memory optimizer are they worth it?

Thanks.

 

In early days of PC when 16mb was the norm for RAM and 32MB super luxury, many of these so called utilities would be around promising miracles and all they managed to do was crash Windows, they still do the same. On its own, the OS designers know whats best and its good sense to leave it at that.

 

The author of CleanMem is right, and Night Raven is wrong, plain simple.

Thanks for remembering us of this debate, it was good. I gave my 2 cents there: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1807897&postcount=32

One of my first threads on Wilders was about CleanMem> https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=262062

 

What was the expression again? Ignorance is bliss? (And I'm not referring to myself.)

P.S.: there was still no evidence presented in that topic that support the claims that CleanMem actually helps. There were links to some Microsoft papers that didn't prove that in any way, there was some quotations of the CleanMem's webpage and there were some "I'm using it and is very good" posts which we see also about all kinds of other software products and they don't mean anything either.

 

It depends on how much RAM you have. There are a few that actually can be useful (CleanMem being the best).

Windows by itself is okay, but that's not enough for someone like me.

 

There was still no evidence presented in that topic that support the claims that CleanMem actually doesn't help.

Also: There was still no evidence presented in that topic that support the claims that CleanMem hurts system and/or has tangible conflicts with Windows Memory Management (WMM). The API CleanMem uses doesn't act against WMM indeed - like MS tool "empty.exe" and "Cacheset.exe" Sysinternals' tool. All these app. work with WMM, not against it.

BTW, never saw that to clean my tmp files help my system performance. However when tmp files are cleaned the system isn't hurt. So, to clean tmp files is a placebo effect, an unneeded action or a snake oil/crap procedure?

 

Actually it's the program's author who is supposed to prove it first. He's the one claiming his program is necessary and beneficial. In court it's the accusing side that's supposed to present the evidence. In this case it's the author of CleanMem who basically accuses Windows of inefficient memory handling and suggests additional software, so he's the one who needs to present evidence supporting his claims. The same principle would apply to registry cleaners, defragmenters, etc.

Also, I haven't said CleanMem hinders performance. Still, it doesn't help either. This makes it useless. And there is one thing useless and bad/malicious programs have in common is that they shouldn't be present on a user's computer.

Cleaning temporary files serves a signle purpose - freeing hard drive space. It doesn't make the system faster or more stable. Files in the temporary folder are files just like any other files in other folders and/or on other volumes. So technically emptying the temporary folder isn't really needed until the system drive becomes full. In other words: if your system drive is large enough you can go months and even years without emptying the temporary folder. Makes no difference.

 

The post linked to earlier by Night_Raven checks out in my opinion.

Well if you had a 100GB drive and 90GB was taken by temp files new files would have to be written to the inner 10GB of HDD, which spins more slowly. So that's something to consider.

 

What an argument.

At least you tried for a bit in this topic:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=303009

 

It really depends on how much RAM is installed and which OS.

The answer is neither yes or no as to whether an optimizer is worth it. "It depends" would probably be the most accurate reply imo

 

If you are on a really old machine on an old OS it may possibly help.

 

Can make a difference with XP too if not much ram available. XP memory management wasn't / isn't the best.

 

True enough, but this would apply to any files that are written to the system drive - installing Windows updates/hotfixes, installing programs, creating save games (some games use the My Documents folder to store their save games), etc. It doesn't matter what those 90GB are comprised of. Also, one can't be certain when and what gets written to which area of the hard drive platter. That's why there exist defragmenters. How effective they are is a whole another topic, though.

 

I can't see why it would. The memory manager is basically the same since NT4. It's the new features that make the difference - Prefetch, SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, etc.

 

Sincerely I never see such claim by the author; by motu proprio no "program is necessary and beneficial". MS Word is not "necessary and beneficial" if e.g. user doesn't use it and likes to use Notepad instead. There aren´t a sine qua non question at all here.

If someone says that MS Word is useless to him it doesn´t mean that MS Word is useless itself (and it's too much to say that if "there is one thing useless" it "shouldn't be present on a user's computer"). It's not a sine qua non condiction to use a PC, to have useful app. only. Windows system allows personal choices; what is a good thing indeed: some likes to use it to surf on net; others like yo use it to do programs. It isn't our opinion that does Windows system bad or not: it's the system itself.

