Old 4th November 2003, 05:05   #1
SauloB
Junior Member
 
SauloB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brazil
Posts: 17
Winamp 5 (b2) Peformance

winamp 5 is beautiful, really, nice gfx, i didn't install the beta 1,
but on the 2.. ok, i give it a try..

winamp 3, was really slow.

i always used winamp 2.. really fast..

well, winamp 5, still slow (not like 3) but it's slow..
why ? i'm not using any special fx (alpha-transparency), nothing.
it's nice with the classic skin, the new one.. slow. to open, to show up on the windows.. everything

and i have on P3 800, and 196mb...
any toughts about that ?

will the developers work on the performance ?
it's nice, but not like w2.

thanks
SauloB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2003, 05:10   #2
Sawg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Modern skins will ALWAYS take more resources then Classic Skins. Also depends on the complexity of the skin. The modern skin is still quite complex. It is made for modern computers, older computers might lag a bit.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2003, 05:17   #3
graigsmith
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 72
Send a message via AIM to graigsmith
winamp 5 loads nearly instantaneously for me. and thats without the winamp agent loaded. it takes like 1 or 2 seconds to load up. which is much faster than 3.. which took like 4-5 seconds.
graigsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2003, 03:01   #4
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
Acctully I found that winamp 5 load up faster then Winamp 2 and 3, just remove teh splash screen... cause Winamp5 will wait few sec... like this you can see the splash screen.
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2003, 06:06   #5
retchless
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 97
I have noticed that Winamp 5 Beta 2, while using Modern skins, is a bit sluggish in certain cases. Things like expanding the main window from Windowshade to the full window takes about 3 or 4 seconds of "thinking". Also, i'm not sure if this is a bug, but every once in a while, if there's a file in my playlist that no longer exists (was moved or deleted), Winamp will hang, as if trying to find that file, for about 10 seconds. This 10 second hang can sometimes happen in Classic Skins as well, so that's probably a bug, unrelated to any Modern skin performance issues that winamp may have. I have an Athlon T-Bird 1.3 ghz CPU with a ton of RAM, so these little lags shouldn't be as this pronounced. Pretty much, my only complaint is the speed of expanding the main and playlist windows from Windowshade to non-windowshade modes. Is there any chance of this being optimized?
retchless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2003, 07:06   #6
net-cruizer
Senior Member
 
net-cruizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: BC, CANADA
Posts: 367
I find Winamp5 to load faster and perform faster than even Winamp 2x also.
Everything opens and closes fast for me. Going from full to windowshade modes and back are instant.
I'm only running a 450 mhz processor with tons of services and apps running in the background and Winamp performs awsomely, as it always has.
net-cruizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2003, 22:33   #7
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
I beleve that it's the processor....
I mean fo all of you peapol that got the this crappy processor Pentium 4 (yes it's crappy .. it's so unstalble... I mean look at this, ya it gose to 3.4 GHz (when calculating the fastest calcul that a processor can calculate (24+24)) I'm shure you find that winamp5 loads slower then winamp2... try on a AMD Althlon XP or 64 FX, you will see that winamp 5 loads way faster
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 06:59   #8
WhiteRayven
Major Dude
 
WhiteRayven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 682
Its all a matter of perception

Why make something idiot proof?? Someone will only make a better idiot!
WhiteRayven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 16:26   #9
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
true
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 17:19   #10
theknub
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Peoples Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 530
lol... i love one minute that one processor is crappy and one is good then the next minute it is a matter of perception. personally, i know i'll be slammed for this, i like intel more. it has always been more reliable for me and always seems to work better for the "next gen" apps as i like to call them. years from now, the AMD still works, but apps two or three yrs from now always seem run a bit better. maybe it is perception, but it has been my experience.

as far as wa5 beta 2, i really haven't had any major performance issues. it does seem to slow down after running for hours on end, but it may be other processes that are running. i haven't figured out what it is exactly, but that just seems to be the case. maybe it is a memory leak or something.

When you take a hand and chop the fingers off... what do u get?

That would be the knub.
theknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 17:30   #11
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
Quote:
i like intel more. it has always been more reliable for me and always seems to work better for the "next gen" apps as i like to call them. years from now, the AMD still works, but apps two or three yrs from now always seem run a bit better. maybe it is perception, but it has been my experience.
----------------------
Acctully no... more and more apps are build on AMD's cause programmer hate Windows (for it's unsable system), and they don't need something to make this "unstable" problem biger....

Intel did, befor, good processor like the Celleron, P1, P2, but since P3 it was a bit... let's say it was allight... but now P4,... Intel run out of money to continue there reseach of the P4, so they had to sell it... or close. So that why, P4 suck!
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 17:30   #12
WhiteRayven
Major Dude
 
WhiteRayven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 682
As for the Intel/AMD Issue, you say that they have always been reliable, but what about that HUGE batch of pentiums that had major logic error. Me personally I have never had a p4 or an athalon, but I have heard great opinions of both chips. Personally when it comes time for me to buy a new board and chip, I will go with the most cost effective chip(ie. AMD) also I hear that thats the best one for games and 3d, Whereas the intel is supposed to be better for mutltimedia.

