Winamp 5.093 issues with large playlists

[jack216]

Hello everyone,

Besides the very latest Winamp, this problem actually concerns older versions of Winamp as well. OK, I use Winamp 5.093 in Classic mode, no Agent or any other fancy extras, just the bare essentials. I've searched the forum for corresponding problem, and I can assure you, the problem isn't related to my computer, Winamp installation, spyware, drivers or anything like that.

Well, I don't know if it's just me, but I feel 150 _megabytes_ memory usage (283 megs in it's peak!) for Winamp is a little bit excessive. Also, the Jump To File function is damn near worthless because of heavy lag. Here's the thing: I have accumulated a lot of music over the years. As we speak, there's some 60000 songs / 4560 hours worth of music in my Winamp playlist. Things work rather smoothly up to the point of 20000-something songs, but after that, memory usage really starts peaking and JTF function is, well, unusable really (press J and watch JTF painstakingly crawl - it takes well over a minute if you input a word and wait for it to be searched!). Even on my Athlon XP 2400+ with 1 GB of memory, JTF lags seriously.

Now, here's what I don't understand: how come Winamp gobbles up all this ram, even though the actual playlist is just slightly over 10 megabytes in size. Maybe the playlist needs some redesign, along with the JTF function. JTF function becomes all the more important, the more music you got in your collection, and these collections [that many people, not only me, are accumulating] aren't about to get any smaller any time soon.

As for the reproducibility of this problem, I suggest you round up several thousands of mp3's - around 60000 should do it nicely - and check it out for yourself. I have friends with similar or bigger collections and they all complain about the same issues with their Winamp.

PS. No, I'm not trolling, this is a real issue and I've pondered a long time when you might fix this, but since nothing seems to happen... I was finally motivated enough to sign up for Winamp Forums and do this First Post of mine, heheh.

[Stated]

Dude i agree, i have some similar problems. I've also done loads of posts moaning about all my problems lol which you may or may not have seen about.

Winamp should open their eyes and sort themselfs out.

[Benski]

Each playlist entry uses about 2500 bytes. In a future release, I hope to roll that amount back.

[DrO]

and going into one of the next few builds of the jtfe plugin (which extends the jtf feature) should be some speed up with the jtf mode though the real speed issue should be blamed on the OS and the listbox control which drags to a crawl once you go over 10-20k entries.

-daz

[jack216]

Thank you for the answers /opinions.

Usage of memory, well i can live with that, whats 150 megs these days anyway ? nothing. And Winamp doesnt eat that much memory, when its minimized into taskbar, only when its áctive´.

But JTF function is essential.

best regards
Jack216

[CraigF]

Also, with 60k tracks, you would really benefit by leveraging the power of the media library.

Although I sometimes find that to be a little on the slow side, and I have but a fraction of the number of tracks you do.

[jack216]

Howdy again.

Well ive been testing some other programs aswell, and afaik ´problem´ is that Winamp loads the whole playlist/songs into JTF window before you are ´able to search´.

If it would just search the file from playlist after you have typed letters/word, there probably wouldnt be lag?.

example :

*another mp3 player* which 45 000 mp3´s on playlist, JTF had lag of 2-4 seconds.


best regards
Jack216

[DrO]

as soon as you remove the loading items into the jtf list then on a test setup i did with a bit over 30k files in then i got a 1sec response time at most (since i was blocking any additions into the list control which is where the main delay happens). i'll considering adding in an option to leave the list blank until a search is entered when i work on a newer jtfe build again (it's essentially easier for my plugin to build this in instead of going straight into the core since i know people still use older versions where this would be useful to have)

-daz