Old 8th March 2006, 02:37   #1
dandaman32
Senior Member
 
dandaman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Look behind you.
Posts: 209
Why I ditched Winamp

Alright, I admit it. I recently stopped using Winamp. I had been using it for years, but it seems that especially with the move up to Winamp5 it has been very, very slow. Even on new installations, I have time to open up Process Explorer (task manager replacement, takes awhile to start up) and kill it before the main player window even shows.

Computer:
Acer TravelMate 230 Laptop
Intel Celeron 2GHz
256MB RAM (but I just ordered another 512MB earler today)
30GB hard disk
Brand spankin' new Windows installation

I've switched over to musikCube because it's open source and it's alot faster.

IMHO Winamp should be majorly changed to work faster. Both startup and shutdown - plus RAM usage too (although that won't be a problem foe me anymore ) should be optimized.

In summary: speed. I'll go back to Winamp when it has a lot of it.

Edit: never downloaded version 5.2 but according to another thread it's even slower.

-dandaman32

ExperienceUI for NSIS | Latest project: Enano CMS
Do not PM me on the Winamp forums, I hardly ever check my messages here; you are more likely to get my attention through the ExperienceUI forum.
dandaman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 02:45   #2
synthetiq
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 153
you got some reason in what you said! honnestly i think a little bit like you,but ...i would never stop using winamp...
synthetiq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 03:34   #3
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
Try ditching Predixis. I did a little test. I loaded the same playlist into Musikcube, foobar, and Winamp and played the same song. All use roughly the same amount of RAM (~10MB).

Winamp, foobar, and musikcube all take roughly the same time to start. And I'm on a 750Mhz PIII w/ 256 MB RAM.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 06:08   #4
ivand67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 121
Ummmmm... Yeaaaah, ummm, try maybe getting a decent PC.

Sorry, but, ACER TRAVELMATE LAPTOP!? 256 RAM and Celeron?!

You get what you pay for...
ivand67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 11:26   #5
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,827
http://www.suspectz.org/like_the_wind/
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 12:48   #6
UltraZelda64
Senior Member
 
UltraZelda64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alliance, Ohio
Posts: 390
It runs pretty damn good for me (and always has, no matter what I put it on), on an old 1.7GHz Pentium 4 with 256 megs of PC800 RDRAM. And I'm running XP Pro on this machine (in other words: the low memory on this system is a major bottleneck... but at least the overall system runs better than Windows Me did). Now, if only RDRAM wasn't so damn expensive and hard to find...

Use classic skins, close any Winamp windows you don't need (especially the media library), and disable/uninstall any plugins you don't need... you might see an improvement. Though, I've got dozens of plugins loaded currently and Winamp loads almost instantly...
UltraZelda64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 16:25   #7
spleef420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost Wages
Posts: 166
Send a message via AIM to spleef420 Send a message via Yahoo to spleef420
Re: Why I ditched Winamp

Quote:
Intel Celeron 2GHz
"yup, here's your problem...someone set this thing to evil."

a 200 mhz Pentium outruns a 2gHz Celeron. The extra 512 megs of RAM will help but the CPU is your main issue.
spleef420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 18:24   #8
Beau Kemp
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 18
"a 200 mhz Pentium outruns a 2gHz Celeron"

What kind of crack are you smoking??
Beau Kemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 18:48   #9
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
No difference to Winamp 2, just install the plugins, you really need.

I guess memory usage in playlist editor was improved in the latest builds.

Quote:
a 200 mhz Pentium outruns a 2gHz Celeron
A little bit exorbitant, but it's true, a Celeron never reaches the performance of a P4 or Athlon with the same frequenze.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 21:23   #10
spleef420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost Wages
Posts: 166
Send a message via AIM to spleef420 Send a message via Yahoo to spleef420
Quote:
Originally posted by Beau Kemp
"a 200 mhz Pentium outruns a 2gHz Celeron"

What kind of crack are you smoking??
That was a joke, I say a JOKE son...laugh boy!

