HOw u reduce memory in Firefox? [Archive]

Night_Raven

January 1st, 2011, 01:51 PM

Just because CleanMem isn't a typical memory cleaner/optimizer doesn't mean it's actually doing something worthwhile.
The explanation on CleanMem's website is actually quite vague as to what it actually does. Cleaning memory? What does that actually mean? Zeroing free pages from memory?
If the program indeed doesn't cause disk I/O, then it must be ejecting pages from each process' working set and putting those pages in the standby page list. From what I see on my system it is quite possibly exactly what it does. Windows does it too actually, just not so aggressively.

Whenever a process starts it touches all of its needed virtual memory which causes it it get loaded into the RAM and become its working set. With time Windows automatically trims this working set and ejects some of the pages. If a page has been modified during its stay in the RAM it gets moved to the modified page list. These pages contain data that has to be written back to the hard drive (either to a regular file or to the pagefile) before they can be moved to the standby page list. This isn't done all the time but only when the list grows beyond a certain point or if the zeroed and standby lists become too small.
If a page hasn't been modified then it gets moved directly to the standby page list. These pages are still associated with their respective processes but are not included in their working sets. They can be very qucikly re-assigned back to their processes but they could be given to another process, should the need arise. These pages are for all intents and purposes available memory.
With time pages from the standby page list get moved to the free page list which is considered officially free memory and will be used if a process needs more memory.
Again with time the zero page thread keeps zeroing the free pages and moving them to the zero page list.

Whenever a process demands more memory the memory manager checks the free and zeroed page lists first, and not the standby page list. The last contains pages that are still associated with their processes and could be recalled soon. However if the zero and free page lists are empty then the memory manager will begin giving away the standby pages starting with oldest oldest ones.

If there is some memory hungry process and the free, zero and standby lists are all empty Windows will begin flushing pages from the modified page list and even taking away pages from the working sets as a last resort. However even if there isn't such a process flushing of modified pages will still occur if they reach a certain number or if the zeroed pages drop below a certain threshold.
Because the memory manager goes to the standby page list first before trying to flush modified pages it would seem beneficial to have more standby pages at the ready which is what CleanMem does as I see, so if it just so happens that there is a sudden high demand for memory by some process then those additional standby pages would come in handy. However for Windows to have to give away standby pages the zeroed pages must be none which will trigger flushing of modified pages anyway which would result in disk I/O.
And even if forget about that, after a rather forceful working set trimming the process might not reclaim all of its pages as it might not need them at that exact moment. Still this doesn't mean it wouldn't need them in a very short while but if they had been moved to the standby page list and then given away to another process (zeroed first of course) then when the trimmed process decides to get its data back it won't find it and would have to issue a disk I/O.

Again: Windows also trims the working sets but not so aggresively.

In short: Windows is already trying to optimize its memory usage. It doesn't need additional optimizers for its own optimization. It's already designed for optimal performance. It has complete control over the physical memory and what gets put there. The actually bad memory leaks are the virtual memory leaks that occur in a process' private bytes. That's where Windows doesn't have control and if a memory leak occurs it could crash the program or even the system.

Interestingly enough, the author of CleanMem claims the real experts are the Windows programmers, yet he still feels the need to correct their work. Kind of ironic.

But if you really need such placebo programs to have your peace-of-mind, then use them. It's not like such tools are going away. Tons of people still clean the registry, use 3rd party defragmenters for their system drive under Windows Vista/7, clean the prefetch (XP), disable SuperFetch (Vista/7), etc. "Optimization" programs is here to stay because the masses are just too ready to believe they need them and need just a little nudge to start using them. It's sad really.

It's superstition versus logic, and we all know what wins in the end. :)

Robin A.

January 1st, 2011, 02:10 PM

-{ Quote: "... How can I reduce the memory consumptions of my Firefox browser, it v3.6.13. Sometimes memory print goes to 105,000k " }-

As long as it does not affect other programs running simultaneously, memory usage is totally irrelevant to me. I use Chrome 10, it is currently using about 400MB (16 processes), everything is ok.

ALookingInView

January 1st, 2011, 02:27 PM

-{ Quote: "..everything is ok." }-
This. Memory micromanagement in 2011 seems mental.

Bambo

January 1st, 2011, 04:41 PM

As long as program is stable and free who cares? In the world of optimization programs and forum tricks this is harmless :) I bet you can still find payware doing the "typical" memory cleaning - on popular download sites even.

But if 100mb usage for Firefox is alarming and must be dealt with it is time to read this http://lifehacker.com/5033518/debunking-common-windows-performance-tweaking-myths and this is on Lifehacker who does not hold back on tweaking tips. Recently they posted a complete nonsense article about just Firefox vs. speed/memory http://lifehacker.com/5687850/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-disk-required I see a Mozilla dude has corrected them, nice they post voice of common sense and stuff any idiot could have looked up! - no change to article though ;) Take small steps when seeing claims of boosting, tweaking and whatever sell tickets.

