Are these screensavers designed to be impressive and fun while also requiring minimal processor (battery)?
I always assumed the screensavers that ship with the Mac are carefully designed not to unnecessarily drain the battery, but I realised just now that’s just an assumption.
It's taxing on CPU and GPU:
normal | running screensaver in browser
CPU: 5% | 15%
GPU: 10% | 45%Drift is beautiful, but for some reason, it makes me anxious when watching it - uneasy - and I have no idea why. Anyone else?
Why did screensavers ever do anything besides just blanking the screen?
"it might stand to dethrone the venerable Flurry screensaver" - You are absolutely right. The first time I saw the screensaver, I was completely mesmerized and watched it for a few minutes before getting back to work.
Out of curiosity, why Rust? Not saying anything against it, just looking to understand your take on it.
I want the original text-mode (or, perhaps even better, imitated text mode over the full-resolution graphics mode) starry night sky from the Norton Commander :-)
What's the gist behind how the flow lines are generated? It looks sort of like the vector field for a differential equation, can we plug in our own values?
Looks similiar but the colors are significantly subdued compared to the native macOS version. I guess they're only using a more limited color pallete than what MacOS uses?
Has anyone else seen the macOS version of this bug out and look like fast moving fireworks for a moment when launching when the system is under high load?
What's the missing secret sauce that the anonymous apple employee alludes to? Any guesses?
I guess a screensaver is only useful if the screen startup is slow.
Was hoping someone had remade this for windows, great work!
Holy... looking at this screensaver, this triggers some new phobia in me, I didn't know I have. Thx
Browser demo: https://flux.sandydoo.me/