Winamp 5.0rc8, what a junk.

jameszhu · 22nd November 2003, 13:24

Everyone will laugh at this piece of junk from time to time. What a famouse CPU eater. 50%-60% CPU was occupied by it. I'm running it on Celeron 366, yeah, an out-dated box. But do you know how much CPU usage the foobar2000 taken? 8%-11%. And Winamp2.0 only take away 5%. Not going to try so-called Winamp 5.0 final anymore, I don't trust 'Winamp' anymore.

james · 22nd November 2003, 13:26

So turn off modern skin support. ¬_¬

As you'd know if you weren't a fucking troll and luser, the player core IS Winamp2.

s1138 · 22nd November 2003, 13:53

switch to classic skin. if you want you can unistall some of the components.

Jaak · 22nd November 2003, 14:24

I hate if ppl are talking about things they dont know... n00by

has anybody noticed the l33tness of new avs

, presets that used to go 30fps are now 100+fps (heavy code presets)

Viper007Bond · 22nd November 2003, 14:39

Is rc8 more hoggy than beta 2? Beta 2 runs quite smooth for me, but then again, my computer is nowhere near slow.

And BTW jameszhu, just 'cause there is a possibility that somewhere out there someone still runs an 286 doesn't mean that all programs must be written to work on them.

Systems move on and so do programs. I don't want the lightness of Windows 3.1, nor do I want the lightness of Winamp 1.0 or 2.81 for that matter. I want my freeform skins, but if you want to run 3.1 on a 286 or whatever, then fine.

But just don't bitch about a perfectly good program.

Gonzotek · 22nd November 2003, 15:01

Foobar eats more cpu/memory as you add more components components to it. Winamp eats more cpu/memory as you add more components to it. Many components/plugins were added to Winamp 5. Don't use a part or parts of either program, remove those parts, resource usage goes down. Simple.
Perhaps you'd be better off with Winamp Lite?

-=Gonzotek=-

CraigF · 22nd November 2003, 15:59

perhaps he'd be better off with a second braincell?

net-cruizer · 22nd November 2003, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by CraigF
perhaps he'd be better off with a second braincell?

lol!!! Good one.

dlinkwit27 · 22nd November 2003, 16:13

w00 h00! let the bitching begin!

BMWboy · 22nd November 2003, 16:16

if you had a newer processor, then you'd be able to see what a massive resource hog winamp really is

and no, winamp was not paused at the time, it was playing music at the time

dlinkwit27 · 22nd November 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by BMWboy
if you had a newer processor, then you'd be able to see what a massive resource hog winamp really is

holy shit! on my machine winamp uses like 4 times that amount.

CraigF · 22nd November 2003, 16:55

on my laptop, winamp5, with modern skin is using 00% cpu and 4.2mb ram.

on the other hand, internet explorer, while writing this post, is using 3% cpu and 26mb ram

dlinkwit27 · 22nd November 2003, 17:05

Fuqing SystemIdleProcess is using like 99% of my resources! wtf! ARGH STUPID PIECE OF POO!

Viper007Bond · 22nd November 2003, 17:21

HAHAHAHA!

papadoc · 22nd November 2003, 17:51

Give jameszhu a cookie,
and add him to the One Hit Wonders list...

randman · 22nd November 2003, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by papadoc
Give jameszhu a cookie,
and add him to the One Hit Wonders list...

Can I be the one that hits him?

hungryskull · 22nd November 2003, 19:31

It doesn't slow down my 300mhz processor very much.

WomanOfHeart · 22nd November 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by randman
Can I be the one that hits him?

You get on one side, I'll get on the other, then we can smack him in stereo!

horse-fly · 22nd November 2003, 19:45

[smacks jameszu over the head]

[/smacks]

fwgx · 22nd November 2003, 19:52

SLASHproduction · 22nd November 2003, 20:24

hmmm....
This issue must differ for almost everyone.
I usually run Winamp5 in modern skin mode, without the beat vis on in the main window.

Either way, my system runs fine with it, even though modern skins do shoot the resources used up.
I am on a Celeron 500 with 192 megs of RAM.

I just learned that if I was going to be multi-tasking like listening to mp3's, surfing the web, updating my site, editing images all at the same time, it was easier to switch to the classic skin mode.

I cannot understand the frustration some people have when it comes to system resources. Are you really doing THAT much on your pc that Winamp affects it?

Either way, I LOVE winamp 5 and the PRO features are killer as hell.

Oh well, what do I know? I masturbate with cream cheese and llama spit.

