<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Flex on the Desktop	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://jessewarden.com/2005/09/flex-on-the-desktop.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://jessewarden.com/2005/09/flex-on-the-desktop.html</link>
	<description>Software &#124; Fitness &#124; Gaming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:16:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: JesterXL		</title>
		<link>https://jessewarden.com/2005/09/flex-on-the-desktop.html/comment-page-1#comment-2885</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JesterXL]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jessewarden.com/?p=865#comment-2885</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Two reasons&#039;.  First, it&#039;s gigantor; it&#039;s running at 1152 x 864 resolution.  Anything above 800x600 on todays computers eats mad CPU.  Quicktime/Real/WindowsMedia; they&#039;d be just as bad at that rez with the same quality settings.

Secondly, the video was not really compressed.  You dont&#039; get bitrate control on the codec Captivate uses to capture fullscreen, so I think it&#039;s a pretty high default.  Running serously large frames plus at 30 frames per second is SERIOUSLY resource intensive.

Could it be better?  Sure, lower resolution, less framerate, and lower quality video.


]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two reasons&#8217;.  First, it&#8217;s gigantor; it&#8217;s running at 1152 x 864 resolution.  Anything above 800&#215;600 on todays computers eats mad CPU.  Quicktime/Real/WindowsMedia; they&#8217;d be just as bad at that rez with the same quality settings.</p>
<p>Secondly, the video was not really compressed.  You dont&#8217; get bitrate control on the codec Captivate uses to capture fullscreen, so I think it&#8217;s a pretty high default.  Running serously large frames plus at 30 frames per second is SERIOUSLY resource intensive.</p>
<p>Could it be better?  Sure, lower resolution, less framerate, and lower quality video.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ritzcoder		</title>
		<link>https://jessewarden.com/2005/09/flex-on-the-desktop.html/comment-page-1#comment-2884</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ritzcoder]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jessewarden.com/?p=865#comment-2884</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I would like to know why the demo movie takes up so many resources!   Is that a Macromedia Captivate movie? I hope all of those movies don&#039;t do that.  Do you know what causes that?  I was thinking of getting captivate or camtasia but I&#039;m not going to get captivate if it is that resource intensive. Thanks for any info.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to know why the demo movie takes up so many resources!   Is that a Macromedia Captivate movie? I hope all of those movies don&#8217;t do that.  Do you know what causes that?  I was thinking of getting captivate or camtasia but I&#8217;m not going to get captivate if it is that resource intensive. Thanks for any info.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: JesterXL		</title>
		<link>https://jessewarden.com/2005/09/flex-on-the-desktop.html/comment-page-1#comment-2883</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JesterXL]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jessewarden.com/?p=865#comment-2883</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s cool, I know what you meant.

Somewhat; just didn&#039;t have time to take a break and post stuff till this week.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s cool, I know what you meant.</p>
<p>Somewhat; just didn&#8217;t have time to take a break and post stuff till this week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Campbell		</title>
		<link>https://jessewarden.com/2005/09/flex-on-the-desktop.html/comment-page-1#comment-2882</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Campbell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jessewarden.com/?p=865#comment-2882</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Yeah sorry cant believe no-one has done it with flex.

Yeah I was making a windows form that acts like Konfabulator loading in both flash swfs and flex hosted (sever generated) swfs. Many widgets at once if you get my drift.

Man you must have been saving all these posts up to publish them all in one day.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah sorry cant believe no-one has done it with flex.</p>
<p>Yeah I was making a windows form that acts like Konfabulator loading in both flash swfs and flex hosted (sever generated) swfs. Many widgets at once if you get my drift.</p>
<p>Man you must have been saving all these posts up to publish them all in one day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: JesterXL		</title>
		<link>https://jessewarden.com/2005/09/flex-on-the-desktop.html/comment-page-1#comment-2881</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JesterXL]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:40:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jessewarden.com/?p=865#comment-2881</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Aye; 1 SWF is manageable, but many are not.  It&#039;s hard when all we have is delete, null, and faith.

People have done it before, many many times... using Flash.  Most Flex developers are Java heads frustrated with things like Taprestry, and other boring, challenging to integrate front-ends.  They wouldn&#039;t think to use it on the desktop because Flex is the solution to the web application problem.

There is no problem to be solved on desktop other than to make good looking apps easier to make.  Sparkle&#039;s trying to do this, but we can do this already with Flex &#038; Flash too!  LOL, or in your case, with .NET, hehe!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aye; 1 SWF is manageable, but many are not.  It&#8217;s hard when all we have is delete, null, and faith.</p>
<p>People have done it before, many many times&#8230; using Flash.  Most Flex developers are Java heads frustrated with things like Taprestry, and other boring, challenging to integrate front-ends.  They wouldn&#8217;t think to use it on the desktop because Flex is the solution to the web application problem.</p>
<p>There is no problem to be solved on desktop other than to make good looking apps easier to make.  Sparkle&#8217;s trying to do this, but we can do this already with Flex &amp; Flash too!  LOL, or in your case, with .NET, hehe!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
