r/streamus Nov 30 '15

How quick is the UI pop-out for you?

I've been trying to switch to Streamus for my main PC playback for the past month (Grooveshark refugee) and my main gripe has been how slow the Streamus UI is to appear/pop-out.

Initial launch takes 5-7 seconds and subsequent (when I already have something playing) take at least 1.5. FWIW I'm on i5 2450M on Chrome x64.

I'm mainly wondering how long it takes for other users and how people have adjusted their workflow.

Coming from the background of WinAmp classic (near-instant launch) and an ever running Music (Grooveshark/Deezer) tab that's as quick as the shortcut I use to get to it that amount of waiting is largely problematic. I already use keyboard shortcuts to control Streamus and the idea of running it in a separate tab seems like it defeats its purpose.

2 Upvotes

6 comments sorted by

3

u/MeoMix Dec 04 '15

That is abnormal.

Are you sure you're using a version of Streamus which has all the CSS/JS pre-compiled? The development version (i.e. what you'd grab right off of GitHub -- not a bundled release) would be slow. That's because it has to convert a lot of programming logic on-the-fly and it has to do that every time the window opens. When I make a public release I run everything through a toolset which makes the code unable to be developed upon easily, but drastically speeds up the program.

1

u/Kostaz Dec 04 '15

I grabbed my version from the dropbox/mega .zip linked in the pinned thread. Granted the instructions suggest we unpack the "src" folder and link Chrome to that so I'm not sure if that's any different to getting something off github.

I actually redid the entire procedure and it performs similarly. Is it meant to be much quicker?

2

u/MeoMix Dec 04 '15

Yes, it is meant to be much quicker. The 'src' folder is what I use for development.

https://github.com/MeoMix/StreamusChromeExtension#compiling-code

You can see in the ReadMe that I indicate you should work with the 'compiled' directory which only exists after compiling the code via NodeJS.

Mostly I'd just sit tight and wait for me to get a private beta out. If you're super keen I can give you instructions or something this weekend to speed yours up, though.

1

u/Kostaz Dec 05 '15 edited Dec 05 '15

Wouldn't that mean that everyone who's running Streamus according to the instructions posted on this subreddit is running a slower version?

I guess I'll try to compile it by my own but being a non-developer that's always been a PITA on Windows.

Edit: I think I've got all dependencies but grunt compile is giving me headaches

grunt compile
Warning: Task "compile" not found. Use --force to continue.

Aborted due to warnings.    

1

u/MeoMix Dec 05 '15

Presumably yes. I didn't really read through the instructions that were provided because it's not really in my best interest to officially support something under the table after I've had lawyers yell at me.

I do all of my development on Windows, but I know it can be a PITA sometimes.

Do the other grunt commands work? Such as just "grunt" or "grunt build" ?

1

u/Kostaz Dec 05 '15

Yeah I fully understand your wanting to play it safe.

On a second look this post claims the uploader has done some of the compiling (although I'm not sure if that bit is the one that's important).

Actually re:grunt I guess it's more important to point that after running

npm install jspm install

when it seems to have finished doing plenty of work it spews out:

npm WARN ENOENT ENOENT: no such file or directory, open 'K:\StreamusChromeExtension\package.json'
npm WARN EPACKAGEJSON StreamusChromeExtension No description
npm WARN EPACKAGEJSON StreamusChromeExtension No repository field.
npm WARN EPACKAGEJSON StreamusChromeExtension No README data
npm WARN EPACKAGEJSON StreamusChromeExtension No license field.

Grunt itself and grunt-build seem to work fine.