In short, I will use winamp regardless of the extra 1-2 secs it takes to load it, So long as its worth the wait. Besides I wait that long for Office XP to load (hehehe)

Why make something idiot proof?? Someone will only make a better idiot!
WhiteRayven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 17:36   #13
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
Accully if you get the, NForce 2 with the AMD Althlon XP (I'm not talking about the AMD 64bit FX wich cost arround 2000$, forget this one for now.), and with a GeForce 4 MX and over. You have no problems with Multimedia, or Games!

I have:
- Assus NForce2 Delux
- using Win2000 and LINUX
- Geforce FX 5900 Ultra [TD]
- 512 MB RAM
- Athlon XP 3200+ [512K]

I have no porblems on any aspect!
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 17:43   #14
theknub
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Peoples Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 530
i love how this turned into the standard processor debate. while that is great, we are totally off topic. i was speaking from a personal stanpoint about chips and which i prefer. i know the new FX chip is supposed to kick ass, but i haven't run it or two systems side by side so i can't say anything regarding performance issues. i heard about that memory thing, but that is a batch, not the whole line. also, as far as intel being out of money is full of crap. i live very close to the silicon valley and there has been no talk about that here.

When you take a hand and chop the fingers off... what do u get?

That would be the knub.
theknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 19:17   #15
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
well read more news.. from some engineers that got kick out of the company... and had a hard time having they last pay check...
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 19:20   #16
theknub
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Peoples Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 530
look, im just in serious doubt that they were in that much financial struggle. it would be huge news here and there wasn't even much of a peep. just be careful about saying stuff about companies like that when it isn't completely known what is going on. we always here one side of the story, but not the other.

When you take a hand and chop the fingers off... what do u get?

That would be the knub.
theknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 19:21   #17
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
To change subject:

So when the new beta is coming out?
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 19:26   #18
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
theknub, your right!
But how come they sundlly realese the P4 when it was suppose to go like 1-2 year after. And the processor if full of problems...

anyway....
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 19:29   #19
theknub
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Peoples Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 530
as far as problems, im not sure... the only p4 i use is our server at work and i haven't had any issues there. i am not sure about what problems there are specifically. don't have the money to upgrade and am way too entangled in school to stay on top of that.

as far as realeasing early, they prob wanted to put out their next good product to compete with what AMD is/was putting out at the time.

as far as beta 3... i'd assume soon... they seem to be making good progress.

When you take a hand and chop the fingers off... what do u get?

That would be the knub.
theknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 20:37   #20
WhiteRayven
Major Dude
 
WhiteRayven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 682
Quote:
Originally posted by Good_Bytes
Accully if you get the, NForce 2 with the AMD Althlon XP (I'm not talking about the AMD 64bit FX wich cost arround 2000$,
The new 64 bit chip is bout $669CAN, I just checked yesterday,
And the Ram and Board for it was around 350 with 512mb DDR 3200

Oh yeah, Beta 3, I hope its soon

Why make something idiot proof?? Someone will only make a better idiot!
WhiteRayven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2003, 21:56   #21
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
No! the 669$ is the:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ [S754]

I'm talking about the:
AMD Athlon 64 FX51 3200+ [S940]: $1,135 Can.

Go to www.shoplci.com (in montreal) it's way less expensive....
(NOTE: La central informatique (LCI), is one of the computer depo in Quebec, but they also have stores where you can get individuel peces... so basiclly you pay less then on the web (rarelly the contrary (don't forget about shiping proce)), or on other stores...)))

Price list of shoplci.com:
http://www.lcimtl.com/transfert/produits.pdf
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2003, 01:03   #22
SauloB
Junior Member
 
SauloB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brazil
Posts: 17
ok, so the.. developers will work more on performance ? or leave it behind ?

working on new features ?

SauloB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2003, 01:11   #23
Good_Bytes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
they will first fix all the bugs, then mabe some very intresting features, or on most on demmand, then the performance
Good_Bytes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2003, 02:20   #24
ryanf1984
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1
Send a message via AIM to ryanf1984 Send a message via Yahoo to ryanf1984
faster to load, movies play kinda chunky though
ryanf1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2003, 03:08   #25
net-cruizer
Senior Member
 
net-cruizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: BC, CANADA
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally posted by ryanf1984
faster to load, movies play kinda chunky though
What are you comparing to? Winamp 2x or what?
Cuz I still find Winamp5 to play all my porn an music vidz absolutely perfect.
I haven't noticed a difference between 2x and 5 anyways, and the video sure plays a hell of a lot better in winamp than any version of WMP.
net-cruizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump