15 Feb 05
Okay ... I'm in need of more help please
My Music collection is ever expanding and am currently counting over 40GIB worth of it ... The problem I seem to get lately that the Windows Media player doesn't seem to able to coupe with 4000+ songs ... I've tried I-tunes but that programme seems to eat CPU and MEM resources like the Media player ...
I'm getting really f***ed off with my computer (it's supposed to be new, but slower then my old laptop !!!) ...
Anyone any ideas of
a) speeding up my computer a little
b) having a solution regarding the Music problem
Many thanks once again
Regards
Boris
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by The Slow PawnHere's a quote for you:
Okay ... I'm in need of more help please
My Music collection is ever expanding and am currently counting over 40GIB worth of it ... The problem I seem to get lately that the Windows Media player doesn't seem to able to coupe with 4000+ songs ... I've tried I-tunes but that programme seems to eat CPU and MEM resources like the Media player ...
...[text shortened]... e
b) having a solution regarding the Music problem
Many thanks once again
Regards
Boris
"Downloading music is evil. Don't do it. You're ruining the music industry and destroying our all holy profits."
- James Hetfield -
---------
Damn, that was so cheap I'm off to shoot myself
15 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by The Slow Pawnhmmmmm i assume you`ve run spybot etc?
erm, none - No firewall, no anti-virus programme...
And Shavi, of course [b]ALL my Music is bought and paid for (who do you think I am ?????)
Boris[/b]
You could try partitioning your drive, into genres (unless it`s all rock 😉) I have no idea if it would help though. Just a thought, that way you might fool wmp into thinking there`s not so much music there.
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by PaulieSurely you don't need to partition to do that?
hmmmmm i assume you`ve run spybot etc?
You could try partitioning your drive, into genres (unless it`s all rock 😉) I have no idea if it would help though. Just a thought, that way you might fool wmp into thinking there`s not so much music there.
Just split the music up into different folders (stemming from different roots)?
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by shavixmirNot too sure weather or not you`d need to partition. My stuff is all set in folders and genres. But it`s also custom software.
Surely you don't need to partition to do that?
Just split the music up into different folders (stemming from different roots)?
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by pineapple42that's exactly what I was gonna say... winamp can easily handle all the music I have on my pc (~1800 songs) at once... I have never really understood how to use windows media player anyway 😳
how about winamp?
Another helpful comment: Check if you really need all that music... I had a lot more songs and when I browsed through my folders all I could say was what the f***? You could also check if you have some things double... sometimes happens when you download stuff... erm... *cough cough* not that I would commit such a vile sin...
If nothing else helps: Just give me your computer and buy a new one... my computer is so old it doesn't even fulfill the minimum requirements for most games... pentium II I think :'(
Angie 😀 (always happy to help 😉)
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by The Slow PawnYou didn't tell us how much memory your computer has. The 40 gig is hard drive space, not to be confused with RAM. If you are running WinXP you need 500 megs of memory.
Okay ... I'm in need of more help please
My Music collection is ever expanding and am currently counting over 40GIB worth of it ... The problem I seem to get lately that the Windows Media player doesn't seem to able to coupe with 4000+ songs ... I've tried I-tunes but that programme seems to eat CPU and MEM resources like the Media player ...
...[text shortened]... e
b) having a solution regarding the Music problem
Many thanks once again
Regards
Boris
And this is interesting:
Less than 500 megs slows the computer down because Windows has to buffer the data to the hard drive. BUT, sometimes if you add memory to make it a full gig, your computer will SLOW DOWN AGAIN with database programs! This is because they want to use all that memory.
So, if you have less than 500 megs, add memory to achieve that.
If you have a full gig, take some f the memory out. I have a $100 memory chip sitting on my desk because I had to drop back to 500 megs.
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by pineapple42Yup. There's a relational curve to how much memory you have vs performance. More memory usually speeds up your system, but there are cases where it will actually slow it down. The worse case is if you run a database program or, for instance, a chess program such as Fritz, which attempts to build the database. Fritz will try to use all the available memory and therefore allow deeper searches. Unfortunately, most of the data is garbage moves which Fritz keeps track of to find the best line of play. So Fritz will think a little deeper, but watch out! When you exit the program and then go back into it, Fritz will load that near gig of analysis back into the program! Took 2 minutes with a gig of memory but only about 30 seconds with half a gig.
i'm not entirely sure you are correct arrakis - more RAM can't harm things... (unless microsoft have an agreement that stitches the general public up (again))!
- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 617678
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by arrakiswell, yes, an no - if you want the best fritz can give - then, you need more ram, for bigger tree searches - surely....
Yup. There's a relational curve to how much memory you have vs performance. More memory usually speeds up your system, but there are cases where it will actually slow it down. The worse case is if you run a database program or, for instance, a chess program such as Fritz, which attempts to build the database. Fritz will try to use all the available memory ...[text shortened]... the program! Took 2 minutes with a gig of memory but only about 30 seconds with half a gig.
or, a better programmed algorithm that uses less RAM...
:-)
IMHO, for generic use (ok, mine!); i've never seen an increase in RAM reduce performance; except once - but that's on ten year old, sub-optimal kit.