Author Topic: Rambooster. Junk? (Read 58,298 times)

cmpm · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2009, 09:40 PM »

Those who use cleanmem like it.
The rest of the story is already posted.

f0dder · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2009, 11:17 PM »

Quote from: cmpm on March 21, 2009, 09:40 PM

Those who use cleanmem like it.
The rest of the story is already posted.

And there's people who believe in the tooth fairy as well

The guy behind cleanmem is at least honest about what & how he does, and he does it the proper way - so I'm not going to label the app as snakeoil. However, it does nothing that Windows doesn't do itself, and imho it doesn't do it better.

If you're running applications the leak memory, you're much better off restarting them than using cleanmem, since restarting the leaked app will actually free up the used memory, and once restarted, the app will have non-fragmented heap memory.

Steven Avery · « **Reply #27 on:** March 22, 2009, 12:04 AM »

Hi Folks,

Quote from: f0dder

... Remarks: You can also use the SetProcessWorkingSetSize function to do what EmptyWorkingSet does if you pass it -1 for the minimum and maximum sizes.

And Shane's assertion, stated very clearly, is that he found from experience that the functions do not function identically.

http://www.download2me.com/forum/cleanmem-memory-cleaner-t107323p9.html
Shane

"I did try the SetProcessWorkingSetSize -1 trick when I first started playing around with cleanmem and my other programs, it did work but I noticed the pagefile would grow a little, so I dumped it. When I tested with emptyworkingset the page file didnt budge."

Notice that in post 87 in the thread (I'm going through the 13 pages, the ugliness of some of the posts reminds me of one reason I appreciate DonationCoder) -- Shane looks at SweepRam with the differences noted, including the function called.

As for restarting leaking apps, that is good advice either way. The question is whether CleanMem may be a good interim help on some systems. Especially if you have 3 or 5 leakies.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

f0dder · « **Reply #28 on:** March 22, 2009, 12:20 AM »

Steven Avery: sounds like bull (or incorrect testing) to me - I haven't done very intensive RE of the APIs, but both SetProcessWorkingSetSize and EmptyWorkingSet call NtSetInformationProcess() with the ProcessQuotaLimits class. SetProcessWorkingSetSize wraps it in RtlAcquirePrivilege()/RtlReleasePrivilege(), though. EmptyWorkingSet() calls GetSystemInfo() instead of setting the necessary structure 100% manually, so stuff could work slightly differently - I very much doubt that there's any substantial difference, though.

I might just end up doing some more intensive RE of the issue, since I like getting to the bottom of things. Under all circumstances, the two function calls do the same - trim the process working set size. And, again, Windows does this by itself as needed.

Anyway, a program like CleanMem might be a stopgap solution if you simply cannot restart a leaking application... but IMHO it's more likely to be a placebo for the people who feel it does them good.

cmpm · « **Reply #29 on:** March 22, 2009, 12:21 AM »

Yeah, fodder, and XP does it's job so well...

I don't know why you don't even try it.
If you haven't.
With your knowledge you could post some real figures.

f0dder · « **Reply #30 on:** March 22, 2009, 12:31 AM »

Quote from: cmpm on March 22, 2009, 12:21 AM

Yeah, fodder, and XP does it's job so well...

I don't know why you don't even try it.
If you haven't.
With your knowledge you could post some real figures.

I have 8GB of RAM in my workstation right now and run without pagefile, so I can't do any "testing" - what would you want me to post, anyway?

Sure thing, running a "memory optimizer" will show more free RAM - but it is a pretty pointless statistic. First, unused RAM is wasted RAM. Second, Windows does outpage/discard as necessary. Third, simply showing free ram graphs doesn't show the overheard of pagefile disk I/O. Fourth, it doesn't show the overhead a fragmented process heap causes.

So, sure thing, if you obsess over "free RAM" statistics you will feel perceived placebo value from tools like this. But the smart thing is restarting processes that leak, and not obsessing over "free" memory.

PS: I did toy with programs like this back in my less-than-a-gigabyte-memory days, and I even wrote my own "trimws" tool... so it's not like I don't have any experience with the subject.

cmpm · « **Reply #31 on:** March 22, 2009, 12:54 AM »

Ram being occupied without use is a waste also.

