What is the best Windows Vista Optimization program?

Does anyone know? like something that alocates ram properly, USES ALL 4 gigs of ram. and cleans up the files appropriatly, is easy to use, and does all the other standard fatures.

"USES ALL 4 gigs of ram" For 32-bit windows this would be the sure sign of some fakery. As you may see, SP1 may have Vista reporting 4GB but the real fix (add some headaches) is 64 bit windows.

The reason this is so is deeply entrenched in the hardware design of Intel based PCs that run 32 bit Windows. Again, if someone claims they fixed it, they are a quack.
Bob

We have posts in the forums of total OS loss due to IO* software plus memory cleaners are often the road to low performance as they unload items that will be used again soon.

But SPEEDFAN is a notable good thing.
Bob

In fact very well. Frankly I'd hate you use this PC without them.

RAM memories leak, literally as you read this the electrons that make up your data are falling out of it. That's why they call it leakage. To some degree all RAMs are "refreshed", some optimizers simply do a better job then others.

Iolo is an extensive program with over 150 tools in it some of these can totally obliterate a hard drive, in fact that's what there supposed to do, erase the drive. So if you don't, read the directions, follow the directions or understand the directions then you might erase your hard drive. I have no need for the drive scrubber so I leave it alone, besides a very large hammer will do the job just as well but like this software a very large hammer can be harmful. Should we protect everyone from hammers Bob?

Our one year agreement is nearly up with this program. We will be renewing again this year. This will be our third year with Iolo. My wife agrees and understands the importance of the software to the betterment of our PC. Seeing is believing.

Unfortunately there is little negative about Iolo or there products till one finds out where it's from. I use this software because it gets the job done. Find an optimizer that does as well and for the same price with "USA" stamped on the box and I might use it. Iobit is made by the Italians, BTW and so is SpeedFan.

put the RAM optimizer on your Vista laptop and iobit as well. I have Wincleaner set at 15 minute intervals and "auto load on startup". We use Iobit before each of us log off the PC. We do both the defrag and optimization. The first time you do it will take awhile as it has to regroups the data for optimization, after that it takes maybe 10 minutes or less. There easy to take off just remove them in "programs a features". Some versions of these are better then others,...these are betas. Don't take my word for it, try it yourself. Your PC wont melt. Kaboom! Got ya......

"RAM memories leak, literally as you read this the electrons that make up your data are falling out of it. That's why they call it leakage. To some degree all RAMs are "refreshed", some optimizers simply do a better job then others.
"

The phrase memory leak refers to a situation where a program requests a certain amount of memory but does not free it upon completing its task/terminating, resulting it it not becoming available for other tasks even though its not being used for any meaningful purpose. It has absolutely nothing to do with "electrons that make up your data are falling out of it." Even if that were accurate, which it isn't, no program can prevent the loss of electrons from RAM, a CPU, etc.

What 'RAM optimizer' tools do is perform garbage collection and attempt to determine which program are most likely to access which data in the near future, then move as much data from RAM to virtual memory as possible based on the lowest likelihood of future access, effectively attempting to do a better job at memory management than Windows. This can be beneficial, but it can also cause running programs to respond more slowly if the memory optimizer moves data to disk that is then queued to be accessed. That's why reviews and opinions of such programs are so mixed.

If it seems to work for you, great, but you should look into what actions its actually performing.

John

And that is my argument...there are no dots that connect the two.

Do capacitors tend to leak? Yes. Does 'memory optimization software' resolve that physical problem, preventing the loss of electrons? No!

First, read The Memory Optimization Hoax, published in Windows IT Pro, then follow up with the following:


"Windows will always try to find some use for all of RAM ? even a trivial one. If nothing else it will retain code of programs in RAM after they exit, in case they are needed again. Anything left over will be used to cache further files ? just in case they are needed. But these uses will be dropped instantly should some other use come along. Thus there should rarely be any significant amount of RAM ?free?. That term is a misnomer ? it ought to be ?RAM for which Windows can currently find no possible use?. The adage is: ?Free RAM is wasted RAM?. Programs that purport to ?manage? or ?free up? RAM are pandering to a delusion that only such ?Free? RAM is available for fresh uses. That is not true, and these programs often result in reduced performance and may result in run-away growth of the page file." (Microsoft MVP James Eshelman, Consultant/Support Analyst)

------------------------------

"How does it work?

RAM-Recovery functionality is already included in Windows. You may ask yourself why there are so many programs that offer this feature. There is no magic behind this function. Inactive or crashed programs are simply moved from your physical memory (RAM) to a space on your Hard Drive called the Paging File (=Swap File).

If Windows does recover RAM already, why bother?

As an example imagine a computer with 1024 MBytes of RAM. After booting up you have 700 MBytes free RAM left. You launch several larger applications, work with them and free RAM goes constantly down. After hours there is only 50 MBytes of free memory left. Then you start loading a data file that needs 80 MBytes of RAM. Now the Windows RAM recovery feature becomes active, programs that have not been used for a longer time are moved out to the Paging File in order to make room for 80 MBytes of data. This process consumes both CPU time and causes disk activity - it creates a slow down. Preferably you would like to work with the data immediately, not wait until Windows makes room for it. Instead your cursor becomes a hourglass and you have to wait.

What does CachemanXP differently?

CachemanXP will not wait with the recovery until your system runs completely out of RAM. You can configure at which state (below value) CachemanXP should perform the recovery process. The postpone recovery on high system activity option ensures that no recovery happens if you are working on an important task and do not want to be disturbed. CachemanXP will wait until the job is done and perform the recovery thereafter. Since the recovery happens earlier as usual your system will have enough RAM available a much longer time.

How does this CachemanXP feature differ from RAM-Recovery in other programs?

Almost all RAM-Recovery programs do more harm than good.

It makes no sense to recover memory from programs if there is still free RAM available. You computer memory SHOULD be used to the maximum extend.

Other Ram-Utilities recover very frequently (constant disk activity). Too much data gets moved to the Paging File (so when the user switches programs there are major slow downs) and often the recovery is executed at a time when the user does something important and CPU consuming, slowing down all system operations." (Outer Technologies Inc.)

------------------------------

In fact, why don't you e-mail technical support, as a current customer, and ask them how their memory optimizer works? I'd suggest stating up front that you believe in their software but are simply curious as to how it does the amazing things it does. (Note: I'm not looking to debate whether such software is beneficial or not, as there is no clear answer to that one...it helps some, it does nothing for some, and it hurts some. However, I do want to address the issue of how such software works/claims to work.) I'll bet dollars to cents that they state it works be defragmenting the memory and/or moving data from RAM to the paging file, not once claiming it controls the flow of electrons.

John

so everyone better stay tuned. 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?

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.)

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 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.

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.

BTW, John that software your talking about is a RAM optimizer.

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."

Note that:
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.

John

No letters cited.

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6138_102-0.html?forumID=31&threadID=289695&messageID=2789288&tag=forums06;search-results#2789288

This thread untracked.

People are people, sometimes things are not as they appear.