If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:45:31 GMT, Ron Martell
wrote: "Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)" wrote: So what you are saying is that I am not freeing up memory when I defrag and free up the memory? Funny how after I defrag and/or scrub my memory, but it and my Taskbar clock TclockEx report the same amount of RAM. So it must work. You have totally misunderstood the basic concepts of memory management in Windows. Free memory is more appropriately described as *useless* memory because that is what it actually represents - memory for which Windows has so far been totally unable to find any potentially beneficial use for. *************** Frequently Asked Questions Here we answer some frequently asked questions from MemTurbo users. If you don't see the answer to your question here, please take a look at the more comprehensive online version of the FAQ. What does MemTurbo do? MemTurbo manages system memory, the paging file, and the way in which virtual memory is treated in order to maximize performance. It recovers RAM not currently needed by the operating system and applications, and recovers memory leaked by applications. It also can temporarily flush unused DLLs and libraries out to disk to make room for your big applications and games (these come back transparently when needed). And when they are needed it takes up to 1,000 times longer for Windows to reload these items from the hard drive than it would to access them if they had remained in RAM. That is the price of useless////free memory - slows things down tremendously. On Windows9X, it also adjusts the system caching in order to better target the way you use your particular machine. This can improve disk performance, gaming performance, and can prevent buffer under-runs that interfere with, for example, burning CDs. That is pure balderdash, with a touch of hogwash and a bit of malarkey thrown in. Note that they do not provide any timed benchmark reports to substantiate their claims. The windows disk cache requires no tweaks, except on systems with more than 512 mb of RAM, and that tweak is a one time entry that takes perhaps 15 seconds to do. I'm not a Technical person... save the geek-speak and just tell me how to use it effectively! Sure! Let it start from your Startup group so that it is running at all times. After exiting a memory-hungry program or before launching a new one, press the hotkey (CTRL-ALT-M) to recover and defragment your RAM. In a matter of seconds your system should have that "just booted" feel! RAM fragmentation is another snake-oil myth. RAM is always fragmented, because Windows puts things where it wants to and there is no way to control or prevent this. So plain old defragging is useless and another bit of bloatware ? Furthermore RAM fragmentation has zero repeat zero impact on performance under any circumstances. All addresses in RAM are equally accessible within the RAM chip access time, and there is no difference in the time required to switch from an address at the beginning of RAM to one at the upper end compared to that required to switch between two adjacent addresses. None. Zero. How do I stop a RAM recovery in progress? When a RAM recovery is in progress, as indicated by the on-screen status display, just press escape. If a background recovery (triggered by your timer or a memory alarm level) is running, clicking on the MemTurbo tray icon will abort the recovery. MemTurbo should be permanently and totally aborted. :-) Sometimes my system seems slower after recovering RAM... why? If you have your "Target" level of RAM to recover set too high, MemTurbo may reclaim memory from the file cache, or flush system DLLs (such as the shell and OLE) out of memory. When you flip to an application that needs these, they must be paged back in. Try setting your Target level to a lower level. Note that for games that do not use much of the operating system, a higher Target level is better, since more memory will be available to the game. Remember that too much free RAM is as good as RAM in your desk drawer: nice to own but unused! A good compromise takes a while to discover, but that's why we give you the control to adjust it! There is no need to compromise. Period. Just let Windows handle the memory management and forget about these snake-oil products. Can MemTurbo make my system unstable? No. If anything, because it increases the amount of memory available to applications, your system should become more stable. It installs no VxDs or drivers and does not modify your system files in any way. It will make your system slower in use, and that is enough to condemn it to the dust bin. And available RAM has zero repeat zero effect on overall stability. Does MemTurbo compress memory? Absolutely not; there is no performance-robbing compression at all. It simply causes what physical RAM you have to be used in a more efficient manner, and allows you to reclaim that memory from applications and the operating system when you need it most. More effecient? Slowing down the computer is more efficient? Why does MemTurbo not always recover up to the Target setting? Because if you set the target too high, you've set an impossible goal! MemTurbo will recover as much RAM as possible, and can usually get up to your target level (though the higher the level, the more work MemTurbo must do, and hence the longer it will take). Note that on Windows NT, the kernel manages the memory in such a way that as soon as memory is recovered, it is used by waiting applications and the operating system, so the displayed value may never equal the target level. It's still doing its job, though, even if not apparent! The target should be to get rid of MemTurbo. Why can "Program X" seemingly recover more RAM than MemTurbo? MemTurbo tries to be pragmatic about its memory recovery. It doesn't just arbitrarily toss things out of memory to meet your goal if that means dumping code and data you really should keep in memory, like parts of the kernel and so forth. While it would be possible to recover more memory at times (and early betas of MemTurbo did so), it proved detrimental to performance, so we strove to keep the heuristics on how to recover more conservative. Why do I get "Low Virtual Memory" pop-ups under Windows NT? Your page file size is too small for proper performance. Take the system's advice, and increase your paging file size in your system properties. Especially because MemTurbo is forcing the system to move a lot of stuff unnecessarily to the page file so as to increase the supply of *useless* RAM. So what you're saying is that if all my RAM is used up I can run MSWorks 7.0 ? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but such is not the case. Can MemTurbo really recover memory leaks? While it cannot recover them from the address space (the application would fault if it did indeed try to use that memory at some point) it can recover the physical RAM leaked, making it available for use by the operating system and other applications. All it does is force active memory content out to the page file, thereby slowing the system down because that memory content needs to be paged back in again when it is needed. What if it isn't needed? Or if free RAM is "ueless" then is not also a waste of money and space to have RAM chips installed in the first place? After all if you have no free memory, that is tantamount to no memory and thus just let the Swap file handle the memory. But that will not work as the system needs RAM in addition to the Swap file. What is the Memory Load Index? This is a statistic provided by the system that serves as a general measurement of how much demand for RAM there currently is in your system, with 0 being very little and 100 being very much. If you find your system pegged to 100% shortly after startup, you should seriously consider adding more physical memory to your system (even MemTurbo won't be enough by itself in this case). Can MemTurbo improve gaming performance? Yes. Let's say you start a game, and part way in, it suddenly demands memory for graphics, etc. Without MemTurbo, your system would visibly pause as other applications and parts of the operating system were page-faulted out to make room. If you "Defragment and Recover" before starting the game, MemTurbo should make a noticeable improvement. How does MemTurbo prevent buffer underruns while burning CDs? In the Windows9X registered version only, it adjusts the system file caching to ensure that enough cache is set aside so that the data you are burning to a CD is available, rather than having to fight with the CD on the I/O bus for the next block of data. *************** For a system that is bloatware and a resource hog, from what I gather XP is moreso than 98/98SE, why isn't such a good thing? Because MemTurbo is based on a totally false premise regarding the value of *useless* RAM. Also why does XP require a faster processor and more RAM than 98/98SE ? At best, unless I upgrade my MOBO, I can only get WindowsME. Because it is a bigger operating system with improved capabilities over Windows Me. It is based on the Windows NT kernel rather than the Windows 9x kernel used in Windows 95/98/Me, and the NT based versions of Windows have always been larger and more demanding than the 9x based versions. Windows XP is designed to use the higher speed CPUs, larger memory modules, and larger hard drives that were generally available in 2001, and many of the features and functions included in Windows XP require this higher performance and increased capacity. My first copy of Norton Utilities would fit on a single 360K 5.25 inch diskette. Today it requries several hundred megabytes of space on a CDROM. It is called evolution, and we are still only half-way through inventing the PC. You'll have to do better than mentioning that such a piece of software is bad. That's like saying fire is bad. It is bad if uncontrolled, it is also required in some cases as in a forest fire to release the seeds from the pine cones. Without fire, there would be many a cold meal. Fire has many redeeming features. MemTurbo has none. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada Sorry, but I'm still not convinced as I have not seen any conclusive proof one way or the other. All system environments are different more than likely, so what may be true for one individual may not be true for another. Having a Compaq it has a certain thinking as to the way it wants to behave, luckily having flashed the BIOS removed that thinking, it also removed the capablity to use my Quick restore CD, at least the drivers are available. -- Sincerely, | (©) (©) | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ Andrew H. Carter | /// \\\ d(-_-)b | |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
That's correct. You are only wasting RAM when you are running utilities
that prevent Windows from using it. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (DTS) "Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)" wrote in message ... snip But I often, depending on my operations, get down to 1MB (actually a directory comparison the other day brought it down to 60KB). So the RAM isn't wasted, rather money well spent. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:24:35 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
wrote: That's correct. You are only wasting RAM when you are running utilities that prevent Windows from using it. RAM isn't my problem, it is system resources which when I close some proggies it's as though I haven't closed it for the percentage remains the same. So I'm thinking some TSRs are at play. When I booted my computer earlier todayI had System Resources at 86%, now they are at 67%, no matter what I do, I won't be able to get back down or up to 86% +/- until I reboot. Sure I may gain some back, but still! -- Sincerely, | (©) (©) | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ Andrew H. Carter | /// \\\ d(-_-)b | |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
I rarely had resources in excess of 50% when I was running W98 and my
computer worked fine. A low level of resources only becomes a problem when you approach 0% or run out of them. You cannot increase resources--they are fixed chunks (64 kb) of memory. What point are you trying to make? -- Regards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo "Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:24:35 +1000, "Jeff Richards" wrote: That's correct. You are only wasting RAM when you are running utilities that prevent Windows from using it. RAM isn't my problem, it is system resources which when I close some proggies it's as though I haven't closed it for the percentage remains the same. So I'm thinking some TSRs are at play. When I booted my computer earlier todayI had System Resources at 86%, now they are at 67%, no matter what I do, I won't be able to get back down or up to 86% +/- until I reboot. Sure I may gain some back, but still! -- Sincerely, | (©) (©) | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ Andrew H. Carter | /// \\\ d(-_-)b | |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
"Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)"
wrote: RAM fragmentation is another snake-oil myth. RAM is always fragmented, because Windows puts things where it wants to and there is no way to control or prevent this. So plain old defragging is useless and another bit of bloatware ? Defragging of a disk drive is not useless, no. And I never said it was. But RAM defragging is totally useless, and companies that promote this are merely proving oncd again that they have zero understanding of how RAM works or how Windows manages it. snip Especially because MemTurbo is forcing the system to move a lot of stuff unnecessarily to the page file so as to increase the supply of *useless* RAM. So what you're saying is that if all my RAM is used up I can run MSWorks 7.0 ? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but such is not the case. There is, or should be, absolutely no reason why you cannot run MS Works 7.0 (or any other installed application) even if the unused RAM is at or near zero when you launch the application. What exactly happens when you try to do this? Is there some sort of an error message produced? The only circumstance where I can imagine this happening is if MemTurbo (or some other miguided piece of crudware) has placed a maximum size limit on the virtual memory swap file. That will produce "out of memory" problems and is always a bad idea in Windows 95/98/Me. All it does is force active memory content out to the page file, thereby slowing the system down because that memory content needs to be paged back in again when it is needed. What if it isn't needed? Or if free RAM is "ueless" then is not also a waste of money and space to have RAM chips installed in the first place? After all if you have no free memory, that is tantamount to no memory and thus just let the Swap file handle the memory. But that will not work as the system needs RAM in addition to the Swap file. Having RAM in excess of what can be used by Windows is a waste, and some people do so. I see systems quite regularly where the user has 512 mb of RAM with Windows 98 and, because of the number and type of applications that they use, they would not suffer any loss in performance if they reduced the RAM to 256 mb and there would not be much of hit if they dropped back to 128 mb. Same thing with Windows XP, only bigger numbers. Some people are going for 4 gb of RAM on Windows XP systems for home use, usually on the concept that "if some is good then more is better" and they get no improvement in performance over what they would have with only 1 gb of RAM or perhaps even with only 512 mb. If the total memory load placed on the computer were known and predictable then you could configure with exactly that much RAM and performance would still be optimal. But memory requirements are dynamic, and users are not 100% consistent in the programs and data files that they use. Free memory is not tantamount to no memory. Just try booting a computer with no RAM installed. :-). The basic fact is that Windows will always attempt to find some use, anything whatever that might potentially be of some benefit, rather than just leaving the RAM sitting there idly going to rot and doing absolutely no good for anybody. And just as soon as some better use comes along for some of that RAM then Windows will instantaneously drop the more trivial usages so as to free up whatever is now required. So Windows will at times create a huge disk cache, using as much as 80% of the installed RAM if there are no other requirements for that RAM. It will also retain in RAM the program code from recently closed applications, in anticipation of that application being launched again in the near future. What MemTurbo and similar products due is to create a fake need for large amounts of RAM, forcing Windows to reduce the disk cache and/or to drop recently closed programs from RAM to meet this new RAM requirement. Then MemTurbo cancels the RAM request, resulting in a quantity of unused RAM; and also slower performance because of the smaller disk cache and especially slower startup times should a recently closed application be launched again. Here is an experiment you can try. Boot up the computer. Launch a large application program such as Microsoft Word and time how long it takes to open. Then close it and launch it again. Time the second startup as well - it should be very significantly faster. Now launch MemTurbo and have it free up as much RAM as it possibly can. Now launch Microsoft Word again. This time it will take as long, or almost as long, as it did the first time. That is a brief demonstration of how MemTurbo hurts the overall performance of a computer. snip Sorry, but I'm still not convinced as I have not seen any conclusive proof one way or the other. All system environments are different more than likely, so what may be true for one individual may not be true for another. Having a Compaq it has a certain thinking as to the way it wants to behave, luckily having flashed the BIOS removed that thinking, it also removed the capablity to use my Quick restore CD, at least the drivers are available. It is your right to not be convinced. I could be a bit facetious and suggest that you might also find a membership in the flat earth society appealing as well, but I will save that for another time and place, like over a cold beer or two. :-) Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:44:11 -0500, "Ron Badour"
wrote: I rarely had resources in excess of 50% when I was running W98 and my computer worked fine. A low level of resources only becomes a problem when you approach 0% or run out of them. You cannot increase resources--they are fixed chunks (64 kb) of memory. What point are you trying to make? The more resources one has, the "faster" the comp will run, so is there a way to defrag the system resources. BUt apparently there isn't. -- Sincerely, | (©) (©) | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ Andrew H. Carter | /// \\\ d(-_-)b | |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:04:14 GMT, Ron Martell
wrote: "Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)" wrote: RAM fragmentation is another snake-oil myth. RAM is always fragmented, because Windows puts things where it wants to and there is no way to control or prevent this. So plain old defragging is useless and another bit of bloatware ? Defragging of a disk drive is not useless, no. And I never said it was. But RAM defragging is totally useless, and companies that promote this are merely proving oncd again that they have zero understanding of how RAM works or how Windows manages it. snip Especially because MemTurbo is forcing the system to move a lot of stuff unnecessarily to the page file so as to increase the supply of *useless* RAM. So what you're saying is that if all my RAM is used up I can run MSWorks 7.0 ? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but such is not the case. There is, or should be, absolutely no reason why you cannot run MS Works 7.0 (or any other installed application) even if the unused RAM is at or near zero when you launch the application. What exactly happens when you try to do this? Is there some sort of an error message produced? The only circumstance where I can imagine this happening is if MemTurbo (or some other miguided piece of crudware) has placed a maximum size limit on the virtual memory swap file. That will produce "out of memory" problems and is always a bad idea in Windows 95/98/Me. As to recreating, it may take a while, but I suppose I could max out all resources and RAM, then try to recreate it. I let Windows manage the swap and in System Properties Performance File System Troubleshooting, all the boxes are unchecked. Running Tasks: Kernel32.dll MSGSRV32.EXE Spool32.exe Mprexe.exe Avgserv9.exe MMTASK.TSK Explorer.exe Taskmon.exe Systray.exe Type32.exe Em_exec.exe Memturbo.exe Wmiexe.exe Ddhelp.exe Avgcc32.exe Smc.exe Rnaapp.exe Tapisrv.exe Agent.exe Editpad.exe Cliptray.exe Msinfo32.exe Startup: MemTurbo Startup Group TClockEx Registry (Per-User Run) ScanRegistry Registry (Machine Run) TaskMonitor Registry (Machine Run) SystemTray Registry (Machine Run) IntelliType Registry (Machine Run) EM_EXEC Registry (Machine Run) LoadPowerProfile Registry (Machine Run) AVG_CC Registry (Machine Run) TimeSink Ad Client Registry (Machine Run) **TimeSink: This is part of my WHOIS app. I could disable it, but is on my low end of snooping concerns. The proggie will function without it, but the interface is bland without it, I'm peculiar that way. Tweak UI Registry (Machine Run) LoadPowerProfile Registry (Machine Service) Avgserv9.exe Registry (Machine Service) All it does is force active memory content out to the page file, thereby slowing the system down because that memory content needs to be paged back in again when it is needed. What if it isn't needed? Or if free RAM is "ueless" then is not also a waste of money and space to have RAM chips installed in the first place? After all if you have no free memory, that is tantamount to no memory and thus just let the Swap file handle the memory. But that will not work as the system needs RAM in addition to the Swap file. Having RAM in excess of what can be used by Windows is a waste, and some people do so. I see systems quite regularly where the user has 512 mb of RAM with Windows 98 and, because of the number and type of applications that they use, they would not suffer any loss in performance if they reduced the RAM to 256 mb and there would not be much of hit if they dropped back to 128 mb. Same thing with Windows XP, only bigger numbers. Some people are going for 4 gb of RAM on Windows XP systems for home use, usually on the concept that "if some is good then more is better" and they get no improvement in performance over what they would have with only 1 gb of RAM or perhaps even with only 512 mb. If the total memory load placed on the computer were known and predictable then you could configure with exactly that much RAM and performance would still be optimal. But memory requirements are dynamic, and users are not 100% consistent in the programs and data files that they use. Free memory is not tantamount to no memory. Just try booting a computer with no RAM installed. :-). The basic fact is that Windows will always attempt to find some use, anything whatever that might potentially be of some benefit, rather than just leaving the RAM sitting there idly going to rot and doing absolutely no good for anybody. And just as soon as some better use comes along for some of that RAM then Windows will instantaneously drop the more trivial usages so as to free up whatever is now required. So Windows will at times create a huge disk cache, using as much as 80% of the installed RAM if there are no other requirements for that RAM. It will also retain in RAM the program code from recently closed applications, in anticipation of that application being launched again in the near future. What MemTurbo and similar products due is to create a fake need for large amounts of RAM, forcing Windows to reduce the disk cache and/or to drop recently closed programs from RAM to meet this new RAM requirement. Then MemTurbo cancels the RAM request, resulting in a quantity of unused RAM; and also slower performance because of the smaller disk cache and especially slower startup times should a recently closed application be launched again. Here is an experiment you can try. Boot up the computer. Launch a large application program such as Microsoft Word and time how long it takes to open. Then close it and launch it again. Time the second startup as well - it should be very significantly faster. Now launch MemTurbo and have it free up as much RAM as it possibly can. Now launch Microsoft Word again. This time it will take as long, or almost as long, as it did the first time. That is a brief demonstration of how MemTurbo hurts the overall performance of a computer. I'll try that. But I use MemTurbo in Manual mode meaning that I control when to defrag, having it run automatically does slow things down as I have almost nil use of the PC until it is done (manual or automatic) snip Sorry, but I'm still not convinced as I have not seen any conclusive proof one way or the other. All system environments are different more than likely, so what may be true for one individual may not be true for another. Having a Compaq it has a certain thinking as to the way it wants to behave, luckily having flashed the BIOS removed that thinking, it also removed the capablity to use my Quick restore CD, at least the drivers are available. It is your right to not be convinced. I could be a bit facetious and suggest that you might also find a membership in the flat earth society appealing as well, but I will save that for another time and place, like over a cold beer or two. :-) Sounds good. Domestic or Imported? German or Egyptian? Funny, one thinks of Germany being the capital of beer and the source of it, but the Egyptians were the first makers of beer, though such was by accident. Their hard bread, still having yeast would be dipped in water to soften it, the bread would leave behind small amounts of yeast and flour, all the ingredients for the "lifeblood" of the male human. -- Sincerely, | (©) (©) | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ Andrew H. Carter | /// \\\ d(-_-)b | |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
"Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)"
wrote in message ... snip The more resources one has, the "faster" the comp will run, You cannot increase the amount of resources, so perhaps you are referring to free resources. That's simply not so. The computer runs at exactly the same speed regardless of the level of resource usage, until the level gets so low that applications cannot claim the resources they need. If a program you are trying to start has a large claim on resources then this may start to occur when the level has got down to below about 10%. Apart from the possibility that this might happen, preventing you from running a program, the amount of free resources has no effect on the system at all. so is there a way to defrag the system resources. There is no such thing as fragmentation as far as resources are concerned, and therefore no need to defrag resources. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (DTS) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
If Works requires a private copy of a DLL, and if MemTurbo is able to unload
the default copy of the DLL before Works 7 is started, then it would appear that 'freeing' RAM enables Works 7 to run. This appearance would be reinforced by the fact that, in the above scenario, running Works 7 immediately after startup would also work (because the default DLL never got loaded). This is, of course, an error in the installation of Works and has nothing to do with freeing or defragging RAM. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (DTS) "Ron Martell" wrote in message ... "Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)" wrote: RAM fragmentation is another snake-oil myth. RAM is always fragmented, because Windows puts things where it wants to and there is no way to control or prevent this. So plain old defragging is useless and another bit of bloatware ? Defragging of a disk drive is not useless, no. And I never said it was. But RAM defragging is totally useless, and companies that promote this are merely proving oncd again that they have zero understanding of how RAM works or how Windows manages it. snip Especially because MemTurbo is forcing the system to move a lot of stuff unnecessarily to the page file so as to increase the supply of *useless* RAM. So what you're saying is that if all my RAM is used up I can run MSWorks 7.0 ? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but such is not the case. There is, or should be, absolutely no reason why you cannot run MS Works 7.0 (or any other installed application) even if the unused RAM is at or near zero when you launch the application. What exactly happens when you try to do this? Is there some sort of an error message produced? The only circumstance where I can imagine this happening is if MemTurbo (or some other miguided piece of crudware) has placed a maximum size limit on the virtual memory swap file. That will produce "out of memory" problems and is always a bad idea in Windows 95/98/Me. All it does is force active memory content out to the page file, thereby slowing the system down because that memory content needs to be paged back in again when it is needed. What if it isn't needed? Or if free RAM is "ueless" then is not also a waste of money and space to have RAM chips installed in the first place? After all if you have no free memory, that is tantamount to no memory and thus just let the Swap file handle the memory. But that will not work as the system needs RAM in addition to the Swap file. Having RAM in excess of what can be used by Windows is a waste, and some people do so. I see systems quite regularly where the user has 512 mb of RAM with Windows 98 and, because of the number and type of applications that they use, they would not suffer any loss in performance if they reduced the RAM to 256 mb and there would not be much of hit if they dropped back to 128 mb. Same thing with Windows XP, only bigger numbers. Some people are going for 4 gb of RAM on Windows XP systems for home use, usually on the concept that "if some is good then more is better" and they get no improvement in performance over what they would have with only 1 gb of RAM or perhaps even with only 512 mb. If the total memory load placed on the computer were known and predictable then you could configure with exactly that much RAM and performance would still be optimal. But memory requirements are dynamic, and users are not 100% consistent in the programs and data files that they use. Free memory is not tantamount to no memory. Just try booting a computer with no RAM installed. :-). The basic fact is that Windows will always attempt to find some use, anything whatever that might potentially be of some benefit, rather than just leaving the RAM sitting there idly going to rot and doing absolutely no good for anybody. And just as soon as some better use comes along for some of that RAM then Windows will instantaneously drop the more trivial usages so as to free up whatever is now required. So Windows will at times create a huge disk cache, using as much as 80% of the installed RAM if there are no other requirements for that RAM. It will also retain in RAM the program code from recently closed applications, in anticipation of that application being launched again in the near future. What MemTurbo and similar products due is to create a fake need for large amounts of RAM, forcing Windows to reduce the disk cache and/or to drop recently closed programs from RAM to meet this new RAM requirement. Then MemTurbo cancels the RAM request, resulting in a quantity of unused RAM; and also slower performance because of the smaller disk cache and especially slower startup times should a recently closed application be launched again. Here is an experiment you can try. Boot up the computer. Launch a large application program such as Microsoft Word and time how long it takes to open. Then close it and launch it again. Time the second startup as well - it should be very significantly faster. Now launch MemTurbo and have it free up as much RAM as it possibly can. Now launch Microsoft Word again. This time it will take as long, or almost as long, as it did the first time. That is a brief demonstration of how MemTurbo hurts the overall performance of a computer. snip Sorry, but I'm still not convinced as I have not seen any conclusive proof one way or the other. All system environments are different more than likely, so what may be true for one individual may not be true for another. Having a Compaq it has a certain thinking as to the way it wants to behave, luckily having flashed the BIOS removed that thinking, it also removed the capablity to use my Quick restore CD, at least the drivers are available. It is your right to not be convinced. I could be a bit facetious and suggest that you might also find a membership in the flat earth society appealing as well, but I will save that for another time and place, like over a cold beer or two. :-) Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
RAM
It was pool league last night hence the late response. I agree with what
Jeff said--it makes no difference at all until you approach zero (annoying notices) and once you get to zero. Defrag resources? It is only a 64 kb chunk of memory so just how fragmented could it get? And since memory works so blazingly fast, I think there is no speeding it up at least from a fragmentation standpoint. If you cut back on the needless programs started at boot, the system will *boot* a lot faster and you will have more resources available to start with which might preclude running out later in a computing session. -- Regards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo "Andrew H. Carter (Applied ROT 17 Left, for Email do 17 Right)" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:44:11 -0500, "Ron Badour" wrote: I rarely had resources in excess of 50% when I was running W98 and my computer worked fine. A low level of resources only becomes a problem when you approach 0% or run out of them. You cannot increase resources--they are fixed chunks (64 kb) of memory. What point are you trying to make? The more resources one has, the "faster" the comp will run, so is there a way to defrag the system resources. BUt apparently there isn't. -- Sincerely, | (©) (©) | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ Andrew H. Carter | /// \\\ d(-_-)b | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|