Like it's not useless/snake oil/crap to clean tmp files; user can wait until OS says to clean when disk is full - or not (without any useless question). If an user has a large disk it doesn't mean that is useless to clean it.

 

Also CleanMem can be very useful for controlling the problems of poor coded software that leaks memory too much.

 

This is what it says on the program's website:

A more smoothly running system sounds like a benefit to me. So, the program claims to offer a better working experience. This is its (supposed) purpose, and if that's not it then what is?

First of all we have to establish that there is a difference between personal opinions and facts. Memory optimizers (including CleanMem) being useless is a fact, because they don't improve anything.
And no, it's not too much/extreme to say that useless stuff shouldn't be on a user's PC. Do you install severall different video players, even if you only use one of them? What whould be the point to install an application that would change nothing and/or won't be used by the user? Installing The Gimp (for example) on my PC wouldn't hurt it but I also have no need for that program whatsoever. Why would I want to install it then?
Also, could you please rephrase your last sentance in this paragraph? I didn't understand it at all.

Well, it kind of is actually. Or, if it would make you happier, let me say that cleanining the temporary folder has an extremely low priority. It's not 100% useless, as you do free some disk space, but since it improves and helps nothing else, it still remains 99% pointless. If a user wants to free some space for some reason, then there is nothing wrong with cleaning the temporary folder. Otherwise, there is no rush at all.

Seriously! What's with people?! So many users obsess over meaningless things like the Windows registry, the memory (RAM), etc. Things, that it makes no sense to even bother with. Yet, more important things, like defragmentation (for example) get less attention. The meta data and MFT file are located who knows where on the the hard drive/volume but instead of taking care of that people start cleaning the registry or "optimizing" the memory, or something like that. It's like having an accident and being worried and taking care of the small cut on your arm instead of the broken leg.

It boggles the mind.

 

Enough with this nonsense. There are no leaks in the working set. Windows has control over that. Leaks are possible within the process' private memory - the private bytes. It is that memory that the operating system doesn't have control over.

 

You call them new features, I call them tools that enhance memory management lol

 

I wonder why you're wasting your time then?

Why not?

He has never claimed that his program is necessary.

Objection your honor. Both parties - the accusing side and defendants are supposed to present evidence in some, if not most/all courts . Anyway, even if you disagree with me on this matter, this isn't a court to begin with. Furthermore, it is quite possible for someone else to see it from a different angle and say that you are the one on the accusing side in this case.

Perhaps you would like to correct that - Prefetch isn't a "new" feature.

Be careful. You're falling into the slippery slope.

Please practice what you preach. Thank you in advance.
P.S. I honestly do appreciate your knowledge of the memory management of Windows.

 

I guess I had a sudden case of optimism that this time around I might have more success. My fault for trying it seems.

Why I'm not referring to myself? Because I'm not ignorant.

Fine, he didn't. My other points, however, remain valid.

Sure, both sides need to provide evidence to support their case. However, it is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. And it doesn't matter if this is a court or not. Science and technology is an area where hunches, guesses and feelings don't amount to much. Facts and evidence is still required.
That angle would be wrong, as the author of CleanMem is the first to make an accusation (although indirectly). It's his job to provide proof that his program actually has beneficial effects on the system.

I'm really surprised that people here just take those authors' words for it. How about we ignore all kinds of testing of antivirus products. We should just rely on the vendors' honest statements. They are very honest people and wouldn't lie to sell their products, now would they?

Compared to Windows NT4 and Windows 2000 it is. If you go back and read the post again, you should notice that I had mentioned Windows NT4, hence referred to the listed features as new, because compared to NT4 they are new.

Whould you care to elaborate? I don't see myself falling into slippery slopes.

I do! I don't keep programs on my PC that don't work and/or I have no need for. I install programs that I use frequently or occasionaly at the very least. Everything else... doesn't get installed, for obvious reasons.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Sure you do.

 

Is Memory Management (on Windows 7) so ineffective
that a 3rd party Memory Optimizer is Needed?

Will a 3rd party Memory Optimizer
bring such remarkable/evident results?

 

Can be on very old machines with poorly coded programs.

No, you need to buy RAM for that. CleanMem results are pretty good though.

 

I don't think cache replacement policies are all that complex in any OS for any piece of hardware. As has been said CleanMem just makes it a bit more aggressive.