![]() I think I'll pass, thank you :)Įxactly, Darwin - those "memory optimizers" are written for people who obsess about free memory, without realizing how futile this is. I tested CachemanXP some months ago, just because I used Cacheman extensively in the past to tweak Windows 98 settings, and I didn't found anything that led me to fork money for it, it was much less useful than the normal Cacheman, yet it was payware. I'd say that there's no need to fiddle with anything, including the cache. The only point you'll want to have as much free RAM as possible is after a cold start, because more free RAM -> less programs loaded at startup -> faster startup! :D You need more RAM? OK, Windows will swap some data to the pagefile, and you'll get that extra RAM you need. ![]() Besides, Windows XP handles the swapping quite better than Win9x. I've found that once you stop worrying about the amount of RAM that is free it becomes a non-issue so that the RAM optimizer simply isn't necesary.Įxactly. This is my experience: there's a significant placebo effect with RAM optimizers. The "old me" would be fretting about the fact that I only booted my computer an hour ago and have only Outlook and Maxthon open, so where'd my 800MB of memory go?! The "new me" couldn't care less.Īs tinman notes, YMMV. I've just checked and I've got 1.2GB free. Every couple of weeks it would occur to me to check at a point when all was well but when I had a lot of processes running and I'd be surprised to find that I might have only 35MB free! Now that I have 2GB RAM on my current - though now elderly - notebook, I never even think about it. I noticed that if I turned off the memory optimizer (and thus had no visual cue in my taskbar about the amount free) and disciplined myself NOT to keep invoking task manager to check my RAM, that my machine ran just fine. However, even when I only ran 512MB of RAM on a Win2k notebook (RAM was maxed at this point), I discovered that it ran just fine when I didn't obsess about the amount of RAM that was free on it. ![]() Having said this, there are times when it may be justifiable to use these software solutions and that's when you're dealing with bios limitations that won't allow you to install anymore RAM. I still have CachemanXP installed on my system but only to use it to tweak my cache - I have the memory recovery disabled because I don't want it going near my RAM. All things being equal, if you can expand your RAM, that's the best solution. I gave up on memory optimizers as well (and I purchased at least two dedicated optimizers, along with CachemanXP). Maybe if you're a heavy multitasker, with lots of demanding applications running in the background (like desktop search) it makes some difference, but I'm a man of a single desktop ) The priority is only useful in certain scenarios, I'll tell you I played with priorities in my old machine, and didn't see any improvement at all. I'm confused, you prefer swapping to more memory? With the current price of memory?!! :o Vista’s ReadyBoost benefits on your Windows XP machine with eBoostr Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices to view the full web page, click HERE.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |