Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: Those RAM-FREE utilities totally suck !!!

Your Message

If you are already a member Click here to log in

What is 10 and 5 added together?

 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

Subscription

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • February 3rd, 2002, 04:43 PM
    samwichse
    To put the purpose (in my mind) in a nutshell:

    You use a RAM freeing program to return your computer to a state like you just restarted it without taking so much time.

    Sure, it makes things slow so it has to access the disk right after. It does the same thing when you restart, but then after you restart and the right things get loaded up things seem to run a little smoother. Only problem is after a while, it starts getting choked with data in the windows 9X series, then you either reboot or click the little button on your RAM booster.

    I like cacheman. It does all that and you can tweak all your memory settings nicely in 9X and enable "conservative swap file usage" without registry hacks.

    Sam
  • February 3rd, 2002, 01:32 PM
    Richard Cranium
    So Imperion, you're saying we've been HAD ?

    Run in circles just to see the reaction, OOOoooKaayy I'll bookmark this in the memory bank.
  • February 3rd, 2002, 12:56 PM
    Imperion1
    The same thing was posted over at the Other Site. You guys just gave him the long version of what I told him. And his replies were still identical.
    And I have 512mb in my main rig, using that free memory script that was posted mid-last year. Works great, especially when using Photoshop and printing pics.
  • February 3rd, 2002, 12:28 PM
    NDC
    freakishhair

    Actually, yes, I felt the same way about performance with all the jazz & glitters of Windows Xp Pro while multi-tasking. However, with some minor tweaking with some registry and OS peformance settings, I have gotten XP to the point where I can't tell a significant difference in multi-tasking or uni-tasking. On a uni-processor system, I couldn't really tell you since I do all my work on my duallie system. Believe it or not, I cannot tell a difference in system performance with all the jazz & glitters vs. classic style and I'm quite picky about how my system performs. I think this makes most difference on systems with lower specs. However, any system running 1Ghz and above with a fairly decent video card and at least 384MB memory, the difference is nearly undetaectable with or without all the glitters... One thing I can tell you for sure is that Win2k does run more responsively on a uni-processor or multi-processor system in my honest opinion. However, with some of the features in XP vs. Win2k, I can sacrafice the marginal peformance. Please post some XP optimizations if you have any! I'm all ears!

    BTW - Having the Memory Usage set to System Cache shows a great improvement under multi-tasking environments... Give it a shot and you'll see...


    OuTpaTienT

    You'd me amazed how powerful Image ready can be. The best part is that if you're familiar with Photoshop, you'll get the hang of Image Ready in no time since the GUI is almost identical.
  • February 3rd, 2002, 07:41 AM
    OuTpaTienT
    Thanks for the advice NDC...Next time I'm working on an animation maybe I'll give your methods a try.

    Oh, and I may as well 'fess up since it's only blatently obvious. My confession today: I've never even opened the Image Ready application that sits here right beside Photoshop.

    Why haven't I? Well,...I dunno. 8^/ But I will now.
  • February 3rd, 2002, 07:24 AM
    freakishhair
    NDC, one question for you, I am a professional designer myself.. but I would like to know, why in heck do you have all the glitter features turned on in XP.. I saw in your screen shot.. if you turned them off you would run amazingly faster..
  • February 3rd, 2002, 04:50 AM
    Kurylo
    O.K., O.K.
    As I understood, you don't use those utilities to make RAM itself free, you just clear the unindexed (forgotten) data, which OS'es at the Win9x core may produce due to its crappiness.
    Am I right?
  • February 3rd, 2002, 01:27 AM
    ScottW
    I've tried several. The only one that seems to work for me thus far is MemBoost. I have 512MB in my main machine right now (registered ECC, very stable), but it does help to monitor and to reclaim wasted junk space that programs don't properly free up.
  • February 3rd, 2002, 01:01 AM
    NDC
    OuTpaTienT

    But I'm not even sure how I'd go about making each frame of an animation on it's own layer within a single image. What if you need to use an additional few layers to achieve a desired effect...an additional few layers for each layer you already have and geeez, I'd be swimming in layers. How do you keep it organized?
    Well, what I do is, I use Adobe Image Ready 3.0 to make the layers to animated GIF. I'm assuming you're using something different? You can click on the "eye" in Image Ready to determine what layer(s) will be visible for each and every frame.



