Now that I know I won't be shifting to another timezone again anytime soon I can finally get back to this one.
"The RAM is refreshed. Data in the RAM is replaced, removed and new data is put back in. This is because the RAM memory chips leak data. If it weren't, over time you would have none, nada, 0. You did listen to that video didn't you?"
-> Yes, and no argument there.
"About "page files", from your link. Read from, "Only those parts"..... too, ....."in a swap file". Under, "What are page faults". According to your link "no" page files are held in RAM. Think "virtual memory", still running back on the hard drive. (but this is part of what the defragmentation programs does.)"
-> Sorry, but I don't see where you're going with that.
"I wouldn't be so certain that Windows is not doing some form of RAM optimization somewhere because it has to be done. My guess would be in "services". Ever wonder what those services are? Why are they set apart from the rest of the OS or not simply integrated into it? Certainly there specialized utilities and applications. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Wonder where they get there ideas from maybe places like....download.com? "
-> I know memory management is being performed, but it's not something that users can customize and I seriously doubt download.com has any influence there.
"I have very little problem with this program due to slow downs or hangs in fact just the opposite that why I installed to begin with because it wasn't being handled well within Windows. I have two situations where the program slows the flow of activity. Every 15 minutes the RAM is "optimized", at this time there is a minor lag, a hesitation really and periodically I manually "refresh" it if the OS is under extreme demand. That lag is about 1/2 second, faster then you can say "1001", most of the time I don't even notice it, as if it weren't there at all. I'm willing to have a momentary lag for optimum performance the remainder of the time.
Like I said when I use extremely demanding programs, very graphic intensive programs mostly then I might feel a need to manually run the optimizer. This happens seldom. The remainder of the time it runs at top speed. Those infrequent manual "refreshes" take a about 10 seconds but without the software I'd be running slow for hours instead of seconds."
-> That is indeed a common report. However, just as many have had it lag for a minute or two while it's running and actually reduce performance thereafter. It all depends on how much memory you have, how much is being used, how much the application is 'freeing,' and what tasks are performed (before, during, and after). That's why there is no clear-cut 'should I use this?' answer. Each person's experience is different due to those factors.
"I'm not promoting this software brand but for the reasons mentioned I continue to use this software. If I find a better one I'll move on. This just happens to be the best one I've found too date. The software I used with XP and ME does not function well with Vista so I changed brands. In no way am I affiliated with this software other then that I use it."
-> I never thought otherwise.
"BTW, John that software your talking about is a RAM optimizer. "
-> Yes, and that software happens to be what you're using. Even you referred to it as RAM optimization software in this post, and most prominently this post. And I quote, "The RAM optimizers I've suggested work well."
Unfortunately you didn't address my point at all in your above post. I wanted you to connect the dots between the fact that DRAM needs refreshing and your claim that the software you use works by addressing this situation. I also suggested that you contact the support departments of the companies that make the products you recommended and ask how they work. I assume you have not, but I did take the liberty and it seems the president of IObit and an engineer from Iolo believe their products work as I describe, not as you said. (Those from WinCleaner never responded.) Specifically, Hugo ****, President of IObit, stated that:
1.) Their software works by conducting the operations of garbage collection, defragmentation, and memory dumping, the three processes I described.
2.) They never claimed the software has any effect on electron loss or improves memory refreshing.
3.) He is interested in learning where this misinformation is coming from.
4.) "We do not encourage Vista users use any memory optimizers as no RAM optimizer can take over the complicated one in Vista."
Finally, if I may quote from page seven of Intel's documentation (link):
"Cycling through row addresses is the only requirement needed to refresh a DRAM device. Using the example in Figure 2, 9 bits of address are needed. Nine bits represent 512 unique addresses, and the only requirement is that each unique address be regenerated every 8 ms (maximum refresh rate for most devices with 512 rows). An 8 ms refresh interval divided by 512 addresses results in an average refresh cycle rate of 15.625 microseconds. Therefore, every 15.625 microseconds a mechanism must exist that will access the DRAM device, each time presenting a new row address. Any rate faster than 15.625 microseconds is acceptable, but significantly faster times have the potential of decreasing memory performance."
1.) That process is automatically performed by the memory controller...you don't have to tell it to do so.
2.) It occurs every 8 (or fewer) milliseconds...I doubt that you can click the mouse fast enough to have an effect. In fact, even if you manually told it to be refreshed, and it took 1/2 a second, it would have already gone through the refresh process 62.5 times. And you claim to have manually caused it to occur once in that half-second?
3.) If you believe it increases this rate through some tweak, first note that such is unnecessary and then read the last clause, where it states performance can actually be reduced as a result.
Now, as I suggested last week, you may wish to contact the makers of the software you use/recommend and find out how, exactly, they really work. If you're still convinced I'm wrong feel free to come back, but bring some evidence that those applications work by preventing electron loss and not just garbage collection, defragmentation, and memory dumping, the three processes I described. Proof that DRAM must be refreshed doesn't prove a thing about the applications you use.