Vista - MediaPlayer

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?

John,
yup,
In the beta builds it did.
but I'm using G-Force by Soundspectrum, and for their viz; it uses the
net,plus it's gpu intensive.
Was runnin like that, but now in RTM;it settled down ,but still floats
between 5-15%
I'm averaging 10% now,depending on the song.
Check it out; it's the best viz on the planet-makes the MSFT default ones
look lame.
Puts the rest to shame.
www.soundspectrum.com

Jeff

"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?

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?

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?
>