SLASHproduction · 22nd November 2003, 20:40

hmmm......
Winamp5 is junk because it uses too much of your obviously precious system resources....ok, I see your point...but I would like to raise you a point...

Look at the pic I attached...

hmmmm.....maybe you should think about losing the REAL hog on your pc?

Just a thought.

J_Bloggs · 22nd November 2003, 20:58

I think BMWboy was being sarcastic... jameszhu started this thread and so far I don't think anyones agreed with him.....

SLASHproduction · 22nd November 2003, 21:19

Sorry.
I did not catch on to the sarcasm.

My apologies.

BUT, you have to admit the Seti@Home thing is a hog.

But, like I said, what do I know?
I masturbate with cream of wheat...had to quit the other stuff, the llamas got mad.

J_Bloggs · 22nd November 2003, 21:31

seti@home runs in the background and uses the cpu when nothing else is, and if something else wants the cpu it will take it because seti runs at a low priority.

SLASHproduction · 22nd November 2003, 21:38

AH...ok, well that explains alot.
I thank you for that information.

I actually was interested in using the Seti app, but my whole reason for NOT using it was the resources used.

Now I might check it out.

Feel free to delete the post regarding Seti being a hog and the one with the OINK OINK screenshot then...it is not needed.

thanks!

Mike H. · 22nd November 2003, 21:52

If you want to do distributed computing, folding@home is much better.

Right now, my Winamp is using 0%, playing a CD, and transparency turned on. It occasionally jumps to a whopping 2%. The task manager uses more resources than Winamp!

DJ Shredder · 22nd November 2003, 22:28

Latest Winamp5 on my system uses a big fat 0 resources.

Goes up to around 30 when I have the VIS on, but that's just because my old GeForce2 is getting tired.

Winamp5 is the shizzle.

fwgx · 23rd November 2003, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by SLASHproduction
AH...ok, well that explains alot.
I thank you for that information.

I actually was interested in using the Seti app, but my whole reason for NOT using it was the resources used.

Now I might check it out.

Feel free to delete the post regarding Seti being a hog and the one with the OINK OINK screenshot then...it is not needed.

thanks!

Read this then. All your questions will have been answerd already.

BMWboy · 23rd November 2003, 04:07

Quote:

Originally posted by J_Bloggs
I think BMWboy was being sarcastic... jameszhu started this thread and so far I don't think anyones agreed with him.....

yes, I was definatly being highly sarcastic. Winamp 5 dosent really have a prayer in using up much in the way of resources on my machine(dual Athlon MP 2800 OC'd from 2080MHz to 2228MHz)

Daijoubu · 23rd November 2003, 04:37

I noticed that the DirectSound use about 2mb less ram and 1-2% less CPU on my machine
But indeed, desable the modern skin support and uninstall the plugin to release 2 more mb of ram

I tested foobar and it used more CPU than winamp (EQ off, playing the same file simultaniously, tested with waveout/ds/ds2 - winamp won with about 4% less cpu

)

eleet-2k2 · 23rd November 2003, 14:01

First off, I've got a P4 1.8 GHz processor, I'm running Acrobat 6.0 Pro (not the reader, the full program), waste, winamp 5.0rc8, MSN messenger, kazaalite, norton antivirus and my cpu usage is only 5-7%.

BMWboy · 23rd November 2003, 14:16

for whatever reason, while Winamp ran overnight, It gave up 7MB of RAM without me doing anything

CraigF · 23rd November 2003, 14:19

when its minimized it'll do that.

mrharhar · 23rd November 2003, 14:27

Aright guys. Call off the dogs. We've successfully defended the software that we love from a faceless (and mindless) foe.

Doesn't that fact that jameszhu never replied once calm your nerves? Relax.
Hes probably a programmer for foobar or something. That single post very likely will be his only contribution to our forums ever.
Everybody chill; I doubt he has even come to read the replys.

henry3k56 · 23rd November 2003, 20:32

I win!

whiteflip · 24th November 2003, 05:59

If you run a 486 you should be satisfied with the programs and operating system that runs with it.

If you buy a new computer with new components you want new programs and a new operating system to handle your brand new hardware.

So if you like your computer the way it is keep the old version of winamp. Its still free and always will be.

zao · 24th November 2003, 07:15

you guys may or may not know this but winamp use's a shit load of Virtual memory. 38 mb as i write this. but i only have 128 ram and have winxp installed. and i am using the moderan skin with aplha and transparency's turn on. and i think it kicks ass. you guys that say it a resource hog. msn messanger 6.1 use's pretty much the same.