Which is the point of all this about CleanMem, I believe.

Steven Avery · « **Reply #32 on:** March 22, 2009, 12:56 AM »

Hi Folks,

Quote from: f0dder

sounds like bull (or incorrect testing) to me - I haven't done very intensive RE of the APIs ... stuff could work slightly differently - I very much doubt that there's any substantial difference ... I might just end up doing some more intensive RE of the issue, since I like getting to the bottom of things.

So it doesn't look like you are in a position to talk of 'bull' -- since Shane is so far the only one who specifically talks about comparing the effect of the two functions on the page file. It is always possible for a programmer to err, yet you acknowledge the functions are not operationally identical, a key point. So if Shane erred it would have to be demonstrated and would likely have been simply his own technical difficulty (e.g. "incorrect testing") nothing deceptive or shamistic. And so far we are not in any position to say he erred.

Later in the thread (maybe pg. 12) Shane considered the idea of giving the option of calling either of the two functions. That would help seeing whether there was in fact a practical difference. Although understandably .. in the environment of that thread .. I do not think he implemented the option. He may well do so if asked from a programmer really interested in checking, which could save some time.

Here is one simple thought, from a programmer .. not a PC or XP or low-level programmer, though.

Possible advantages -- unused RAM is not wasted -- since it is *immediately* available for usage. Where XP seems to trip up is that at the moment that you hit enter .. XP says .. oops, I need some RAM pronto .. do this, do that, do the other .. and your keystrokes are waiting. You go out for morning herb tea or Teccino or coffee. Perhaps with this background work the new action springs into play immediately, or quicker. More a timing and prep-chef type of thing.

From an esthetic point of view, I agree it is ugly to want to go in there and push around existing programs, especially since the operating system is, overall, well designed for memory management. (One reason I have a few megs ready to install into this puter.) On the thread referenced -- 'Bear' indicated that he felt his 'Magic Jack' program was not too happy with being pushed around, yet an exclusion list was added to the program so this is far from a dealbreaker. If only a couple of programs object.

On the other hand, consider the process tamer programs -- those are written precisely because the operating system has some lacks in how it handles priorities. (On the IBM mini-computers you rarely have to bother, background and batch tasks are automatically put much lower than interactive .. yet sometimes.. you do a smidgen.) With Process Tamer I specifically raised the priority of my bookmark programs for very similar reasons, how they seem to go to sleep on a new keystroke after a wait .. and a higher priority does something (perhaps makes XP reluctant to page out ?). Priority management in XP may be weaker than memory management, and more amenable to our adjustments, however what we are wondering is if there may be a careful memory tweak that helps some of the people some of the time. Since so much RAM stuff is counter-productive, and some is marketing sham of the 'registry cleaning' style, it is awkward if one or two programs actually do help and the techniques were found by little nobodies.

Shalom,
Steven

f0dder · « **Reply #33 on:** March 22, 2009, 08:17 AM »

Quote from: cmpm on March 22, 2009, 12:54 AM

Ram being occupied without use is a waste also.

Which is the point of all this about CleanMem, I believe.

A lot of people don't understand what goes into Windows (and other modern OS) memory management, though - all they see is a "free memory" figure, which they then obsess over. To be fair, it is a rather advanced subject, and the standard Windows task manager doesn't help the situation (calling commit-charge "PF usage" on XP, leading people to think they always have a lot of stuff paged out to disk, for instance).

Thing is, blindly trimming working sets just isn't a good idea. It doesn't really free up memory - it can discard 'clean' memory pages (basically limited to executable code from .exe and .dll files, which will have to be re-read from disk next time it's needed), and it can pageout 'dirty' memory pages to the pagefile (meaning costly write operation, and re-read from pagefile when needed again). When you trim a process, you will often see it's working set go low, only to shoot back up again after a few seconds.

Quote from: "Steven Avery"

So it doesn't look like you are in a position to talk of 'bull' -- since Shane is so far the only one who specifically talks about comparing the effect of the two functions on the page file. It is always possible for a programmer to err, yet you acknowledge the functions are not operationally identical, a key point. So if Shane erred it would have to be demonstrated and would likely have been simply his own technical difficulty (e.g. "incorrect testing") nothing deceptive or shamistic. And so far we are not in any position to say he erred.

