Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Rambooster. Junk?
majoMO:
CleanMem is an EXCELLENT application indeed.
I appreciate to use applications that give value added to the Windows'user.
Thus, I have pleasure to use JkDefrag instead Windows defrag; ZSoft Uninstaller/MyUninstaller vs Add/remove; Eusing Windows Washer/CleanAfterMe vs Windows DiskcleanUp; MS Word vs WordPad; MV RegClean/Eusing Registry Cleaner vs MS OneCare Safety Scanner; Process Lasso/Process Tamer vs Windows responsiveness. And so on...
To clarify is needed:
1. EmptyWorkingSet Function isn't SetProcessWorkingSetSize Function!
2. "Empty.exe" (Microsoft tool) isn't "Clearmem.exe" (MS tool also)! Their actions are not the same!
There aren't needed to mix dissimilar conceptions. There aren't needed to distract with differents issues. To do that is to try to avoid a faithful analyze to forget the true, the reality and a meritorious tool made by a developer.
I agree with Shane'statement:
When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
This is what CleanMem does exactly! (and "empty.exe"... like it's easy to analyze...).
P.S.: Worse than real Windows Myths are... the Myths created by "experts" guys with the Windows Anti-Myths...
Steven Avery:
Hi Folks,
For the rest of your post... the maximum memory saving you got was 100kb? Waaauw. Even if you had 20 processes that were trimmed like that, you'd save a whopping 2MB of memory.-f0dder
--- End quote ---
Which is quite a bit on my current 1MB system (twice the total memory !) and will be quite a bit on any XP sytem, where the max usable for programs is about 3.5 MB. Why you think 2MB is twiddles is a real puzzle, I think you have too much emotionally invested in your view.
Add to that that you risk paging out a crapload to the pagefile (SLOW!), -f0dder
--- End quote ---
However there was no slowdown of any note, since it happened in a few seconds when the system was crisp and I was thinking (if anything went to the pagefile, which I doubt very much, although I will leave the final analysis to more exact tech) ... and the real slowdowns ... when XP would do the load to the pagefile in a moment of crisis and angst after my mouse-click or key-click .. have been basically reduced -- or eliminated. This is my simple experience to date, and I am quite aware of how my system responds. I am painfully aware of what happens to XP when it is allowed to get close to a lockup and it goes pagefile-crazy. The point of Cleanmem is that it seems to do an awful lot to avoid that crises every even occurring.
Anybody who wants to see how dumb Windows XP is in crises mode .. you need to watch the pagefile adjustments when XP gets panicky. They make no sense, increases and decreases galore (I saw that with MJ Registry Watcher, which reports pagefile changes). That is the root of the problem , Windows XP's vaunted memory management is not preemptive and it is dog-dumb (apologies to dog-lovers) in trying to pull out of situations. That is why you sometimes end up hearing little clicks after waiting a few minutes, you are not sure if the system is still alive, and you reboot. Sorry, XP defenders, for XP to get that place simply because of a little memory-desire from some programs means that it still a bit of a kludge-memory-operating system (apparently it is not even first doing the .Net - CleanMem type of basics even then) even thought it is fantabulous compared to 95, 98 etc. Folks who know memory management on good mini-computers may appreciate my point here .. how difficult it has been to ever, ever bomb out a System 36, or an AS/400 etc, even if you load up 500 programs. Linux and Unix and the various Apple and other folks can speak for those operating systems, I simply dunno.
For fun, I closed FF, saving tabs, then re-launched it, and waited for the youtube video I had open to buffer fully. The result is the following screenshot... ~210MB saved. Have I made my point yet? -f0dder
--- End quote ---
Not really, since I probably have 5-10 programs that I will have to do that with .. sporadically .. to make the same type of difference, while watching the whole kaboodle to see who is ill-behaved today.
And it simply is nobodies style to stop work and close and restart Firefox, close and restart Eudora, close and restart Opera, close and restart Xinorbis, close and restart the AV program, etc. That is why most of us resort to a reboot in the pre-XP-memory-crises situations (once the crises occurs often the only reboot is turning off and on the power) .. unless we are using CleanMem, where we can far more likely avoid the crises altogether. The key issue is the preemptive action to avoid the crises and so far it seems that this is accomplished quite well with CleanMem. Nobody really cares if in the middle of a casual second Firefox goes down and most of the way back up. It gains some -- with no pain. The key issue is avoiding the huge pain of the XP crises state. (I do not think the critics understand this -- perhaps it is too simple for the ultra-techie.)
To be clear, I think that CleanMem is helping response time some in general, but the key issue is avoiding the crises. "In general" I could close and open, etc. but the crises is a super-drag. I also may find a CleanMem unnecessary, or much less important, when I max out the memory on this puter in the next day or two. However that is then, this is now.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Darwin:
Steven - 100kb would be rather insignificant even on a 512MB system - how much RAM does your system have? I’m running 2GB on my XP systems and 4GB on my Vista machine. Even my 9 year old Win2k system has 512MB RAM and my 8 year old Mac has 640MB...
ewemoa:
MB != GB?
f0dder:
1. EmptyWorkingSet Function isn't SetProcessWorkingSetSize Function!-majoMO
--- End quote ---
Show me proof? :)
2. "Empty.exe" (Microsoft tool) isn't "Clearmem.exe" (MS tool also)! Their actions are not the same!-majoMO
--- End quote ---
I don't know those two tools, but if one works by "allocate insane amounts of memory" (lame) and the other does SetProcessWorkingSetSize(p,-1,-1) on all processes (better, but misguided) - sure.
P.S.: Worse than real Windows Myths are... the Myths created by "experts" guys with the Windows Anti-Myths...-majoMO
--- End quote ---
Myths are bad, no matter who propagates them. I digged into the issue and have shown my findings... if you'd rather believe fairytales, your problem.
Which is quite a bit on my current 1MB system (twice the total memory !) and will be quite a bit on any XP sytem, where the max usable for programs is about 3.5 MB. Why you think 2MB is twiddles is a real puzzle, I think you have too much emotionally invested in your view.-Steven Avery
--- End quote ---
So, you're comparing the results of running a memory trimmer on a regular x86 box to memory constraints on a smartphone? Come on, be serious.
As for the rest of that paragraph, huh? If you get into a situation where you need a hardboot, something is wrong. Even the dreaded "pagefile too small" dialog box (which simply means you've tweaked pagefile settings and done it wrong) will go away eventually (but granted, I've seen it take almost 20 seconds on a box where I though I knew what I was doing, back then). No need for a hardboot.
I ran win2k with 160mb (and then 256mb) of RAM, and WinXP with 256meg and then 512meg, before moving to gigabyte and beyond. Power user kind of stuff, development tools and games. And never ever have those "ram freeing" programs done anything sensible. That goes for both the lame "alloc-huge-memory" as well as "force memorytrim".
Btw, you won't go into one of the "uh oh" situations from a normal application requesting 100kb or less of memory. If it happens, it's going to be on a system with extremely litte memory trying to run an application/game that wants to make a huge memory allocation... none of the memory cleaners are going to guard you against that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version