CraigF · 24th November 2003, 09:31

128mb of ram and winxp is a big mistake.

whiteflip · 24th November 2003, 23:05

How about 300mhz PII with 66mhz Bus speed and Windows XP on a 3GB partition?

22nd November 2003, 13:24	#1
jameszhu Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1	Winamp 5.0rc8, what a junk. Everyone will laugh at this piece of junk from time to time. What a famouse CPU eater. 50%-60% CPU was occupied by it. I'm running it on Celeron 366, yeah, an out-dated box. But do you know how much CPU usage the foobar2000 taken? 8%-11%. And Winamp2.0 only take away 5%. Not going to try so-called Winamp 5.0 final anymore, I don't trust 'Winamp' anymore.

22nd November 2003, 13:26	#2
james Forum PFY (Major Dude) Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: WR3 or NG7 Posts: 6.2+3i Posts: 1,700	So turn off modern skin support. ¬_¬ As you'd know if you weren't a fucking troll and luser, the player core IS Winamp2. He uses statistics like a drunk uses lamp-posts: for support, not illumination.

22nd November 2003, 14:24	#4
Jaak Major Dude Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Estonia. Posts: 851	I hate if ppl are talking about things they dont know... n00by has anybody noticed the l33tness of new avs , presets that used to go 30fps are now 100+fps (heavy code presets) Phi = (1+sqrt(5))/2

22nd November 2003, 14:39	#5
Viper007Bond Major Dude Join Date: May 2002 Location: Portland, OR Life: None Posts: 1,054	Is rc8 more hoggy than beta 2? Beta 2 runs quite smooth for me, but then again, my computer is nowhere near slow. And BTW jameszhu, just 'cause there is a possibility that somewhere out there someone still runs an 286 doesn't mean that all programs must be written to work on them. Systems move on and so do programs. I don't want the lightness of Windows 3.1, nor do I want the lightness of Winamp 1.0 or 2.81 for that matter. I want my freeform skins, but if you want to run 3.1 on a 286 or whatever, then fine. But just don't bitch about a perfectly good program. - Viper007Bond \| Viper007Bond.com

22nd November 2003, 15:01	#6
Gonzotek Gunslinger Join Date: May 2000 Location: Terminus Posts: 4,693	Foobar eats more cpu/memory as you add more components components to it. Winamp eats more cpu/memory as you add more components to it. Many components/plugins were added to Winamp 5. Don't use a part or parts of either program, remove those parts, resource usage goes down. Simple. Perhaps you'd be better off with Winamp Lite? -=Gonzotek=- I was away for a while. But I'm feeling much better now.

22nd November 2003, 13:53	#3
s1138 Alumni? Join Date: May 2000 Location: joja Posts: 6,932	switch to classic skin. if you want you can unistall some of the components.

22nd November 2003, 15:59	#7
CraigF Passionately Apathetic Administrator Join Date: May 2000 Location: Hell Posts: 5,437	perhaps he'd be better off with a second braincell?

22nd November 2003, 16:13	#9
dlinkwit27 has no CT (Forum King) Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 13,232	w00 h00! let the bitching begin! ::Deviant Me::Last.fm::WhatPulse Stats::Folding @ Home

22nd November 2003, 16:55	#12
CraigF Passionately Apathetic Administrator Join Date: May 2000 Location: Hell Posts: 5,437	on my laptop, winamp5, with modern skin is using 00% cpu and 4.2mb ram. on the other hand, internet explorer, while writing this post, is using 3% cpu and 26mb ram

22nd November 2003, 17:05	#13
dlinkwit27 has no CT (Forum King) Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 13,232	Fuqing SystemIdleProcess is using like 99% of my resources! wtf! ARGH STUPID PIECE OF POO! ::Deviant Me::Last.fm::WhatPulse Stats::Folding @ Home

22nd November 2003, 17:21	#14
Viper007Bond Major Dude Join Date: May 2002 Location: Portland, OR Life: None Posts: 1,054	HAHAHAHA! - Viper007Bond \| Viper007Bond.com

22nd November 2003, 17:51	#15
papadoc Comfortably Numb (Forum King) Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Behind the Wall Posts: 4,606	Give jameszhu a cookie, and add him to the One Hit Wonders list...

22nd November 2003, 19:31	#17
hungryskull Major Dude Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Somewhere in Canada Posts: 776	It doesn't slow down my 300mhz processor very much. Darn, I can't think of anything to put here.