Baldrick

January 1st, 2011, 05:12 PM

-{ Quote: "Just because CleanMem isn't a typical memory cleaner/optimizer doesn't mean it's actually doing something worthwhile...It's superstition versus logic, and we all know what wins in the end. :)" }-
I think that you miss the point with CleanMem...it complements Windows rather than attempting to replace anything it does...and in my experience it does save or reclaim some RAM. Not a lot but every little helps as good as Windows & is it is not, and never will be, perfect. It is stable, unobtrusive and does IMHO help.

;D

Bambo

January 1st, 2011, 05:19 PM

No smoke without a fire ;) I seem to remember some who said anyone not loving and having full understanding for Superfetch on Vista anno 2006 were a moron. Why make Vista work like Xp??? Look it up on Technet dummy etc. etc. Somehow it just works so much better on Windows 7, heh. Now it has changed, is less aggressive, more intelligent, runs smoother, overall less hd thrashing - everyone is happy. I guess also the morons from 2006. Still called Superfetch but development take place all the time. Also be skeptical towards boring default settings and MS approved opinions.

GlobalForce

January 1st, 2011, 05:28 PM

Reducing memory usage (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Memory_Leak) and how to solve high memory and high cpu issues in Firefox (http://www.bukisa.com/articles/316732_how-to-solve-high-memory-and-high-cpu-issue-in-firefox) are two pages written for YOU - Sweater.

Night_Raven

January 1st, 2011, 10:25 PM

-{ Quote: "I think that you miss the point with CleanMem...it complements Windows rather than attempting to replace anything it does...and in my experience it does save or reclaim some RAM. Not a lot but every little helps as good as Windows & is it is not, and never will be, perfect. It is stable, unobtrusive and does IMHO help.

;D" }-
And I think you didn't understand how memory manager works. Let me repeat the conclusion: Windows is already trying to optimize its memory usage. It doesn't need additional optimizers for its own optimization. It's already designed for optimal performance.
In other words: Windows doesn't need anything complementing its memory manager.

Baldrick

January 2nd, 2011, 07:10 AM

-{ Quote: "And I think you didn't understand how memory manager works. Let me repeat the conclusion: Windows is already trying to optimize its memory usage. It doesn't need additional optimizers for its own optimization. It's already designed for optimal performance.
In other words: Windows doesn't need anything complementing its memory manager." }-
And I think that I do...thank you! I am also going by what I see in terms of the effect of CleanMem on my systems so please don't lecture. We all have a right to our opinions and mine is that CleanMem makes a worthwhile difference. In the end it is for the likes of sweater (who started this thread) to make up his own mind based on what he reads in threads like these.

BTW...just because Windows tries to optimise does not necessarily mean that it succeeds all of the time...and therefore does not need help.

Mr.PC

January 2nd, 2011, 07:22 AM

-{ Quote: "there is an addon called memory fox. try it. It might help u:)" }-
Fasterfox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9148/)Lite (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9148/)

dantz

January 2nd, 2011, 07:54 AM

Night Raven, thanks for your informative posts on Windows memory management.

Night_Raven

January 2nd, 2011, 02:38 PM

-{ Quote: "Windows kind of sucks in optimization, even Microsoft admits it" }-
May I have a link?

-{ Quote: "Windows defragmentation takes days unlike 3rd party defragmenters with the same effect." }-
It's true that the built-in defragger is more sluggish but considering defragmentation needn't be done more than a few times a year it kind of makes it a moot point.

-{ Quote: "Prefetch files can decrease performance, because they optimize, what Windows thinks, it is good for users, not what users really need, but it is great for an office computer." }-
If you think that then you don't really know what the Prefetcher does and what it is for. Its job is to decrease Windows and application loading times by using asynchrnous reading of the hard drive to load the necessary data as quickly as possible while booting the computer.
It's not about what Microsoft thinks is best but what gets launched at or shortly after the computer boot, and that depends on the user. It's not Microsoft that installs Skype, TuneUp, some antivirus software, etc. the user does that.

-{ Quote: "SuperFetch actually causes lagging in games, because it holds RAM until the last moment and when the game needs it, it lets it go, but causing lag, tool like CleanMem might fix that." }-
SuperFetch is based on the Prefetcher. Its job is to apply the same principle to the entire work day/week. It monitors what gets launched at what time of day and week and loads the required files/data in advance so that when the time comes it's already in the RAM. The idea isn't to just consume memory for the heck of it. The idea is to be able to launch the user's applications by adapting to his/her habits.

-{ Quote: "Actually I am surprised, that so little people care about PC's performance (gamers mostly, I guess). :/" }-
I for one care a great deal about my system's performance. That's why I use very few security applications/methods for example, but choose them wisely so that I still get good security without sacrificing performance. That's also why I've informed myself as much as possible how Windows works, what affects the system's performance and how it affects it.

When optimization is concerned I'd say less is more. But if someone is happier with the placebo/lie, who am I to burst his/her bubble.

SMC1979

January 2nd, 2011, 08:56 PM

From CleanMems page
http://www.pcwintech.com/cleanmem

-{ Quote: "Some facts about CleanMem (PLEASE READ):
1. CleanMem doesn't work magic on your system. The best thing you could do is get more memory for your system! The goal of CleanMem is to help keep windows from needing to rely heavily on the page file. Which is located on your hard drive.

2. You will NOT notice a night & day performance increase. The users who get the best performance out of CleanMem are the users who don't have a lot of memory. I know others would yell at them and say "well just buy more memory!" Well not everyone can run out and buy memory. CleanMem will help them until they do.

3. CleanMem is snake oil! Snake oil I say!...Not. So far the only people calling CleanMem snake oil are the users who don't bother trying it. I have one "memory expert" after another tell me one thing and say the other memory people are wrong! Its a war I don't want to fight and that no one will win. The true memory experts are the programmers of Windows, the programmers! And lets face it, they are not going to find their way to my corner of the web :-)

4. CleanMem WILL NOT make your system faster. What CleanMem does, again, is help avoid the use of the page file on the hard drive, which is where your slow down comes from. There have been users including my self who have noticed a smoother system. A placebo effect perhaps? Who knows. I do know that CleanMem hurts nothing, and does help, to a point.

5. CleanMem does help with programs that have memory leaks. The memory is pushed to the system cache, not the page file. The system cache is still in memory. And a program can call back what it needs instantly. This is why there is never a hiccup in heavy 3D games as CleanMem runs. The memory that is not reclaimed is freed and allowed to be taken over after a certain amount of time. The system cache is not a bad thing! and is far better than the page file. Mainly because it has the GB speeds in memory than the MB speeds of the hard drive.
(Warning: Memory Terminology in Windows is completely screwed. System Cache could mean something else, perhaps Memory Cache is better? as proof of this confusing way the memory has been labeled in windows, in Windows XP the PF usage in the task manager is actually commit charge, not page file usage)

6. CleanMem is FREE and is there for users who want it. Don't know if it will work or help? Try it! Don't take the word from others who don't bother trying it. If it doesn't help, or doesn't work then uninstall it, no harm done :-)

7. The CleanMem Mini Monitor uses the GlobalMemoryStatusEx API to pull memory and page file commit usage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366589%28v=vs.85%29.aspx" }-

And to Night_Raven, no I will not get into a debate over how my CleanMem program is snake oil or not.

As you have seen users who try it have had success with it.

The trick to cleanmem is not the programs using less memory. The trick is keeping windows from using the page file on the hard drive.

So yell snake oil all you want. How someone has the balls to shoot down a free program without touching it is no different than the people who use to jail people who said the earth isn't flat :P

The standby, or system cache, or memory cache or what ever you want to call it stays in memory. Memory is FAR faster than the hard drive.

Lets say I have a memory leak in a program. All that memory will be pushed to standby. If it needs it back it has it, instantly. Anything it doesn't ask for back gets freed up to the system.

Thats it, no magic, no nothing. This is how Windows handles it, Windows is doing all the work.

My mentor wrote books for Microsoft and beat it into my head how important it was for a programmer to clean up after himself in code.

Windows will only handle memory cleanup when it needs to and not till then. Other wise it is up the programmers to get their code clean.

If Windows handle memory perfectly like you think then there would be no such thing as memory leaks. Cleanmem is simply giving the user to option to have windows do its job instead of waiting for the memory to be used up before windows kicks in.

As I said, this is a war no one is going to win and that I will not fight with. You have so called memory experts calling foul every time they even hear cleanmem.

I am NOT a memory expert. I go by what I was taught, and by RESULTS.

I will not fight to the death for cleanmem. It comes down to this,
Try it, it helps? good! It doesn't help? get rid of it. No harm done.

So if I wont fight over cleanmem then why am I posting here?

To make both sides, those for and against cleanmem understand how it works.

I think the fire over this comes from people says cleanmem itself makes the system faster, which in turn ticks the crap off of people who know that just because a program uses less memory doesn't make it faster.

It all comes down to trying to keep windows from using the hard drive. The bottle neck of every system.

That was the whole reason I made it for my customers in the first place.

-Shane

Night_Raven

January 2nd, 2011, 09:46 PM

This just goes to show that you didn't actually read my posts. I *did* try the program and saw what it does. All you did is simply quote the program's website and then repeat a few of the quoted things below the quote as well. I still see no techincal explanation as to how forcibly pushing more pages than needed at the time to the standby page list helps to reduce writing to the hard drive.

A more efficient way of keeping more memory available for applications would be to chose one's software wisely and to not allow a lot of useless processes to remain resident. Autoruns can be used to check what get's started and simply disable the unneeded stuff.

SMC1979

January 2nd, 2011, 09:58 PM

-{ Quote: "This just goes to show that you didn't actually read my posts. I *did* try the program and saw what it does. All you did is simply quote the program's website and then repeat a few of the quoted things below the quote as well. I still see no techincal explanation as to how forcibly pushing more pages than needed at the time to the standby page list helps to reduce writing to the hard drive.

