Loading Profile...
300MB of Ram is a tad excessive
I love Songbird & it's come a long way since I first started using it with 0.2 & 0.3. However, I've had to go back to Foobar2000. Songbird uses approx. 300MB of RAM on my machine. Foobar2000 uses 20MB. This is a huge difference, although I realize that Songbird has a much nicer GUI. I would love to see something more reasonable in the future -- perhaps 100MB? I'm probably an outlier, since I'm testing with a library of ~50'000 songs.
9
people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
-
Inappropriate?I have about 2,500 songs and it takes up over 100MB of RAM. I hear you. I went back to Winamp myself.
I’m anxious for a new version.
-
Inappropriate?I have 2800 songs and songbird needs 177 mb
-
Inappropriate?I have 15,048 songs and the latest nightly of songbird is only using 160Mb of RAM. What version are you guys using? I would say < 200Mb is acceptable, Firefox regularly uses more.
From what I remember 0.7.0 was extremely memory hungry. This seems to have been resolved in recent builds.
I’m not losing my memory
-
Inappropriate?i have the latest night (20 nov 2008).. however, even if i have a lot of ram(4000 mb), i do not like the fact that songbird use so much... i mean, there are so many programs who use much less memory... i do not understand why songbird need so much
i use windows vista -
Inappropriate?Maybe it's a question of how much memory usage you are willing to tolerate. The two main apps I use all day have a similar memory footprint, so if songbird uses the same amount I don't see this as an issue. Added a screenshot for fun...
I’m happy for any app to use up to 200Mb
-
Inappropriate?Hello,
I have the same problem. Immediately after the start, Songbird is using 100MB RAM. It is ok, if you keep in mind, that Songbird have a powerful connection to music-communities and a internal browser.
But after 10 minutes the RAM-Usage is increasing up to 200MB. After a while it is rising to 300-350 MB.
I hope the problem will be fixed. Because of the browser & co I would tolerate a averaged use of maximum 200MB RAM.
System & Environment:
Linux Ubuntu 8.04 64Bit
Songbird v0.7.0
Core 2 Duo, 1.5 GHz
1 GB DDR2 RAM
~12.000 Songs in Library -
Inappropriate?songbird will remain my default music player. it has many qualities. i care about memory usage, but i know that these guys do a wonderful job.. and, maybe, one day, my problem will be resolved.
-
Inappropriate?I've gone back to Foobar & probably will until the 1.0 release. I'm hoping that will resolve my problems. As for system stats:
Windows XP SP3
Songbird 0.7
Pentium M 1.86 GHz
1.5 GB DDR2 Ram
50'000 Songs in Library -
-
Inappropriate?We hear you on the memory usage. We've done a lot to address it for our 1.0 release. You can check out the latest release candidate build on our nightlies page (http://wiki.songbirdnest.com/Develope...) or wait for the 1.0 release to see the new, smaller memory footprint.
One thing to note: Songbird will always be at its largest when you import media. Quit the app and restart it after an import to shrink it down.
1 person says
this solves the problem
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Shouldn't the app clean up its memory after importing media. I know that people don't import media every time they use Songbird but it really shouldn't need more memory AFTER importing media, during the process sure, I can understand, but not after. -
Inappropriate?Right now, after decent web browsing, Songbird is using about as much RAM as Safari, but about 100 times as much as iTunes.
I would say that for a web browser, it uses an appropriate amount of RAM, but for a media player, a little too much. I wonder if it would be possible to close the web browser function of Songbird so free up some RAM, but still allow us to listen to music and use the sidebars.
I’m hopeful
-
Inappropriate?A lot has changed here since Ali's post..
http://blog.songbirdnest.com/2009/03/...
1.1 has much better memory management. And I doubt they could disable the web components really, because its addons/themes rely on javascript/XUL to work .
However, Firefox 3.5 (previously known as 3.1, but changed because they felt the changes were significant enough), will add JIT compilation for XUL (GUI), and Javascript, which will possibly make songbird an enormous amount faster when integrated (and I'd imagine possibly more memory efficient too).. As Songbird is based on Firefox's base, Songbird should get these changes too.
Also, it must be remembered, that winamp is windows only!! So extensions and everything else can be compiled natively for windows in it. So judging by that chart, Songbird is doing an amazing job to be on par with it!
Everything in 1.1 is heaps better though, including importing files.
EMPLOYEE
CHAMP
