Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Rambooster. Junk?
cmpm:
Quote from: f0dder
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.
Steven-
Which is quite a bit on my current 1MB system (twice the total memory !)
--- End quote ---
Yeah I think the bees are not buzzing quite right here.
I'm guessing a 1gb system, trimming 100mb/100,000kb.
Not sure though.
Steven Avery:
Hi Folks,
My sincere apologies for being tired and confusing the numbers before.
If I gain 200,000 KB -- 20,000 KB on ten programs average -- that is 2 GB. I was very tired earlier. Why f0dder thinks the cleaning reduction is only 2 MB is my question. That is only 2,000 KB, a trivial amount. Even the smaller programs, a dozen or two of them, likely have reductions more than that individually. When I have a little time, I will shut off CleanMem for hand action only (out of the scheduler) and do a before-and-after.
Normally I am reasonably sharp, I was just very tired and not thinking at the time.
As for the rest of that paragraph, huh? If you get into a situation where you need a hardboot, something is wrong. -f0dder
--- End quote ---
Yes, XP memory management is wrong, it is grossly deficient when you are running a dozen or two programs and it has 1 GB to work with, the OS using about 1/2. That is what is wrong. Especially if some programs are like Eudora and Firefox.
This occurs on any system. You probably avoid it by watching memory and closing programs and such. I've seen it on puter after puter. XP will choke very easily, even to forcing a hard boot. (slow, slow, click..boot).
In most usage, since nothing is lost in a hard boot, nobody really cares. Everything recovers. The problem is that in the 30 minutes leading up to the big problems the system is running a lot slower. A lot of times of course you could open and close instead, or reboot yourself. The problem is that you are simply trying to look at one more email, or one more web-page or enter one more note. You don't want to get diverted with being a system operator.
Now I wasn't getting a lot of cold, forced reboots, maybe once a week or two, but the slowdown mentality comes all the time.
Now much less, or not at all, when I have the immediately available RAM that CleanMem gives, combined with ProcessTamer to help with priorities. Thus the system is now preemptively prevented from choking on CPU or memory. It is not perfect, but very good. It should be a lot better when I expand to 5Gb, with the 3.5-4 usable.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
f0dder:
Yes, XP memory management is grossly deficient when you are running a dozen or two programs and it has a 1 GB to work with. That is what is wrong.
This occurs on any system. You probably avoid it by watchiong memory and closing programs and such. I've seen it on puter after puter. XP will choke very easily, forcing a hard boot.
--- End quote ---
I used to run 32bit XP with a gig of memory, page file disabled, and no problems whatsoever. Including several weeks of uptime (this was before I had a linux server to do various tasks), and running both games and heavy stuff like visual studio.
Sounds like your system is seriously messed up :)
Steven Avery:
Hi Folks,
Sounds like your system is seriously messed up :)-f0dder
--- End quote ---
Actually it is quite good, significantly better with CleanMem, most significantly better after a reboot, especially one where I restart (clear) the Firefox tabs ... Every system is different. I'm sure others could tell you how .. under heavy usage .. their system slows and, if not addressed preemptively, tends, after a few hours or a day or more, towards a click and stop and lockup. The fact that you had a particular installation or two with heavy usage and specific software means next to nothing. I have another system at work with 2 Gigabyte and a faster processor and without Eudora and with less loaded and it is generally much lighter and faster. Absolutely no need for CleanMem there. I have another XP system that is older and less memory and was more of a problem. There are always a huge number of variables.
Why don't you take a single processor CPU with 1 Gigabyte and download a few thousand emails from Eudora (which works its mail through an Inbox that is in memory) and open a few dozen Firefox tabs and a few other browsers and have a couple of dozen programs open and then report back. If on your system you have a well-behaved game or graphics or web-dev program .. what difference does it make ?
You seem to live in a fantasy world where every system is more like my work system, XP is working fine under little stress, no pagefile back and forth, churning, like I described above. You refuse to understand that a marginal memory usage system can use a preemptive cleaning out to avoid the pagefile churning that is the Windows XP rattle. That preemptive efforts slow you down not at all, and greatly reduce the later difficulties.
When you work on a PC only a small pct of the time is really waiting for CPU response, the problem is that XP is set up so that it churns under memory stress, precisely when you are waiting, it does not prepare preemptively.
What surprises me in your approach is how you don't even address the timing issue. That for Windows XP to do "stuff" (and likely the wrong stuff) late .. after your keystroke creates a crises .. is doofus memory management. XP should be prepared for the next need with CPU and memory attuned and ready to go. This idea that you wait a long time while XP tries to clear out space is simply an operating system weakness. And one that CleanMem helps address.
=========================
There is an irony that you mention Visual Studio as the major memory-CPU part of your earlier system. I would assume that VS uses the .Net function that encouraged CleanMem that is largely ignored elsewhere. Thus keeping a light footprint.
And you say you disabled the Pagefile and ran with 1 Gigabyte. I am not sure how that works, I read a bit about that way of running and decided against it, I think I remember warnings that it would not work well if at all, perhaps you have different ideas to share. Clearly the moment you disable the pagefile you have a radically different system, making any comparison one of apples and kumquats.
Here is a sample discussion of the ins and outs. With a number of warnings about potential "out of memory" errors.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000422.html
Running XP with the pagefile disabled
Note specifically the point about a lot of memory released that does not go to the pagefile. From Ian Griffith beginning "I'm unconvinced by the points regarding the way Windows pages out applications that are idle.". It seems that this bears directly on the issues involved with CleanMem as well.
Shalom,
Steven
cmpm:
I'd like to run programs/apps without having to restart them for any reason. I shouldn't have to. XP's management does not work for every situation or computer.
But you have to restart firefox sometimes, with or without cleanmem or any other help.
Cleaning temp files periodically as well as clearing the cache helps with mem and cpu.
I don't know what all fodder is saying about the controls he speaks of. Nor do I understand how all this really works.
I have found that I can keep running my pentium 3 600mhz 3 sticks of 256 (max for this comp) with multiple programs in the background as well as Firefox in the tray longer and running smoother with CleanMem.
Plus opening other programs at the same time.
But mainly I have it cause I have minimize to tray and minimize to tray enhancer for Firefox which are valuable to me. Which before CleanMem, Firefox would run up to 150000 to 200000 in a short period of an hour or more with use and not drop down. With CleanMem it hovers around 50000 to 80000. With going up as used more-opening multiple tabs or watching videos, though not as drastic as before. And CleanMem knocks it back down. Without harm to my system. Less restarting Firefox, a lot less, though it still needs done at times.
It's the only memory program I would recommend at this time, if asked. And I've tried a few.
I don't believe it would be fair to call it a ram booster, cause it's not. More like a little extra management.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version