I'm not saying Shane is deceptive or shamistic, and perhaps bull was too harsh a word to use. I still do find it unlikely that the two calls should have a different effect, though, since they both call the same low-level API. I acknowledge there's a risk I could be wrong, but I doubt it

Quote from: "Steven Avery"

Possible advantages -- unused RAM is not wasted -- since it is *immediately* available for usage. Where XP seems to trip up is that at the moment that you hit enter .. XP says .. oops, I need some RAM pronto .. do this, do that, do the other .. and your keystrokes are waiting. You go out for morning herb tea or Teccino or coffee. Perhaps with this background work the new action springs into play immediately, or quicker. More a timing and prep-chef type of thing.

The only time you will see noticable waiting time from a memory request is in the case where stuff has to be written out to the paging file. Yes, when memory is freed from one process it has to be zeroed out before being handed over to another process (security reasons), but I'd like to see a computer capable of running NT where you're able to measure the effect of this.

As for thread priorities, NT handles them quite well. The reason there's benefit from using things like process lasso/tamer (and there is, especially for single-core CPUs without hyperthreading) is simply that a lot of application developers don't bother setting their thread priorities. It's not like it's hard to set the priority of a long-running computation thread to "below normal", yet there's a lot of developers that don't bother.

Steven Avery · « **Reply #34 on:** March 26, 2009, 01:39 PM »

Hi Folks,

My own try is now very favorable. Some programs (like Firefox) do work their memory most of the way back up (maybe to 75% of where it was, so there is still a big reduction, 50K on my system is normal e.g. 225K down to 35K back up to 175K) but others like Eudora seem to really remain very happy after losing their 100K + bloat (which was created, likely, at the time of downloading a lot of mail .. email forums .. if you don't download as much, then this may apply less). Another that seemed to behave well after giving up its memory was an interesting program Xinorbis (apparently it uses the memory to figure out its disk tree scan, once it has the final results it forgets to release .. naughty .. 50K gain). Those were three programs that I watched fairly closely, later I plan to look at 5-10 more.

The theory that Windows XP would do the same has two problems.

1) Windows XP will only take such radical action at the moment of emergency .. when you are out of memory, or very low, and that is precisely when you are waiting for 10 seconds, or a minute, or more, for Windows to sort out how to make memory available, if it succeeds at all (this is where the occasional XP lockup occurs). XP does not do the necessary steps preemptively.

Also XP obviously defines that moment late in the day. You can be having a slower system from some extra paging before XP goes into action. XP clearly waits a long time before really taking radical action (such as increasing the size of the page file). And when it does that at times it plays hopscotch, as I saw with MJ Registry Watcher, going up and down too much. Better to be preemptive.

2) It is unclear whether Windows XP uses the most effective functions and algorithms and timing for this particular need even in its last-minute attempts. (e.g. Using the function CleanMem uses first before trying more difficult methods.) Empirically, I would say not, since we end up waiting a long time in the moments of memory shunting around.

Thus, as well as buying memory, I would say, so far, that CleanMem simply works.

And I know that brings forth tremendous negative response from those who dislike such external tinkerings (which historically include kludges and even counter-productive attempts) .. however I have to tell you what I have found. Sure I could accomplish the same with a reboot, simply closing programs is awkward at best. Thus CleanMem takes an intermediary spot in my system management. I prefer at this time to use it myself by hand (having dropped an icon into the Start menu, which is not given on installation, then when I run it I can see it in DTaskManager) -- I'm not even sure if it is working from my scheduler

. I should ask Shane to give a balloon notification option at least when the scheduler runs.

Perhaps folks got so used to comparing XP to the horrid earlier Windows memory management 3.1, 95, 98 etc. that it was given an aura of great excellence that was overstated. XP memory management is very good, agreed .. apparently we are discussing a weak point.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

f0dder · « **Reply #35 on:** March 26, 2009, 08:19 PM »

I've done a little more reverse-engineering, and:

1) it seems like the information retrieved with GetSystemInfo() in EmptyWorkingSet() isn't used at all - weird to make the call, then.

2) EmptyWorkingSet does an NtQueryInformationProcess() (which SetProcesWorkingSetSize() doesn't), and then sets QuotaLimits.MaximumWorkingSetSize and QuotaLimits.MinimumWorkingSetSize to -1 (the fields that SetProcesWorkingSetSize() sets).

