Is Ruffle lighter than the Flash Player itself?? #12041
Replies: 4 comments
-
|
In case anyone wonders, I meant "lighter" is "more lightweight" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What bugs specifically? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
like graphics bugs, i can't tell them exactly |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If you don't have a specific bug, I can't really help. Note that it's possible that FP is using some older graphics drivers which are not as supported on your system, while Ruffle is using newer, more supported ones. In terms of "lightweight"-ness, though, FP is definitely more lightweight. It uses less memory and is almost always more performant. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi everyone, is Ruffle lighter than the Flash Player itself?? I tried Flash Player Standalone on my X11 Gnome Ubuntu, and it had some bugs. But Ruffle didn't had bugs. I know that they run on different libraries, but is Ruffle lighter??
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions