Spotify using several processes and GB of memory just play some music and browse a library is an abomination. WinAMP did most of that 20 years ago while using a fraction of the resources.

Discord similarly is an affront.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 50 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

don't worry, this will all be solved now with incompetent vibe-coders, just give it a while

or you will look back to this with a nostalgic tear in the eye. one of these.

[–] AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 23 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I use discord.com/app for exactly this reason. Its footprint is lower and the experience is almost exactly the same. And I can block things I don't like using ublock/other extensions, like animated reactions and those crazy new premium video profiles with explosions and confetti etc

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 12 hours ago

God I wish discord just stuck to being a straightforward app without any of the fancy fluff that's just not needed. I hate the super-flashy things that obscure visibility and divert your attention so much

But it's what they sell to people, and a minority seems to really like so

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I run those thing in the browser, where they belong.

If you have premium, there's probably a better native client.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

Same here. At first, I thought I was going to get a better Discord experience with the dedicated 'app'. Nope. Another web app crammed into Electron, multiplying the overall browser footprint on my system. It now happily lives on in a normal browser tab where my ad blockers and user-scripts claw back local control of things.

[–] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 hours ago

Correction, Winamp still does this today while using a fraction of the resources.

https://www.winamp.com/downloads/

[–] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

For Spotify it sort of makes sense though, right? It buffers a few songs ahead of time so using any free RAM seems valid

[–] DaGeek247@fedia.io 28 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The average spotify 3:40 song is going to be about 4MB. This only changes to triple (10MB at the same length for premium and high quality) that size when you pay for it.

If Spotify is using more than 50MB on the audio cache, they absolutely deserve to get ragged on for it.

[–] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Ah true, that is pretty bad then

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago

I don't think it buffers more than one song ahead right, that would be wasteful?

[–] kirk781@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 hour ago

If you have Spotify Premium, try a third party client. Even GUI clients like Spotify-qt are memory light [though not at feature parity] whilst terminal clients like ncspot, spotify-player take 1/10th the memory. The latter even supports Spotify connect.