I have a Pentium 4 machine with 2.26 Ghz with 2gb RAM.
I would like to use it without emulator.
I have installed it on my system but it loads too slow.
Is there a way to make it a little fast.
Software area:
Uninstall unwanted software.
If possible re-install your operating system.
Hardware area:
Add more RAM ( minimum 4GB )
Free up your hard drive.
Related
This is my PC's specification:
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-5005U CPU # 2.00GHz 2.00 GHz
Installed RAM 4.00 GB
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
How do I increase processor speed to run Android Studio and the Android Emulator faster?
I have a solution for this but this might cost you a little bit in order to run your Android Studio faster than before.
The solution is
You have to get yourself an SSD
Upgrade your RAM to 8GB min
Upgrade these two components. You won't get this kind of issue again.
I recently installed the Linux Pop! _OS 20.04 LTS distribution to develop in flutter. Everything works very well, except the AVD emulator, which is extremely slow. What could it be?
I have a 16gb dell of ram, i5 8th generation and 256 of ssd.
im on POP OS 21.10 (Intel® Pentium(R) Gold G5420 CPU # 3.80GHz × 4, 8 single channel ram ), first i need to applied this following instruction https://developer.android.com/studio/run/emulator-acceleration?utm_source=android-studio#vm-linux , for my use case(flutter) i increased the ram to 3gb and VM heap to 512mb , chose Hardware GLES 2.0 on graphics option, then it runs smoothly, if u are using genymotion u can increase the VRAM on virtual box.enter image description here
In case anyone else runs into this, I had to change quick boot to cold boot, as mentioned in this redit post. No idea why quick boot doesn't work, and my system was not spiking in any way but the whole OS was completely unusable until I killed the emulator. I'm on Pop! OS 22.04.
Android Studio uses 100% CPU when I'm just coding, even if I type a single word CPU use raises to the 100% and comes to back normal, and if I keep typing it takes 100% CPU all the time.
What I have tried is :
File > Invalidate cache and Restart
Change max heap size for android studio by editing VM options
"Power Save Mode" it runs perfectly when it is turned on. but it also disables some useful features of IDE and I don't want to disable it.
removed .android and .AndroidStudio3.0 folder from c:\users\username\
Android Studio plugins are set to default. no extra plugins are added. I tried disabling a plugin that can be disabled like Git and SVN but it's still same
I'm running windows 7 64-bit OS and Android Studio 3.0 and OS which I re-installed yesterday. I did not install the JDK - Android Studio is using default OpenJDK.
I've searched on internet but it did not help. any help would be appreciated.
Unfortunately, the new Android studio do require RAM.
"
You can download Android Studio 1.5.2 which should support 2Gbs of Ram And I would also recommend you to move to Linux Ubuntu OS from Windows 10 as you can set a portion of your Hard disk space as Ram memory(4gbs recommended) during installation(Search on Youtube on how to do that)."
Source quora:
It seems your systems config is low. as Android studio cares of itself for CPU uses so it gives its best.
Reasons being
You have Core 2 duo that is too low for Android Studio.
You have 4gb Ram, that is too low again.
If you work on some large project then 2gb of ram is necessary for Android Studio. and Java takes unexpected upto 4gb or more.
Solution
Increase ram by 8gb and processor at least intel i3
kill java or invalidate cache and restart if you get stuck of hanging your android studio.
Here is my CPU uses that goes upto 3gb for Android Studio and upto 4gb for Java.
The recommended hardware requirements for Android Studio are:
Microsoft® Windows® 8/7/Vista (64-bit Recommended)
Intel i5 4th-5th gen processor.
6 GB RAM
2 GB hard disk space + at least 1 GB for Android SDK, emulator system images, and caches
Optional for accelerated emulator: Intel® processor with support for Intel® VT-x,
As Java uses it’s own Machine known as JVM(Java Virtual Machine) for program compilation and it has some complex tasks like generate classes then verify byte code and then execute program with JIT(Just In Time)
And as Android has Natively developed in Java the slow compilation will be the issue i presume. But with new Android Studio feature known as “Instant Run” compilation and development of Android apps made more easy.