22nd November 2003, 19:45	#19
horse-fly Account Closed Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 2,360	[smacks jameszu over the head] [/smacks]

22nd November 2003, 19:52	#20
fwgx Rudolf the Red. (Forum King) Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 9,315	.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:. "We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."

22nd November 2003, 20:58	#23
J_Bloggs Major Dude Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,778	I think BMWboy was being sarcastic... jameszhu started this thread and so far I don't think anyones agreed with him..... ¯¯¯¯Joe Bloggs____ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

22nd November 2003, 21:19	#24
SLASHproduction Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 74	OOPS! Sorry. I did not catch on to the sarcasm. My apologies. BUT, you have to admit the Seti@Home thing is a hog. But, like I said, what do I know? I masturbate with cream of wheat...had to quit the other stuff, the llamas got mad.

22nd November 2003, 21:31	#25
J_Bloggs Major Dude Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,778	seti@home runs in the background and uses the cpu when nothing else is, and if something else wants the cpu it will take it because seti runs at a low priority. ¯¯¯¯Joe Bloggs____ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

22nd November 2003, 21:38	#26
SLASHproduction Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 74	AH! Ok AH...ok, well that explains alot. I thank you for that information. I actually was interested in using the Seti app, but my whole reason for NOT using it was the resources used. Now I might check it out. Feel free to delete the post regarding Seti being a hog and the one with the OINK OINK screenshot then...it is not needed. thanks!

22nd November 2003, 21:52	#27
Mike H. Forum Esperantist (Major Dude) Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 1,135	If you want to do distributed computing, folding@home is much better. Right now, my Winamp is using 0%, playing a CD, and transparency turned on. It occasionally jumps to a whopping 2%. The task manager uses more resources than Winamp!

22nd November 2003, 22:28	#28
DJ Shredder Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Langley, BC, Canada Posts: 255	Latest Winamp5 on my system uses a big fat 0 resources. Goes up to around 30 when I have the VIS on, but that's just because my old GeForce2 is getting tired. Winamp5 is the shizzle.

23rd November 2003, 04:37	#31
Daijoubu Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Montreal QC Canada Posts: 75	I noticed that the DirectSound use about 2mb less ram and 1-2% less CPU on my machine But indeed, desable the modern skin support and uninstall the plugin to release 2 more mb of ram I tested foobar and it used more CPU than winamp (EQ off, playing the same file simultaniously, tested with waveout/ds/ds2 - winamp won with about 4% less cpu )

23rd November 2003, 14:01	#32
eleet-2k2 Forum King Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Mobil Ave. Posts: 5,381	First off, I've got a P4 1.8 GHz processor, I'm running Acrobat 6.0 Pro (not the reader, the full program), waste, winamp 5.0rc8, MSN messenger, kazaalite, norton antivirus and my cpu usage is only 5-7%. "Welcome to the Island of people who know too much."..."Did you really think balloons would stop him?!" See what I'm listening too.

23rd November 2003, 14:19	#34
CraigF Passionately Apathetic Administrator Join Date: May 2000 Location: Hell Posts: 5,437	when its minimized it'll do that.

23rd November 2003, 14:27	#35
mrharhar Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: Posts: 233	Aright guys. Call off the dogs. We've successfully defended the software that we love from a faceless (and mindless) foe. Doesn't that fact that jameszhu never replied once calm your nerves? Relax. Hes probably a programmer for foobar or something. That single post very likely will be his only contribution to our forums ever. Everybody chill; I doubt he has even come to read the replys.

24th November 2003, 05:59	#37
whiteflip Post Master General (Forum King) Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas Posts: 6,032	If you run a 486 you should be satisfied with the programs and operating system that runs with it. If you buy a new computer with new components you want new programs and a new operating system to handle your brand new hardware. So if you like your computer the way it is keep the old version of winamp. Its still free and always will be. I'm Back?

24th November 2003, 07:15	#38
zao Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 17	you guys may or may not know this but winamp use's a shit load of Virtual memory. 38 mb as i write this. but i only have 128 ram and have winxp installed. and i am using the moderan skin with aplha and transparency's turn on. and i think it kicks ass. you guys that say it a resource hog. msn messanger 6.1 use's pretty much the same.

24th November 2003, 09:31	#39
CraigF Passionately Apathetic Administrator Join Date: May 2000 Location: Hell Posts: 5,437	128mb of ram and winxp is a big mistake.

24th November 2003, 23:05	#40
whiteflip Post Master General (Forum King) Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas Posts: 6,032	How about 300mhz PII with 66mhz Bus speed and Windows XP on a 3GB partition? I'm Back?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode