WLM incredibly slow, resource hog, I must be doing something wrong

Hi Everyone,
I'm trying WLM for the second time in a few months. I did a fresh
download/install, but when I launched the program it still had some imported
mail folders left over from the last time.

I checked out what was in them and found that navigating the folders was
extremely slow, as in 5-10 seconds just to expand/collapse folder trees. I
decided should redo my imports from WM, so I sent all the imported folders to
the deleted items folder.

Then I selected the empty folder option. The WLM window went blank and it
started maxing out the CPU at 80-90%.

I presume it's emptying the deleted items folder but I don't know of any way
to check this.

Besides, I can't believe that the program performs so poorly when it comes
to handling mail folders. I MUST be doing something wrong somewhere but I
can't figure out what it is.

Has anyone else run into this problem when handling mail folders in WLM?

Specs:
OS: Vista Ultimate
PC: Dell Dimention 8300 3.2GHz 1GB RAM
HD: 2 internal 250GB approx 150GB free ea
USB HD: 4 external 300GB, scads o' space
Other apps that might matter: Windows Mail (Vista version), Firefox,
Kaspersky Internet Security (no activity there while WLM is working folders),
Office 2007 (Outlook not installed)

Thanks for your time in reading this,
Big Al Mintaka

"Big Al Mintaka" <BigAlMintaka@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0A02AC13-FC62-46DA-956E-42327F8542C0@xxxxxx Yes, I am having the same problems. I was just getting ready to post a
similar comment. It seems to peg the CPU, churn the harddisk, and hog lots
of virtual memory. The rest of the system grinds to a halt whenever WLM is
doing anything. I was able to speed things up a bit by compacting the
database, but it doesn't take long to bloat once again. It doesn't help that
the auto compact on shut down fails more often than not, so I have to
restart WLM just to force a database compact.

I am sorry to say that I am not too impressed with WLM. It is big, slow and
buggy. I'm sure that they tested it on a nice fast new machine with scads of
RAM, but it just doesn't cut it on a 2GHz Celeron Laptop with 512MB of RAM
(max).

Inspiron 2650
Windows XP Home/SP2

WLM is very responsive on my XPSP2 Pro machine. However, I have 2.5 GB of
RAM. The one thing I notice on your specs is that you are running Vista with
only 1 GB RAM. In my Vista experience 2GB is the minimum. In fact, I found
Vista slow in general with only 1 GB.



"Big Al Mintaka" <BigAlMintaka@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0A02AC13-FC62-46DA-956E-42327F8542C0@xxxxxx

I have to agree. When I first got Vista I had 1 gig on my laptop and it was
constantly using the swap file as it generally required 1.3 gig when
running. Adding the 2nd gig of RAM stopped the swapping and the machine is
running well with no problems.

--
Mark R. Cusumano
Skype Name: mark.cusumano
Web: http://The-Padded-Cell.spaces.live.com



"osu9400" <osu9400@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6486B1FE-8D7F-4903-A4E8-D5FF7F454894@xxxxxx

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:32:00 -0800, Big Al Mintaka wrote:
No.
OS: MCE 2005
PC: HP Pavilion m7590n Pentium D 3.2GHz 2GB RAM
HD: 1 250GB, 1 750GB, 178GB free

MS Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11, SeaMonkey 1.1.7, Opera
9.25.

MS Outlook Express 6, Mozilla Thunderbird 2.0.0.9, Pegasus Mail 4.41.

Copernic Desktop Search.

Windows Live Mail does not go over 43% CPU use during start, and hovers
around 25% CPU use during use.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Hi,

That's a good point RE the amount of memory. When I first upgraded to Vista
I had the feeling that if I'd probably have to add some memory someday - IF I
decided to keep Vista.

I wasn't sure at first but now I'm leaning towards keeping it. Two changes
helped a lot:

1. I installed Xplorer2, which blows Windows Explorer out of the water. No
more nonsense with losing folder views, that stupid "Navigation Pane" that
doesn't obey folder views anyway, and a ton of speed.