As i am developer of Android apps, I use
Intel i5 6th gen 2.70 Ghz processor
12 GB of RAM (8GB in first slot and 4 in Second Both DDR3)
1 TB of Hard Drive
Nvidia G-Force 940M 2 GB of Dedicated GPU for running Adobe After-Effects, Maya and Unity like Software which needs Dedicated GPU.
That’s all and Still Android Studio sometimes Lags with such high performance Hardware with the more complex and big apps(Complex Projects).
I think if you are going to buy a hardware and use it for at-least 3 years get the exact specs i have (or similar), However if you are frequent hardware changer use specs i mentioned first.
And for Emulator use Genymotion as it is way faster then the emulator which Android provides. Or use some other alternatives like Memu, Blustacks, Andy etc.
Try to add more Heap memory for Android Studio, go to Help -> Edit Custom VM Options... and set -Xmx2g (depends on your project size), after restart AS.
Did you try to set the power plan to best performance instead of balanced plan.
This may consume the battery but may solve this problem.
If you have any USB drives laying around, try using those for ReadyBoost. It may help you.
For the uninitiated, ReadyBoost, in a nutshell supposedly makes your WINDOWS PC faster by using how much ever space you dedicate it to (aka extra RAM)
For the uninitiated, to set it up,
Plug your USB / SD /WHAT EVER DIGITAL STORAGE you have into your computer
Go into Windows Explorer > This PC > Right click on Whatever storage you have plugged in
Select Properties in the Context (right click) menu
Go to the ReadyBoost tab
Choose what to do with it
Go to: Preferences > Version Control > Background. Now listed under 'Background Operations' are 6 options. I disabled the first three options which are:
Perform update on VCS in background, Perform commit to VCS in background, Perform checkout to VCS in background.
This reduces lot of power consumption of the CPU
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've got a Dell XPS M1330 with a 2.2ghz processor, 4gig ram, GeForce 8400M, and a 64GB SSD disk.
I'm primarily doing web-development, sharepoint development, integration (Microsoft BI tools) and biztalk. I use virtual machines for these purposes. I've been using Vista 32Bit up until now but I'm considering moving to 64bit to squeeze that little extra ram out of the box.
I'd like to hear if anyone has been using 64bit vista under the same circumstances and if anything should hold me back. Have in mind that this is the laptop I use at work.
I have recently switched from a Vista 32 bit development machine to a Vista 64 bit development machine, with a quad-core intel processor, and 6gb of ram. THe performance improvements have been quite impressive, and thus far, no "issues" with any development tools that I have been using.
Skipped Vista x64 and moved straight to Win2k8 with 8gb RAM and a handful of disks. Smaller memory footprint with less crap preinstalled. RAM is cheap these days too - more you throw at the problem the fast it runs.
Hyper-V is pretty good too - use it host instances of Win2k8 and Win2k3, some larger VMs (>3Gb RAM) with tools, some smaller (1Gb RAM) ones with services.
I have a fully-loaded Thinkpad W500 with Vista 64 and it runs flawlessly, especially since VMWare Workstation now supports both 32-bit and 64-bit host workstations. The only issue I encountered was with Python. I simply could not get a 64-bit version working and ended up using the 32-bit version under WOW.
I'm running a custom Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 # 2.40GHz, 8.00 GB, NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT, with a 300gb raid 0 with 15mb cache on Vista 64. Only been on it a month, but it is fast and stable, with no compatibility issues.
I'm running a Dell XPS 1730 with Vista 64 (4GB Ram, 2x512Mb Graphics). Runs Vista64 very nicely! I can have 4 or 5 instances of VS2005 up and notice no degradation. I had no issues with 64bit drivers either. Personally, I can't think of a reason not to use Vista64 on a dev machine if your hardware is new...
Vista x64 SP1, HP Quad Core with 4GB RAM. Works flawlessly. Any apps not available in 64-bit ofcourse work fine under WoW64. My only complain is IE has to run in 32-bit because of the missing 64-bit Flash plugin. And if you are a Developer, you should know that Visual Studio also is not available in 64-bit.
http://www.basicinstructions.net/images/basic081009.gif http://www.basicinstructions.net/images/basic081009.gif
Sorry about that.
I am looking to purchase a new development PC. My budget is not more than $1,000 USD (including monitor). I am open to laptop (desktop replacement type) or the traditional desktop PC would do just fine.
