I find 2010 a resource hog
- cyn
- Student Sheep
-
rusticdogru
Post
Re: I find 2010 a resource hog
We're aware that it uses more memory, that said, you didn't mention if you actually had the available RAM, Windows Garbage Collection doesn't run as often if the machine doesn't need extra resource. Also .NET shares memory, so even if MW shows as using 100MB of memory in Task Manager, a good portion of this might be shareable and not private memory.
Stolen from another site...
The working set is the physical memory currently being used by the process. However, the operating system performs optimizations to ensure that all memory is not equally expensive. Much of the memory a process uses holds read-only data (for example, the actual instructions to execute). Because this data is read-only it can be shared among all processes that need it. Since all processes make extensive use of shared, read-only operating system code, a substantial amount of every process's working set is shared. Thus, total working set tends to significantly overestimate the true cost of the memory used by a process.
Stolen from another site...
The working set is the physical memory currently being used by the process. However, the operating system performs optimizations to ensure that all memory is not equally expensive. Much of the memory a process uses holds read-only data (for example, the actual instructions to execute). Because this data is read-only it can be shared among all processes that need it. Since all processes make extensive use of shared, read-only operating system code, a substantial amount of every process's working set is shared. Thus, total working set tends to significantly overestimate the true cost of the memory used by a process.
- d2dorris
- It begins with a single step
Post
Re: I find 2010 a resource hog
I agree that Mailwasher 2010 is a resource hog. I have 2 GB of RAM on my XP Pro system. With version 6 I normally ran at about 530 MB when the system was idol. With the 2010 version, I'm now running from 640 MB and well above while the system is idol. Also, this new version of MW is extremely slow in everything it does, totally unlike version 6. I'm beginning to think that I need to switch back to version 6 so I don't waist a lot of time just waiting to move (with down or up arrows) to next email. What's up with the extreme sluggishness?
-
stan_qaz
- Omniscient Kiwi
- Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Post
Re: I find 2010 a resource hog
Couple glitches on the e-mail select, try turning off bolding for unread messages as a first step, show the read column instead. If it happens after checking a lot of mail just restart MW when it gets pokey.
RAM use isn't much of an issue, rusticdog has several good posts on that. Startup and restart speed is a problem for a lot of us.
You can have both versions on the same computer and even running at the same time so run 2010 as needed and v6 the rest of the time.
RAM use isn't much of an issue, rusticdog has several good posts on that. Startup and restart speed is a problem for a lot of us.
You can have both versions on the same computer and even running at the same time so run 2010 as needed and v6 the rest of the time.
I am not a Firetrust employee just a MW user.
--
First rule of computer consulting: Sell a customer a Linux computer and you'll eat for a day,
sell a customer a Windows computer and you'll eat for a lifetime.
--
First rule of computer consulting: Sell a customer a Linux computer and you'll eat for a day,
sell a customer a Windows computer and you'll eat for a lifetime.