Starcraft vs Skype ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by XPD, Dec 14, 2005.

  1. XPD

    XPD Guest

    Recently reinstalled XP Pro with all patches etc and thought Id get back
    onto Skype for calling friends etc... thats all fine, however today I
    decided to install Starcraft (with Brood Wars) and found it ran like a
    dog.... even the installation process took forever. I sat here for a while
    scratching my head wondering why its running so slow... then decided to
    start killing processes...soon as I killed Skype, Starcraft came right.
    Anyone else come across this ?
    XPD, Dec 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. XPD

    David Guest

    XPD wrote:
    > Recently reinstalled XP Pro with all patches etc and thought Id get back
    > onto Skype for calling friends etc... thats all fine, however today I
    > decided to install Starcraft (with Brood Wars) and found it ran like a
    > dog.... even the installation process took forever. I sat here for a while
    > scratching my head wondering why its running so slow... then decided to
    > start killing processes...soon as I killed Skype, Starcraft came right.
    > Anyone else come across this ?
    >
    >


    I've notice that skype's memory use and general resource hogging has
    become greater with each version, and becomes greater the longer it runs
    (especially if you make a lot of calls). The only solution I know of is
    to restart Skype. It also pays to only run it when you are using it (use
    MSN or something to stay in touch with the people you want to call) and
    only run it when you are using it, as it uses a significant amount of
    bandwidth (I've read reports that it can max out 100mbit connections,
    its p2p nature means that if you are connectable you will be forwarding
    other people's communications).

    A nice alternative is picophone, its tiny and uses the GSM codec. At the
    high quality setting it sounds very nice with unnoticable latency.
    David, Dec 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. XPD

    James T Guest

    "David" <> wrote in message
    news:VlSnf.8057$...
    > XPD wrote:
    >> Recently reinstalled XP Pro with all patches etc and thought Id get back
    >> onto Skype for calling friends etc... thats all fine, however today I
    >> decided to install Starcraft (with Brood Wars) and found it ran like a
    >> dog.... even the installation process took forever. I sat here for a
    >> while scratching my head wondering why its running so slow... then
    >> decided to start killing processes...soon as I killed Skype, Starcraft
    >> came right.
    >> Anyone else come across this ?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I've notice that skype's memory use and general resource hogging has
    > become greater with each version, and becomes greater the longer it runs
    > (especially if you make a lot of calls). The only solution I know of is to
    > restart Skype. It also pays to only run it when you are using it (use MSN
    > or something to stay in touch with the people you want to call) and only
    > run it when you are using it, as it uses a significant amount of bandwidth
    > (I've read reports that it can max out 100mbit connections, its p2p nature
    > means that if you are connectable you will be forwarding other people's
    > communications).
    >
    > A nice alternative is picophone, its tiny and uses the GSM codec. At the
    > high quality setting it sounds very nice with unnoticable latency.


    If you look under "Tools" "Options" "Connection" in Skype, you have the
    option to untick the instruction "Use Port 80 and 443 as alternatives for
    incoming connections". I think doing this may reduce "general resource
    hogging" but perhaps someone can confirm this? What does Skype do if it uses
    Port 80 and 443?
    James T, Dec 14, 2005
    #3
  4. XPD

    Dave Taylor Guest

    "James T" <> wrote in news:43a06d79$:

    > What does Skype do if it uses
    > Port 80 and 443?
    >


    Some firewalls have those as the only open ports, so people can browse the
    web with a web browser... HTTP=80, HTTPS=443. They would not be very good
    firewalls, but it is a way for skype to a connection when other
    applications wouldn't.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Dec 14, 2005
    #4
  5. XPD

    Richard Guest

    Dave Taylor wrote:

    > Some firewalls have those as the only open ports, so people can browse the
    > web with a web browser... HTTP=80, HTTPS=443. They would not be very good
    > firewalls, but it is a way for skype to a connection when other
    > applications wouldn't.


    they do that at tech, also pop3 and imap and only the control port for ftp so
    thats useless too.

    no secure imap or pop3, no smtp, makes it largely useless for me. I have to save
    my sent emails into the drafts folder in outlook, drag it to the inbox on the
    imap and then go into my webmail to send it... bloody fiasco
    Richard, Dec 15, 2005
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jeff
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    6,093
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    617
  3. dianasun via HWKB.com
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,572
    alkis
    Sep 14, 2009
  4. dianasun
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    907
    spammersarevermin
    Nov 17, 2005
  5. dianasun
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,930
    dianasun
    Jun 1, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page