Introducing *Chirp

(15 replies) #1 kelvinlok on 30 Jan 2009 - 13:09

a simple application that used up more than 100MB of ram, no thx

#1.1 TheNay on 30 Jan 2009 - 15:37

kelvinlok said,

a simple application that used up more than 100MB of ram, no thx

a 100mb is nothing when you have 4GB of ram nowadays.. lol.. and most pc's that run Vista/7 should have that

#1.2 LTD on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:34

TheNay said,

and most pc's that run Vista/7 should have that

LOL, that's pretty funny.

#1.3 Imran Hussain on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:42

LTD said,

LOL, that's pretty funny.

really? i'd like some of what you're on. it runs fine on even 2 gb for me.
u no most macs have 2 gb ram too, THAT is pretty ridiculous considering it should be 'able to run' on much lower requirements

#1.4 DanielZ on 30 Jan 2009 - 19:19

Imran Hussain said,

really? i'd like some of what you're on. it runs fine on even 2 gb for me.
u no most macs have 2 gb ram too, THAT is pretty ridiculous considering it should be 'able to run' on much lower requirements

Well Macs can run perfectly fine with as little as 256 mb of RAM. I have a Power Mac G3 with 384 mb of RAM, running Tiger just fine. It can even handle some light video editing. My school's Photoshop lab consists of G5's with 512mb of RAM, and they run quite fast.
Now I'd like to see somebody run Vista with 256 mb of RAM. Even the latest OS (Leopard) only requires 512 mb of RAM to run.

#1.5 Imran Hussain on 30 Jan 2009 - 19:33

I'd like someone to run Leopard on 512 Mb of ram as well as in for normal use.

#1.6 Glendi on 30 Jan 2009 - 20:16

DanielZ said,

Imran Hussain said,

really? i'd like some of what you're on. it runs fine on even 2 gb for me.
u no most macs have 2 gb ram too, THAT is pretty ridiculous considering it should be 'able to run' on much lower requirements

Well Macs can run perfectly fine with as little as 256 mb of RAM. I have a Power Mac G3 with 384 mb of RAM, running Tiger just fine. It can even handle some light video editing. My school's Photoshop lab consists of G5's with 512mb of RAM, and they run quite fast.
Now I'd like to see somebody run Vista with 256 mb of RAM. Even the latest OS (Leopard) only requires 512 mb of RAM to run.

If you put it that way, you can run Vista on 512mb machines as well. I had mine and it worked... but I couldn't play ANY game.

Shame Macs aren't great for gaming, so you can't say they suck because a game can't run.

#1.7 Chaks on 30 Jan 2009 - 21:20

100MB? Are the applications you are using do not even use 100MB??

#1.8 Turbonium on 30 Jan 2009 - 21:25

TheNay said,

a 100mb is nothing when you have 4GB of ram nowadays.. lol.. and most pc's that run Vista/7 should have that

Beefy computers is no excuse for bad programming or plain bad design.

#1.9 +Frazell Thomas on 31 Jan 2009 - 00:11

I don't even think about RAM anymore... It is so cheap that there is no reason to think about it...

My weakest machine (my laptop) has 4GB and my two desktops have 4GB and 8GB respectively...

#1.10 Tornhelm on 31 Jan 2009 - 11:11

[quote=Imran Hussain said,]really? i'd like some of what you're on. it runs fine on even 2 gb for me.
u no most macs have 2 gb ram too, THAT is pretty ridiculous considering it should be 'able to run' on much lower requirements[/quote]
Well Macs can run perfectly fine with as little as 256 mb of RAM. I have a Power Mac G3 with 384 mb of RAM, running Tiger just fine. [/quote]
You can run Vista on 384mb of RAM too.

I've got it running slightly slowly, but otherwise fine for day to day use on an old laptop with 384mb in it. Sure you can't game, but you can do pretty much everything else on it without a problem.

#1.11 ThaCrip on 31 Jan 2009 - 22:17

TheNay said,

a 100mb is nothing when you have 4GB of ram nowadays.. lol.. and most pc's that run Vista/7 should have that

still, it's just the thought of it when something simple should not use that much.

and besides, not everyone has memory to burn... cause typically speaking anyone who has 1GB RAM on WindowsXP should have no problems with memory for general use.... and considering 100MB for a app like that is ridiculous when web browsers use about the same (or less)

#1.12 Faisal Islam on 01 Feb 2009 - 07:06

Imran Hussain said,

I'd like someone to run Leopard on 512 Mb of ram as well as in for normal use.

it's for Windows. Talk abt windows. 'n another thing is Mac's 512 MB Ram & Windows's 2GB Ram's price are same.