    And here is how the finished product would look:




    As for how to keep organized and not get confused among all the layer, always label your layer and put a color on the label so that you can group them. Makes working with layer much easier.

    Like this:




    I'm not a professional like you NDC. I really don't know what I'm doing, all I know is I can usually find a way to do whatever it is I'm trying to do.
    Gimme a break! You're no less pro then I am! I've seen your work on your homepage. You do excellent work, Out! And as for how you do your work, the key is finding the way to get it done. It doesnt matter what mehods or steps you take it getting it done. There are so many ways to get the work done using Photoshop. You tell 10 people to make something that's the same and they will all be done differently, yet producing the same results. That's all that counts!


    Kurylo

    And, TechIMO users, it's a healthy disscussion.
    NDC, don't think something bad. It's not any type of an attack I wrote about you. I just simply gave an example.
    And I thank you very much for it! I don't think we need to attack other users in ways that may offend them. That only causes problems...
  • February 2nd, 2002, 11:50 PM
    CMonster
    Do the search on memory leaks - such a thing really exists, we are not just talking about memory used to cache programs.

    While the use of these programs may be dubious in WinNT/2000/XP they can benifit Win 9x kernel users.

    Most of us here do actually understand that memory is used to cache recently used programs and data (at least a good OS should) -you are preaching to the choir in that regard. Of course Windows is supposed to release it when needed - but memory management (particularly in 9x) does not always seem to be working as it should. In the case of program memory leaks the Win9x kernel is not capable of returning the memory -In this case a good memory tool can indeed help postpone a crash.

    I forget exactly what I was using in Win9x, maybe "Maxmem" or something on that order, but anyway I had this little photo editing program that I really liked but it leaked memory like crazy - after 20-30 minutes of edit-undo-edit-undo my machine would lockup tight, requiring a hard reboot and loosing all my work. I increased the amount of RAM from 128MB to 256 and the program would run about twice as long and then the same lockup behavior would start; fed-up, I installed a free memory app (pretty sure it was maxmem) and viola! -no more lockups. If I turned the mem program off guess what started happening again?

    Finally, I got smart and installed Linux and 512MB of memory.

    Here is a sample of memory use in Linux:

  • February 2nd, 2002, 06:14 PM
    Kurylo
    And, TechIMO users, it's a healthy disscussion.
    NDC, don't think something bad. It's not any type of an attack I wrote about you. I just simply gave an example.
    And wanted to read TechIMO opinion.
    If you use those progs - plz go ahead!
    Sorry, if something wrong...
  • February 2nd, 2002, 06:06 PM
    Kurylo
    Under the intellectual cleaning I understand the mechanism, which do not delete anything what it sees, but depending on the frequency the data is used, last time accessed, data size etc.
    Personally I run WinXP.
  • February 2nd, 2002, 06:02 PM
    Tomteriffic
    Just as an aside, one of the reasons that Photoshop is such a memory killer is that it saves its undo buffer to RAM. Just FYI
  • February 2nd, 2002, 06:00 PM
    OuTpaTienT
    LOL. That's funny Kurylo! Do you even know what you just said?

    When another app wanna more RAM, the OS automatically and intellectually frees up its cache as much as this app want
    I just wanna know, what OS are you using? Because you are NOT describing Windows...and you are sure as hell not describing Windows'98/98SE/ME.
  • February 2nd, 2002, 05:54 PM
    OuTpaTienT
    Alright NDC, you're gonna make me show my ignorance here... whenever I work with layers they are all usually partially transparent and when meshed together make up my final picture.

    But I'm not even sure how I'd go about making each frame of an animation on it's own layer within a single image. What if you need to use an additional few layers to achieve a desired effect...an additional few layers for each layer you already have and geeez, I'd be swimming in layers. How do you keep it organized?

    I just did most of what I wanted to do by recording actions and then playing them back on the other frames.

    I'm not a professional like you NDC. I really don't know what I'm doing, all I know is I can usually find a way to do whatever it is I'm trying to do. Maybe not the "correct" way, but hey, I'll do it the correct way when I start getting paid for it. (or somebody teaches me.)
  • February 2nd, 2002, 05:35 PM
    Kurylo
    Maybe, not clearly understood. So, here it is:
    1. OS uses free RAM as a a) HDD cache and b) stored a data that was already used.
    2. Actually it allows to accelerate apps which user have used more than one time when loading them and working with them, because it reads much data from the RAM, not HDD (note, that RAM speeds are ~300-2000MBpS, and HDD's - ~10-50MBpS).
    3. When another app wanna more RAM, the OS automatically and intellectually frees up its cache as much as this app want.

    What do those optimizers do?
    1. They free this cache which results on a slower work, because if you'll open any app one more time, the OS will be thrown to work with slow HDD, not fast RAM, when this data should be stored as long as it needed.
    2. You'll have xxxMB of FREE, actually non-used RAM. So whuy did you buy this RAM if it stays unused?

    FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE:
    1. Once, I've used one of those so-called RAM-boosters (Win98SE). And what? After the cleaning process, when I clicked on a folder to open it, my it took much longer time to open this folder. It's like you start Win98, and click on My Computer icon, and OS begin to load from the HDD all the apps and DLLs to RAM which are needed to perform such operation. After the RAM cleaning, all this data went to hell, and my dear system should load all this data again.
    2. When I run MS Word XP, it takes a second to open this app, but when I open it one more time (after closing, for example), the window appears almost at once. The boost is more than visible. And again, if I'll use one of those RAM-boosters, OS should load from the HDD all the data again, which results in lower speeds.
    3. Free RAM means a non-used RAM. It's free! It's not used in any way! It don't hold any data! So why to buy a memory which you don't use? Let another people use it more efficient than you, leaving it like an empty bottle, without any use!
  • February 2nd, 2002, 03:12 PM
    CMonster
    Kurylo
    FYI, Win98/ME/95 does a poor job of "returning" unused RAM to the system.

    After opening AND closing a bunch of windows, the RAM will slowly go away.

    I use MemBoost set at 64mb on this system with 384mb system RAM.

    Even with this much I find my system low on memory without using a RAM optimization utility.

    And BTW, most of them are free
    Well said.

    I might add that many applications are poorly written and "leak" memory -this is especially detrimental to a system that is running a Win9x OS.

    Anyone with doubts about this ought to try "memory leaks" in a decent search engine.
  • February 2nd, 2002, 03:05 PM
    NDC
    Hey, Out. Why do you have each frame on a seperate Window? Wouldn't be easier to have all the layers in one window? Or is there a reason behind this...
  • February 2nd, 2002, 02:56 PM
    OuTpaTienT
    Just because some of your ram is not in use at any one particular moment, certainly doesn't mean that you don't use it at other times.

    Heck, just yesterday I was using Photoshop & a few other apps simultaineously to make this tiny little animated button:

    and as you can see here that easily ate up well over half of my 512MB...just for a little tiny web button!
  • February 2nd, 2002, 02:29 PM
    Richard Cranium
    Kurylo
    FYI, Win98/ME/95 does a poor job of "returning" unused RAM to the system.

    After opening AND closing a bunch of windows, the RAM will slowly go away.

    I use MemBoost set at 64mb on this system with 384mb system RAM.

    Even with this much I find my system low on memory without using a RAM optimization utility.

    And BTW, most of them are free

    www.zdnet.com/downloads

    DrVette
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright 2014 All Enthusiast, Inc