozilla.general where we can discuss this at length and more indepth. Thanks
-- Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion www.ufaq.org Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support
Ron Hunter wrote: > On 11/25/2009 9:21 AM, John McGaw wrote: >> Terry R. wrote: >>> On 11/23/2009 2:19 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>> On 11/23/2009 4:04 PM, Terry R. wrote: >>>>> On 11/23/2009 12:28 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the >>>>> keyboard
>> I don't abuse my notebook in this way but it has not shown any >> detectable heat changes even running FF with 26 tabs open as is my >> normal habit. The CPU usage figures on the note book do not come close >> to hitting those noted in the article and I suspect that something >> totally different is going on. I suspect that, based on the original >> article, that nobody is experiencing thermal shutdowns which would be a >> sure symptom of a truly overheated computer.
> I just tried FF 3.6b3 on my desktop machine, where I can monitor case, > and processor temps. I opened FF, went to the HarryPotter.com site, > which is almost completely Flash driven, opened 10 tabs, and let it run > the movie trailer in each one for 10 minutes. The case temp rose 2 > degrees C, and the processors stayed at their normal temps, even though > both were about 50% busy. I think it is safe to say, whatever is > causing the problem with high CPU usage, and temperature increases, > isn't present on my system. BTW, I run about 25 add-ons.
I have seen that on gnome displaymanager on linux some sites are not as responsive as they appear to be when I run fluxbox on a BSD machine, both with firefox,
Sure on BSD I have no flash, which girds up thy loins.
When it crashes,, usually if I play piano with flash i get a coredump, so far I have never been able to investigate what is going on in the core dump. I just reload and it restarts and continues.
Sun has D-Trace, which works on solaris and IIRC on FreeBSD. It is a tool which could troubleshoot this. You can still playback flash, even on 64 bot OpenBSD, by separate downloading the file and playback outside of the browser. IIRC mac has solved the flash problem by avoiding it, hence on an iphone they have the agreement with youtube to stream mpeg.
a different codec and a different technology.
I don't know where I read this, but it may be that all youtube flash videos are handled different on all mac iPhones and even PC's.
It could help finding performence bottlenecks and instrument critical sessions of unusual coded websites.
I can see no problem blocking flash and doing separate flash downloads and ffmpeg to convert to mpeg. Flash is a security issue. Which is why it is blocked on iPhone.
Morten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (SunOS) Comment: For keyID and its URL see the OpenPGP message header
|