My primary development environment will be Microsoft, Visual Studio 2008 (and support of older Visual Studio 6 code as well). SQL Server 2005, 2008 as well as legacy support of SQL Server 2000. Microsoft Office 2003, potential to install 2007 but support as far back as Office 2000. The software I will wrote and support will be Windows XP mostly, but some Vista. I am going to have to assume there are 64-bit implementations out there to install to.
My first confusion begins with choosing AMD or Intel. My concern is that there is a compatibility issue with building software using Visual Studio in an AMD environment. I dont have any evidence, its just a concern that hopefully someone will clear up for me.
Last, I am confused about 32-bit and 64-bit installations. Should I stick with the least common denominator (32-bit) even though 64-bit is steadily gaining ground? I am aware that the 64-bit operating systems will address over 4G of RAM and that I like because I would like to set up as many Virtual Machines for test environments as possible, and may have many active at once..
I am not looking for the dream machine, just a machine with a monitor and the best processor for about $1000 that will allow me to write software for the majority of machines out there.
There are some instruction level differences between AMD and Intel but nothing that Visual Studio is going to uncover. Perhaps if you were developing with Sun Studio you might run into them (I have!).
I would go for a 64 bit machine and run 32 bit VMs on it if you feel the need to do testing in that environment. The common feeling around here seems to be that the highest level of Vista you can afford is the platform on which to develop.
With 32-bit XP and Vista, you might not have access to much more than 3GB or RAM, but possibly quite less (My home machine could only access 2.25GB with Vista 32). If you can afford getting a machine with 4GB of RAM, I would recommend using Vista-64 (Home Premium or Ultimate).
Depending on what kind of development you are doing hard drive speed can make a big difference in compile times. Get 10,000 RPM hard drives if possible for a desktop machine and 7200 RPM drives for a laptop, but they do cost more.
AMD smoothed out their incompatibilities long ago. Your decision on that should simply be which brand you feel has better performance/features. I would definitely go with 64 bit because you can always emulate 32 bit for VM's and apps and so on. The ability to use extra memory will pay dividends later when you're just spending $100 for another 2-4 gigs instead of another $1000 to finally buy a 64 bit machine.
Given you're interested in running multiple VM's RAM is going to be key, as is the CPU.
Currently Intel are ahead on performance for dollar (especially if you are interested in overclocking) however AMD's options are acceptable and the batch of phenoms seem to be better at true quad core applications than the Intel quads.
The quality and speed of the RAM is largely unimportant. Generic DDRII 800mhz will be fine, just make sure you've got 4 or 8 GB of it.
In terms of operating systems, xp 64bit is fairly wanting on driver support even though it's been around for a while. Vista 64bit however has almost all the driver support of Vista 32bit. While this means that some of your older devices wont work, you should have much less hassles with Vista than XP. In terms of versioning, I recommend premium, however you'd need to look into the added feature list to determine if it's worth it or not (to me, it's not worth it at all).
In terms of issues that may occur due to specific processors? I agree with stimms that while there may be slight differences, it's not something you'd encounter in VS development. However my experience in that arena is by no means extensive.
If you look for a not-too-expensive dev machine, AMD should be better.
AMD 780G/790G mainboard has on-board integrated VGA, out-perform most nvidia/intel video integrated mainboard at a reasonable price. AMD Phenom CPU's performance is not as good as those of Intel. But considering you can get a AMD 3-core CPU at the price that Intel offers you only 2-core, it's a good deal.
Intel's CPU has great overclock potential. However as a developer, I suppose you like a solid-as-a-rock machine and not like to take risk geting a blue death screen while compiling your code.
Hardware virtualization is important if you like to paly with X64 virutal machine for testing. Most modern AMD CPUs have hardware virtualization feature built in, while Intel cut this feature from its low-end CPUs.
Get 4 gigs rams minimum equal that you need a system that can handle more than 3 gigs (so 64bits OS). Rams is cheap and IDE with all others software (debugging, testing, database client, etc) will require you some rams if you want something fast.
For the cpu, you can get a Quad Core for less than 190$, with a board that can handle it (about 125$) you have a strong start. You do not need to have the latest video card...
A lot of already build PC can be nice for you under your budget (under 720$). See this example:
Vista Home Premium 64-bit
320 gig hard drive
3 gig rams
GeForce 7100 graphics
22" Acer LCD included
Core 2 Duo E4700