A more efficient way of keeping more memory available for applications would be to chose one's software wisely and to not allow a lot of useless processes to remain resident. Autoruns can be used to check what get's started and simply disable the unneeded stuff." }-

Your right, I didn't read all the posts, I skimmed through them :P

Again I am not trying to nor want to fight or anything. I respect all users opinions.

Some people are forced with bad memory leaking programs. I have a few users who have Windows 2003 server farms. They have this old company program that HAS to be used that has a horrid memory leak. Cleanmem has kept it under control for 2 years now. The leak use to suck up all the memory and all the page file to where the program had to be killed and restarted. Since cleanmem they haven't had to restart the program once.

CleanMem does have a purpose. But it isn't a miracle cure all.

Thats why I also made the ignore and only list. Say you don't want cleanmem to touch anything other than say firefox.exe.
You could put firefox.exe in the only list and cleanmem will only call the api on it and leave the rest alone. The ignore list is ones you want cleanmem to skip while getting all the others.

I tired to make it to where everyone could find a use for it they needed it.

Nothing is perfect. No OS is perfect, no program, no human, nothing I have seen in my life is perfect.

I am simply giving a tool to those who need it is all. :-)

But I can promise that it doesn't slow the system down in any way. I have had CleanMem downloaded over 500,000 times and haven't had a single user report any slow downs. I have it running on every one of my customers machines and servers. So I have the track record to show it doesn't hurt.

I made cleanmem a few years ago. Xp days. I have it running on all my Windows 7 as well. But that has just kept the memory crazy programs in check. Performance is not noticeable on a system with plenty of memory.

-{ Quote: "The standby page list is how the OS gives memory to processes, and at the same time delays writing something out to the pagefile on disk until its absolutely necessary. When a page of memory is dropped from a process's working set, it doesn't just disappear into an opaque "free memory" block, it gets put on the tail end of a list, the standby page list. When a process needs new memory in its working set, the standby page list is the last place the OS looks. First, it looks in the zero page list, or the free page list, both of which are "free memory". One list is initialized to zeroes, one's not -- and they're hit up depending on what the process said it wanted. Only when both of those are empty does the system look to the standby page list.

The standby page list is raided last because, in the meantime, if a process has released a page from its working set, then later asks for it back (via a page fault, which is when a process asks for some of its memory that isn't currently in its working set), the system can check the standby page list to see if it happens to still be around. If it is, the OS can just take it out and give it back to the process without having to hit the disk for it. A large majority of page faults are resolved from the standby page list without having to hit the disk to retrieve the page." }-

Again, the less the hard drive is needed the less of a slow down on the system. That is my goal.

Shane

SMC1979

January 2nd, 2011, 11:02 PM

-{ Quote: "I still see no techincal explanation as to how forcibly pushing more pages than needed at the time to the standby page list helps to reduce writing to the hard drive." }-

Thought some papers from Microsoft would help that more. ;)

http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/E/7/7E7662CF-CBEA-470B-A97E-CE7CE0D98DC2/MemorySizingGuidanceWin7.docx

-{ Quote: "Standby List
The Standby list contains unmodified pages that have been removed from process working sets, which effectively makes the Standby list a cache. If a process needs a page that is on the Standby list, the memory manager immediately returns the page to its working set.
All pages on the Standby list are available for memory allocation requests. If a process requests memory, the memory manager can take a page from the Standby list, initialize it, and allocate it to the calling process. This is called repurposing a page.
Pages on the Standby list are often from recently used files. By keeping these pages on the Standby list, the memory manager reduces the need to read information from the disk. Disk reads can decrease system responsiveness.
" }-

http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/E/7/7E7662CF-CBEA-470B-A97E-CE7CE0D98DC2/Win7Perf.docx

-{ Quote: "SuperFetch adds the prefetched pages to the system’s standby page list, which has been reorganized and redesigned to retain useful data in memory over longer periods of time. Both Windows 7 and Windows Vista set priorities for pages on the standby list so that historically important pages remain in memory and less frequently used pages do not. For example, the prefetched pages of a frequently used program have a higher priority than those of a recently copied file that might not be used again." }-

-Shane

sweater

January 3rd, 2011, 02:58 AM

-{ Quote: "there is an addon called memory fox. try it. It might help u:)" }-

There is an error msg while trying to install/download that addon, so I just try to choose another one called AFOM memory recovers Memory Leakage. It has some good reviews...so maybe it'll also works on mine. :D

allizomeniz

January 3rd, 2011, 03:58 AM

All I can say is I do wish Firefox was a little lighter, but when it uses resources it makes good use of them, making browsing more enjoyable. It's all a trade off I guess.

I've noticed the more tabs I have open the more memory use goes up. But even when I close all but one or two tabs the memory use stays high until I restart FF. It would be great if there was a way to flush the memory without having to restart but so far I haven't found it.

Franklin

January 3rd, 2011, 04:19 AM

-{ Quote: "HOw u reduce memory in Firefox?" }-
Turn off FF's useless inbuilt security and delete both the urlclassifier3.sqlite and urlclassifier2.sqlite files.

