[All Platforms] Opt Out of Features

Discover, Browse, Collection when it arrives, all load by default and all use a lot of system resources. 


Those of us using older computers [I saw a post today from a user on a P4 win Win7] find the current and recent versions nearly unusable, and have resorted to using old pre 0.8.8 versions.  Version 0.6.5 does not support apps at all and it works great, [aside from crashing on occasion] and is lightning fast.


Resource usage may not seem like a big deal to some, but when using a notebook computer, the fan runs continuously and the battery life is cut in half or even more.


With the introduction of the CEF3 framework, an option to opt out should be easy to code, and would give users the opportunity to have a lean and fast music player only, without all the bloat that isn't used.  The option would still be there to re-enable apps when desired.


This idea is based on working within the constraints of the existing client and CEF3, specifically so that there is only one client to maintain and support. 


I flew this idea past one of the mods, and he said that with support from the user base, the option could game some traction with the Developer Team


Please vote up this idea.

Updated on 2018-06-16


Your idea has been submitted a while ago but unfortunately hasn't gathered enough kudos (100 per year). In order to keep an overview of the active & recent ideas in this forum, we will close this idea for now. However this does not mean that your idea has been declined by Spotify.

If you still feel strongly about your request, we encourage you to post your idea in a little different form again! Maybe now is the right time to receive the support of our community for your suggestion! ;)

Do you have any further questions on how the idea exchange is managed? Just click here!

Community Legend

This sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Rock Star 28
Rock Star 28
Status changed to: New Idea

Marked as new idea. This idea will focus on the request to have an option in preferences to "turn on and off" the apps, to save memory/battery. This means that there would be only 1 client to maintain & support. In contrast, there are also similar ideas that request an additional "lite version" here and here that you might want to add your kudos to.


Premify, I've looked at the other idea threads and there are a few that are similar, requesting a standalone lightweight client and such. This idea is based on working within the constraints of the existing client and CEF3, specifically so that there is only one client to maintain and supportSince I can't edit it, could you be so kind as to add this in your comment within the original post?


I've observed that when any of the default feeds are down, CPU usage sits on max indefinitely, like the software is attempting to load, over and over, something that isn't there. If the devs were to modify the processes so that they would perform retry timeouts, this issue would likely go away.

Community Legend

Edited and Kudos added. 

Definitely think you might be onto something here!


Also, if you are worried about CPU usage, stay away from the Visualizer beta its a little power hungry from what I have seen so far!


BTW, memory usage isn't all that bad in the present version. It consumes a pretty fair chunk, but its CPU usage that slows everything down.


And Peter, I'm not going to even THINK about installing Visualizer manually. Pretty sure once the Spotify master server finds out you have it, there is no turning back. I installed Collection manually, and when I use a different login to use Spotify, Collection is there. Its set up as a totally separate install and shares nothing with my Sandboxed install on this login.


This is a very genius idea. I highly recommend it!!!

It has been a while since last time I tested out V9.x of Spotify on desktop windows PC (mainly because Spotify are still not bringing back some of the dearest features I love in old v8.3.222 that I'm still using, such as displaying correct cover artworks of tracks not from linked sources, album list viewing in playlists has been taken away, and search functionality does not show playlists in search results if they are named with artists/band names). But today I got introduced to use sandboxed functionality by Jeff himself, who helped me to install the latest version of Spotify in a sandbox environment side by side next to my existing version 8.3.222 on the same computer.


Now I became able to test out Spotify's latest offering without losing my preferred old Spotify client and its setup, I could tell that there is a lot of significant improvenent performance-wise, but not in functionalities as it does pretty much look identical to the last v9.x version I tested out few months ago. The biggest advantage is that the client seems to be more stable now, without insane bugs that causes the software to freeze most of the times while its loading its contents. It is true that Spotify is still using a lot of CPU (on my PC it uses CPU between 80-100%, sometimes drops down below 50% but then goes up quickly) but the noticeable thing is the fact that my PC still feels fast enough and I could use other programs such as facebook in firefox/chrome browsers without any real issues.


However, my PC is overheating and I could tell that it indeed will drain the battery life quicker if it continues to do so. I looked at the sandbox hierarchy of my sandbox app and I noticed that there are several spotifyhelper instances which might be the reason behind the improvement in performance. Now I dunno if this is just a sandbox thing or whether this is a new behavior that Spotify staff themselves have implemented, but I could tell one thing for sure: If this is possible to be done on the helper client, then I see no reason why Spotify.exe could not be run as multiple processes just like how google is doing with their chrome browser for instance. This would create huge enhancement in performance so that a single processor core could be busy with certain tasks such as loading playlists / activity view in real time / spotify apps / etc... While another core focuses purely on music streaming and playing without interruptions, and a third core could be busy with other functionalities and so on ... It does not have to be all-at-one loaded on a single Spotify.exe process that would make running it becomes a nightmare with people on old computers who use single/dual core machines.


Kudos to you my friend, and thanks for the wonderful sandbox app (I'm not going to mention it's name, that's up to Jeff to share this info with you if he wants to). It really made my day.


PS: Spotify PLEASE bring back the important features that I mentioned in the first paragragh. They are the main reason why I don't want to trade version 8.3.222 with any future versions. Also make our dreams come true and implement alphabetic sorting ability for our playlist names. It is taking you too long already and you are falling behind many other competitors who got this feature built in their services already.

Best regards,


Expanding on Zed's post


He mentions Jeff.  That's me.


Version 0.8.5 introduced a "feature" where if a track is "linked" the proper artwork does not display in the lower left art display during playback.  For example look at THIS album, now play Track 3.  The artwork from the linked compilation album displays.  This is very annoying.


Finally, the application he mentions is called Sandboxie.  It allow me to have multiple versions of Spotify installed on a single login.  If you want to evaluate any new application on your Windows install, run it "sandboxed" and you can easily delete it without having to uninstall it, which sometimes leaves traces of the application, sometimes lots of traces,  Are you suspicious that a program contains malware?  Run it sandboxed.  Much more convenient than using System Restore.


I've had three separate version of Spotify running concurrently, just to see if I could do it.


Community Legend

Some of the key guys of Spotify has created a WinAmp pastisch that uses Spotify instead of Mp3.




This might help you.


@hpguru My idea is not to hide unwanted items, but to add an option to prevent them from loading entirely.