#1.13 yakumo on 01 Feb 2009 - 13:27

Turbonium said,

Beefy computers is no excuse for bad programming or plain bad design.

^This (but with quotes, or s/is/are )

#1.14 MioTheGreat on 01 Feb 2009 - 21:57

LTD said,

LOL, that's pretty funny.

What do most PCs that run Leopard have?

#1.15 bangbang023 on 02 Feb 2009 - 14:22

If the application is developed using the .net framework, then it's part of the deal. .Net reserves memory for applications and then frees it up later if another program requires it.

(1 reply) #2 nemo on 30 Jan 2009 - 13:33

Looks interesting. It's nice to see programs taking advantage of WPF. I wish more would. However, if kelvinlok is right and it takes up > 100mb ram, no thanks.

#2.1 BGM on 30 Jan 2009 - 21:05

I have done 'real' dev work in WPF, it's not really that great, imo

lots of bugs and blurry text ;(

lets hope the next version is better

#3 Mav Phoenix on 30 Jan 2009 - 13:58

So they advertise for their other programs but you can't download them?

#4 +DARKFiB3R on 30 Jan 2009 - 14:10

Looks OK, but is a bit clunky/slow. Not as useful as TweetDeck

#5 DOOOMKULTUS on 30 Jan 2009 - 16:06

Thirteen23.com guys are great,Its difficult to download their stuff as well.Works in IE usually.
WPF applications are always pretty to look at but are a resource hog.Look at Zune media player great to look at but hell slow if your system isn't good.If system's good then its all great.

#6 +0sm3l on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:19

Nice! More apps should be like this!

(3 replies) #7 acaurora on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:21

Am I the only one that has issues with this program? I installed it on my Windows 7 64-bit laptop, and it works beautifully. However, on my Vista 64-bit desktop it only partially starts up - I see the program unfold in its transparency, but the spark-fireworks-ish animation only gets to the first frame and it just stays like that. Any ideas on how to fix it?

#7.1 Imran Hussain on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:43

They will be releasing an update to fix that soon, and also integrate TinyURL.

#7.2 acaurora on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:45

Oh. Ok. How do you know?

#7.3 Imran Hussain on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:48

I'm following them on Twitter. They had tweeted about it yesterday, and said it'll be pushed by night, but the update hasn't been released yet..

#8 C_Guy on 30 Jan 2009 - 17:56

Do people really have nothing better to do than read tweets all day long? Seriously, if you have no life, consider this:

Start > All Programs > Games > Solitaire

That's what it's there for.

#9 Krazzer on 30 Jan 2009 - 19:36

Chirp is only at about 125mb memory, where as TweetDeck is at 160mb for me. So I'm not sure why people think it's so clunky, slow and bloated.

#10 Chaks on 30 Jan 2009 - 21:19

The interface is just AWESOME! How long users were waiting for such a wonderful twitter client! Good one!

#11 Adduc on 30 Jan 2009 - 22:23

Does indeed use 100MB of RAM upon starting the program. Was up to 240MB by scrolling down a few dozen Tweets. Can't resize it, and it is a bit clunky. Nice concept, though.

#12 Tornhelm on 31 Jan 2009 - 11:15

Also, this is nothing new - Witty the twitter client has been around since 2007 and uses WPF.

#13 Skwerl on 03 Feb 2009 - 07:24

Wow, you guys are just full of joy and grace. It seems like any time a new application release is anounced here, people pounce to say it's too big, too slow, too colorful, too this, too that, not on the Mac, offends my dog, etc. It feels like being in a room full of catty young girls or some infantile p!ssing match.

#14 Windows7even on 04 Feb 2009 - 05:43

chirp is a sweet app...who said looking good is a bad thing...if ya cant handle the loss of ram then why are you even trying to run it? anyways who doesn't have 4gb these days to use?

#15 Shiranui on 23 Feb 2009 - 07:28

blu?

Neowin.net