[quote]Well considering me and another person did the SAME tests and we BOTH came out with different data than you.. why should we suddenly believe you when we know better?<hr></blockquote>
considering several others have tested WinAMP and the finder and gotten different results why should I believe you?
[quote]Yes but I never use column mode. BTW Finder takes up just about as much CPU time. Go figure.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Got water in your ears? This isn't even subjective.<hr></blockquote>
quicktime has a better codec. better low frequency. iTunes has been criticized for its poor sound. the sound enhancer and equalizer help it a bit.
[quote]Hmm, on my system (a Pismo 400 with OS X 10.1.1 and 256MB of RAM), QT uses up a bit more CPU time than iTunes, with the EQ and Sound Enhancer in iTunes off. The MP3 being played is Hungarian Rhapsody #2, encoded at 44.1@192 using Fraunhofer. Sound quality in QT is somewhat muddy; the percussive bass and phase variances in the song aren't as sharp as they are in iTunes. Also, QT skips when I start Word up while the song is playing. I'm listening on AIWA HP-X311 headphones. Not the best, but good enough for me to hear differences between decoders.<hr></blockquote>
that doesn't make sense. perhaps QT has a problem with certain encoders.
[quote]Incedentally, the Finder consumes the same amount of processor time as QT does when playing the same MP3. Not surprising, since it uses QT.<hr></blockquote>
yea and its less than iTunes. significantly less
[quote]And here I thought that you were holding WinAMP up as the paragon of all goodness. By the by, Sinewave pointed out that on a P2 400, WinAMP was taking 5%-55% of CPU time. That's not terribly effecient for a system with a processor that is roughly equivalent to a G3-300. Still, WinAMP is a good player, in my experience, but it is no more effecient than iTunes.<hr></blockquote>
sinewave great.. other people in this thread have claimed the opposite of him.
[quote]No, that's what you want the point of the thread to be. You simply want everyone to fall in line with you and piss on Apple for something that they have little control over. Howe<hr></blockquote>
uh... no that was what my original post said.
[quote]ou simply want everyone to fall in line with you and piss on Apple for something that they have little control over. H<hr></blockquote>
they have little control over the efficiency of their software?
[quote]However, people are smarter than that, and they look for the reasons behind the percieved problems.<hr></blockquote>
yes, you should follow your own advice rather than making up reasons like MP3s are hard to decode and macs don't have the memory bandwidth to do it more efficient.
[quote]Some things can't be helped, such as the effeciency of MP3 as a format, but other problems, such as the scrolling text bug, have been revealed, and hopefully Apple will fix those. <hr></blockquote>
the "scrolling text bug" apparantly doesn't affect iTunes so what does that have to do with anything.
[quote]Bah. It seems that you lack the basic facilities to read, comprehend, and then post. That, or you're a troll. Either way, I'm done with you. <hr></blockquote>
it seems you lack the basic facilities to understand a basic arguement and accept the fact that something Apple made may not be perfect.
I'm a troll? yea
[quote]yeah Applenut I am making up the figures WTF would I care what CPU time WinAMP uses?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know. seems to amuse you just trying to "win" an arguement with me. I didn't think you would stoop low enough to make up numbers but based on the results of others I guess you would.
[quote]One other thing that I noticed is that iTunes' CPU usage scores for G4s are pretty much equivalent to those of G3s running at the same clock speed, and DP G4s score the same as SP. Is it possible that the Altivec and SMP enhancements in iTunes were removed or broken in 2.0? <hr></blockquote>
the only altivec/MP optimizations in iTunes are in the encoder and visualizers I believe.
what I am more surprised by is the consistant percentage of CPU time iTunes takes on different clocked processors. why is that?
[quote]1 - 2% or your CPU? I am wondering if it's because of your processor speed. My roomates 350mhz PII took just as much processor time running WinAMP only as my 350 G3 took up using iTunes. Playing the same song. That was between 4 and 25%<hr></blockquote>
Apple sold that 350 Mhz G3 has equivelant to a 450-500 Mhz P2 so I would hope you aren't using that as a basis that iTunes is inline with WinAmp's performance.
[quote]Games are better on PCs for the same reason Photoshop is better on Macs. It's called ports. When you port a game to a different platform that game wont be as optimized. Esp when talking about Frame rates. Which even though you run at a low resolution.. the video card STILL comes into play. <hr></blockquote>
it's not because of the ports... it's because the hardware. Quake 3 is possibly the most optimized mac game available and it can't come close to Quake 3 on the PC. It's not because its a port its because the hardware doesn't match up unfortunately.
PS is the same.
but ports do of course play a role sometimes... cough SimCity 3000..
[quote]ok boyz answer me this
i have a dual 800 with 640 megs of ram, os 10.1.1, latest i-tunes, mint audio, mpg123 - whatever - and when using the net via DSL (basically always), my mp3s skip (not much but enough to make me mad ).
when i turned off one processor - no skipping no matter what i do or what player. turn it back on and skipping in every mp3 app just browsing the web.<hr></blockquote>
I think that's a bug. I think Mike from xlr8yourmac has been complaining about the same thing.