|
random ass media player question
|
View this Thread in Original format
| D-res |
Does anyone by chance know which media player (windows mp, vlc, winamp, jetaudio, etc) uses the least system resources? Thanks in advance if anyone does.
/out of left field |
|
|
| echosystm |
what are you using it for?
vlc will generally be a resource hog, because it has its own internal codecs etc. something like media player classic is probably a better bet. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| for strictly audio foobar2000 uses the least amount of ram. for video i think MPlayer has a small footprint but not sure as i dont really monitor it since ive gone to linux. |
|
|
| eROs.au |
| Just go with VLC and be a hero already :) |
|
|
| BTG |
winamp is my favorite.
partly due to the fact that it's the only thing i've used in 6 yeas. |
|
|
| Simon |
| My Winamp = 1,588K. That's with no plugins and classic skin. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Simon
My Winamp = 1,588K. That's with no plugins and classic skin. |
minimized or no? ive noticed that winamp 5 (at least this was in 5.2 and 5.3) takes up more memory using the classic skin. i dont understand why but that was the case. |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
yes, foobar2000 uses the least resources as an audio player. I've switched over to Winamp5(easier transfer of files to my flash-based mp3 player) and it definitely uses more memory + my CPU seems to spike around to 30%.
Before the current version of Winamp 5.x, there was a Winamp5 LITE option on their website, which excluded the "Media Library" and I remember it taking a bit less of a hit on resources. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
yes, foobar2000 uses the least resources as an audio player. I've switched over to Winamp5(easier transfer of files to my flash-based mp3 player) and it definitely uses more memory + my CPU seems to spike around to 30%.
Before the current version of Winamp 5.x, there was a Winamp5 LITE option on their website, which excluded the "Media Library" and I remember it taking a bit less of a hit on resources. |
removing the library doesnt really have any real impact on the memory footprint. the problem is the way the player interfaces with the os. its now a resource hog compared to 2.x.
mezz: yeah i miss 2.x for its memory footprint but i enjoy the extras that 5.x has added. especially the library if you have any sort of portable mp3 player (including the ipod for those unaware. and you can transfer music BACK to your computer from your ipod too!), which is nice. also the video support is nice too even though i dont use it. for a full on media player it is hands down the best. minimal yet still powerful and doesnt have a huge memory footprint like all the other media players. |
|
|
| mezzir |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
removing the library doesnt really have any real impact on the memory footprint. the problem is the way the player interfaces with the os. its now a resource hog compared to 2.x.
mezz: yeah i miss 2.x for its memory footprint but i enjoy the extras that 5.x has added. especially the library if you have any sort of portable mp3 player (including the ipod for those unaware. and you can transfer music BACK to your computer from your ipod too!), which is nice. also the video support is nice too even though i dont use it. for a full on media player it is hands down the best. minimal yet still powerful and doesnt have a huge memory footprint like all the other media players. |
Lol yeah, I just use itunes these days. The memory hogging is never a problem really, cause the only time I need all the memory I got is when I'm writing music and therefore not gonna have itunes open anyways. |
|
|
|
|