3) as best as I can tell, the code in NtSetInformationProcess() that handles ProcessQuotaLimits does an early-out if both those fields are set to -1, and calls a kernel function to - you guessed it - trim the working set. There also seems to be checks to ignore structure members that are 0, so even if I'm mistaken about the early-out, the zero-ed out structure that SetProcesWorkingSetSize() uses should be equivalent to EmptyWorkingSet()'s "pass in the old values". I could be wrong, of course, and there's quite a bit of code going on... but it seems unlikely.

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. Add to that that you risk paging out a crapload to the pagefile (SLOW!), and at the very least you'll have discarded memory that must be re-loaded from unmodified files (slow, but at least faster than diskwrite + read).

And keep in mind that you can only trim the working set this way, it doesn't change the amount of memory the application actually hogs (sure, you might get that memory flushed to the pagefile, but as soon as the app starts using it again, it will re-enter the working set, along with a lovely disk I/O penalty).

For fun, I tried trimming firefox - too bad it hasn't been running an entire day and gobbling up 800 megabytes as it tends to end up doing

. The three screenshots are before trim, right after trim, and after looking through the 6 active tabs again (no scrolling, no loading of new pages, no pressing anything except activation each of the three tabs).

Now, if you look at all three pictures, you'll say "oh wow, my point is valid, see how working set remains small even after you start using it again!" - but check out the "available memory" column in the main window instead. Yep, we get a temporary increase of ~9MB, but as soon as I start using FF again, that turns into a ~7MB pessimization compared to before I ran the trim!

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? (Oh yeah, that also involved starting an extra process - xplorer^2, I think).

siouxdax · « **Reply #36 on:** March 26, 2009, 11:08 PM »

Okay, I'm not as tech-savvy as you guys, so bear with me here. What app, if any, should I use to clean up my RAM? Is it just something I should leave alone or do I need an app? CleanMem? Is that a good option? I need a little guidance here.

Paul Keith · « **Reply #37 on:** March 26, 2009, 11:19 PM »

siouxdax, I'm using RAMPage but I'm not saying that's the best. I just use it to monitor when it's time to cut off on tabs.

http://www.jfitz.com/software/RAMpage/

Also the article is very easy for newbies to understand.

f0dder · « **Reply #38 on:** March 26, 2009, 11:28 PM »

siouxdax: you shouldn't use any. If you have memory pigs like firefox (which even ff3 is, at least with the plugins I use), it's better to restart the offensive application every now and then, as needed.

siouxdax · « **Reply #39 on:** March 26, 2009, 11:34 PM »

Thanks, f0dder. Much appreciated!

majoMO · « **Reply #40 on:** March 27, 2009, 10:50 PM »

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** March 27, 2009, 11:29 PM »

Hi Folks,

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.

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.

Quote from: f0dder

Add to that that you risk paging out a crapload to the pagefile (SLOW!),

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.

Quote from: f0dder

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?

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 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 28, 2009, 12:16 AM »

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 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 28, 2009, 01:02 AM »

MB != GB?

f0dder · « **Reply #44 on:** March 28, 2009, 01:36 AM »

Quote from: "majoMO"

1. EmptyWorkingSet Function isn't SetProcessWorkingSetSize Function!

Show me proof?

Quote from: "majoMO"

2. "Empty.exe" (Microsoft tool) isn't "Clearmem.exe" (MS tool also)! Their actions are not the same!

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.

Quote from: "majoMO"

P.S.: Worse than real Windows Myths are... the Myths created by "experts" guys with the Windows Anti-Myths...

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.

Quote from: "Steven Avery"

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.

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.

cmpm · « **Reply #45 on:** March 28, 2009, 03:34 AM »

Quote

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 !)

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 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 28, 2009, 09:13 AM »

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.

Quote from: f0dder

As for the rest of that paragraph, huh? If you get into a situation where you need a hardboot, something is wrong.

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 · « **Reply #47 on:** March 28, 2009, 09:19 AM »

Quote

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.

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 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 28, 2009, 09:24 AM »

Hi Folks,

Quote from: f0dder

Sounds like your system is seriously messed up

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 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 28, 2009, 09:53 AM »

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.