dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
3 edits | [Messenger] wlcomm.exe and msnmsgr.exe
I have MS messenger and just updated to version 2009. Before, my task manager showed messenger to run at about 20-30k.. now with the update, I not only have msnmsgr but I have this wlcomm.exe also running using even higher resources usually 30-32k. If I end the process of wlcomm.exe, I am signed off messenger even though from my read it said "will help you sign onto messenger faster" not that you need this process for messenger. Can anyone clarify these processes, also why I could run messenger for half the resources that the "newer" version has... in other words why does it need so much resource to run? As a side note, I would be interested in similar messenger services that don't use so much resource.
PS Thanks fourboxers, I downloaded an older version of messenger but it wouldn't allow me to use insisting I had to have the latest update. I am still curious exactly what this wlcomm does that requires such heavy resources
--
Spare computer cycles can help find answers
Find A Cure!
|
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
 ·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
3 edits | According to quick google results WLCOMM is part of the Windows Live Messenger Contacts Server. It keeps your contacts info up to date and supposedly provides faster log-in speeds. My guess is it provides a base point for Windows Live contacts integration across different Microsoft software packages like Office and Internet Explorer. So if you added a contact in Outlook for example, that contact may be available in Live Messenger.
The newer version uses slightly (32k is slightly) more resources because it provides additional capabilities. Whether you use those new capabilities yourself is a different issue.
32kb isn't "heavy resources". Even 32MB isn't "heavy".
EDIT - msnmsgr.exe is the live messenger application itself.
wlcomm.exe is the live services contacts manager |
|
dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to dandelion
A few other issues in the new messenger are not to my liking also and I had googled a little but these "added" things that I don't wish to use can be irritating...especially when I want to use my PC for gaming and want all the resources. Apparently you also are not able to downgrade to an older version. Anyway, thanks for your input. For those that haven't upgraded I would recommend deciding if you REALLY want these features.
--
Spare computer cycles can help find answers
Find A Cure!
|
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Do you really think the WLCOMM is affecting your gaming? I don't see how it would even be noticeable. When idle, the program consumes a little memory sure (7MB on mine), but at least on my systems it's not taking any processor time.
It seems to be more of a psychological annoyance (just you knowing it's there) more than actually affecting system performance. |
|
dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to dandelion
As mentioned.. wlcomm is around 30-35k (I DO use the messenger to communicate while gaming also) messenger dropped from the typical 20-30K or so to around 7-8K but I would prefer not to use online resources for a program that IMO worked fine before the additional 10K was added ..adding up both programs now.  . I also would prefer not to be forced to use the "latest". However I also have other options to go to and only stayed with messenger because others on my list use it.. that makes it much more convenient. I appreciate everyone's input however.
--
Spare computer cycles can help find answers
Find A Cure!
|
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs: | I'm having a hard time understanding what the concern is here? |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| reply to dandelion
Oh oh oh. You're talking about network throughput. I thought you were talking about memory.
Even an additional 35kbps shouldn't matter to your gaming unless it's affecting your latency. You're on Comcast so you should be seeing minimally 4000-6000kbps capacity all the time. Games simply don't use that much bandwidth. |
|
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England
1 edit | reply to BillRoland
said by BillRoland  :I'm having a hard time understanding what the concern is here? Thats the problem, people seem happy to have 3 or 4 exe/services running for a single program. e.g I run Messenger Live 8.5.xxx and it installs a service called "Messenger Sharing Folders USN Journal Reader service" for synchronising sharing folders. The question is why isn't it enabled as an on demand service? It can be disabled in services and unless you are sharing folders (not a good idea anyway) then it does not impact the program at all.
Gone are the days where you started a program, used it and turned it off when you have finished. Now days it comes with 5 services that carry on running in the background "just in case" ... well just in case what??? because I'm sure I don't know.
OK some will argue that services are needed for some programs AV for instance and yes I agree, but even those shold have an option to run them in "standalone" mode.
This is why Vista is so bloated and slow, it starts every service and program in the known universe and then attaches 5 services to each - then MS expect it to be fast?!?!?!?!!?
--
|
|
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England
3 edits | reply to Bit
said by Bit :Oh oh oh. You're talking about network throughput. I thought you were talking about memory. Even an additional 35kbps shouldn't matter to your gaming unless it's affecting your latency. You're on Comcast so you should be seeing minimally 4000-6000kbps capacity all the time. Games simply don't use that much bandwidth. Games don't usually rely on throughput/bandwidth it's latency/Ping that counts.
and that's 1 program/process, now start looking at all the network ready applications you have installed on your HD. With the current trend to do this stuff you can easily have 10/20/30 background services doing the same thing. Gaming latency will start taking a considerable hit then. e.g how many update services are installed these days?
In many instances these days people are resorting to having a separate gaming PC with no software installed on them for this very reason. e.g Software companies are putting too much unnecessary crap on our PC's.
--
|
|
dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to dandelion
Bit and nemo1966 thank you for that information and that was my main concern/issue.. the occasional lag seen with gaming then looking in my task bar trying to figure which can run and which can't. I don't have a gaming computer/it is hyper-threaded VAIO but would like to have a clear field for gaming without unnecessary programs running. I will also try to disable some like file sharing, thanks for the idea.
--
Spare computer cycles can help find answers
Find A Cure!
|
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
2 edits | What I would do since you would otherwise prefer to run MSN Live Messenger is to kill the processes and see how it affects gameplay and latency. If you don't notice a difference (which you shouldn't) then it's just an annoyance.
Any impact you would see would be from the use of voice itself, not from a secondary WLCOMM process. WLCOMM simply doesn't use enough resources to matter.
As for throughput difference, it may not even be related to WLCOMM but perhaps a higher default quality of the codec. It could simply be Microsoft anticipating people having on average, faster broadband connections thus they can use slightly higher quality audio bitrates by default. IOW, MSN Live 9 or whatever it is could simply have higher default bitrate for their audio than the previous version. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| reply to nemo1966
I would agree if hardware resources weren't increasing as well. Gone are the days of 1GHz machines running 128-256MB of RAM. Typically machines will run at least 512MB and if used for gaming 1GB+, usually even more. These additional services, unless there is a problem (eg memory leak or something) aren't going to impact machine performance to a point that it's noticeable.
These processes are open, but don't consume appreciable resources in the tasks they perform. So yeah, it would be nice to have the option of a stripped down MSN Live Messenger but it would be more little more than the psychological benefit of SEEing a few less processes running, not because it would speed the machine up. |
|
dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to dandelion
I was doing occasional lagging before the upgrade in messenger which is why I questioned the additional program installed... when I check my task bar during these lags the internet graph is high as in there is a lot of connections to and from (I have good security and no malware). I may google to find out more on memory leak just to double check, thanks again. |
|
Martin Vee
@cgocable.ca
| reply to Bit
it would be more little more than the psychological benefit of SEEing a few less processes running, not because it would speed the machine up. Just want to mention that Windows context switching is very slow, and impacting performance significantly.
So, three processes running with 2K of memory will slow a Windows PC down much more than a single process, even if the latter is running with 4k of memory.
Just my two cents... |
|
