60+ mb for messenger
and another 25mb for this dreaded wlcom process that runs in the background
even with WLM off?

85+ mb for a messenger program? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!

windows XP the whole OS could install with 64 mb of ram!!!

wlm9 another stupid Vista era product

--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....



CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

Hi,

Windows Live Messenger will run in less than 64MB of RAM if you really want to thanks to the
wonders of the page file, protected memory and the 32-bit memory address space.

Now it probably won't be the best experience. I ran Windows XP on 64 MB of RAM for awhile
too, and that wasn't the best experience either.

A modern web browser will use almost triple this and keeping in mind everything Messenger has
to do -- whether it be voice/video, gazillions of animated display pictures and emoticons,
message archiving or whatever, I don't think this is unreasonable. The latest modern
versions of Yahoo Messenger and AOL Messenger have similar usage.

Never mind the price of RAM -- I bought another 2GB the other day for $44 when last year the
exact same RAM was $217. Probably one of the cheapest PC components at the moment; even my
current mouse cost more than that.

--
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger
MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
MessengerGeek Blog: http://www.messengergeek.com
Messenger Resources: http://messenger.jonathankay.com
(c) 2008 Jonathan Kay - If redistributing, you must include this signature or citation
--






"On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47bbf79e@xxxxxx-privat.org...

> 60+ mb for messenger
> and another 25mb for this dreaded wlcom process that runs in the background even with WLM
> off?
>
> 85+ mb for a messenger program? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!
>
> windows XP the whole OS could install with 64 mb of ram!!!
>
> wlm9 another stupid Vista era product
>
> --
> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>
> CHORUS:
>
> You just format the drive , Clive
> Get a New Mac , Jack
> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
> Just get yourself free
> Boot from a *nix, Jix
> You don't need to discuss much
> Install XP, Lee
> And get yourself free
>
>
>
>

my ram costs twice as yours

you have DDR2

I have DDR on this machine... and I have to tell you that DDR1 is still the
majority !!!
You are telling me to upgrade in order to run messenger? LOL oh god..

But its not about the ram alone.. (this is something MS fan boys say all the
time ram ram ram)

its that you have to load that information to and from the ram at some
point...

this means that your hard disk which is the slowest part of the computer
must read the disk
and load the program to the ram, this also needs CPU...
Now imagine that you dont only have Messenger but 20-30-40 other
programs-services-dlls extensions and other CRAP that need the cpu and hard
disk attention when loading the comptuer

bloat is NOT only about ram...

If you consider utorrent thats less that 500k program yet does its job
better than azeurus that is
20mb you get the drift... the footprint of utorrent is a few megs, azeurus
needs hundreds of mb (beacuse uses java yuck)

Bloat is avoidable.. but you need good programmers who CARE are smart and
not sloppy and arrogant..
or in other words the exact opposite from Microsoft programmers.. LOL

--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free



"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <msnewsreplies@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EA3FD789-5EDE-412A-BD6A-5656B386328E@xxxxxx

> Hi,
>
> Windows Live Messenger will run in less than 64MB of RAM if you really
> want to thanks to the wonders of the page file, protected memory and the
> 32-bit memory address space.
>
> Now it probably won't be the best experience. I ran Windows XP on 64 MB
> of RAM for awhile too, and that wasn't the best experience either.
>
> A modern web browser will use almost triple this and keeping in mind
> everything Messenger has to do -- whether it be voice/video, gazillions of
> animated display pictures and emoticons, message archiving or whatever, I
> don't think this is unreasonable. The latest modern versions of Yahoo
> Messenger and AOL Messenger have similar usage.
>
> Never mind the price of RAM -- I bought another 2GB the other day for $44
> when last year the exact same RAM was $217. Probably one of the cheapest
> PC components at the moment; even my current mouse cost more than that.
>
> --
> Jonathan Kay
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger
> MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
> MessengerGeek Blog: http://www.messengergeek.com
> Messenger Resources: http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> (c) 2008 Jonathan Kay - If redistributing, you must include this signature
> or citation
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:47bbf79e@xxxxxx-privat.org...

>> 60+ mb for messenger
>> and another 25mb for this dreaded wlcom process that runs in the
>> background even with WLM off?
>>
>> 85+ mb for a messenger program? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!
>>
>> windows XP the whole OS could install with 64 mb of ram!!!
>>
>> wlm9 another stupid Vista era product
>>
>> --
>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>>
>> CHORUS:
>>
>> You just format the drive , Clive
>> Get a New Mac , Jack
>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
>> Just get yourself free
>> Boot from a *nix, Jix
>> You don't need to discuss much
>> Install XP, Lee
>> And get yourself free
>>
>>
>>
>>

>

Not seeing anything like that here on my XP machine or my Vista machine.

"On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47bbf79e@xxxxxx-privat.org...

> 60+ mb for messenger
> and another 25mb for this dreaded wlcom process that runs in the
> background even with WLM off?
>
> 85+ mb for a messenger program? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!
>
> windows XP the whole OS could install with 64 mb of ram!!!
>
> wlm9 another stupid Vista era product
>
> --
> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>
> CHORUS:
>
> You just format the drive , Clive
> Get a New Mac , Jack
> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
> Just get yourself free
> Boot from a *nix, Jix
> You don't need to discuss much
> Install XP, Lee
> And get yourself free
>
>
>
>

live messenger 9 is not released to the public yet

you have 8.1 or 8.5

--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free



"Brian Murphy" <brianm_94@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:06EC5E5D-8D7D-43A1-B9F8-C8B1D9BC997A@xxxxxx

> Not seeing anything like that here on my XP machine or my Vista machine.
>
> "On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:47bbf79e@xxxxxx-privat.org...

>> 60+ mb for messenger
>> and another 25mb for this dreaded wlcom process that runs in the
>> background even with WLM off?
>>
>> 85+ mb for a messenger program? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!
>>
>> windows XP the whole OS could install with 64 mb of ram!!!
>>
>> wlm9 another stupid Vista era product
>>
>> --
>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>>
>> CHORUS:
>>
>> You just format the drive , Clive
>> Get a New Mac , Jack
>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
>> Just get yourself free
>> Boot from a *nix, Jix
>> You don't need to discuss much
>> Install XP, Lee
>> And get yourself free
>>
>>
>>
>>

Everything goes up in requirements, I could say I can remember running
Windows95 with 8mb and Windows98SE with 16mb of ram. Try and run even 2000
on that .

If only ram was that cheap in Australia. I managed to snare a 1gb DDR2/533
stick for my laptop from Ebay for ~$36, but the DDR2/800 for my desktop
doesn't come so cheap . I think there will be a need for ram in the market
shortly forcing a spike, then a drop in price, giving those who wait a
chance to get a good quantity of ram and a reasonable cost.

"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <msnewsreplies@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EA3FD789-5EDE-412A-BD6A-5656B386328E@xxxxxx

> Hi,
>
> Windows Live Messenger will run in less than 64MB of RAM if you really
> want to thanks to the wonders of the page file, protected memory and the
> 32-bit memory address space.
>
> Now it probably won't be the best experience. I ran Windows XP on 64 MB
> of RAM for awhile too, and that wasn't the best experience either.
>
> A modern web browser will use almost triple this and keeping in mind
> everything Messenger has to do -- whether it be voice/video, gazillions of
> animated display pictures and emoticons, message archiving or whatever, I
> don't think this is unreasonable. The latest modern versions of Yahoo
> Messenger and AOL Messenger have similar usage.
>
> Never mind the price of RAM -- I bought another 2GB the other day for $44
> when last year the exact same RAM was $217. Probably one of the cheapest
> PC components at the moment; even my current mouse cost more than that.
>
> --
> Jonathan Kay
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger
> MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
> MessengerGeek Blog: http://www.messengergeek.com
> Messenger Resources: http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> (c) 2008 Jonathan Kay - If redistributing, you must include this signature
> or citation
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:47bbf79e@xxxxxx-privat.org...

>> 60+ mb for messenger
>> and another 25mb for this dreaded wlcom process that runs in the
>> background even with WLM off?
>>
>> 85+ mb for a messenger program? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!
>>
>> windows XP the whole OS could install with 64 mb of ram!!!
>>
>> wlm9 another stupid Vista era product
>>
>> --
>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>>
>> CHORUS:
>>
>> You just format the drive , Clive
>> Get a New Mac , Jack
>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
>> Just get yourself free
>> Boot from a *nix, Jix
>> You don't need to discuss much
>> Install XP, Lee
>> And get yourself free
>>
>>
>>
>>

>