On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:43:48 +0100 Robert Cernansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious > > being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of > > them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: > > I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines > from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were > playing same mp3 file. > > PID %MEM VIRT SWAP RES CODE DATA SHR nFLT nDRT S PR %CPU COMMAND > 8810 10.9 172m 62m 109m 1620 108m 9104 779 0 S 15 0.0 X > 11170 9.7 308m 210m 97m 80 129m 19m 897 0 S 15 0.0 > firefox-bin 7750 2.0 164m 143m 20m 480 41m 11m 117 0 R 15 > 0.0 audacious 7810 1.8 49940 30m 17m 1524 9m 5016 72 0 S > 15 0.0 emacs 7739 1.1 149m 138m 11m 984 59m 7816 49 0 R > 15 0.0 xmms > > Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think > it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource > hogs on the first two lines. :-) > > Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O > > Robert > > thanks, nice to have some terminal ouput sent along to substantiate this discussion! i like the 'mem window' a lot. top is cool... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
