|
Re: MediaPlayer
I'm using Vista64 and WMP11 uses 6 - 10 times the amount of resources as
does WMP10 on XP X64. No efficiency that I can see there. I do run in the
background and rarely use visualisations if I use WIMP. Just an observation
about the differences. Personally I use Media Player Classic.
I have used X64 for 1 1/2 years (1 yr full time), and while I don't see any
efficiency increase over XP I do like its stability.
"Gene Fitzpatrick" <gene_fitz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5F368EFE-6B51-4307-B7D8-888F388BC93E@microsoft.com...
>I rarely use the visual end of WMP, however, when I have, I have noticed a
>slight difference in the CPU usage, not 38% however. But then again, I am
>using a dual core processor, and rarely see the difference.
> Part of this may be that when you are using the visuals, it causes the
> program to be a foreground program, rather than a background program. If
> you are running it without visuals, or in a minimized state, it runs as a
> background program. Funny how windows does that.
> And in Vista 64, the architecture is different, the media player uses
> roughly half the resources because of the increased efficiency of the
> system. (Which most 64 bit users will openly tell you that XP64 and Vista
> 64 do run more efficiently.
> That being said, if you don't like the system draw, and you are not all
> about the visual effects, you can use the sidebar gadget for audio, which
> is what I do with either the "Abum Art" gadget, the "Media Dock" gadget,
> or the "Media Player Shuffle" gadget. they use less resources and always
> run as a background program.
>
> Hope this helps :-)
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:uymUevlFHHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> When using WMP in Vista the program runs 0-3% cpu with no visualisation.
>> With visualisations turned on it reaches 38-78%. When using WMP in XP 64
>> it is the same without visualisations, but with them it is only around
>> 6-8%. Anyone else having the same results?
>
|