Question about media players
Sunday, March 14, 2004 by dabe | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I used to be a big fan of WinAmp. Actually, I still am. But, I've been experimenting with QCD, and it seems quite good. I'm not really comfortable with WMP, which is a shame because it seems to be the only one that DX recognizes. Anyway, my question is about resources. Both WA and QCD seem to use up quite a bit of resources, whether minimized or not, and particularly when not minimized. But, I'm not sure which uses less, though I've tried to determine. I don't use the visual thingy on either one. That's a total waste. I have 512 MB RAM, but when a player results in CPU usage of appx 50% (my CPU is a 1.2ghz antique), it really causes apps to crawl. Any suggestions? Any thoughts? Any any?
TIA
dabe confused about terminology, maybe
TIA
dabe confused about terminology, maybe
Shameless Designs
Reply #2 Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:55 AM
This suggests to me that the real culprit is video. Specifically, I would guess that the skin you are using has some type of animation, scrolling text, etc which requires a significant amount of redrawing. What type of video card are you using and how much Video RAM does it have? If the card is older/slower and has little or no Video RAM, then your computer has to draw on system resources to accomplish that redrawing.
Reply #2 Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:55 AM
| Both WA and QCD seem to use up quite a bit of resources, whether minimized or not, and particularly when not minimized |
This suggests to me that the real culprit is video. Specifically, I would guess that the skin you are using has some type of animation, scrolling text, etc which requires a significant amount of redrawing. What type of video card are you using and how much Video RAM does it have? If the card is older/slower and has little or no Video RAM, then your computer has to draw on system resources to accomplish that redrawing.
Chris
Reply #3 Sunday, March 14, 2004 12:31 PM
Reply #3 Sunday, March 14, 2004 12:31 PM
I like QCD quite a bit and find it to be far less piggish than Winamp 5 with a modern skin on my underpowered computer. It's about on par with with Winamp using a classic skin.
That said, I've pretty much been using Foobar for the most part, especially with the UI Columns plugin
[Message Edited]
That said, I've pretty much been using Foobar for the most part, especially with the UI Columns plugin
[Message Edited]
CygnusXII
Reply #4 Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:40 PM
Reply #4 Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:40 PM
A decent media utility is Media player Classic.
Not only does it handle most formats, codecs and whatnot, It's Free.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=82303&package_id=84358
The only annoyance, is when some pins in file graphs fail to initialize, it messages ya.
This can be turned off, in the preff's.
The players works decent, and seems to be low res usage, and the UI is straight forward.
Feel free to give it a try.
Not only does it handle most formats, codecs and whatnot, It's Free.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=82303&package_id=84358
The only annoyance, is when some pins in file graphs fail to initialize, it messages ya.
This can be turned off, in the preff's.
The players works decent, and seems to be low res usage, and the UI is straight forward.
Feel free to give it a try.
DavidK
Reply #5 Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:52 PM
Reply #5 Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:52 PM
Cool Player is a good alternative for a media player that's light on resources and it's skinnable.
http://coolplayer.sourceforge.net/
dabe
Reply #6 Monday, March 15, 2004 8:09 PM
Reply #6 Monday, March 15, 2004 8:09 PM
Thanks, DavidK. I downloaded Coolplayer, and I'm trying it. I never tried it before because I was happy with WinAmp. Anyway, I gotta say, the default skin for CoolPlayer is UGGGLLLY..... You know what they say..... "There's no accountin' for taste."
Anyway, it does work well, easy on resources, though I do like Winamp better. I only use the Winamp default skin, but vary the color schemes. Great program. Anyone have the Pro version? Is it worth the money? I just downloaded Deep Burn for burning my mp3's to CD's, but it doesn't seem to recognize file names. Just lists them as Track 1, Track 2, etc. Spoze I can't complain DeepBurner is free. I believe WA Pro has burn capability, which sure could be handy.
And, speaking of skins, I cannot figure out how to apply the CoolPlayer skins. I've downloaded two, unzipped them to the CoolPlayer folder, but the program just doesn't see them. Also, why doesn't SDC list CoolPlayer?.
TIA
Anyway, it does work well, easy on resources, though I do like Winamp better. I only use the Winamp default skin, but vary the color schemes. Great program. Anyone have the Pro version? Is it worth the money? I just downloaded Deep Burn for burning my mp3's to CD's, but it doesn't seem to recognize file names. Just lists them as Track 1, Track 2, etc. Spoze I can't complain DeepBurner is free. I believe WA Pro has burn capability, which sure could be handy.
And, speaking of skins, I cannot figure out how to apply the CoolPlayer skins. I've downloaded two, unzipped them to the CoolPlayer folder, but the program just doesn't see them. Also, why doesn't SDC list CoolPlayer?.
TIA
dabe
Reply #7 Monday, March 15, 2004 8:11 PM
Reply #7 Monday, March 15, 2004 8:11 PM
OOps!!!! Just after I hit send on the last post, I realized that I might offend someone about calling the CoolPlayer skin ugly. I apologize. Truly. Maybe it's me and my taste.
dabe is sorry.
dabe is sorry.
dabe
Reply #9 Monday, March 15, 2004 10:06 PM
Reply #9 Monday, March 15, 2004 10:06 PM
Jafo, of course. I shoulda known. So, does that mean I don't have to worry about offending anyone, or not? 
I think I'm sticking with WinAmp. The resource difference is not that significant, and WA is alot nicer to run.
Thanks anyway....
I think I'm sticking with WinAmp. The resource difference is not that significant, and WA is alot nicer to run.
Thanks anyway....
Jafo
Reply #10 Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
Reply #10 Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
dabe....as skinners we generally resist denigrating any specific skinnable software....not all that 'clever' to do so.
We may be frustrated with one vs another...but all these proggies are what we 'play with'.....so they are our 'friends'...
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:54 AM
Some modern skins tend to suck up a fair bit of CPU juice!
Cant really suggest other players though, since WinAmp has been my fave for the last umm.... many years