6 ms·
One of it's key features listed is 'Highly Efficient.'
by designcode 8y ago
One of it's key features listed is 'Highly Efficient.'
- bestnameever 8y agoI saw that too...How can something using Electron be highly efficient? Maybe they are talking about the interface and not the system resources the app uses.
- wst_ 8y agoClementine doesn't use Electron and consumes more of my memory and UI is ugly. Before we start talking about resources maybe we should compare other music players on the market.
- catach 8y agoThe observation that there's a music player resource tax just makes me less inclined to combine it with the Electron tax.
- jchw 8y agoThere isn't really one inherently; a music player like foobar2000 only takes a few MB of memory even with many plugins. That doesn't mean Clementine and Winamp haven't found ways to waste resources that aren't loading a full Chromium instance (after all, Chromium is pretty efficient considering what it actually brings to the table.)
- chupasaurus 8y agoDebian 10 + KDE, 46MB RSS + 10 MB shared memory consumed while playing some FLACs with lyrics tab opened.
- wst_ 8y agoWindows: private 90M, working set 111M. Mac: real mem 110 MB, around 10MB shared. Maybe Linux implementation deals better with memory.
- chupasaurus 8y agoAs a matter of fact(but not scientifically accurate), chromium-based browsers were consuming twice as much RAM on Win than on Linux whenever I checked. edit: missed a word
- quantummkv 8y agoBoth interface and performance actually. I have a library of about 1000+ songs and it barely takes anymore than 130 mb of RAM for me. This is actually better than some native c# music players that I used before I made this. And CPU usage is very light.
- pwg 8y agoMy how resource consumption expectations have changed. This player: http://gqmpeg.sourceforge.net/mpeg-over.html http://gqmpeg.sourceforge.net/mpeg-over.html With a library of 5,011 songs. Consumes 18 mb. Since it uses the CLI mpg123 binary to actually play the songs, when playing the child mpg123 process uses up another 3 mb. So take your pick, 18 mb or 21 mb. Much lower resource usage either way.
- qop 8y agoOther than shipping an entire browser? Lol
- ovao 8y agoMy current instance of Spotify is consuming 5.09 GB. (Not a typo.) Certainly can't be any less efficient than that. Or can it..?
- sus_007 8y agothat's why I always use the web player, instead.
- brusch64 8y agodoes the web player still sound atrocious (free Spotify). Last time i've checked it came with memories of 96Kbps mp3s.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoHigh quality on the web player should be 256kbps AAC, so it should have no audible issues. That said, I find the web player absolutely horrible to use. The desktop Electron app may be a bit of a pig, but on the other hand it runs on Windows, mac OS and Linux with very few issues, so I'll accept that trade-off.
- brusch64 8y agoI don't have Spotify premium - so the quality is 128 kbps. The app works pretty fine, but is absolutely slow on my (old and quite underpowered) living room PC. But on the other hand it is just a media player... The quality was the deciding factor for me to use the Spotify app.