Stephen Lau wrote: > On 11/6/08 3:11 AM, Bob Palowoda wrote: >> Ok this is in respect of SXCE 101a which includes both Songbird and >> Rhythmbox. >> I have what I suspect as a mediocre size library of mp3 that is 113G in >> size. But that >> is not the issue. When I examine the RSS value of Songbird (506M) vs the RSS >> value of Rhythmbox 87M for the same size of imported mp3 files that is quite >> a large >> difference. >> >> The question is what is a reasonable consumption of memory for a multimedia >> application? I do understand that Songbird has other options but what I >> would >> like a good understanding is what is a reasonable limit of memory consumption >> of these two multimedia applications on a desktop with 4G of memory. >> >> I would just like to hear some logical justification of the memory >> consumption with >> the intended target audience/usage of their respective systems. >> > If you care about memory consumption above all else, then you'll almost > certainly want to use Rhythmbox. While we've done a fair bit of work to > try and reduce the memory footprint of Songbird, that will never be its > core competency. Not all multimedia applications are created alike... > and feature-wise you'll find different feature-sets offered by the > various players. Much the same way OpenSolaris is not the same as QNX, > Songbird is not the same as Rhythmbox.
...and I might add, that for me, the higher memory usage is worth it. Songbird is feature-rich, has none of the playback problems Rythmbox has, and in general just plain works. It's the first time in a while that I've had a media management application that did. -- Shawn Walker
