- NEW!
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 22nd, 2009
If Yahoo Messenger puts enough of a strain on your system to slow it down ten you might want to upgrade to a computer built in this century. I mean, what kind of chip do you have in there, a Dorito? Anything over 1GHz won't even notice the CPU load, and anything under that was made over a decade ago.
Or it is possible that you just don't have enough RAM to even run Windows right. Realistically, WinXP requires 1GB and Vista 2GB if you wantto run anything other than just Windows.
If you have a 512MB system, you can't even hold all of the processes for WinXP in physical RAM and have to rely on Virtual Memory, which *will* slow you down no matter what, even if you are not running ANY applications.
Or maybe you need to defrag your hard drive. Many people don't do that and then wonder WTF when their system gets slower and sslloowweerr and ssslllooowwweeerrr.
where can i meet girls for sex talk on messenger
by t on November 17th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
I can't sign into my yahoo from my Dsi. Does anyone know why?
by girona98 on December 14th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
i have downloaded yahoo messenger for mac but not able to sign in. My yahoo mail is working well. What is the problem with messenger?
by sanil on July 25th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
why does my webcam go idle on yahoo messenger? also;
by bOOtHAng1990 on February 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How do i change my display name on Yahoo Messenger?
by Shirou on February 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Am I right in believing that by running yahoo messenger it can slow my laptop down because it holds a lot of memory to cache.My laptop is running somewhat slow and a friend told me to uninstall so that my laptop will go faster?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Erm, wha...?
jerv, I have 1.6Ghz CPU, and latest Windows Live Messenger crawls like I was running it on a Pen. II. But previous version of WLM, the 8.5 ver works faster, and 7th even more faster. And aMSN, not made by MS, works the fastest. Sister has 170Mb RAM, latest MSN works surprislingly good.. 0.o
So it's the programs themselves. Programmers put allkinds of sh** inside them, that eat abnormal ammount of memory, making us to believe that we have weak PCs and forcing us to buy new and better machines...
And I haven't seen any speed difference between before defragmenting and after defragmenting.. except HD crackles more...
by user deleted on July 22nd, 2009
I tend to use Pidgin myself and it has/does run fine on every box I've had. Much better than the "official" stuff.
170 MB RAM? I take it she runs Win95 then? I mean, XP will *technically* run on that, but the total memory load is usually nearly 600MB so most of the OS must be loaded into VM with seek times and data throughputs about three orders of magnitude slower than if there was actually enough RAM to get the job done. Hell, I haven't even *seen* a system with that little RAM in a few years!
I have a PC that is nearly five years old and I'm not looking to upgrade it any time soon. Of course, I made DAMN sure it had enough RAM, as I have done with every system I have ever owned. I skimp on the CPU to add RAM because I know where the speed REALLY comes from.
And considering the price of RAM now, the only way you can really bitch about it is if you are the type of person that recycles toilet paper.
Considering that I value my time at more than one cent an hour, I think the time I've saved by having stuff in RAM instead of VM paid for itself pretty quickly; well worth the $30.
As for not noticing a difference after defragging, I guess you don't do much your PC that involves reading large files from the hard drive. Things like multimedia or loading complex applications. When you go beyond browsing and IM-ing into real computer use, there is *quite* a difference in load times.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 22nd, 2009
I actually do! 0.o
I work with pictures, videos, music files, play games (which are atleast ~2Gb large), and do some archiving that eats up all RAM, and debug and programming with giant compilers...
Maybe that's not enough??
When I turn on my defragmenter, after a month since last defrag, defragmenter does report that somewhere 25% of files have been fragmented and the bar is all red, and after I've done defragmenting, I notice serious slow down for a while, until Windows manages to get app pieces back... but no speed increase.
by user deleted on July 23rd, 2009
Hmm...
Every time I go more than a week without defragging, I notice a little bit of a lag that disappears after a defrag run.
Of course, I don't use the official WinXP defragger, which I never trusted.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 23rd, 2009
Yeah, that's way tooo slow.. what do you use? I use IObit's Smart Defrag..
by user deleted on July 24th, 2009
I usually go with Auslogics Disk Defrag. Seems to do the job in a timely manner, and since I do it fairly regularly/often, it only takes a couple of minutes.... unless I get lazy and wait a week between runs.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 24th, 2009
I wish Windows didn't fragment.. just like Linux.
by user deleted on July 24th, 2009
I really don't mind so much though. Maybe that's just because Windows has so many other faults that disk fragmentation seems pretty damn minor :P
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 25th, 2009