2. Vista SP 1. I think it's still in beta; whatever, the last few updates
of SP 1 have increased performance and stability pretty well. Evidently all
that free beta-testing by users is really starting to weed out the major
problems.

Well, I'm off to Dell to look at the memory upgrades. Thanks for that
suggestion; even if more memory doesn't fix WLM, it'll still be a good thing
for my system to have.

Have a good one,
Big Al Mintaka



"osu9400" wrote:

Keep in mind that 32 bit computer systems can only address 4GB of RAM. So if
the the sales guy tries to sell you more than that, don't go for it. (Unless
you are running a 6-bit system)

2^32 bits = 4,294,967,296 = 4GB

and, if my math is correct:
2^64 bits = 17,179,869,184 GB!!! that is crazy!


"Big Al Mintaka" <BigAlMintaka@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:71FFD362-4291-4013-95D9-9349DE5B32C8@xxxxxx

Whoa, back the truck up, wouldn't that 17,179,869,184 actually be 17GB which is still pretty wild!
--
¦·Þ
Thanks, Mike - Windows XP Pro SP2 WLM 12.0.1606.1023
_______________________________________________
"osu9400" <osu9400@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:CB1026F7-9EA4-46AB-81D6-642476CE463B@xxxxxx
Keep in mind that 32 bit computer systems can only address 4GB of RAM. So if
the the sales guy tries to sell you more than that, don't go for it. (Unless
you are running a 6-bit system)

2^32 bits = 4,294,967,296 = 4GB

and, if my math is correct:
2^64 bits = 17,179,869,184 GB!!! that is crazy!


"Big Al Mintaka" <BigAlMintaka@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:71FFD362-4291-4013-95D9-9349DE5B32C8@xxxxxx

No, It's actually 17 ZettaBytes

"_mikebs" <someone@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:uABuFnnXIHA.4200@xxxxxx
Whoa, back the truck up, wouldn't that 17,179,869,184 actually be 17GB which is still pretty wild!
--
¦·Þ
Thanks, Mike - Windows XP Pro SP2 WLM 12.0.1606.1023
_______________________________________________
"osu9400" <osu9400@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:CB1026F7-9EA4-46AB-81D6-642476CE463B@xxxxxx
Keep in mind that 32 bit computer systems can only address 4GB of RAM. So if
the the sales guy tries to sell you more than that, don't go for it. (Unless
you are running a 6-bit system)

2^32 bits = 4,294,967,296 = 4GB

and, if my math is correct:
2^64 bits = 17,179,869,184 GB!!! that is crazy!


"Big Al Mintaka" <BigAlMintaka@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:71FFD362-4291-4013-95D9-9349DE5B32C8@xxxxxx

Hey Mark,

I see from the bulk of the responses that 2GB of RAM seems to be a
prerequisite for Vista, let alone WLM.

I've gone ahead and ordered 2 GB upgrades from Dell for both of my machines.
The price was right, and besides, it's probably a good idea to bring my RAM
up to snuff with Vista and the forthcoming apps that will take advantage of
the OS.

It's something I should have done from day one with these Dells, given all
of the other processing capabilities I bought. A/V is my hobby, so I need a
lot of realtime throughput just to do simple things.

By the time the memory gets here I'll have a total of 4 email programs on my
plate. Don't ask, it just happened! Anyway, Thunderbird so far looks like
it'll be the eventual program of choice. I had to revive Outlook 2007 for
an easy migration path for my message folders from Windows Mail to
Thunderbird. Once I did that, I was looking at Windows Mail, Outlookk 2007,
WLM, and Thunderbird.

Well, at least there's a lot of variety to choose from.

Meanwhile, the RAM is on the way.

Thanks to everyone who posted here. Whether or not you specifically
mentioned the amount of RAM, most of the system profiles showed at least 2GB.
I got the message!

Have a good one,
Big Al Mintaka


"Mark R. Cusumano" wrote: