Author Topic: Why bass, XM-Play "eat" less memory than other ?  (Read 4983 times)

kenshin1101

  • Posts: 545
in wmp & other use mp3 codec and use ~20MB when play an mp3, but bass (use mp3codec) use only a lite memory ?

Dotpitch

  • Posts: 2878
Re: Why bass, XM-Play "eat" less memory than other ?
« Reply #1 on: 2 Sep '07 - 17:31 »
Windows Media Player does a lot more than XMPlay, it plays videos and dvds, rips music and supports DRM, etc. All this extra stuff has to be loaded into memory, even if you don't use it. Ian tries to keep XMPlay as light as possible, and doesn't add that much stuff that hardly anyone would use.

saga

  • Posts: 2267
Re: Why bass, XM-Play "eat" less memory than other ?
« Reply #2 on: 2 Sep '07 - 19:43 »
simple answer: all these popular players are bloatware :P they have more features than anyone would need.they only eat up memory.

kenshin1101

  • Posts: 545
Re: Why bass, XM-Play "eat" less memory than other ?
« Reply #3 on: 3 Sep '07 - 06:36 »
i don't think so. i had try to use bass to play mp3 file and compare with directshow to play mp3. the result is bass eat only 1-3 MB and directshow eat 16~20 MB

saga

  • Posts: 2267
Re: Why bass, XM-Play "eat" less memory than other ?
« Reply #4 on: 3 Sep '07 - 12:05 »
isn't that what we just said?

Zarggg

  • Posts: 1242
Re: Why bass, XM-Play "eat" less memory than other ?
« Reply #5 on: 5 Sep '07 - 20:04 »
Yes, it is. Kenshin just doesn't seem to understand that is what we are saying. :P

youji

  • Guest
Re: Why bass, XM-Play "eat" less memory than other ?
« Reply #6 on: 18 Oct '07 - 17:54 »
Others are big. XMPlay is small. The big ones eat more memory because they are big. The small ones don't.

Most simple answer, I suppose. :)