Not saying anyone do the same but that's what I do.

Google Search (http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1561&bih=851&q=urlclassifier3.sqlite&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=19436dfea8718869)

Night_Raven

January 3rd, 2011, 07:53 PM

-{ Quote: "Some people are forced with bad memory leaking programs. I have a few users who have Windows 2003 server farms. They have this old company program that HAS to be used that has a horrid memory leak. Cleanmem has kept it under control for 2 years now. The leak use to suck up all the memory and all the page file to where the program had to be killed and restarted. Since cleanmem they haven't had to restart the program once." }-
As I said before memory leaks occur in the process' private memory. That's the private bytes. There can't be a memory leak in the working set, as Windows already has control over that. The working set of a process cannot grow indefinitely, the memory manager will say "woah, hold your horses" and will intervene. No need for additional control over memory leaks.

-{ Quote: "But I can promise that it doesn't slow the system down in any way. I have had CleanMem downloaded over 500,000 times and haven't had a single user report any slow downs. I have it running on every one of my customers machines and servers. So I have the track record to show it doesn't hurt." }-
That doesn't prove much. I'm not saying it's meaningless, but just because you've gotten no reports it doesn't mean there aren't any problems with the program. Not every person who encounters a bug/problem with a given program would take his/her time to report it. Actually most don't.

It's sort of like: I've been using antivirus X for 3 years now and have never had an infection, ergo the program kicks ass and is (among) the best.

-{ Quote: "Thought some papers from Microsoft would help that more. ;)

...
" }-
I am familiar with these. They however don't help your case. Both the working set and the standby pages are in the physical memory (RAM). Moving pages from the WS to the standby page list accomplishes nothing. The idea is that standby pages are part of the available memory and can be given to another process? If yes, then why bother, as Windows will do that as well if it needs to.
Besides, on a system with low amount of RAM the memory manager would have set a smaller number for the standby page list which would mean fewer standby pages there. If more such pages get shoved in there then other would have to be ejected and moved to the free page list, and finally to the zero page list. That's fine, as it's quick, but if a program decides to call back something from the standby list that had been ejected to make room for another page, then that program would have to go the hard driv for it.

The quote about the SuperFetch feature in Windows Vista and Windows 7 also doesn't seem to support your ideas, as it shows that those OS already are smart enough... actually smarter than CleanMem and do not need help from it.

SirPeterPan

January 3rd, 2011, 08:06 PM

NV, CleanMem really improves performance here (a lot), that's all that really matters (for me) and I can guarantee that it's not some sort of "psychological" effect.

I think of CleanMem as an essential for the "sluggish hardware + WinXP" combo, such as the one I'm using right now.

SMC1979

January 3rd, 2011, 10:43 PM

-{ Quote: "There can't be a memory leak in the working set" }-
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc938582.aspx
Working Set reports the shared and private bytes allocated to a process; its value tends to rise for a leaking process.

-{ Quote: "The working set of a process cannot grow indefinitely, the memory manager will say "woah, hold your horses" and will intervene. No need for additional control over memory leaks." }-
That is because in 32 bit a process can't have more than 2GB. That is the 32 bit limit. 64 bit is MUCH higher. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
8TB for a 64 bit program vs 2GB for 32 bit.

"No need for additional control over memory leaks"? WOW! all those leaks I have seen over the last 15 years must have been part of a dream. Firefox up to 500 MB, explorer.exe up to 1GB. iexplorer.exe using every last bit of memory (Of a 8GB system) and page file (8 GB as well) to where the system started crashing till it was killed.

Gee, Windows doesn't do such a good job does it?
That is because it is NOT Windows job to clean up after 3rd party programs. This is why programmers are taught about clearing code to free memory when they are done with it. If Windows did this for them, no one would bother.
How did these well known programs get so high in memory? Because these where unforeseen bugs, caused by a unforeseen situation.

Why do people think Windows is this perfect piece of code? How can ANY manager of any sort cover every single variable of what a situation might be? Last time I checked, no app existed that had a answer for every single situation.

Nothing I say or do will change Night_Raven's opinion. And that's why this war between people has gone on for so long, and why it is so pointless.

CleanMem could crap gold and he wouldn't change his mind, once people are set on something, getting them to change it is nearly impossible.

Night_Raven still hasn't used the program for more than most likely a few minutes, he has no desire to. And it doesn't bother me. The only thing that bothers me is a person bringing claims of something not working without long term tests and results to back it up.

I have yet to find one person who has had a slow down with cleanmem. So just like SirPeterPan who knows there is a difference, people like Night_Raven will just say it is all in your head.

Patient: "Hey doc! my arm really hurts!!"
Doc: Not knowing the cause of the pain..."Bah! its all in your head"

Interesting thing about Humans, teach a person from when they are born to adulthood that the sky is red. Always telling them the sky is red.

Then one day, as an adult someone says, "no the sky is blue". The adult who believes the sky is red loses his mind calling the other person a liar! and hits him in the head with a rock. Religion and politics have a stench of this bad trait of ours. And it shows in everything.

Even as simple as getting a person, who has read, was taught and learned things about Windows memory, simply can not wrap their mind around that fact that something works and goes against what they think and have learned.

So why bother fighting with them ;)

Now this is no dis on Night_Raven. It is just a point of how silly things can get. I have never seen a scientist who had credit, that never did any long term tests to back up their claims. That just seems to be in the computer world. :P

Shane

SMC1979

January 3rd, 2011, 11:54 PM

I can see this dragging out.

sweater I apologize for hijacking this thread.

If you want firefox to use lower memory I offer you to try my CleanMem, it is free, and if you don't like it you can uninstall it :-)

It will help you with firefox. ;)

This will be my last post, I can only see Night_Raven and myself debating over this till our geeky hearts burst :P

I have to go take care of my users.

Good luck sweater, and thanks to all of you who have been using cleanmem and like it.

Happy new year!

Shane

Night_Raven

January 4th, 2011, 01:41 AM

Well, I tried. It's also sad that the supposedly educated users of this forum fall for such things.
The information on how the Windows memory manager works is available on the Internet. Anyone can google it, read it, apply common logic with a little bit of thinking process and come to a conclusion. If that's not one's cup of tea, then there are plenty of optimization programs/tools/tweaks and other voodoo stuff out there.

And... uhm... this is no "diss" on anyone. See, I can use it too. :)

ZentSiber

January 4th, 2011, 03:35 AM

From everything I've seen, it isn't exactly fair to say they are falling for something. An overwhelming amount of PC users aren't "power users" and if a user has a computer that isn't as responsive as it used to be or even locks up on them (due to anything from poorly programmed out of control apps, OS rot, bad drivers, minimal RAM or other hardware, software bloat, or any other number of reasons) and they try out a small (free) app and now their machines stay responsive and don't freeze under the *same exact* use then what is wrong with that?

This works the same way as troubleshooting. If you make a single change to a system and then something doesn't work correctly anymore then the cause was probably that change. If you reverse the change and the problem returns then you know what the cause was. You might know now *why* that was the cause but to most, it doesn't matter. This author is trying to make the same point. If a computer "doesn't work well" due to memory issues and CleanMem is installed and the problem goes away (and doesn't create any other problems) but the *same* problems come back if the app is removed then all signs point to CleanMem fixed it. Most computer users won't care how or why...they are just happy that it works.

You probably have a computer setup to where it would just be "another process you don't need". For me, Anti-Virus (especially real-time protection) is one of those. My system is much more reliable and responsive without Anti-Virus software. I haven't used it for years and as long as I am the only one who uses my computer it stays infection free...because I know what to do and what not to do.

Bambo

January 4th, 2011, 07:53 AM

Actually the problem is that few if any ever expand on "problem goes away". First, what was the problem to begin with? "Memory issues" are? Next, let us see the logs from CleanMem (over en periode of hours not just a WEE I saw numbers changing), let us hear about people configurations (are we talking about a 1gb Notebook running XP or a 16gb desktop with 7?) - get some details on the table, drop the MS references. Are we over in weirdo config land where anything is possible? or does CleanMem works for every possible computer? I think I know how logs will look like = more fuel for Night_Raven but we will see ;) For Firefox the extension that was mentioned will give similar results. What this has to do with fixing "memory leaks" in the program I don't know. You do that via Bugzilla by supplying bugreports or fix code and that is a 100% fact. Also it might be a good idea to understand how Firefox use memory and why it is risky to compare directly with other numbers or just throw them out as if they are proof of anything, especially through an internet forum. 1-2 "anti-firefox" pages can be enough to shoot memory usage several 100s of mb. Tricky to troubleshoot, very little magic to it though.

A wise man said about NoScript it was a solution in search of a problem ;)

Many people will not look passively at their Windows, they want to change stuff just because they can or have visited UniBlue/Auslogic type of site or seen a "system tweaking" section at a popular download site! On the other hand they are not prepared to make much research so here comes programs like CleanMem. Why I said if program is free and harmless who cares? Could be a lot worse. Would be nice to hear details from experiences though, preferably not too obscure ones.

tlu

January 4th, 2011, 10:06 AM

-{ Quote: "
How can I reduce the memory consumptions of my Firefox browser, it v3.6.13. Sometimes memory print goes to 105,000k
" }-
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_-_Firefox

safeguy

January 4th, 2011, 03:38 PM

I'm no expert but the way I understand it is as following (all in laymen terms so forgive me for any incorrect interpretation/explanation):

Windows already manages memory well in the sense that it makes extensive use of the memory available instead of leaving it unused. Unused memory, in the eyes of MS programmers (or whoever you deem came up with the design/idea), equates to a 'waste' of readily available resource. As such, Windows memory management suits for modern hardware with sufficient or much RAM. In this case, Night_Raven is right to state it as such:

-{ Quote: "Windows is already trying to optimize its memory usage. It doesn't need additional optimizers for its own optimization. It's already designed for optimal performance.
In other words: Windows doesn't need anything complementing its memory manager." }-

However, for some applications when used on older machines or machines with lower specs, Windows memory management might inadvertently negate the system performance seeing that by design, the app is allocated much of the memory resource available it needs(which is unfortunately limited in the 1st place). In this case, when another app needs memory and makes a "request" for it, it has to 'wait' for the default Windows memory management to allocate to it.

The only way CleanMem plays a role here is in that it "uses the same Windows API call" albeit at a rate that is determined by the user instead of leaving it solely to the default designed within Windows. For example, a user can set CleanMem to manage the particular apps process only via the task scheduler every 5 minutes or so (just an example). This way, the user benefits from both the default Windows memory management for the rest of the entire system (ignored by CleanMem) while CleanMem (with the help of Windows itself) manages the memory usage of the determined 'problematic' app(s) and/or process(es).

Again, the emphasis here is that "Windows doesn't need anything complementing its memory manager" holds true (especially more so for instances where every drop of memory usage is preferred for speed) BUT "some apps need more help than just Windows memory manager" is one that's true when memory itself is scarce.

Night Raven has earlier on stated it this way:

-{ Quote: "If the program indeed doesn't cause disk I/O, then it must be ejecting pages from each process' working set and putting those pages in the standby page list. From what I see on my system it is quite possibly exactly what it does. Windows does it too actually, just not so aggressively." }-

Going by that logic, one may also view it as "CleanMem does it too, more aggressively (by default every 30 mins and for entire system), BUT it can be set for certain apps only and ignoring the rest".

P.S. I was initially a skeptic but CleanMem changed my perceptions.

sweater

January 5th, 2011, 04:17 AM

-{ Quote: "There are several tricks and tips. You can simply use CleanMem (http://www.pcwintech.com/cleanmem) to free up RAM without affecting processes stability." }-

I've installed this. Does it needs any configuration (I couldn't find anything to adjust or change in the setting) or it just runs automatically after it was installed? A install and forget program?

GlobalForce

January 5th, 2011, 05:44 AM

Set'n forget. "The bottom line" here suggests an ignore list - http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/cleanmem-a-memory-cleaner-that-works/

IDEVFH

January 5th, 2011, 09:04 AM

Could you at least post a link with updated information that's not over 2 years old?

Title: CleanMem – A Windows Memory Cleaner That Works
Author: by Varun Kashyap on Oct. 18th, 2008

How many Window's OS Service Packs have been published with the Virtual Memory Manager improvements and Microsoft Language Compilers included since the article was published ?

If the same foundation principle API actions for CleanMem are with Microsoft's .Net applications as built-in, maybe someone that makes a negative comment about CleanMem should contact Microsoft and mention your comments on MSDN for all to see.

Additionally, read the OS SDK APIs nomenclatures and test them for yourself before making comments of a product that has benefited 1k+ others.

Regards,
IDEVFH

Boyfriend

January 5th, 2011, 09:36 AM

-{ Quote: "I've installed this. Does it needs any configuration (I couldn't find anything to adjust or change in the setting) or it just runs automatically after it was installed? A install and forget program?" }-

No configuration needed and it will run automatically, though I have changed its duration to every 10 minutes via Task Scheduler. Simply open Task Scheduler and change CleanMem execution time (default is every 30 minutes). There is no other configuration needed. You can enable CleanMem Mini Monitor and this will give you further information about memory usage. Moreover, you can manually run CleanMem from right click of CleanMem Mini Monitor --> Clean Memory.

IDEVFH

January 5th, 2011, 10:53 AM

-{ Quote: "
Originally Posted by Night_Raven

The quote about the SuperFetch feature in Windows Vista and Windows 7 also doesn't seem to support your ideas, as it shows that those OS already are smart enough... actually smarter than CleanMem and do not need help from it.
" }-

How many allocated Heaps per process that set idle in Ram Memories do you think gets flushed out by CleanMem for dormant functionality support to said process ?

CleanMem API requests to the Virtual Manager will help prevent the dormant Heap build up for other processes to benefit instead of waiting for an auto invoke.

Edit: Without the help of 3rd party application add-ons along with system drivers intervention the OSs would suffer pc unit productivity as expected.

Regards,
IDEVFH

dantz

January 5th, 2011, 03:46 PM

This is a controversial topic, so a purely theoretical discussion can only get you so far. Personally, I'd like to see some tangible evidence. It would be very helpful if the developer of Cleanmem could provide or recommend some specific and meaningful real-life tests that would clearly demonstrate the usefulness of his product (and I mean more than just watching some numbers change on a display). For example, I'd like to personally observe how his product can be used to mitigate a memory-related slowdown or even prevent a crash that would otherwise have occurred.
-{ Quote: "Too bad that the efficiency of the OS Memory Management could be so beneficial that it could host, by the inclusion, fostering the prevention of fragmentation within the file system without a user scheduling or the manual implementation of a defragger. Well, so much for efficiency without the help of 3rd party application intervention. " }-
IDEVFH, it's not entirely clear to me what you're trying to say here, although it does seem that you're employing sarcasm to make a point. Would you mind rephrasing that paragraph?