It is somewhat true in the sense that any Pentium can handle more processes than any Celeron.
spleef420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2006, 22:03   #11
retchless
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 97
A more realistic "x outruns y" scenario would be an Athlon T-bird 1.3 GHz (circa 2001) vs. a 2 GHz Celeron (circa 2003).

My boss got a "good deal" on a "top of the line" computer (2 GHz Celeron), and needless to say, system performance was terrible. I never had any problems running winamp on my Athlon 1.3 GHz machine, but that celeron choked whenever any multitasking was happening while music was playing (in any media player).
retchless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2006, 13:41   #12
breaksguy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by ivand67
Ummmmm... Yeaaaah, ummm, try maybe getting a decent PC.

Sorry, but, ACER TRAVELMATE LAPTOP!? 256 RAM and Celeron?!

You get what you pay for...
i second this. try adding more ram, adn then at least trying again

breaks guy
breaksguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2006, 17:30   #13
catachresistant
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6
dandaman32, I dunno if you're still here, but I sympathise. The one thing I've always disliked about Winamp is how slow it is, especially with modern skins enabled. I'm an impatient bastard, and speed is practically my main concern with all software, it governs everything that I use.
I'm not going to disable modern skins because I like having Winamp docked at the top of my screen, a feature lacking in almost all its competitors.
But here's the thing.
Winamp has not gotten any slower. In fact, the last update before 5.2 had the biggest performance boost Winamp has had since I first started using it around six years ago. Which leads me to believe that the developers here do give a shit about speed as much as I do, and they're working on it.
Switch to classic skin, use the exact same plugin set as Winamp2, and compare Winamp5 to Winamp2. Is Winamp5 any slower? Really?
The key here is "same plugin set". Just dump all the shit you don't need on the install screen.
In any case, if MusikCube works for you, great. At least you didn't jump ship to iTunes or some other piece of shit. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Winamp is only slower if you're installing all the additional (and slightly superfluous) trimmings. And beyond that, the developers really are working on optimising it, and I find that heartening in this age of glacial bloatware where developers and users alike seem to think that bigger + slower = better.

On a personal note, I'd just like to say that while every other day we get people ditching Winamp on this forum, I'm more than happy with the way things are going. And I'm sure I'm just one of the silent majority that seriously appreciates all the work the Winamp dev team puts into each build. We don't post often, but that's only because we have absolutely nothing to complain about.

PS - everyone blaming his computer is missing the point. It's not that Winamp is slow, it's that Winamp is slower than MusikCube. Besides Winamp being a more complicated program, there isn't a fucking excuse for that. There isn't a processor in the world that's going to change that. What this guy (and me too) wants, is for Winamp to be faster and more responsive regardless of processor. Something that runs slower than another application on a 2gz Celeron is probably going to run slower than that same application on a dual-core AMD64. Optimisation is hardly prioritised when it comes to any application, because users like you lot are content to sit back and let your £300 processors cover up for shoddy, inefficent programming. If everyone decided to tighten up their code we wouldn't need such great processors in the first place, and we'd get better performance out of what power we do have. As it stands, all this great computing power we have now is being completely squandered, and that's kinda tragic. I mean, listen to yourselves: You're advising this guy to get more than 256 RAM, and a >2GHZ processor to run a fucking MUSIC PLAYER? My God!
catachresistant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2006, 17:44   #14
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,827
Yeah, but the point you seem to be missing is that it DOES run fast on many user's machines, including all the people who've replied here, and me.

It opens in about 3 seconds with Winamp Modern skin, and instantly (less than 1 second) with any classic skin. Sure, I've got a few extra plugins installed, but not many, and I unchecked all of MusicMagic, and pmp_p4s & pmp_ipod in the installer options, and tweaked a few settings (see 'Like The Wind' link above)...

and I don't have any performance issues with Winamp whatsoever.

It certainly opens/runs faster than any of WMP, iTunes, QT, Real, MusicMatch, QCD, fb2k & songbird all put together (sorry, never heard of MusikCube, but it looks fugly to me, heh).

