Re: WMP11 in Vista vs XP
- From: "Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media]" <neil@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:30:42 GMT
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:21:03 -0700, Richard Mitnick
<RichardMitnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I used WMP11 in XP on a machine with a CPU of about a gig and 512megs DRAM.
Ripping and syncing performance was not exciting.
Now am using WMP11 on a Vista machine (Core 2 Duo 2.5gigs and 2gigs DRAM),
ripping and syncing are wicked fast.
My friend has a new computer also with a CPU Core 2 Duo and 2 gigs DRAM. He
was using WMP10, unimpressive.
He has now upgraded to WMP11. What should he expect in the way of
performance?
Library performance and player startup time decreases approximately
linearly with the number of tracks in the media library. If he has in
excess of 40000 tracks he might notice perceptible slowdown compared
to a fresh machine with no media on its library.
It's impossible to generalise further since there are a large number
of variables in system performance which can make it tricky to
disentangle one effect from another though.
Moving to Vista can result in some gains in the underlying drivers and
hardware access, but of course the protected media paths soak up
considerable amounts of CPU for no apparent user gain. I'd expect it
to be a little slower than WMP10 on XP though if all else is equal.
Cheers - Neil
------------------------------------------------
Digital Media MVP : 2004-2007
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpfaqs
.
- Prev by Date: Re: how to get itunes to import album to a single folder?
- Next by Date: Re: windows media player extension ADD-ON
- Previous by thread: Re: Why doesn't Windows Media Player support most of the formats?
- Next by thread: Re: windows media player extension ADD-ON
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
