No, I do not
wish to start an argument. I really want to mend the rift I helped make between us. I took your post the wrong way. The "was/is" and reading quickly caused me to miss your true meaning. I took the 'was' to mean I did not provide a sufficient answer to what has, as you say, no "concrete" answer.
I agree with DrO that the rest of this post is OT. But not to seem rude, I will answer the part of your post quoted below.
Originally Posted by MrSinatra
why not try an experiment? take your current collection and once again slowly load all the artwork into winamp as you have it, as you did before, and see what ram usage you get.
then copy your library, and use mp3tag to delete all embeds, but place one folder jpeg in the album folder, reboot, and see if winamp uses less ram.
i'm only interested in solving the issue, so i'd be happy to hear it was no different, if you said it was so. you could also dupe your embedded library 20 times or so, and see if you could break the scans in.
The main reason I accept the cons of embedding art is because I do not use the artist - album file storage structure. What I use and why is stated in other posts in other threads.
To conduct the experiments you suggest would require a lot of rearranging and folder creation on my end, so I'm going to decline at this time.
I too would like to know what is going on. But, I'm content (easy cause I don't have the problem) to wait on DrO to take time to dig into it, and to let others, who already have the storage structure and large collections, help with experiments. I'm willing to do what I can that will not seriously disrupt my current setup or take several hours to complete.
You could probably do the 1st experiment yourself faster than me. Copy 6,000 mp3 tracks, spread between 27 folders. Use MP3Tag to embedded a high resolution image in each track (the same or random images, they don't need to be correct) and you will basically have my setup. You already have these files in an artist - album structure, although your folder images may be of lower resolution.
If embedded images, which are never displayed, are being rendered while reading tags during scans, then that should be stopped instead of discouraging the use of embedded images. Although that could be a work-a-round for those with large collections until such a practice, if occurring, is stopped.
I believe holding images in memory that are no longer being displayed, to keep from possibly having to re-render them, is the major issue. Current hardware is so much faster at rendering that this should no longer be a performance concern, imo. I also believe that this, along with other things like re-writing files that do not need to be re-written, will not be changed in the near term. In the meantime, we users have to learn, and use, whatever work-a-rounds there are.