Releasing RAM

[Bear Cub]

Any of you computer whizz kids know anything about this....

http://www.real.com/accessories/freemem/main.html?src=001113EL2E



------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

[BurningKeroNow]

Hmmm.

Releasing RAM is normally a function of the operating system. For example, Windows 3.1 and 3.11 were notorious for not releasing memory used by a DOS application running in a window and even doing a CTRL-ALT-DEL would not clear it - you really needed to do a cold boot.

However in this age of WIN2000 and WIn98 I would have thought that they would have the memory management under control. WHile this product could certainly have some benefit I really think it depends on what OS you are using and how big you 'think' the existing memory problems are.

For $20 I guess it is not a big risk but be clear about any effects it could have on your system before installing it.

Hope this helps.

BKN

[Bear Cub]

I'm using Windows ME and have 128Mb of RAM with a 750MHz Pentium III chip - but cannot honestly say it runs any faster than my old P200 with 64Mb of RAM....which is why I wondered about the promised performance increase of the product.

[PaulDeGearup]

Y'all need a little freeware prog called Rambooster. Try www.sci.fi/~borg/rambooster. (http://www.sci.fi/~borg/rambooster.)
Another one is CacheMan at www.outertech.com/english (http://www.outertech.com/english)
TaskInfo2000 will tell you what is using your resources www.iarsn.com (http://www.iarsn.com)

[Ausatco]

Thanks PaulDeGearup, I have been looking for some time for a prog That does what TaskInfo2000 does.

Best for 2001

AA

Edited to remove stuff that belongs to a different thread!!

[This message has been edited by Ausatco (edited 03 January 2001).]

[AquaPlane]

RAM Boosters and such software doesn't actually work that effectively, and will cause more problems than it fixes. They work by compressing data sent to the RAM and uncompressing it when it's requested. Obviously, this places a greater load on the system processor, and though you gain a perhaps 10-15% net increase in available memory, (you've used some of it for the RAM booster software remember), you've increased your processor load by 30-200%...!

You never get something for nothing, and right now real RAM is cheap.

For £35UKP you can buy a RAM booster software product, but for under £50UKP you can buy 128MB RAM. I know where my cash'd be going...!

Aq

[fobotcso]

And don't forget that if you're using DMA (Direct Memory Access) from your mass storage (HDD, CDROM etc)the CPU isn't involved in the data transfer anyway so the benefit of a software fix is even less.

Yes, I'd go for more RAM any day.

[Bear Cub]

Then educate me, please.

Numerous "outlets" that I've spoken to have all said (and I've read it mags.) that much more than around 64MB doesn't greatly increase the speeds of anything...I've already got 128MB and am told to go any further would be a total waste.

I'm open to education though.

------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

[fobotcso]

"It all depends." (I know how infuriating that is).

If all you are doing is writing letters in Word and working with spreadsheets in Excel then 64MB would probably be fine and 128 is certainly more than enough.

Win 95 actually slowed down with too much RAM, but the newer the software the more it will benefit from more RAM. And if you are into large graphics or movie editing/viewing then even 256MB isn't over the top.

Why else would the serious users have multiple processors and Gigabytes of RAM.

When RAM is working to capacity, excess data and even program code is swapped out to the virtual RAM on your hard disk. This is the Pagefile.sys or win386.swp file you will find in your root directory or the Windows directory. This file needs to be at least as big as your RAM so that a complete "RAM full" can be paged out to the HDD. Mostly we leave the size of this file to Windows. You should not try to economise on a HDD which is filling up with rubbish by fixing this file to too small a size.

I have 256MB of RAM because I do a lot of graphics. For you, 128MB is probably fine. If your PC is unacceptably slow, and the rest of the kit is up to scratch, the you are going to have to look elsewhere.

I hope you are running a modern suite of applications. Memory management is vested in the application software. I haven't tried it but I would imagine that Office 97 running on Windows 2000 might not live up to expectations.

For example, Old WordPerfect used to run well on DOS on an Amstrad 8086 with 8MB RAM and 20MB hard drive. When I upgraded to a 386 with 32MB RAM and a 300MB HD (remember when that was the cutting edge?) WordPerfect came to a grinding halt in DOS while I could run Windows 3.11 perfectly well.

Not surpising that we keep chasing our tails in IT!

You want to see how the big boys do it, check out this link:

http://www.top500.org

[This message has been edited by fobotcso (edited 05 January 2001).]

[AquaPlane]

I run 256MB RAM in my home PC (400MHz Pentium II) which helps me grind through big Lotus Notes apps. My 733MHz PIII workstation at the office runs 512MB RAM and Ultra LVD SCSI hard disk drives to grind through even larger Notes DB's. Both run Windows2000Pro and go very well. Having said that until I upgraded the PII-400 to W2kP it'd blow the Workstation away in just about every aspect of day to dat operations, apart from large file read/writes...! The benefits of a light(er) weight OS...!

Aq

[Diablo]

I am using rambooster as previously mentioned by PaulDeGearup, very easy to set up and unintrusive, DO read the read me files and DON't set the required ram too high, or it will never get there.

Freeware too.

[PaulDeGearup]

Rambooster simply checks your memory for info Windows has dumped there, which it may have wanted to use when you were running for example Word, but no longer need. It then frees up that memory quickly and unobtrusively. Give it a try, if you don't like it you can always uninstall it.