(Athlon XP 2400+, 1Gb RAM, WinXP)

It also runs pretty fast on my 2nd pc, an old 450MHz p3 w/ Win98SE. Though yeah, I use classic skins only on that one, and it opens/runs even quicker than old 2.x used to (ie. instantly & flawless). However, I also unchecked a few other features/plugins in the installer, including Sonic Burning Engine.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2006, 18:08   #15
catachresistant
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6
I get roughly the same performance you do on my 1800+ Athlon XP.
I just think telling someone to upgrade their computer when they're complaining about relative speed (in comparison to another, undeniably quicker application) is a little misguided.

I think the last two versions of Winamp5 have gone a long way to rectifying qualms I have about its speed (in modern skin, it loads twice as fast as it used to), but it's still slower than I'd like. I don't think it's going to get any faster because Winamp is so complex, quite a lot more complex than MusikCube, especially with the way its modern skinning engine is setup. Which is fair enough, it'd be unreasonable for me to expect the impossible.
But now that you guys have sorted out gapless playback, the number one thing on my wishlist is speed, technically impossible though that may be.
I guess maybe "slow" is a matter of perspective. You're happy with three seconds. I'm not. I told you. I'm an impatient bastard. So's the guy that started this thread, probably.

Edit - on my machine, at least, Windows Media Player starts instantly. Media Player Classic takes a second longer. I think this is probably an unfair comparison, though, considering Microsoft's practices means Media Player is probably preloaded on XP boot or something. Wouldn't surprise me.
catachresistant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2006, 18:14   #16
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,827
Yeah, but if you want it to open instantly then you use a classic skin, yes?
At least you have the option.
If you want to use a modern skin, then yes, it takes a couple of seconds extra for it to load.
Besides... what do you keep closing it for anyway? ;-)
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2006, 18:39   #17
Tag
Streaming Media Expert
 
Tag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 141
Send a message via AIM to Tag
Winamp can close?!

Powered by Redbull and Progressive House
Tag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2006, 23:56   #18
MasterViVi
Senior Member
 
MasterViVi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 290
Winamp is weird... very weird.

Winamp 5 and even Winamp3 both start and shutdown faster on my aged desktop (a 1.2 Celeron with 128MB RAM) than on my current laptop (1gig RAM, 2.0GhZ Centrino), even after a clean Windows XP install with only Winamp Lite installed (which is useless to me, as I have FLAC/OGG 'n stuff ). I don't really care about the startup, as I only do that twice a day. It's the shutdown time I hate. Most of the time I'm just waiting till' Winamp has finally shut down before I can go hibernate my computer (I usually kill the process in the meanwhile). I was kinda hoping that could be fastened.
MasterViVi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2006, 03:43   #19
dandaman32
Senior Member
 
dandaman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Look behind you.
Posts: 209
Maybe i forgot to say this:

My desktop system:
Athlon XP 2500+
1GB Corsair PC3200 singlechannel
128MB Geforce FX 5200 (not like that matters)
WD 160GB HD, running at ATA100

Still takes ~20 secs. Only plugins are defaults + a few vis plugins (tripex, R4, that's it)

There's something wrong with winamp.

And I got the freaking laptop from a friend...well, it's about time I tell the story: my computer illiterate friend does this homeschool program with her kids. They got these 2 laptops from the homeschool group, and they both broke. One, there was a stray piece of foam in the cdrom drive. No prob, took 5 secs with a pair of tweezers. The other, however, was having a bigger problem: the hard disk's electronics died, and the laptop didn't boot. She didn't really want to go though buying a new hard disk, even though a 30gb disk was only $70, so I made it clear that the laptop wouldn't work too well without an HD and asked her if she wanted her computer back.

I ended up with a laptop for $70. It took 4 months of running the thing off a Knoppix LiveCD to realize that it could possibly be useful, but I finally shelled out the money and got me a computer.

Admit it. If a slightly underpowered (well, more than that maybe) laptop, even a celeron, cost you $70 + 4 hours of your time, wouldn't you take it?

I know that's OT but here's my point: Winamp is a music player, not Doom 3. It shouldn't require top-of-the-line hardware just so you can listen to your music in style.

Edit: I'll give it one more chance. The RAM should arrive tomorrow morning, and I'll report back after I've tested Winamp again. In the meantime I'll start dl'ing 5.2.

-dandaman32

ExperienceUI for NSIS | Latest project: Enano CMS
Do not PM me on the Winamp forums, I hardly ever check my messages here; you are more likely to get my attention through the ExperienceUI forum.
dandaman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2006, 04:48   #20
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Only plugins are defaults + a few vis plugins (tripex, R4, that's it)

There's something wrong with winamp.
Do you use the Predixis plug?
Have you tried any of the suggestions in this thread at all?
If not, why should anyone help or care about your situation anymore?


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2006, 05:48   #21
dandaman32
Senior Member
 
dandaman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Look behind you.
Posts: 209
Quote:
Try ditching Predixis.
That's not the culprit. I was having speed problems since before 5.1.

Edit: Mods, you bin this thread, I'll have all the more reason to walk out of here and stick to the NSIS forums. That kind of cowardice makes your player look pathetic. You're afraid that so many complaints will pop up in the forums, Winamp will die. That's not true. If people want to **** up their systems by running Winamp while they're, say, coding, let them. I used Winamp starting with version 2.5 which came bundled with my Netscape 4 download. That is old. I ditched my favorite media player because it started up in 3 seconds on my old 166MHz system but it takes 20 or more on the 1.8GHz desktop. And I never bothered to visit this forum (which is where bad reviews typically come from) until I released the ExperienceUI, and I believe this is the first thread I have ever started in anything Winamp related. I am saying this because of the "Version 5.2 = Bloatware!" topic that got binned.

-dandaman32

ExperienceUI for NSIS | Latest project: Enano CMS
Do not PM me on the Winamp forums, I hardly ever check my messages here; you are more likely to get my attention through the ExperienceUI forum.
dandaman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2006, 06:05   #22
aFfLiCtEd
Major Dude
 
aFfLiCtEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Over Here
Posts: 876
becausenewerisnotalwaysbetter
aFfLiCtEd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2006, 06:20   #23
catachresistant
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally posted by aFfLiCtEd
becausenewerisnotalwaysbetter
Quote:
Originally posted by catachresistant
Switch to classic skin, use the exact same plugin set as Winamp2, and compare Winamp5 to Winamp2. Is Winamp5 any slower? Really?
Try it.
catachresistant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2006, 15:10   #24
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,827
@ dandaman32
If Winamp is taking 20 seconds to load for you, then you should be posting in Tech Support instead, and supplying us with all the required info such as hijackthis and my_plugin_list.txt logs, and also tell us which skin you are using (eg. Winamp Modern, any classic skin, or some 3rd-party modern skin), and whether or not you installed optional components like the Sonic Burning Engine and Portable Media Player support (both of which will slow down the startup process).

As stated earlier, if it can load INSTANTLY on my old (2nd/backup) 450MHz pc, then there's no reason why it shouldn't do the same for you (well, we shall see maybe, if/when you supply us with all the required info).
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2006, 10:54   #25
1sikwip
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1
I also, I am sorry to say, just stopped using winamp. Though your right about installing limited amount of options to improve winamp, i don't feel it should be that way. All i want is a fast and light wieght music player for christs sake, no bullshit attached. And what the hell happened to winamp LITE anyways?
1sikwip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2006, 11:46   #26
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,827
You tell us. Winamp Lite is still available for download, if all you want is a fast loading mp3 and audio cd player. You can even select Lite in the Full installer drop-down menu, and then checkmark a couple of extra features such as ogg vorbis, mod and m4a support. It's not exactly rocket science.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2006, 15:27   #27
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Or you can use Windows Media Player. It comes with your machine already.

CraigF 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