Hacker News Reader

Comment by bestnameever | Hacker News Reader

I saw that too...How can something using Electron be highly efficient? Maybe they are talking about the interface and not the system resources the app uses.

View on HN

Both interface and performance actually. I have a library of about 1000+ songs and it barely takes anymore than 130 mb of RAM for me. This is actually better than some native c# music players that I used before I made this. And CPU usage is very light.

My how resource consumption expectations have changed.

This player: http://gqmpeg.sourceforge.net/mpeg-over.html

With a library of 5,011 songs.

Consumes 18 mb.

Since it uses the CLI mpg123 binary to actually play the songs, when playing the child mpg123 process uses up another 3 mb.

So take your pick, 18 mb or 21 mb. Much lower resource usage either way.

Clementine doesn't use Electron and consumes more of my memory and UI is ugly. Before we start talking about resources maybe we should compare other music players on the market.

The observation that there's a music player resource tax just makes me less inclined to combine it with the Electron tax.

There isn't really one inherently; a music player like foobar2000 only takes a few MB of memory even with many plugins. That doesn't mean Clementine and Winamp haven't found ways to waste resources that aren't loading a full Chromium instance (after all, Chromium is pretty efficient considering what it actually brings to the table.)

Debian 10 + KDE, 46MB RSS + 10 MB shared memory consumed while playing some FLACs with lyrics tab opened.

Windows: private 90M, working set 111M. Mac: real mem 110 MB, around 10MB shared. Maybe Linux implementation deals better with memory.

As a matter of fact(but not scientifically accurate), chromium-based browsers were consuming twice as much RAM on Win than on Linux whenever I checked.

edit: missed a word

Reply on news.ycombinator.com