IDEVFH

January 5th, 2011, 04:27 PM

Most of the comments I've read constitute what has already been repeated from previous users in articles of the past and that without much verification other than Non-Constructive criticisms.

Flaming out on the author of CleanMem is not what I would call a theoretical discussion, dantz. I would say that the author has placed tons of man hours for something of which was to contribute to helping others. There's your sarcasm, dantz.

dantz, you ask for a test: Instantiate all below.
1. Run Google Earth with a populated repeat-loop fly-by tour.
2. Open up multiple instance of your Browser loaded with Tabs of flash webpages.
3. Run iTunes with looped music
4. Run TweetDeck OR Seesmic Desktop apps.
5. Microsoft Office - Open any of the apps with loaded material.

Watch the consumption level for as long as you can monitor.

Then try, with CleanMem the same 5.

My last comment about this subject.

Regards,
IDEVFH

safeguy

January 5th, 2011, 05:09 PM

Personally, I find that it's good to see the author of MemoryFox (IDEVFH) backing up the author of CleanMem (Shane) on this thread.:thumb: :thumb:

Escalader

January 5th, 2011, 05:33 PM

-{ Quote: "Turn off FF's useless inbuilt security and delete both the urlclassifier3.sqlite and urlclassifier2.sqlite files.

Not saying anyone do the same but that's what I do.

Google Search (http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1561&bih=851&q=urlclassifier3.sqlite&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=19436dfea8718869)" }-

Hi Franklin:

What exactly do you have in mind as "useless inbuilt security"

I hope you don't mean NoScript:o

On these 2 -{ Quote: "urlclassifier3.sqlite and urlclassifier2.sqlite" }-

Before I take your advice please tell me / the thread what these do. I know you are busy but it would clarify things for this user anyway.

Thanks

Bambo

January 5th, 2011, 05:38 PM

A couple more and you have the whole group of memory optimizing developers. They almost got terminated after 95/98/ME I think. Outlived ram compressors though :)

Firefox vs. Memoryfox - so why not let IDEVFH take care of that? What the thread is about anyway. I have tried it and it works much the same way CleanMem did when I tried that long time ago. Rollercoaster trick and not really of any value. There are other tricks like not loading tabs until you actually click them. A couple of extensions do that. Firefox 4 has applied some of that logic, one of the reasons it opens faster. Windows 7 the same with some services. Pure logic and common sense and that usually works, can be reproduced even.

I think it is normal to expect those who present whatever to make some sort of argument or proof if you will. Since nobody bother doing any real testing, over some hours at least and not necessarily with a stupid torture scenario, being skeptical is in order. Not the same as flaming. If anyone claims to fix Firefox "memory leaks" with such tools, it be internal or via plugins, I would open door for flaming though probably not allowed. But as said before may be better to share knowledge with those who actually code the beast, anyone can join the party at Bugzilla - open 24/7. I would like to see how that goes though I have a good idea ;)

He is talking about Googles block list (attack/malware sites, phishing) Escalader and sadly not NoScript ;) There are little to no overhead by blocking sites via inbuild shield but whatever. Very easy to claim that and very easy to prove it wrong... If worried about database size just compact them next time you run CCleaner or other tool with that feature. Sqlite databases work way better/faster in Firefox 4 btw. I still doubt any human being have ever noticed any slowdowns with those filters.

Franklin

January 5th, 2011, 07:46 PM

-{ Quote: "
What exactly do you have in mind as "useless inbuilt security"

I hope you don't mean NoScript:o

On these 2

Before I take your advice please tell me / the thread what these do. I know you are busy but it would clarify things for this user anyway.

Thanks" }-
Remember I don't advocate anyone do what I do as I have other security measures in place and actively look for malware and really up to you.

But when I did have those settings enabled I can't ever remember receiving a warning when I did go to a bad site.

I used to use Noscript but it's too darn secure in stopping all those lovely fake scan sites cold.

"useless inbuilt security" - Mozillazine (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=1610615)

224393

Bambo

January 5th, 2011, 08:26 PM

Easy to get confirmation filter works - also on latest malware lists. Not a replacement for K9, DynDns, Norton and what else there is but better than nothing which is what most have. Took 2 minutes but right now I am looking at a blocked page with a TDSS file http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://eluistemed.com/pqg.php?i=2 - Dyndns did nothing, K9 did nothing. Avast Netshield did though. Such more or less meaningless "proof" can easily be found so I don't know where you get urls from. If source was Googles box with malware urls hitrate would be 100% so just numbers. You can also prove it does not work but that would be wrong expectations at fault.

Anyway this is about memory use so how much have you saved by unticking those 2 boxes? There have been some technical problems long long time ago and a few crazy people see privacy concerns, also here - other than that I have never noticed any complaints. May be some would prefer it blocked more, like everything including annoyances like fake scan sites.